President Trump talks about people – everybody – spending more on defence. But defence against what, who are we afraid of? There aren’t that many countries causing problems for a lot of other countries…except perhaps Vladimir Putin’s Russia and they’ve been one of Trump’s favourite chums. Is realization dawning that Trump has been played by Putin as far as Ukraine is concerned. That said, Russia’s influence is sharply reduced in the Middle East, with very little sign of the ever-present Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov from what I can see.
Credit where credit is due though. His methods may be unorthodox and the prize he has his eye on may one day adorn the Mar-a-Lago mantelpiece but, on the face of it, President Donald Trump has achieved an outcome that others before him have failed to even get close to – what seems to be a broad-based peace in the Middle East. Of course, the early days are the easy part, only when things like hostages, decommissioned weapons and territory are involved does the rubber meet the road and we see whether there is a realistic possibility that this is a lasting peace deal (it may be too much to hope for “everlasting” peace but even a reduction in hostilities would be an improvement on the present situation).
Trump’s actions in the Middle East seem to be paying dividends
This one will fill many column inches no doubt but the overall outcome is certainly much more positive than negative with the next key measure of success being whether hostilities do actually wind down and remain wound down. The big unknowns are how Iran reacts over time to this reordered Middle East landscape, whether Hamas can be controlled and whether Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu sticks to his side of any deal that finally emerges since he has long been an opponent of a Palestinian state.
While more countries ratchet up their defence expenditure, and share prices of defence companies rise sharply, technology advances as well. Russia has used massed drone attacks against Ukraine very effectively (60% of its gas production is offline as a result of Russian strikes), Ukraine has responded with more advanced drone development and a revised technology and strategy to counter Russia. This has been effective enough to destroy valuable, and now irreplaceable, strategic bombers several thousand miles away – raising the costs to Russia of attacking Ukraine three years ago.
Driven by war, technology is steadily advancing
Drone swarms are now being developed by technology companies, bringing with them visions of technology versus humans previously seen only in science-fiction movies. 33,000 of these autonomous drones are on the way to Ukraine and we may find that it’s not the better man that wins the battle but the man (or woman) with most drones under their command and the better strategy to outwit their enemy. This massed-attack strategy has been deployed by Russia against targets in Ukraine. The future of warfare is clearly technological and the impact of that is more likely to negate to some degree the effect of Ukraine’s smaller population compared with that of Russia, hitherto a strategic disparity in favour of Russia.
Europe considers how to respond to Russia’s “hybrid warfare” tactics
In another quite important development in Europe, NATO has admitted considering whether it needs to have an armed response to Russia’s use of “hybrid warfare” in Ukraine, which has challenged both NATO’s credibility and airports across Europe. What started as a small study group of front line states seems now to have escalated into plans on how to dissuade the Russians from escalating the conflict further. One option under consideration is to change the rules of engagement such that NATO aircraft could continue to shoot down Russian drones in NATO airspace. That is one option being considered, but a second option is to allow NATO aircraft to shoot down Russian fighters intruding into NATO airspace, which in my view is quite a different level of escalation than taking out some drones. Russia will undoubtedly be looking for a plausible excuse to justify increasing the pressure – and losing an aircraft and a pilot could well give them that excuse, demonstrating how challenging hybrid warfare can be for those on the receiving end of it. President Trump suggested suggested that NATO should shoot down the drones but it is as yet unclear whether he expects to commit any US forces to even a relatively modest confrontation with Russia. “Strategic ambiguity” might be a valuable tool in some situations, Europe on the other hand might like to see a little less uncertainty while trying to decide how to respond to Russia’s incursions.
Only two superpowers now – and no pretenders
Taking the long view before we finish, it is clear that there are now just two superpowers on the planet –and no pretenders – the United States under Donald Trump and the People’s Republic under Xi JinPIng. Neither are the same country as they were just a few years ago. We have all seen the changes in China over the recent past – my first visit to China was in 1980 and Shenzhen literally was two streets and consisted of rice paddies. The economic change has been extraordinary – now from my house I can clearly see the lights of Shenzhen rising above the Kowloon peaks.
The most obvious change has been in the United States and its position in the world. In the past the US has championed free trade, human rights, multilateral institutions and the cause of democracy globally. The arrival of Donald Trump for his second term in the White House, more so even than in his first term, has changed that. Not only is the United States not as mindful of the interests of its allies but is also often advancing its own interests. Ultimately countries have to look out for their own interests, in many cases in concert with their allies, often in like-minded groupings such as NATO or even the Warsaw Pact (although membership wasn’t voluntary in that particular organization).
Reflecting the clash of interests and ambitions between China and the United States, Donald Trump has just warned China that the planned summit with Xi Jinping – due in two weeks at APEC – is in danger of falling through – these are normally well-choreographed set-piece events which rarely fail to happen (although Trump did cancel a 2018 summit with Kim Jong-un). Nevertheless, the statement came as a surprise. Trump also said that he was considering a substantial increase in tariffs on China because China had become what he described as “very hostile”, which may mean the Chinese restrictions on the export of rare earths. All of a sudden we seem to be back in the era of trade wars and megaphone diplomacy
Occasionally one administration changes the path for a decade or two ahead
Sometimes one administration changes the outlook for a decade or two ahead – FDR and the New Deal, Truman and the atomic bomb, Nixon and the Plumbers, Kissinger and the opening to China being obvious examples. Donald Trump, his choice of foreign and domestic policies (farewell posse comitatus) and the way that they have been implemented by his administration, have changed the way that the world looks at the United States. Whether that is a permanent change in perception or one that will ultimately reverse itself is impossible to say. I’ve looked at the political side here but Martin Wolf this week has a very good analysis of the economic consequences.
Concerns about conflict have spanned the globe
Finally, looking further afield as we do towards the end of these pieces, I mentioned earlier that the list of serious trouble-making nations is fairly short and Certainly Australia is unlikely to be on that list. But China is on the list (despite being Australia’s largest trading partner). Distance has always been both the tyranny of Australia and its saving grace. Distance from unruly or covetous neighbours has been a positive…until recently when Chinese naval units undertook a live-fire exercise off Australia’s eastern coast – alerting many in Canberra that the threat was closer than they thought. Identifying that the threat assessment is higher than in the past, Australia will be spending A$25 bn on rearming and expanding its armed forces – new frigates, new AUKUS submarines (some nuclear-powered for the first time ever), Ghost Bat drones etc, with defence expenditure reaching 2.25% of GDP. Further afield across Australia, reflecting the lessons being learned from Europe, Australia will also be spending A$25 bn on its defence infrastructure and weapons inventories.
