Google Analytics

Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts

Saturday, July 1, 2023

The New World (Dis)order: PART III: China Awakens Under Xi Jinping

(Image: contrainfo dotcom)

NOTE: This is the third in a five part series.
PART I: American Adventurism, Non-Interventionism, Trumpism and Afghan Chaos
PART II: The Misunderstanding of Vladimir Putin
PART III: China Awakens Under Xi Jinping

PART IV: Crony Capitalism and the West’s Achilles Heel

PART V (November): The New World (Dis)order

PART III: China Awakens Under Xi Jinping

“If the U.S. side does not put on the brakes and continues down the wrong path, no amount of guardrails can stop the derailment and rollover into confrontation and conflict.”
Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang

From 2008-2013, there was one particular leader who was closely studying America’s actions and lack thereof. Xi Jinping became vice president in 2008, around the time Barack Obama became president. 


Xi’s rise was meteoric after being named chairman of the Communist Party and Central Military Commission in 2012. Holding the reins to the party apparatus and military, he began consolidating power by launching anti-corruption probes to purge the military and party ranks of rivals and non-loyalists.


As Mr. Xi consolidated his grip on the party we began to see a bolder China emerge onto the world stage. It is not a coincidence that this transpired around the time the world started to perceive a weaker, divided and non-interventionist America.


For most of the last century Chinese leaders have followed Deng Xiaoping’s strategy of "hiding our capacities and biding our time.” The idea was to avoid provoking hostility until China had the military and economic strength to challenge US hegemony.  Xi Jinping’s China didn’t simply come out of hiding but has embraced a far more aggressive and muscular posture at home and abroad. 


During Covid-19 Mr. Xi implemented a zero-Covid policy which involved forcibly locking up residents and publicly shaming those who broke quarantine. He authorized a genocide against Uyghurs in China’s Xinjiang region and oversaw a brutal crackdown in Hong Kong, a territory to whom China had promised press and other freedoms until 2047 under the ‘one country, two systems’ handover agreement with the British in 1997. 


In the last few years, China has provoked India with the Chinese military violating agreements along their shared border, leading to deadly clashes. Beijing packed Hong Kong’s legislature with loyalists and passed a draconian national security law. This law applies not only to local residents but to “people outside [Hong Kong] - who are not permanent residents”. China openly threatened the UK with dire consequences for offering residency to fleeing Hong Kong citizens.


In 2012, China launched their first aircraft carrier, after spending years modernizing their navy. Soon after they started to flex their muscles in the South China Sea, laying claim to disputed territories and territorial rights. 


A year later, they consolidated bureaucratic control over multiple maritime agencies to create a State Oceanic Administration that would match the size of Japan’s coast guard, the largest in the world. That same year they announced the creation of an East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone over disputed territories and demanded that all non-commercial aircraft submit air plans prior to entering the area or risk being shot down. 


A 2015 Pentagon report found that China had reclaimed more than 3,200 acres of land in the southeastern South China Sea and were “weaponizing these man-made islands”. The report concluded that in addition to building facilities on disputed islands, China was “increasing its role and power around the world, while continuing to modernize and build up its military and inventory of ships, missiles and aircraft.”


In March 2022, the U.S. Indo-Pacific Commander confirmed to the Associated Press that China had fully militarized at least three islands in disputed areas of the South China Sea. They armed these islands with anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles, laser and jamming equipment and fighter jets. This happened despite the fact that Xi Jinping had made public assurances that China would never convert these islands into military bases. 


Last year, the Solomon Islands shocked the world by signing a security pact with China. It allows the Chinese navy to dock warships on the island and allows the island to call in Chinese security forces, to restore “social order”. 


The agreement also gives Chinese forces the authority to “protect the safety of Chinese personnel and major projects.” Both Australia and America sent high-level delegations to dissuade Solomon’s PM from signing the agreement but failed to change his mind.


Why all the fuss over six small islands with a population of less than 700,000 people?


Australia is concerned about having the Chinese military stationed less than 1,200 miles from their shores and America is worried about reduced freedom of navigation in the South Pacific because the Solomon Islands sits at a major trade transit point through which massive amounts of global cargo flow.


This agreement was a startling reversal for a country that had been both a diplomatic partner of Taiwan’s, and a long time Western ally. It can in part be explained by the 2016 election of President Tsai Ing-wen, in Taiwan, and her refusal to endorse the “one-China principle”. After the Taiwanese elections, Mr. Xi’s administration went into overdrive to persuade countries to sever ties with Taiwan. 


