by Navy Capt. (Ret) Peter O’Brien
“England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only eternal and perpetual interests.”
The quote is from Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of England from 1855 – 1858 and again from 1859 to 1865. This has been distilled down to DeGaulle’s: “Countries don’t have friend’s only interests.” In the “tri-polar” world we now find ourselves in, we would do well to remember that.
At the same time, there are some other countries out there that ought to remember it, especially Russia.
There has been some talk lately about how far “in bed” Russia has found itself with China and whether it’s working itself into a situation that may end up costing it a very great deal. To understand the dilemma, it helps to step back and look at two strategists of more than 100 years ago: Halford MacKinder, and A.T. Mahan.
MacKinder, as you might remember, was a geographer (not by profession a strategist) who, in 1904, crafted the “Heartland Theory,” which distilled down to this famous quote: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World.”
Note that MacKinder was not saying East Europe was the heartland. For MacKinder, the “heartland,” which he labeled in his paper, titled “The Geographical Pivot of History,” was an area from central Iran to the Arctic circle, from roughly Moscow to eastern Siberia.
Interestingly, several years earlier, in his “The Problem of Asia,” US Navy strategist AT Mahan wrestled with the same issue, but added that the heartland could be effectively controlled from the sea.
Note, it really doesn’t matter whether the theories are, in some absolute sense, correct. What matters is that great powers, or more accurately, the leadership of great powers, believe it. The British Empire, with its involvement in Iran and Afghanistan, believed the theory long before it had been given a formal name, and it was understood that the “great game” that the British Empire “played” with Russia over control of Iran, Afghanistan and Western Tibet was for de facto global pre-eminence.
Mahan’s understanding was that control of Singapore and the Suez, and surrounding waters, could, if properly managed, accomplish much the same thing.
Looked at in that light, it would seem that China’s efforts to control the South China Sea, establishing a base in Djibouti, building oversized facilities in Sri Lanka, Pakistan and several spots in Africa, while at the same time pursuing its “Belt and Road Initiative,” translates into an effort to pursue both theories at the same time. But, broadly speaking, looked at from a “grand strategy” perspective, China is trying to control the “world Island” and, therefore, the world.
Which leads around to perhaps the number 1 foreign policy issue of the era: What is going to happen between Russia and China?
The obvious issue is that Russia is, for all intents and purposes, the heartland. But, as was demonstrated by the US from the end of World War II through 1991, that did not give them “command of the world,” due to three major factors: US economic power, the US Nuclear arsenal, and on a day to day basis, the US Navy.
Through most of that period China was either of little note or was still a rising power. By the time China became a great power (call it early 1990s), the USSR was gone and Russia was recovering from the collapse of the USSR.
But Russia is still a great power: with the largest landmass of any nation – and all the mineral wealth contained therein – Russia is a land of virtually unlimited potential. With roughly 5,000 nuclear warheads it has the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet. All other considerations aside, this makes it a great power.
At the same time there is China. More specifically, there is China’s leadership, the Communist Party, a 90 million strong political party, whose upper crust form the oligarchy that rules China, under the hand of the de facto emperor of China, Xi Jinping.
There is a lot – negative – to be said about those that sit in power in Moscow, and there are a host of wrongs that they have committed, both against their neighbors and their own citizens. But Moscow is nearly as pure as the driven snow compared to the rulers in Beijing.
It’s of note that the communist regime that ruled Russia and the USSR for 70 years are no longer in power. Some remain who came up in that regime, to include Putin. And certainly many of the bureaucracies retain elements and predilections that they inherited from those who came before.
But China is still ruled by the same party, and they pay obeisance to Mao and his thought. They take credit for his “successes” and therefore must also “own” everything else that the CCP did in the last 77 years, to include such wonderful productions as the Great Leap Forward, which killed at least 70 million (some estimates say twice that), or the one child policy which resulted in – from 1979 to 2015 – an estimated 400 million forced abortions; the ongoing destruction of Tibet and the methodical elimination of Tibetan cultures and Tibetans; the persecution and gradual eradication of the Uighurs; the cover-up of COVID – the WUHU Flu, that killed more than 7 million around the world; the steady and deliberate production of fentanyl precursors – which have caused more than 400,000 deaths in the US alone in the last 20 years, body organ harvesting, slave labor, massive exploitation of 3rd world labor (consider the cobalt mining business), and on and on. Dante suggested that there are gradations of evil; if so, the CCP sits at the inner-most circle of hell.
And according to one estimate, China has been, and continues to, produce 70 new nuclear weapons per year.
So?
So, the Russian leadership needs to embrace the truth that no matter how much they may dislike Western Europe, Western Europe is not going to look longingly at invading Siberia (eastern Russia); Europe and the US, NATO writ large, is, in fact, no real threat to Russia.
China is. As China continues to import oil and natural gas and foods (both grains and meats) and all sorts of minerals, it has not been lost on any of the leadership in Beijing that there is a literal treasure trove under the tundra of Siberia. So, let me repeat: the US and NATO pose no threat to Russia. But China, with a 2,600 mile border with Russia, does; a very real, and arguably near term threat, backed by a population that is 10 times that of Russia’s.
At the same time, in the very dangerous tri-polar world, the US has its own concerns. At the center is the issue of nuclear deterrence.
For decades nuclear deterrence has been underpinned by the concept of “mutual assured destruction” (MAD), which, as it clearly implies, is nothing more than the understanding that if any side directly attacks the other, the resulting nuclear exchange will destroy both of us (and arguably most everything else). MAD was and is horrific. But for the last 7 decades it worked.
The problem, however, is that MAD is a bi-polar idea. Like a three-way gunfight, or playing chicken with three cars, it doesn’t work with three. Perhaps we can get to the point that “Golden Dome” allows for development of a new concept. But until such time, we are living in a world that is increasingly unstable.
Putin certainly understands this. Trump and Rubio also understand it. What needs to happen is that Putin needs to act on it. I think it is fair to say that Trump would be willing to “talk turkey” if Putin were willing to address Russia’s real long term security threat and see the Ukraine war, and the NATO – EU – Ukraine alliance in the light of the China threat. Simply put, a ceasefire in Ukraine and a refocus on the China threat is needed to safeguard Russia’s future. Or Putin can spend Russia’s future on the non-threat from Europe and leave Russia a target for CCP avarice.
At the same time, the US needs to grit its teeth and accept that there are long term US interests that would be best served by working with Russia against China. US interests remain, much as Lord Palmerston observed; those include boxing in China while also precluding a nuclear exchange. If that means dealing with Putin, then that’s what needs to be done.
