In an age of twenty-four-hour news cycles and one-sentence tweets people often forget an important lesson: two things can be true at once. Especially in the realm of foreign relations, commentators often forget that decision makers must accept trade-offs to secure long-term benefits. The United States and Britain, for example, partnered with the U.S.S.R. in order to defeat Nazi Germany during WWII. Despite Stalin’s dictatorial rule, the realities of geopolitical competition forced a choice between the lesser of two evils. As Churchill once remarked “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference of the Devil in the House of Commons.”
In the contemporary era, the United States must also accept two facts about modern Russia. First, the country is ruled by a terrible dictator. Second, despite its possession of nuclear weapons, Russia is a second rate power. In fact, Russia’s GDP is slightly less than Italy’s. Indeed, Russia is far from our greatest adversary. Nonetheless, despite our relative isolation, the U.S. provides substantially more aid to Ukraine than any European country.
Initially, the United States invested in European security in the aftermath of WWII. The rise of the Soviet Union coupled with a destruction of European infrastructure forced the U.S. to take a leading role in the defense of the continent.
Given cessation of the Cold War over thirty years ago, providing the lion’s share of military equipment is inefficient in a perilous world. The Trump administration recognizes this important reality. At a meeting in Brussels Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth insisted that Europe must provide the majority of funding for Ukraine.
Contrary to the histrionics of media figures and foreign heads of state, forcing Europe to pay for its own defense does not amount to an abandonment. The EU’s total GDP exceeds Russia’s by a factor of ten. If Europeans possess the willpower to defend themselves, they certainly possess the resources.
Moreover, placing Europe in charge of its own security serves more than just financial interests. It is essential for American grand strategy. According to an analysis by the Heritage Foundation, the United States cannot fight a major two-front war. Thus, in addition to raising our defense budget, our leaders must encourage allies to share the burden of defense while America focuses on the most pressing concerns. This appears to be the strategy of the Trump Administration.
Rather than pursuing outdated Cold War policies, the president wants to shift American focus towards our greatest adversary: China. Just days after President Trump took office, foreign ministers of the Quad (United States, India, Japan, and Australia) met in Washington. In a joint statement, the attendees reaffirmed their “shared commitment to strengthening a Free and Open Indo-Pacific where the rule of law, democratic values, sovereignty, and territorial integrity are upheld and defended.” The four nations also agreed to a future summit in India. As analysts have noted, the early meeting illustrates the Trump Administration’s desire to combat Chinese influence.
In addition to his insistence on defense burden-sharing, President Trump’s pursuit of peace with Russia may also support his strategic pivot. Much like Nixon, he is attempting to decouple Russia and China from one another. In the eyes of our enemies, his strategy appears to be threatening. Indeed, in the midst of President Trump’s talks with Russia, Xi Jinping said that Russia and China are friends. Driving a wedge between the two could significantly enhance national security and lessen the danger of a major conflict.
While President Trump’s strategy is less than ideal, it may be necessary in a less than ideal world. The United States does not have unlimited resources and faces a much greater threat than Russia. Far from acting as if the world were black and white, leaders are forced to make tradeoffs in the midst of conflicting claims and varying interests. The new administration’s gambit has the potential to increase national security and isolate our greatest adversary.