Today, only 13 countries, many of them small, less-developed nations, have formal relations with Taiwan. China recently persuaded Honduras to sever ties with Taiwan. This was a major rebuff to Washington, who had been working hard to get Central American countries to support the island nation.


China is reported to be building a secret naval base for its military in Cambodia, though both countries have denied this. If true, it would be their second such outpost outside their territory, and first in the strategically significant Indo-Pacific region. Australia's Defense Minister recently warned in a speech that China’s "military buildup in the region was occurring at a rate unseen since World War II”.


Last year, the US Commander of Strategic Command, Vice Adm. Chas Richard, issued a more ominous warning. He said America’s military edge, which has thus far provided a deterrence against China, “is slowly sinking.” He added that China is putting capacity in the field faster and that if this continues, “it isn't going to matter how good our [operating plan] is or how good our commanders are, or how good our forces are—we're not going to have enough of them. And that is a very near-term problem."


Even as China flexes its military might, Mr. Xi understands something previous Chinese premiers failed to see: that military might and financial muscle alone will never allow China to rival America on the world stage. They also need to build soft power. 


With soft power in mind, in 2013 Mr. Xi launched the Belt Road Initiative (BRI). The BRI is modeled after The Silk Road created 2,100 years earlier by the Han Dynasty to build trade routes linking Europe to Asia. However, Mr. Xi’s ambitions go far beyond trade. By investing in developing nations and making their economies co-dependent, it allows him to bring them into China’s sphere of influence.


Within seven years of launching the BRI, 139 countries have signed cooperation agreements. This includes 39 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, 34 in Europe and Central Asia, 25 in East Asia and the Pacific, 18 in Latin America and the Caribbean, 17 in the Middle East and North Africa, and 6 in South Asia. Currently, the BRI, including China, accounts for 40 percent of the world’s GDP and 63 percent of its population.


To put the scale of BRI in perspective, over the last decade, China has doled out more than $1 trillion across Asia, Africa and Latin America. This makes China the largest government lender to the developing world, almost equalling the total loans of all other governments combined.


In Africa, more than 60% of the revenue major international contractors collected in 2019 went to Chinese companies, according to a 2021 paper by Johns Hopkins University. In 2022, China’s trade with Africa was five times greater than that of the US. This, in addition to the fact that the Russian Wagner Group, a private military contractor, has been providing security assistance in several African countries. 


These ties to China and Russia are a large part of the reason why many African nations, including South Africa, have been reluctant to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. After neglecting the continent for many years, the US is now playing catch-up to try and blunt China’s influence with recent high-profile visits by the US Treasury Secretary and one by the Vice President.


In 2014 China launched the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to rival the Asian Development Bank (ADB), which lends money for infrastructure projects to Asia. According to China it was necessary because unlike the ADB, which funds projects ranging from environmental protection to gender equality, the AIIB would be focused on building infrastructure in poor Asian countries. Most world watchers believe the true reason was to expand China’s influence in the region at the expense of Japan and America, who hold more sway at the ADB.


Over the last decade, China has been increasingly using its economic clout to bully and punish nations that act in ways it deems unacceptable. In 2011, China blocked salmon imports from Norway after they awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. In 2020, they blocked agricultural, beef and other imports, after the Australian government supported a global inquiry into China’s early handling of Covid. As the war of words escalated with Australia, China even threatened them with a missile attack.


When Lithuania, an EU country of less than 3 million people, let Taiwan open a trade office in Vilnius, China halted its own exports to Lithuania to starve their manufacturing industry of components and raw materials. Then they took their vindictiveness to a new level by letting Chinese goods, that had been paid for by Lithuanian companies, get mired in new red tape and endless inspections delays.


China even pressured EU countries to stop importing Lithuanian products. They halted shipments of auto components to German, French and Swedish companies from ports in China, because some parts were manufactured in Lithuania. The Lithuanian spat exposed the limits of power of a massive trading bloc like the EU, against the growing might of China. Apart from filing a complaint with the Word Trade Organization (WTO) and offering words of solidarity, EU was reluctant to do anymore, for fear of upsetting China. 


The fact is that the EU is reliant on China for their supply chain and China used Lithuania to send a message to the bloc. Theresa Fallon, Director of the Center for Russia, Europe, Asia Studies in Brussels summed it up saying,“Many European leaders look at Lithuania and say, ‘My God, we are not going to do anything to upset China.”


Prior to Russia’s invasion, China and the EU’s economic ties were mutually beneficial, and a way for both sides to limit their reliance on the US. However, after China’s bullying of Lithuania and support for Putin’s invasion, these ties have begun to fray.


At the 2023 Munich Security Conference, China’s top diplomat received a cold reception when he tried to woo Europe, by bashing the United States. His audience was aware that even as he spoke, in the background European security officials had discovered that official Chinese channels were hard at work spreading disinformation all over Europe.


Despite these tensions, it is worth noting that the EU’s largest economy, Germany, continues to have deep ties with China and is still their largest trading partner. At the end of 2022, the German Chancellor made a high-profile trip to Beijing. For now, Sino-German relations remain “cold politically and hot economically” as the Director of European Studies at Fudan University put it.


Meanwhile on the home front, Mr. Xi has been walling China off from the world. He aims to make China self-reliant and less dependent on the West. From the time he came to power Mr. Xi has feared “infiltration” of dangerous Western values, like democracy, press freedoms and judicial independence.


One of his first acts as premiere was to accelerate policing and censorship of the internet by banning anonymity and making internet providers responsible for deleting content deemed offensive or politically sensitive. He systematically clamped down on foreign NGOs and churches, and issued rules restricting the use of Western textbooks, banning any texts that promote “Western values”.


To understand why the man who once said in 2017 “Openness brings progress, while self-seclusion leaves one behind,” seems to be ignoring his own advice, we need to understand that Mr. Xi never embraced “openness” in the way we define it in Western democracies. Instead. Mr. Xi always viewed “globalisation” as a series of risks and rewards, enacting reforms in piecemeal ways to ensure that the Party never cedes control of the economy and is able to protect citizens from dangerous outside ideas.


Even prior to the Covid_19 lockdown, which closed China’s borders for two years, by every measure China’s global isolation had been growing. Foreign films accounted for less than 16% of box office revenue, down from over 50% in 2012. In 2021, the value of imported books and periodicals fell to their lowest level since 2017. The number of Chinese students leaving to study in Australia dropped dramatically last year. Even foreign remittances fell by more than half compared to figures for 2019.


In Mr. Xi’s vision of China the state plays a central role in guiding the economy, the private sector is loyal and aligned with the Party’s policy goals, and he is the leader who restores China’s power on the world stage. He envisions China as the center for global innovation, aided by government investment into domestic research and technology, which will help power productivity and propel growth. China as a self-reliant nation, no longer meek, or beholden to the West.


Over the past decade, the state has shuttered or taken control of many private businesses, absorbing them into state-owned enterprises, but the tech sector managed to escape Mr. Xi’s increasingly visible hand on the private sector. However, this changed three years ago, after Mr. Xi personally intervened to block the Ant Group’s IPO. 


In a speech a few days before the IPO, Jack Ma publicly criticized the government’s financial regulation, blaming it for holding back technology development. It is said that Mr. Xi was infuriated by this, but the likely reason is the complex ownership structure behind the Ant Group. A number of well-connected political families were shareholders, and could have posed a challenge to Mr. Xi’s leadership because they stood to collect billions from what would have been the world’s largest ever IPO. 


Since then Mr. Xi has singled out the tech sector, blaming it for widening inequality in China. Mr. Xi knows that if this inequality is left unchecked, it will lead to social unrest. 


A few months after launching antitrust investigations into big tech companies and announcing new rules to restrict overseas listings by Chinese companies, Mr. Xi gave a speech about pursuing a “common prosperity agenda,” in which he vowed to adjust excessive incomes and redistribute wealth to tackle growing inequality.


However, I believe the main reason for the tech crackdown has to do with the fact that a handful of entrepreneurs and companies have attained such great market dominance and influence over the economy that they threatened the clout of the Party. Chinese tech giants account for a much larger portion of the economy than their counterparts in the US and Europe, and I suspect that Mr. Xi’s began to view them as a threat.


To give you an idea of the dominance Chinese tech companies have, Alipay, a mobile payments app owned by Jack Ma’s Ant Group, is used by roughly 70% of China’s population. Ant has issued loans to 20 million small businesses and nearly a billion individuals. 80 million businesses use their apps and they run China’s largest mutual fund. Ant’s focus on serving the unbanked has made it a dominant force in finance.


