The Kremlin has made a series of mistakes, much to Russia’s misfortune.
Yet, the West — as much as it is sure it will triumph — is itself mistaken in ways similar to Russia’s. Since the invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin has heightened global tensions by expressing its readiness to use nuclear weapons to defend Russia’s right to survive. However, those who are able to overlook the hysteria understand that there are norms that govern our nuclear age. “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD) has brought about strategic stability — disincentives for a nuclear first strike — by the understanding that the launch of one’s nuclear arsenal would mean that the enemy would retaliate with its own nuclear weapons, and thus the destruction of both sides. No one wins in a nuclear exchange.
Governed by this logic, nuclear missiles will remain in their silos, used as political weapons to exert pressure at best.
However, the degrading global security situation seems to have spawned a new concept that best describes the logic of 21st century great power competition: Self-Assured Destruction or SAD.
SAD is the belief that the adversary is so brittle, weak and incapable that it is bound to collapse by itself. This view is paving the path not to peace but to war. Rather than internalizing the understanding that one’s adversary has the capacity to destroy you the same way you could of them, Moscow and Washington have become so self-assured that the “other” is somehow on the verge of collapse. The fact that now, nearing 18 months since the invasion of Ukraine, neither Russia or, in Kremlinspeak, the “Collective West” have faced some kind of revolution that would precipitate societal collapse goes to show not only the resilience of Russian and Western societies, but also the ineffectiveness of sanctions and diplomatic isolation.
Recently, at the Shangri-la Security Dialogue in Singapore, Chinese Minister of National Defense Li Shang-fu (李尚福) warned of a resurgent “Cold War mentality.” The Chinese are most concerned about ideological confrontation because their rise was underpinned by the West’s initial indifference toward the Chinese Communist Party and its acceptance that the hammer and sickle was to remain for the purposes of political continuity, and perhaps, aesthetics.
With the return of great power competition and its complementary ideological clashes, China will be pulled into this vortex even if Chinese President “Xi Jinping (習近平) thought” were to serve purely domestic purposes. The characterization of the war in Ukraine by US President Joe Biden’s administration as a struggle between democracy and autocracy has now divided the world upon this line.
So too has the Kremlin returned to a binary worldview it is well familiar with, one where its own civilization is locked in an existential war against the Collective West led by the “Anglo-Saxons,” and where Russia — the defender of true traditional values — is resisting what Putin has described as the “moral degradation” of the West, where rainbow flags wave and the titles “mother” and “father” have been replaced by “parent #1” and “parent #2.” The Kremlin is confident that it will triumph because the West is somehow on the verge of collapse, but none of this has happened.
Ukraine still stands, Western societies though divided (an intrinsic characteristic of a democracy) are not burning under rainbow flags. Yet, the West thought that the isolation of Russia would somehow knock the country down, as if the closure of McDonald’s would ignite the flames of revolution. Russia still stands, Coca-Colas, delivered through parallel imports from Turkey and Iran, line supermarket fridges, and new life has been given to the Russian military industrial complex.
The root of this problematic thinking is traced back to the SAD of the adversary. Just like in the Cold War, the Socialist bloc was certain that communism was predestined to succeed by the dictates of historical materialism. In their triumph after the Cold War, the West became inebriated by Francis Fukuyama’s end of history, which led many to believe liberal democracy was the destiny of all mankind. No one was right. Unfortunately, the confrontational powers of today still believe history is on their side and whatever policy choices are made, even if they turn out to be mistakes, are somehow steps toward their own new end of history. The implications of such an approach have been and will continue to be devastating. We should only expect escalation, more deaths and further destruction.
The war in Ukraine has come at great costs for Moscow and Kyiv. Though Ukraine has Western material support, Russians outnumber Ukrainians by about five to one on the battlefield. Hopes for a swift counteroffensive the likes of its summer counteroffensive last year should be tempered as Russian lines have dug in. Ukraine has to use its troops and materials wisely. As I write, the Ukrainians have launched their new summer counteroffensive. The hydroelectric dam at Novaya Kakhovka has been destroyed, with both sides blaming each other. The consequences of its destruction are considered dangerous as the water needed to cool the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant is draining away. One can fathom the worst-case scenarios.
This episode illustrates just how dangerous this war has become. Already, asymmetric options have been taken: Moscow heavily bombarded Kyiv last month, while the Ukrainians attacked the Kremlin and a Moscow residential district, the first attack of its kind, with drones. Desperation will lead to escalation and the more certain we are that our enemies will somehow disintegrate on their own makes us forget that they will remember the horrors we have brought upon them.
Nigel Li publishes on his blog “A Singaporean in Moscow."
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
World leaders are preparing themselves for a second Donald Trump presidency. Some leaders know more or less where he stands: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy knows that a difficult negotiation process is about to be forced on his country, and the leaders of NATO countries would be well aware of being complacent about US military support with Trump in power. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would likely be feeling relief as the constraints placed on him by the US President Joe Biden administration would finally be released. However, for President William Lai (賴清德) the calculation is not simple. Trump has surrounded himself
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch