firm indicates that Russia has been waging a cyber war against Ukraine all along.4
In the words of a senior Western diplomat: “The familiar pattern is recurring. Russia makes high-level assurances that it wants peace, and meanwhile stokes the violence on the ground with fighters and arms.”5
All the signs point to a Russian escalation. The proof will come in Moscow’s deeds, not its denials. But it’s worth remembering that Russian actions in Ukraine have already crossed a Rubicon before now—several Rubicons. The annexation of Crimea itself was thought unthinkable—until Putin went in and did it. Then, in summer 2014, while Moscow was supplying the separatist rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk with tanks, rocket launchers, and advanced air-defense systems, one of those air-defense systems shot down Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, killing 298 civilians.6 Forensic evidence implicates Russian regular forces, as opposed to separatist rebels, for the incident, according to an independent report from a German research organization.7 The episode aroused memories of Moscow’s downing of Korean Air 007 in 1983, which took place during some of the frostiest days of the Cold War.
Recent years seem to have liberated Putin to be more frank and unapologetic about his aims. He has publicly acknowledged that he ordered the annexation of Crimea weeks before that region’s referendum on independence,8 and he admitted that he was willing to put Russian nuclear forces on alert during the Crimea crisis.9 Putin might also feel emboldened because his back-against-the-wall stance against the West has bolstered his political popularity at home, where his approval ratings remain very high. Western sanctions on Russia for its behavior in Ukraine show little sign of working, even after multiple rounds, the most recent following the downing of Flight 17.
Respected, sober political analysts, such as Graham Allison and Dimitri K. Simes, writing in the National Interest, warn that a U.S. response to Russian aggression in Ukraine could potentially lead to war. (Conflicting accounts even suggest that Putin has threatened to use nukes if the United States intervenes in any substantial way.) A Russian–American war seems inconceivable to many, but Allison and Simes caution that “when judging something to be ‘inconceivable,’ we should always remind ourselves that this is a statement not about what is possible in the world, but about what we can imagine.” How many of us imagined that one day Putin would dare to send two Russian nuclear bombers into American airspace over Alaska? That’s what he did in May 2015.
Allison and Simes, longtime observers of Russia, say that they are “more concerned about the drift of events than at any point since the end of the Cold War.”10 In a sign of what may come next, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia has begun a so-called investigation into “the legality of the independence” of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—the Baltic States that were the first to break from the Soviet Union.11
Meanwhile, Putin’s budding ally in Beijing is also moving aggressively, if more quietly, to expand Chinese influence and put pressure on American allies in Asia. The most visible, consequential, and troubling area of Chinese activity is in the South China Sea, where a newly assertive Beijing is staking claims to disputed island archipelagoes while building—and fortifying—artificial islands. In effect, China is laying claim to sovereignty over the South China Sea, a direct threat to the law of the seas, as well as to the United States and its Asian allies—whether Japan, the Philippines, Malaysia, South Korea, or Vietnam, the latter not technically an American ally but a country with a long history of difficulty with China. These countries dispute China’s claims and assert counterclaims of their own, but none have the strength and force to pursue their aims as does Beijing. Only America can thwart Chinese designs.
One key flashpoint is the Spratly Islands, home to rich fisheries as well as oil and gas deposits. The territory is disputed: China, Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines all make claim to it, and they occupy pieces of the island.12 In April 2015, satellite images revealed that China is “building a concrete runway” on the Spratlys that would “be capable of handling military aircraft,” including fighter jets and surveillance aircraft.13 This was only the latest evidence of Chinese militarization there: Satellite photos in February showed that China had actually constructed an 800,000-square-foot island on top of Hughes Reef in the Spratlys. China has stationed helipads and anti-aircraft towers on both islands.14 It’s all part of its broader strategy to build serviceable land areas in the archipelago to serve Chinese military and territorial pursuits.
What’s at stake here has global ramifications, not only for international security but also for the global economy. If Beijing got its way, its new claims of territory in the South China Sea would convert about 80 percent of the South China Sea and its islands from international waters to Chinese possessions.15 The South China Sea is home to some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, through which passes a substantial portion of the world’s commerce. If China converted these waters to its jurisdiction, America and its Asian allies would be forced to heed Chinese dictates.
Tempers have been flaring—between Beijing and its Asian neighbors, especially in the Philippines, and also between Beijing and Washington. In May 2015, the Obama administration sent a surveillance plane over Fiery Cross Reef, a portion of the Spratlys where one of the Chinese airstrips is being constructed. The surveillance prompted a tense face-off with Chinese naval forces, which ordered the American plane to leave the airspace, and Beijing filed a formal diplomatic complaint.
The words heated up when China released a policy paper detailing its new military strategy, which made clear that its future plans centered around a vast expansion of its naval forces. The document accused China’s neighbors of provocations in the South China Sea, and it also warned America, though not by name. “Some external countries are . . . busy meddling in South China Sea affairs,” it said. “It is thus a long-standing task for China to safeguard its maritime rights and interests.”16
Around the same time, a provocative editorial in Global Times, a Chinese tabloid, hinted at a showdown with the United States. The editorial argued that conflict between the two great powers was inevitable if the United States didn’t stop interfering in China’s affairs in the South Pacific. “We do not want a military conflict with the United States, but if it were to come, we have to accept it,” the editorial said.17
Up to now, Beijing’s aggression has been enabled by a muddled and diffident American response. Though President Obama touted his “Asian pivot” as a key plank in his foreign policy, he has put no muscle behind it. Obama’s speeches stress the importance of Asia, but he has sent no substantial increase of naval forces into the region to bolster our beleaguered allies there, all straining to hold their own against Chinese pressure. Navy data show that the U.S. will deploy an average of only 58 ships to the Western Pacific, and that the number will increase barely 10 percent by 2020.18
Obama’s inattention has been interpreted as weakness, and it worries American allies, including Japan and the Philippines—who, perhaps in part because of it, have taken some provocative actions of their own, making the standoff with China more volatile and increasing the risks of escalation or a dangerous incident.
As we go to press, there are some hopeful signs that the United States is awakening to the Chinese challenge. Obama seems to have decided to confront the Chinese more directly—at least by way of demonstrating that Washington has no intention of ceding the South China Sea to Beijing. In May, the Pentagon began exploring options for enforcing freedom of the seas in the South Pacific; these include patrolling American ships within 12 nautical miles of those islands and sending American warplanes over the artificial islands that China is building. The goal would be to send a more concrete warning to Beijing than we have delivered before. But even these steps pose risks. What does the U.S. do if the warning isn’t heeded? Already, China has announced that its determination to say the course in the Spratlys is as “firm as a rock.”19 If the U.S. doesn’t follow through, it will once again leave its