Also, unlike in America and Europe, a small handful of Chinese companies have a multi-tentacled reach. They have built super apps with walled gardens, offering services that span e-commerce, payments and delivery, to social media, gaming and entertainment. This power over the economy and populous was likely viewed as a long-term threat to Mr. Xi’s leadership and the Chinese Communist Party dominance.


The tech sector was the last remaining threat to Mr. Xi having absolute power, ahead of being anointed de facto emperor of China, at the 2022 CCP Congress.  At the last congress, the party amended its constitution to enshrine Mr. Xi as the “core of the party and his political thought as its underpinning ideology”, clearing the way in March this year for the National People’s Congress to unanimously vote to rubber stamp Mr. Xi’s norm-breaking third term, putting him on track to be in premier for life. 


While it may appear that Mr. Xi and China are at the pinnacle of their power, there is trouble brewing on the long horizon.


A slowing global economy coupled with rising interest rates and inflation are leading to an increasing number of debt defaults by developing nations which are struggling to repay loans received through the Belt and Road initiative. 


As a result other issues have emerged with these loans, from a lack of transparency and rampant corruption to labour violations and predatory lending practices. It has resulted in a number of countries finding hidden debt that was never officially disclosed on government balance sheets.


Additionally, completed infrastructure projects are falling apart due to poor quality equipment and construction flaws. These problems threaten to leave developing nations in worse shape because in addition to repaying loans, they will now need to spend money to repair these defects. 


Cracks were found in Ecuador’s Coca Codo hydroelectric plant, the country’s biggest power source. In Pakistan, officials had to shut down the Neelum-Jhelum hydroelectric plant after finding cracks in a tunnel, just four years after it went online. In Uganda officials identified more than 500 construction defects in a Chinese-built hydropower plant that has suffered frequent breakdowns since going online in 2019. The World Bank estimates that hydropower plants should have a lifespan of up to 100 years.


Also, China’s economy can no longer rely on easy growth through technological transfers.For much of the 1990’s and 2000’s foreign firms that set up factories brought advanced technologies that were forcibly transferred to local Chinese firms, or reverse-engineered at little cost. 


However, these transfers are increasingly being restricted, even though China continues to be accused of hacking and theft of intellectual property. The US put tough new export controls on advanced technologies, like semiconductor chips, in a bid to slow down China’s technological and military advances through illegal transfers.


In late 2022 and early this year, foreign investors pulled more than $100 billion out of China’s bond market and there was a dramatic slowdown in investments in the country’s stock market. But these investments are likely to bounce back because many investors sold for fear of getting caught up in sanctions aimed at Chinese entities, due to the country’s support for Russia's invasion, and because of Mr. Xi’s reluctance to lift the strict zero-Covid policies which were hampering economic growth.


In the early part of this year, after Covid restrictions were lifted, China’s economy has shown signs of a strong rebound with manufacturing showing the biggest improvement in more than a decade, services sector activity climbing and signs of stabilization in the troubled housing market


These figures were released ahead of the National People’s Congress in March, where Mr. Xi shared plans for “deepening structural reform” in the financial sector and tightening controls over science and technology in strategic areas like chips.


However, troubling systemic issues lurk beneath this short-term buoyancy. For years Chinese cities accumulated vast amounts of debt in a bid to boost GDP, by spending on wasteful infrastructure projects. 


Already struggling to pay off debt, these cities experienced a further strain on coffers to implement Covid restrictions. The situation is so bad that some cities are struggling to deliver basic services. Recently, a city went viral after announcing they could no longer provide bus services.


China’s housing market remains on tenterhooks after property owners suspended mortgage payments last year, over delayed and stalled projects. It is too soon to tell if this eroded confidence in home buying more broadly. Also, analysts expect that further government bailouts will be necessary to help debt-stricken property developers.


In 2022, China’s population declined for the first time in 60 years. This demographic crisis will result in a shortage of labour while simultaneously increasing healthcare and other social security costs. Aware of the looming crisis, the government has been trying to incentivize couples to have kids, raising the limit from 2 to 3 in 2021, but they have not succeeded in reversing declining birth rates.


They even tried paying couples but got pushback with people saying that the main issue is that the country has become one of the most expensive in the world to raise a child. They say that these government incentives do nothing to help with supporting ageing parents and dealing with the rising cost of education, housing and healthcare. 


