February 1, 2024 - 4:00pm
The US will prioritise threats in Asia over defending Europe under the next president, according to national defence strategist Elbridge Colby.
In comments made to UnHerd, the former deputy assistant secretary of defense under President Donald Trump said Asia was the more important theatre, noting that Trump recognised and matched China’s confrontational approach during his first term and would continue that in a potential second term. Europe needs to recognise this move quickly to prepare for reduced American aid in the event of a Russian attack on eastern Nato countries, he argued.
“We have to choose Asia,” Colby told UnHerd. He went on:
Further involvement in European and Middle East conflicts would weaken the US in a potential conflict in Asia — which is exactly what China wants, according to Colby. The strategist expects that a second-term Biden White House would also recognise this and prioritise Asia over Europe.
“Xi Jinping might induce Putin to go first against Nato in some way to try to draw the Americans down even further into Europe and then deliver the knockout blow in Asia,” Colby said.
Russia has been prioritising military buildup over the civilian economy, and there’s a real risk that the country could expand its attack on Ukraine into eastern Nato countries with missile and cyber attacks — a situation for which the UK is unprepared, according to Colby.
Americans have offered false assurances to Europe about the strength of Ukraine and the certainty of future US support. In reality, the US and Europe aren’t producing enough weapons, and looming Asian conflicts including a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan would further deplete America’s available stockpiles, Colby claimed.
“The United States is not in a position to continue to play an overwhelming leading role in Europe at the same time as it’s challenged in Asia, not to mention the Middle East,” he told UnHerd. “So I think prudence really dictates for Europe a greater degree of readiness.”
The full video interview with Elbridge Colby is available here.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAre those the only options? What about South America? Or Africa? It’s racist not to include Africa.
Europe needs to recognise this move quickly to prepare for reduced American aid in the event of a Russian attack on eastern Nato countries, he argued.
My lord, stop. There is not going to be a Russian attack on NATO. Colby’s entire argument here is predicated on things that might, could, possibly, perhaps happen. It’s glorified guesswork. The only thing that is concrete is the US having depleted itself of munitions, not to mention degrading its military by infusing leftist social ideas where they don’t belong. No wonder recruiting has cratered.
I don’t get it either. Putin is not invading a NATO country. Russia would have its hands full with Poland alone. If he does invade, well that’s the start of WWIII and there’s not much we can do but defend and hope.
Putin is a pragmatic, authoritarian dictator. He’s not a religious zealot like the punks running Iran. He will do whatever he thinks is achievable. He’s also 71 years old.
The entire narrative of escalation with Russia hinges on the silly argument that Putin would attack beyond Ukraine.
A careful review of the history leading up to his UA invasion reveals this fallacy. Russia did not seek an expansionary conflict in UA. Rather, they sought a diplomatic solution (Minsk Minsk II)
Even when they invaded, they chose a ‘shock and awe’ strategy that was militarily half-assed, but had the advantage of minimising civilian casualties. The goal was to scare Ukraine into some kind of a treaty.
To go from this long, slow build-up with repeated statements of where the red lines lay, to a full-on assault on a NATO/EU country, is a preposterous leap of propaganda.
There were so many ways the West could have appeased Russia, granted them access to shared technology and boosted trade, visa access for students etc., which would have increased Russian discontent with the economic stagnation at home, and eroded Putin’s grip on power. A soft revolution could have followed, and a gradual expansion of Western influence across Asia, isolating China and eventually pushing them on a path of democratic reform.
But the West chose to do the opposite: drive Putin into Xi’s arms, driving Xi’s arms into Putin’s arsenal and creating a pan-Asian alliance (Russia, Iran, China) which the West cannot hope to defeat.
In the first place, duh. It’s been obvious the US was more concerned with the so-called ‘Indo-Pacific’ since before Trump. It’s a testament to how much influence the military has on US policy that one can clearly trace a thread like this through three radically different administrations.
In the second place, why does everyone in Europe seem to be assuming Trump will win? He has a slight lead in the polls in swing states, but it’s February, not October, and a lot of things can change between now and then. Could Unherd not find a Biden guy to interview to maybe get another opinion on what a second Biden administration might do?
In the third place, Russia and China are allies for all intents and purposes. They may or may not ever declare a formal military alliance, but if we’re fighting simultaneous conflicts in Europe and Taiwan, that hardly matters. They would still provide each other far more support than Japan and Germany in WWII.
In the last place, even with such a multi-theater conflict, it’s not a simple either/or scenario. The Indo-Pacific is likely to be an aerial/naval conflict and not a ground war while Europe is the opposite. Taiwan is a tiny island smaller about half the size of Ireland, while the European/Russian border spans several thousand miles of ground. Even within the context of placing a higher priority on the Asian theater, there’s plenty of American soldiers and military hardware that realistically won’t be needed there. It’s highly likely that the bulk of America’s Air Force, Navy, and advanced weapons would be sent to Asia while the Army would be sent to Europe. That’s just military strategy 101.
I’m not a military expert, but I’m puzzled why nothing more was said about the French – only mentioned twice in passing by Colby. The UK/France have been the two eminent militaries in Europe – maybe that position is changing – but to me the analysis shouts out for a deeper discussion about a European force to replicate NATO. All sorts of issues to resolve, but not a reason to ignore it.