51吃瓜

From the ashes of a world war that killed and reduced great cities to smoking rubble, America rose like a Titan of Greek legend, unharmed and armed with extraordinary military and economic power, to govern the globe. During four years of combat against the Axis leaders in Berlin and Tokyo that raged across the planet, America鈥檚 wartime commanders 鈥� George Marshall in Washington, Dwight D. Eisenhower in Europe, and Chester Nimitz in the Pacific 鈥� knew that their main strategic objective was to gain control over the vast Eurasian landmass. Whether you鈥檙e talking about desert warfare in North Africa, the D-Day landing at Normandy, bloody battles on the Burma-India border, or the island-hopping campaign across the Pacific, the Allied strategy in World War II involved constricting the reach of the Axis powers globally and then wresting that very continent from their grasp.

That past, though seemingly distant, is still shaping the world we live in. Those legendary generals and admirals are, of course, long gone, but the geopolitics they practiced at such a cost still has profound implications. For just as Washington encircled Eurasia to win a great war and global hegemony, so Beijing is now involved in a far less militarized reprise of that reach for global power.

And to be blunt, these days, China鈥檚 gain is America鈥檚 loss. Every step Beijing takes to consolidate its control over Eurasia simultaneously weakens Washington鈥檚 presence on that strategic continent and so erodes its once formidable global power.

A Cold War Strategy

After four embattled years imbibing lessons about geopolitics with their morning coffee and bourbon nightcaps, America鈥檚 wartime generation of generals and admirals understood, intuitively, how to respond to the future alliance of the two great communist powers in Moscow and Beijing.

In 1948, following his move from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, Secretary of State George Marshall launched the Marshall Plan to rebuild a war-torn Western Europe, laying the economic foundations for the formation of the NATO alliance just a year later. After a similar move from the wartime Allied headquarters in London to the White House in 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower helped complete a chain of military bastions along Eurasia鈥檚 Pacific littoral by signing a series of mutual-security pacts 鈥� with South Korea in 1953, Taiwan in 1954, and Japan in 1960. For the next 70 years, that island chain would serve as the strategic hinge on Washington鈥檚 global power, critical for both the defense of North America and dominance over Eurasia.

After fighting to conquer much of that vast continent during World War II, America鈥檚 postwar leaders certainly knew how to defend their gains. For more than 40 years, their unrelenting efforts to dominate Eurasia assured Washington of an upper hand and, in the end, victory over the Soviet Union in the Cold War. To constrain the communist powers inside that continent, the US ringed its 6,000 miles with , thousands of jet fighters, and three massive naval armadas 鈥� the 6th Fleet in the Atlantic, the 7th Fleet in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, and, somewhat later, the 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf.

Thanks to , that strategy gained the name 鈥渃ontainment鈥� and, with it, Washington could, in effect, sit back and wait while the Sino-Soviet bloc imploded through diplomatic blunder and military misadventure. After the Beijing-Moscow split of 1962 and China鈥檚 subsequent collapse into the chaos of Mao Zedong鈥檚 Cultural Revolution, the Soviet Union tried repeatedly, if unsuccessfully, to break out of its geopolitical isolation 鈥� in the Congo, Cuba, Laos, Egypt, Ethiopia, Angola, and Afghanistan. In the last and most disastrous of those interventions, which Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev 鈥渢he bleeding wound,鈥� the Red Army deployed 110,000 soldiers for nine years of brutal Afghan combat, hemorrhaging money and in ways that would contribute to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

In that heady moment of seeming victory as the sole superpower left on planet Earth, a younger generation of Washington foreign-policy leaders, trained not on battlefields but in think tanks, took little more than a decade to let that unprecedented global power start to slip away. Toward the close of the Cold War era in 1989, Francis Fukuyama, an academic working in the State Department鈥檚 policy planning unit, won instant fame among Washington insiders with his seductive phrase 鈥�.鈥� He argued that America鈥檚 liberal world order would soon sweep up all of humanity on an endless tide of capitalist democracy. As he put it in a much-cited essay: 鈥淭he triumph of the West, of the Western idea, is evident鈥� in the total exhaustion of viable systemic alternatives to Western liberalism鈥� seen also in the ineluctable spread of consumerist Western culture.鈥�

The Invisible Power of Geopolitics

Amid such triumphalist rhetoric, Zbigniew Brzezinski, another academic sobered by more worldly experience, reflected on what he had learned about geopolitics during the Cold War as an adviser to two presidents, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. In his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski the first serious American study of geopolitics in more than half a century. In the process, he warned that the depth of US global hegemony, even at this peak of unipolar power, was inherently 鈥渟hallow.鈥�

For the United States and, he added, every major power of the past 500 years, Eurasia, home to 75% of the world鈥檚 population and productivity, was always 鈥渢he chief geopolitical prize.鈥� To perpetuate its 鈥減reponderance on the Eurasian continent鈥� and so preserve its global power, Washington would, he warned, have to counter three threats: 鈥渢he expulsion of America from its offshore bases鈥� along the Pacific littoral; ejection from its 鈥減erch on the western periphery鈥� of the continent provided by NATO; and finally, the formation of 鈥渁n assertive single entity鈥� in the sprawling center of Eurasia.