A related problem is the high rate of youth unemployment. One in five urban youth were unemployed at the end of 2022. The latest figures for June this year show the unemployment rate among 16-24 year olds rising to 20.8%, which is four times the overall national jobless rate. This means China is now facing its worst unemployment crisis in four decades. Young people unable to find jobs and income are delaying plans for marriage and having kids, which is putting further negative pressure on the country’s birth rate.


While China says they have reopened for business and foreign investment, official figures show that the number of foreigners living in Shanghai and Beijing has been in steady decline over the past decade, and there is likely to be a mass exodus in the future. 


2022 survey by the European Chamber of Commerce found that 85 percent of expats living in China said that the government harsh Covid policies and inhuman lockdowns, had caused them rethink their future in the country.


It is not only foreigners who are fleeing Mr. Xi’s harsh policies. Wealthy Chinese faced with the prospect of income redistribution have been fleeing in greater numbers after Mr. Xi’s promise to narrow ‘inequity’, according to data compiled by firms which track the movement of the rich. They expect many wealthy families more to leave in 2023.


It is not just wealthy Chinese who are fleeing. The US has seen a marked increase in Chinese citizens willing to risk life and limb to pass through the treacherous jungle between Panama and Columbia, to seek asylum in America. Panamanian government data shows that in the first two months of this year, more Chinese migrants crossed into Panama than all of 2021 and 2022 combined.


More recently the government banned a prominent finance writer and two of his peers for “spreading negative and harmful information” because they had written about the country's spluttering economy and unemployment rate. While all this does not bode well for China, in the end their biggest threat might be the impacts of Mr. Xi’s desire both to remake the economy based on his ideology and to secure the Party’s grip on power. 


By giving the Communist Party even greater say in managing the economy, replacing tech leaders with academics and internationally respected economic officials with politicians loyal to Mr. Xi, he threatens to further erode the lines between party, government and private sector in ways that will have dangerous and unintended consequences for China and the rest of the world.


Read next installment in series:

PART IV: Crony Capitalism and the West’s Achilles Heel

Friday, May 5, 2023

The New World (Dis)order: PART I: American Adventurism, Non-Interventionism, Trumpism and Afghan Chaos

Is America in Decline? Illustration by Barbara Kelley via Hoover InstituteIllustration by Barbara Kelley via Hoover Institute


NOTE: This is the first in a five part series.

PART I: American Adventurism, Non-Interventionism, Trumpism and Afghan Chaos
PART II: The Misunderstanding of Vladimir Putin
PART III: China Awakens Under Xi Jinping
PART IV: Crony Capitalism and the West’s Achilles Heel
PART V (
November): The New World (Dis)order 


PART I: American Adventurism, Non-Interventionism, Trumpism and Afghan Chaos

“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
-Mark Twain


Bush’s Adventurism

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a foregone conclusion in my mind. I said late in 2021 that Putin would invade no matter what the West did to try and deter him. 


Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was, in addition to his long-held territorial ambitions, meant to be a test to gauge the West’s unity and resolve, and to provide China with a litmus test for their impending invasion of Taiwan.


To understand how we got here, with Europe facing its largest invasion since WWII, we need to go back to the US invasion of Iraq, and also to events before and after the invasion. 


While I am not interested here in arguing about the justification for America’s invasion of Iraq, what is irrefutable is that every one of Cheney and Bush’s assertions about Saddam Hussein and Iraq turned out to be patently false. 


Leading up to the invasion, America failed to produce a single credible piece of evidence to back up their claims about Saddam’s ties to Al-Qaeda or his biological weapons stockpile. I stated categorically months before the invasion that the only way the US would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is if they planted them there.


Also, America was unable to convince a majority of allies to join their illegal invasion. In addition to America and British forces, the grand coalition consisted of Georgia, Australia and Poland, with the three countries sending 2,300, 2,000 and 194 troops, respectively.


Post-invasion, independent and US intelligence agency reviews of millions of documents seized in Iraq conclusively stated that “…there was nothing to substantiate a "partnership" between Hussein and Al-Qaeda.” The report added that there was no ‘smoking gun,’ and everyone knows how many weapons of mass destruction were found.


While the Bush administration sought and got approval from U.S. Congress in 2002 to use military force against “those responsible for the September 11 attacks”, there was and remains no basis in international law to justify America’s invasion of Iraq. 


