With global politics in flux, authoritarian leaders are concluding that armed conflicts can be prosecuted without consequences.
Chinese soldiers during a drill (hot wars)
A command terminal operator gives a quick order during a live-fire tactical drill in Jiuquan, Gansu province, China, on June 20, 2024. As tensions rise between the democratic and autocratic blocs, so does the risk of armed conflict. © Getty Images
×
In a nutshell
Democratic countries have made mistakes in dealing with authoritarianism
The Trump administration has altered the global geopolitical balance
China will consider these shifts when deciding whether to invade Taiwan
When the 16th BRICS summit convened in Kazan, Russia, in October 2024, many sympathizers of authoritarianism declared that the Western-dominated international order was crumbling, and a so-called “new order” was emerging. At the time, liberal democracies did not take these claims seriously and even ridiculed them.
However, several months later, the return of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States has necessitated a partial acknowledgment that this shift has indeed become a reality. This marks a U-shaped trajectory in history. Whereas in 1989, President Ronald Reagan played a central role in defeating the Soviet Union, today, President Trump appears to be aiding President Vladimir Putin in reviving the vision of a Soviet-style empire.
For many years, the term “second Cold War” was used to describe the post-Soviet tensions between democracies and totalitarian regimes. However, these conflicts have now escalated beyond mere standoffs. Authoritarian leaders manifest their will not through rhetoric and deterrence, but through violence. The conflict in Ukraine is heralding a new era of armed conflict between the two blocs.
The complacency of democratic elites
The 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union marked a sea change that many political scientists did not expect. The political blocs that were supposed to confront and compete with the democratic camp were suddenly rendered insignificant. Democratic elites began to place excessive faith in their own political ideologies. Francis Fukuyama’s 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man, suggested that the end of the Cold War might signify the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.
While democracies celebrated their apparent triumph, they overlooked the complexities and hardships involved in transitioning from a state-controlled economy to a market system – a process that was neither as smooth nor as straightforward as many Western scholars had predicted. This oversight led to the hardships experienced in Russia during the 1990s under President Boris Yeltsin.
During this time, the concepts of “democracy” and “market economy” became tarnished, increasingly associated in the minds of the Russian people with those who used their positions to amass wealth in greedy and ruthless ways. Consequently, the painful and chaotic transition fostered a desire for strong leadership over democratic governance among the populace. It was in this context of disillusionment and longing for stability that Vladimir Putin was chosen as Yeltsin’s successor.
The impact of the West’s efforts in globalizing democracies
The prevailing belief among democratic elites at the time was that the world had become “flat,” meaning capital was now more mobile across global borders. This mobility was thought to foster the spread of democracy, due to the perceived symbiotic relationship between democratic governance and contemporary capitalism.
As a result, various transition theories emerged. Many proponents argued that the flow of capital and the spread of technology – key aspects of globalization driven by the market economy – were pathways for countries to transition from poverty to affluence and to foster a burgeoning middle class. Furthermore, it was believed that authoritarian countries open to Western capital and technology would eventually transform into liberal democracies.
Barack Obama and Xi Jinping
President Barack Obama (left) watches as Chinese President Xi Jinping speaks at the opening ceremony of the G20 Summit on Sep. 4, 2016 in Hangzhou, China. The Obama years coincided with a strategic opening to integrate China into democratic alliances, but that window of opportunity has long since closed.
Around the year 2000, this idea had become a consensus among Western leaders, and it significantly influenced their decision to strongly advocate for China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). China’s authoritarian leaders skillfully capitalized on these Western expectations. They navigated the approval process for WTO membership with promises of reform and openness that they did not truly intend to fulfill, effectively exploiting this strategic opportunity to their advantage.
The flow of capital and technology has indeed provided Western consumers, particularly the working class, with superficial benefits such as a seemingly lower cost of living. However, this has also endangered their positions in the global economic landscape. Their employers were relocating jobs to countries like China, where costs are lower and the demand for products is high, yet the level of technical skill remains competitive.
So-called developed Western countries have experienced a slow hollowing out of their industries, with diminishing leverage for democracies to use capital as a tool to influence other countries. In contrast, countries like China are increasingly adopting advanced technologies and becoming more manufacturing-savvy. This shift is part of what makes slogans like President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” appealing to so many.
Over a decade ago, democratic leaders failed to recognize the risks associated with these economic developments. They clung to the dream of transforming authoritarian regimes into more democratic systems. Under the sway of this optimism, governments and investors often overlooked or ignored China’s use of questionable methods to acquire Western technology. As time passed, Western investors became increasingly accustomed to Beijing’s authoritarian approach, while the Western politicians remained complacent. This oversight has had lasting implications on the global stage.
