We Win, They Lose
This afternoon I had the pleasure of attending a Chatham House lecture hosted by Sanam Vakil. It featured the distinguished guests Matthew Kroenig and Dan Negrea, who recently co-authored their book titled “We Win They Lose: Republican Foreign Policy and the New Cold War”.
The book’s title takes its name from a quote by the late Ronald Reagan, regarding his stance toward the USSR:
“My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple, and some would say simplistic. It is this: We win, and they lose.”
Kroenig and Negrea aim to fuse Reagan’s stance with Trumps own, to create a coherent strategy that his administration can use, if he is elected in 2024. Kroenig and Negrea hope that America can return to this statement of ‘purpose’, that they believe has disappeared following the collapse of the USSR, but has now become more relevant to our times.
Both authors are critical of the Biden administration’s handling of foreign policy, including but not limited to: focusing on climate change over the threat of China, releasing sanctions on Iran, their handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict, and not increasing spending on the military.
Introduction
To begin with, both authors seek to do away with what they view as two commonly held myths about Republican foreign policy:
That the Republican party is more divided than it is united in regards to foreign policy
That the Republican party is isolationist
Firstly, both authors argue that the Republican party is in fact more united than it is divided in regards to its foreign policy; seeing Russia, China, and Iran as threats to national security and supporting hard power policies. They argue that Ukraine is a rare outlier case, as Republicans are divided over whether to send aid to Ukraine.
Secondly, both authors argue that the Republican party is in fact not isolationist, and that it is better for national security than the Democrats as Trump would increase defence spending.
Kroenig and Negrea believe that the policy of ‘We win they lose’ would work well for american foreign policy in the years to come.
How does Trump and Reagan’s vision for the future blend together?
Kroenig and Negrea state that regarding the title of their book, ‘We’ refers to the free world, with the United States as its leader. They argue that after defeating the USSR, the new hydra heads grown in its place are the ‘new Axis of Evil’; The People’s Republic of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. They argue that these nations pose a greater threat to the United State’s national security than climate change.
How can Trump and Reagan’s visions be used to target foreign adversaries?
Dan Negrea defines a Cold War as ‘A long term contest between adversarial regimes which harm the vital interests of the USA’. So using this definition, the US is not in a Cold War with Cuba as it doesn’t harm its vital interests, whereas America is in a Cold War with Russia and China which pose serious threats.
They argue that in order to face this new Cold War reality, America requires a ‘purpose’. For example, in the 1946-1991 Cold War, the purpose of America can be seen to be an ideological conflict with the USSR; promoting liberalism over totalitarianism, and the free market over communism.
In the foreword to their book, Mike Pompeo states that America must win this Cold War, seeking either their enemies incapacitation or capitulation, preventing their enemies from hurting American interests.
Have you engaged with the Trump administration on these ideas?
The authors were inspired by Robert O’Brien, who was Trump’s National Security Adviser between 2019 and 2021. They say that O’Brien was the first to call for the synthesis of Reagan and Trump’s foreign policy. Furthermore, Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of State, and Director of the CIA under Trump, endorsed the book.
What isn’t working with American Foreign policy?
They argue that the central foreign policies of the Biden administration must be changed dramatically, arguing that China is an existential threat to American national security, not climate change. Furthermore, they also argue that 2% of GDP should be a floor rather than a ceiling in regards to defence spending (The NATO quota as of 2014, but mostly ignored by member states). Lastly, they also argue that the border crisis poses a threat to national security, with undocumented illegal migrants entering the country, possibly exploited by foreign adversaries.
The main policy outlined by Kroenig and Negrea is the concept of Peace through Strength, the idea that if a country is so strong that its enemies will not attack it. Examples, they cite Reagan sinking the Iranian navy during the Iran-Iraq War in 1988 (Operation Praying Mantis), and Trump ordering the assassination of Qasem Soleimani in 2020. They argue that Biden is too cautious in both Europe and the Middle East; citing that Biden has technically cut defence spending by not increasing it to match inflation. Kroenig and Negrea endorse dramatically increasing defence spending to support Ukraine and prepare to defend Taiwan.
How do you see counterparts in Europe engaging with these ideas?
Kroenig and Negrea argue that another commonly held myth is that Trump was bad for alliances whilst Biden is good. They cite the example of Trump sanctioning the Nordsteam II pipeline with Russia due to dependence on Russian energy weakening European national security, whilst the Biden administration lifted these sanctions (before it was promptly destroyed in 2022). Secondly, Trump was clear that commitments on defence spending made by European countries should be respected (2% of national GDP).
They state that we should anticipate a 2nd Trump Administration to increase their demand for European countries to spend more on defence as Europe needs to be able to defend itself.
Evidence of how a tougher line with China in particular may impact the USA?
They state that the Biden administration has sought to ‘manage’ competition, whilst they believe that Americans sought not want to manage it but ‘end’ it. Kroenig cited that the Carthaginians were no longer at the Roman’s throats after they were defeated.
Detail depicting the Sack of Carthage (146BC). The Roman General Scipio Africanus famously destroyed and subjugated Carthage after their defeat in the 2nd Punic War, killing and enslaving hundreds of thousands of people. This ended a long and violent rivalry by cripling the Carthaginians to such an extent that they could never again pose a threat to Rome.
Kroenig argues that China is promoting green technology to dominate the field and weaken the USA. Furthermore, he states that Biden has committed to defending Tiawan but the USA doesn’t have the strength to defend the island, so Trump would increase defence spending whilst Biden has declined to do so.
They state that the only meaningful ally China has is Russia. China depends on Russia in their geostrategic objectives, they argue that Russia would not have engaged in its invasion of Ukraine without tacit support from China. They also cite that China and Russia support one another at the UN, and that the USA must be clear that China will pay a heavy price if it invades Taiwan.
How credible is Trump’s commitment to Article V?
They argue that as Trump didn’t pull out of NATO in his first term, so this shows he wont in his second. They cite the fact that Democrats and individuals who don’t want Trump to win push this message, making it unlikely it is the case. However, he still wants European allies to do more to spend on defence.
Kroenig stated that 2% of GDP spending is not enough to implement the Supreme Allied Commander’s plans for NATO. They state that Trump would not put boots on the ground in Ukraine, but America’s interests in Taiwan are greater than in Ukraine so it is likely that troops would be deployed there instead.