The Bush administration tried to argue that the UN security council resolution which granted use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1990 applied. However, the UN declared that the Iraq invasion was in violation of its Charter. Secretary General Kofi Anan stated unequivocally in 2004, "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.”


Not only did America flagrantly violate international law by invading a sovereign nation without provocation, but the Bush administration broke every legal and democratic norm Americans have claimed to cherish and hold dear since WWII.


Ironically, former President Bush accidentally admitted it last year, when he repudiated Putin for invading Ukraine in a speech in May. He said, “The result is an absence of checks and balances in Russia, and the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq—I mean of Ukraine.”


Under Bush, America embraced torture, set-up extra-judicial rendition sites in Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Senegal, Tajikistan and other countries. They constructed a prison camp in Guantanamo Bay because it would be outside U.S. legal jurisdiction. There they illegally detained and tortured enemy combatants indefinitely and without charge, denying them Geneva Convention rights and refusing these men access to legal counsel.


Bush and Cheney’s actions damaged America’s moral standing and severely limited the US’s future ability to call out other nations for their transgressions. The unilateral way in which America invaded and occupied Iraq has not been lost on the leaders of China, Russia, Iran and other authoritarian regimes. These regimes watched the U.S. violate international law, trample on enshrined global conventions and use financial muscle, military might and UN Security Council veto power to bribe, blackmail and bully smaller nations into acquiescence or abstention. 


Not a single U.S. leader or architect of the Iraq invasion was criminally charged or faced consequences for war crimes. To this day, the U.S. remains a non-signatory to the International Court of Justice (ICC), along with China, Russia, Syria, Qatar and Libya.


In 2008, while America was embroiled in two failing and unpopular wars and in the midst of a financial crisis, Russia invaded Georgia. It was the first time since their 1979 invasion of Afghanistan that they launched a military attack on a neighboring country. While Russian-Georgian tensions had been simmering since the breakup of the USSR, it was Georgia’s tilt toward the West that drove Putin’s decision to invade. 


Georgia joined the US-led coalition in Iraq, sending the third largest contingent of troops, which had earned Putin’s ire. Then in 2004 they elected a pro-West leader, Mikheil Saakashvili, who actively sought membership to NATO and wanted to move his country away from Russia’s sphere of influence. 


At the 2008 NATO Summit President Bush surprised everyone by lobbying to extend membership to Ukraine and Georgia. This crossed a red line for Putin, who was clear that he was not willing to lose control of former Soviet Union breakaway republics, because they provided a security buffer between Russia and the West. Putin’s invasion of Georgia began a few months after the summit.


France brokered the ceasefire agreement which stipulated the removal of Russian troops from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two breakaway regions at the center of the dispute. The agreement was hastily put together and tilted in favor of Russia, as a result of public divisions within the EU. Italy’s Foreign Minister at the time said “We cannot create an anti-Russia coalition in Europe…on this point we are close to Putin's position.”


Vice-President Cheney condemned Russia’s actions and declared that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered.” Yet, that is precisely what happened with a muted response from the US and Europe. There was no punishment when Russia violated the terms of ceasefire by declaring Abkhazia and South Ossetia independent countries, and kept their occupying forces on Georgian soil; who remain to this day.


Russia’s aggression paid-off, without any costs to Putin. The Georgian President warned the US not to placate Putin, and prophetically said at the time that the Georgian invasion was the beginning of Putin’s ambitions, and not the limit of it.


Obama’s Non-Interventionism

The Obama years were a welcome change, and his administration attempted to repair the damage done by the previous one. On day one he declared he would shutter Guantanamo Bay, and later summed up his foreign policy doctrine as “Don’t do stupid shit”. 


Mr. Obama’s approach made sense, compared to his predecessor’s shoot from the hip style but it would come to be viewed as weakness, based on Mr. Obama’s repeated and dogmatic refusal to use force, in a world with rising authoritarianism.


In 2010, Mohamed Bouazizi, a fruit vendor in Tunisia set himself alight to protest corruption and police brutality. This act set in motion a series of violent mass protests across the Middle East and North Africa, which came to be known as The Arab Spring


However, unlike in Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen where ruling dictators were toppled, the uprising in Syria was met with a brutal crackdown. Bashar Al-Assad used his military to mercilessly kill peaceful protestors and stamp out the popular rebellion. 