Arguing for Eurasia鈥檚 continued post-Cold War centrality, Brzezinski drew heavily on the work of a long-forgotten British academic, Sir Halford Mackinder. In a 1904 essay that sparked the modern study of geopolitics, Mackinder that, for the past 500 years, European imperial powers had dominated Eurasia from the sea, but the construction of trans-continental railroads was shifting the locus of control to its vast interior 鈥渉eartland.鈥� In 1919, in the wake of World War I, he also that Eurasia, along with Africa, formed a massive 鈥渨orld island鈥� and offered this bold geopolitical formula: 鈥淲ho rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World.鈥� Clearly, Mackinder was about 100 years premature in his predictions.

But today, by combining Mackinder鈥檚 geopolitical theory with Brzezinski鈥檚 gloss on global politics, it鈥檚 possible to discern, in the confusion of this moment, some potential long-term trends. Imagine Mackinder-style geopolitics as a deep substrate that shapes more ephemeral political events, much the way the slow grinding of the planet鈥檚 tectonic plates becomes visible when volcanic eruptions break through the earth鈥檚 surface. Now, let鈥檚 try to imagine what all this means in terms of international geopolitics today.

China鈥檚 Geopolitical Gambit

In the decades since the Cold War鈥檚 close, China鈥檚 increasing control over Eurasia clearly represents a fundamental change in that continent鈥檚 geopolitics. Convinced that Beijing would play the global game by US rules, Washington鈥檚 foreign policy establishment made a major strategic miscalculation in 2001 by admitting it to the World Trade Organization (WTO). 鈥淎cross the ideological spectrum, we in the US foreign policy community,鈥� two former members of the Obama administration, 鈥渟hared the underlying belief that US power and hegemony could readily mold China to the United States鈥� liking鈥� All sides of the policy debate erred.鈥� In little more than a decade after it joined the WTO, Beijing鈥檚 annual exports to the US grew nearly five-fold and its foreign currency from just $200 billion to an unprecedented $4 trillion by 2013.

In 2013, drawing on those vast cash reserves, China鈥檚 new president, Xi Jinping, a trillion-dollar infrastructure initiative to transform Eurasia into a unified market. As a steel grid of rails and petroleum pipelines began crisscrossing the continent, China ringed the tri-continental world island with a chain of 鈥� from Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean, around Africa鈥檚 coast, to Europe from Piraeus, Greece, to Hamburg, Germany. In launching what soon became history鈥檚 largest development project, 10 times the size of the Marshall Plan, Xi is consolidating Beijing鈥檚 geopolitical dominance over Eurasia, while fulfilling Brzezinski鈥檚 fear of the rise of 鈥渁n assertive single entity鈥� in Central Asia.

Unlike the US, China hasn鈥檛 spent significant effort establishing military bases. While Washington still maintains some in 80 nations, Beijing has just one military base in Djibouti on the east African coast, a on Myanmar鈥檚 Coco Islands in the Bay of Bengal, a in eastern Tajikistan, and half a dozen small outposts in the South China Sea.

Moreover, while Beijing was focused on building Eurasian infrastructure, Washington was fighting two disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in a strategically inept bid to dominate the Middle East and its oil reserves (just as the world was beginning to transition away from petroleum to renewable energy). In contrast, Beijing has concentrated on the slow, stealthy accretion of investments and influence across Eurasia from the South China Sea to the North Sea. By changing the continent鈥檚 underlying geopolitics through this commercial integration, it鈥檚 winning a level of control not seen in the last thousand years, while unleashing powerful forces for political change.

Tectonic Shifts Shake US Power

After a decade of Beijing鈥檚 relentless economic expansion across Eurasia, the tectonic shifts in that continent鈥檚 geopolitical substrate have begun to manifest themselves in a series of diplomatic eruptions, each erasing another aspect of US influence. Four of the more recent ones might seem, at first glance, unrelated but are all driven by the relentless force of geopolitical change.