At the time President Obama warned Assad saying that "This outrageous use of violence to quell protests must come to an end now.” While the condemnation was strong, Mr. Obama resisted any US intervention in Syria. This despite his senior advisors, defense and national security teams urging him to take limited military action. 


Their recommendation was not to put US boots on the ground, but to train and equip the Syrian resistance, to set up safe zones and to launch targeted air strikes to degrade Assad’s air force. Their strategy was designed to force Assad to the negotiating table, rather than defeat him on the battlefield. However, Obama steadfastly refused and agreed only to provide humanitarian aid and light non-lethal equipment to the rebels.


Sensing Obama’s hesitation and unable to quell widespread and growing unrest across the country, in early 2012, Assad used chemical weapons and gassed his citizens. Meanwhile, the vacuum on the battlefield, created by Obama's refusal to arm the rebels, got filled by a loose and dangerous network of jihadis fighting for Islamic State, Al-Qaeda and other affiliated terrorist groups. 


In late 2102, President Obama stated at a White House press briefing“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my equation.“


The world, including his Secretaries of Defense and State saw the red-line as an ultimatum for the use of force. Vice-president Biden warned The President not to make a public declaration because he feared it would need to be acted on. He was right. Seeing America back-down after drawing a public red-line emboldened every dictator and authoritarian leader from China to Venezuela.


Ironically, it was Mr. Obama who said during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech that“inaction tears at our conscienceand can lead to more costly interventions later…”. The U.S. President’s repeated refusal to act would have devastating consequences not just for the Syrian people but the world at large.


Even before the votes were cast in the 2016 US presidential election, a few things began to embolden Mr. Putin. First, the Obama administration’s strategic and costly error in downplaying the Russian state-sponsored hacking, which they uncovered in the summer of that year after DNC servers were found to be compromised. 


Obama chose not to respond forcefully because he wanted to be seen as impartial and because everyone in his administration believed Hillary Clinton was going to win the election, so they decided that starting“a cyber war with Russia wasn’t worth it.”


Mr. Putin was also emboldened by candidate Trump’s open embrace of Russia. One that resulted in a bizzare public plea, at a press conference in Florida, where he said "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” 


Third was the result of Putin’s high-risk disinformation gamble, which exceeded even his wildest expectations. Putin had succeeded in sowing mistrust amongst the US electorate and deepening existing divisions among Americans across the political spectrum. 


Through the Mueller investigation we learned that the Kremlin’s elaborate campaign had a $1.2 million monthly budget that was used for identity theft, which enabled Russian spies to enter the US under false pretenses. The Russian agents set up meetings with legitimate organisations for fact-finding and on-the-ground research in swing states. Information that was used to set up fake grass roots organisations, social media accounts, run anti-Clinton ads and even stage local events. The Russian’s even paid Americans to appear at Trump rallies dressed as Mrs. Clinton in a prison uniform.


Trumpism

Once Trump became president it was clear that he lacked cohesive vision and coherent strategy to guide his foreign policy. His decisions were instead driven by his whims. One minute he would contradict military commanders about troop withdrawals by tweet, and next make decisions that lined up with his personal business interests. Trump continued to publicly express his admiration for dictators and bragged about his great chemistry with them while showing disdain for NATO.


Mr. Trump’s first official trip abroad was to Saudi Arabia, a place where his love of dictatorship and personal business coincided. Upon arrival Trump’s first words were“We are not here to lecture. We are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship.” Next came his decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement, followed in early 2018 with the termination of JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal. 


In 2017, after Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt abruptly cut diplomatic ties with Qatar, accusing them of supporting terrorism. Trump welcomed the move, even as his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense were publicly reenforcing America’s relationship with Qatar, a country that hosts a key US Air Base and is the regional headquarters of U.S. Central Command. 


At the G-20 Summit in Hamburg Trump had a second meeting with Putin which was not disclosed by the White House. This meeting broke protocol as Trump met with Putin for over an hour without any other US officials present and without his translator. It was just Mr. Trump, Mr. Putin and his translator. This was followed by a two-hour summit in Helsinki between the two leaders, again with no US officials except a translator.