First came the sudden, unexpected collapse of the US position in Afghanistan, forcing Washington to end its 20-year occupation in August 2021 with a humiliating withdrawal. In a slow, stealthy geopolitical squeeze play, Beijing had signed massive development deals with all the surrounding Central Asian nations, leaving American troops isolated there. To provide critical air support for its infantry, US jet fighters 2,000 miles from their nearest base in the Persian Gulf 鈥� an unsustainable long-term situation and unsafe for troops on the ground. As the US-trained Afghan Army collapsed and Taliban guerrillas drove into Kabul atop captured Humvees, the chaotic US retreat in defeat became unavoidable.

Just six months later in February 2022, President Vladimir Putin massed an armada of armored vehicles loaded with 200,000 troops on Ukraine鈥檚 border. If Putin is to be believed, his 鈥渟pecial military operation鈥� was to be a NATO鈥檚 influence and the Western alliance 鈥� one of Brzezinski鈥檚 conditions for the US eviction from Eurasia.

But first Putin visited Beijing to court President Xi鈥檚 support, a seemingly tall order given China鈥檚 decades of lucrative trade with the United States, a mind-boggling $500 billion in 2021. Yet Putin scored a that the two nations鈥� relations were 鈥渟uperior to political and military alliances of the Cold War era鈥� and a denunciation of 鈥渢he further expansion of NATO.鈥�

As it happened, Putin did so at a perilous price. Instead of attacking Ukraine in frozen February when his tanks could have maneuvered off-road on their way to the Ukrainian capital Kyiv, he had to wait out Beijing鈥檚 Winter Olympics. So, Russian troops invaded instead in muddy March, leaving his armored vehicles stuck in a 40-mile traffic jam on where the Ukrainians readily more than 1,000 tanks. Facing diplomatic isolation and European trade embargos as his defeated invasion degenerated into a set of vengeful , Moscow shifted much of its exports to China. That quickly raised bilateral to an all-time high, while reducing Russia to but another piece on Beijing鈥檚 geopolitical chessboard.

Then, just last month, Washington found itself diplomatically marginalized by an utterly unexpected resolution of the sectarian divide that had long defined the politics of the Middle East. After signing a infrastructure deal with Iran and making Saudi Arabia its , Beijing was well positioned to broker a major between those bitter regional rivals, Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia. Within weeks, the foreign ministers of the two nations sealed the deal with a deeply symbolic 鈥� a bittersweet reminder of the days not long ago when Arab diplomats paid court in Washington.

Finally, the Biden administration was this month when Europe鈥檚 preeminent leader, Emmanuel Macron of France, for a series of intimate t锚te-脿-t锚te chats with China鈥檚 President Xi. At the close of that extraordinary journey, which French companies billions in lucrative contracts, Macron announced 鈥渁 global strategic partnership with China鈥� and promised he would not 鈥渢ake our cue from the US agenda鈥� over Taiwan. A spokesman for the 脡lys茅e Palace quickly released a pro forma clarification that 鈥渢he United States is our ally, with shared values.鈥� Even so, Macron鈥檚 Beijing declaration reflected both his of the European Union as an independent strategic player and that bloc鈥檚 ever-closer economic ties to China

The Future of Geopolitical Power

Projecting such political trends a decade into the future, Taiwan鈥檚 fate would seem, at best, uncertain. Instead of the 鈥渟hock and awe鈥� of aerial bombardments, Washington鈥檚 default mode of diplomatic discourse in this century, Beijing prefers stealthy, sedulous geopolitical pressure. In building its island bases in the South China Sea, for example, it inched forward incrementally 鈥� first dredging, then building structures, next runways, and finally emplacing anti-aircraft 鈥� in the process avoiding any confrontation over its functional capture of an entire sea.

Lest we forget, Beijing has built its formidable economic-political-military power in little more than a decade. If its strength continues to increase inside Eurasia鈥檚 geopolitical substrate at even a fraction of that head-spinning pace for another decade, it may be able to execute a deft geopolitical squeeze-play on Taiwan like the one that drove the US out of Afghanistan. Whether from a , incessant naval patrols, or some other form of pressure, Taiwan might just fall quietly into Beijing鈥檚 grasp.

Should such a geopolitical gambit prevail, the US strategic frontier along the Pacific littoral would be broken, possibly pushing its Navy back to a 鈥溾�� from Japan to Guam 鈥� the last of Brzezinski鈥檚 criteria for the true waning of US global power. In that event, Washington鈥檚 leaders could once again find themselves sitting on the proverbial diplomatic and economic sidelines, wondering how it all happened.
[ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.