Trumpism was defined by chaotic, contradictory and haphazard foreign policy, most often out of sync with his own administration. Trump broke with decades of US policy by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. In agreeing to meet with Kim Jong Un, twice, he became the first sitting US President in history to do so and set foot in North Korea


Mr. Trump defended Saudi Arabia after they murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi, saying on NBC’s Meet the Press"Iran's killed many, many people a day. Other countries in the Middle East; this is a hostile place. This is a vicious, hostile place. If you're going to look at Saudi Arabia, look at Iran, look at other countries,"


It is true that Trump administration agreed to send lethal aid to Ukraine, which Mr. Obama’s had refused, but Mr. Trump was also the one who held a gun to President Zelensky’s head. Mr. Trump put on hold on US military aid unless Ukraine agreed to investigate Joe Biden, which led to his first impeachment trial.


Throughout his presidency Mr. Trump made false claims about Ukraine, privately and publicly. A respected diplomat told lawmakers during the impeachment inquiry, that Trump had said to him “Ukraine was a corrupt country, full of 'terrible people.'"  The US President was the same man who praised Putin in 2014 when Russia illegally annexed Crimea and said at the time that “the rest of Ukraine will fall … fairly quickly…” 


In 2014, Trump defended Russia despite evidence showing that a Russian missile shot down a Malaysian Airlines plane, killing all 208 passengers on board. It would not be an understatement to say that Mr. Putin believed he had an ally in the White House, and on the heels of his 2016 election disinformation campaign success, it left him feeling more emboldened for his future invasion of Ukraine.


Trump’s final act as president was to withdraw from the Open Skies treaty, the third arms control agreement he withdrew the US from. His administration claimed they were doing so because the Russians had been violating the agreement, but the US too had placed their own restrictions on it. Mr. Trump went ahead despite NATO countries expressing “regret” over the US intention to withdraw, stating that despite its problems the treaty remained “functioning and useful”.


Biden’s Afghan Chaos

China, Iran and Russia made hay of the botched US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Without question they saw both failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as evidence of declining US military power and influence. 


Mr. Putin stated with glee on the anniversary of Washington’s twenty-year intervention in Afghanistan, “The result is zero, if not to say that it is negative”. A Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman said of the chaotic scenes of people clinging and falling from aircraft wheels, “American myth down. More and more people are awakening.” 


The Afghan withdrawal made the Biden administration look incompetent and weak. Especially after the US president had publicly stated that there would be an orderly withdrawal and assured the world that US intelligence assessments made him confident that a Taliban takeover of the country was "highly unlikely” and would take at least six months to a one year - not the 10 days it actually took.


Within the backdrop of the disastrous Afghan exit, the Biden administration had also been working to forge closer ties with Ukraine. In July, 2021, under Mr. Trump, the US and Ukraine conducted joint naval exercises with 32 other countries from six continents participating. Operation Sea Breeze almost escalated into conflict after a British naval destroyer entered Russian territorial waters, and the Russians fired at it.


In January 2021, right after President Biden assumed office, Mr. Zelensky appealed to US President to let Ukraine join NATO. After receiving assurances of US support from Mr. Biden, President Zelensky signed a decree freezing the assets of Viktor Medvedchuk, a political heavyweight with close ties to the Kremlin and placed him under house arrest. 


Mr. Medvedchuk’s was Putin’s choice for replacing Mr. Zelensky and heading up a puppet government in Ukraine. Putin is godfather to Medvedchuk’s daughter. Soon after his arrest Russia began amassing troops on the Ukraine border, claiming they were conducting training exercises.


In November that year, as Russian troops continued to amass on Ukraine’s borders, Mr. Biden signed the “US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership” a document stating a commitmentto help Ukraine achieve “full integration into European and Euro-Atlantic institutions.” 


This was a red line for Putin, going back to the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990’s, when according to his version of history, the West promised that they would never expand NATO into the former USSR’s backyard. However, diplomats engaged in those negotiations, scholars and even former President Gorbachov have acknowledged that no such promise was made.


By December 2021, around 100,000 Russian troops, tanks and heavy artillery had been deployed around Ukraine’s borders. Russia issued security demands which included NATO pulling back troops and weapons from eastern Europe and barring Ukraine from ever joining the alliance. 


While the West rebuffed their demands, they once again misjudged Mr. Putin. Ignoring history, they believed that the US President’s public and private warnings that an invasion would result in disaster for the Russian economy and for Mr. Putin personally would be deterrent enough to get the Russian President to act rationally.


Read next installment in series:

PART II: The Misunderstanding of Vladimir Putin