Obama’s miscalculation
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ascent to power in 2013 represented a crucial moment in the resurgence of global authoritarianism. This development might have been preventable; however, democratic elites, still influenced by Mr. Fukuyama’s ideology, clung to their optimistic visions and underestimated the Chinese leader’s ambitions.
President Xi aims to position China as the world’s preeminent power while ensuring that the nation’s communist ideology remains unaltered under his rule. He has also made it clear that resolving the Taiwan issue is a top priority of his presidency. Recognizing that achieving these objectives would require more time than the unofficial 10-year term limit set by Deng Xiaoping for top leaders, Mr. Xi pushed for constitutional amendments that would allow him to extend his leadership beyond the traditional limit, thereby securing the time he believed necessary to fulfill his long-term goals.
When President Xi assumed power in 2013, he was determined that China should continue to leverage the technological and investment generosity of the U.S. and Europe. He focused particularly on cultivating relationships with leaders from the world’s most developed nations. Even before his presidency, in 2012, he was advocating for what he termed a “new type of great power relationship” with the U.S. This strategy aimed at collaborating with Washington to transform China into the world’s largest economy and a leading industrial innovator, utilizing Western technology and, to some extent, management practices.
President Xi’s approach reflected the prevailing views among China’s intellectual elite, who considered Russia’s economy to be relatively backward and not a suitable model for China. In contrast, America’s technological prowess and sophisticated management techniques were seen as crucial to China’s advancement.
The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama (2009-2017) was not receptive to President Xi’s push for a “new type of great power relations.” Contrary to Mr. Xi’s expectations, democratic elites maintained a belief that the world’s capital and technological superiority were firmly entrenched within democratic nations. They perceived authoritarian countries like China as dependent and subordinate, still reliant on the West for advancement in technology and economic development.
The Obama administration missed an opportunity to leverage President Xi’s 2012 “new type of great power relations” initiative to both curtail China’s free-riding on sensitive technologies and guide the country toward a form of peaceful coexistence with the democratic world. Unfortunately, the U.S. did not capitalize on the Chinese leader’s appeal.
Washington’s dismissiveness led to considerable frustration for President Xi, prompting him to seek alternative alliances. Despite initial reservations, the Chinese leader sought to strengthen ties with Russia under President Vladimir Putin. This marked a definitive shift in China’s strategic partnerships, positioning Russia as a key ally, contrary to the earlier apprehensions of Chinese advisors.
The accidental Sino-Russo alliance
President Xi’s first visit to President Putin in Russia in 2013 signaled a reintegration of the global authoritarian camp. Both men quickly established a strong rapport. This partnership was further solidified by the geopolitical developments following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
More by Junhua Zhang
The conflict in Ukraine compelled President Putin to drop his last reservations about a full-scale alliance with China. To secure the success of his military objectives in Ukraine, he opened Russia’s markets fully to China, allowing Chinese participation in resource development. In return, President Xi has provided comprehensive robust support to Russia during the conflict. This support has not been limited to economic aid; it extends to significant contributions in the military industry and trade sectors. This collaboration has proved pivotal, as Russia’s military efforts in Ukraine would likely have faltered without China’s backing. The Russian military industry has now emerged as a formidable force, potentially surpassing the combined capabilities of European countries.
×
Scenarios
Likely: America’s foreign policy reversal emboldens Beijing to invade Taiwan
Post-2022, the authoritarian bloc, led by Moscow and Beijing, has become robust enough to engage directly with democracies in a “hot war” that continues to unfold. Russia, with its vast reserves of natural gas, oil and rare resources, combined with China, which hosts the largest manufacturing sector in the world and has effectively assimilated Western technology, presents a formidable challenge unlike any the West faced during the Cold War era with the Soviet Union.
In this evolving geopolitical landscape, President Trump’s return to the White House has marked a significant shift for the U.S. Historically the leader of the democratic world, the U.S. has now distanced itself from nearly all of its alliances. Recent developments, such as those witnessed at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year, have exacerbated tensions between the U.S. and Europe, pushing the relationship to a new low. This shift places the U.S. in an almost adversarial position relative to the traditional democratic camp, in a dramatic reversal in its foreign policy stance.
The conflict in Ukraine might conclude this year under President Trump’s influence, but it appears that President Putin will emerge as the ultimate victor. Several Russian demands have been seemingly accepted by the U.S., which was once Ukraine’s staunchest ally. The Trump administration is actively working to rehabilitate Russia’s international standing, with upcoming collaborations, such as in the Arctic Ocean. Additionally, the U.S. could unilaterally lift its sanctions against Russia, effectively rendering sanctions by European countries and others unenforceable.
President Trump’s return to power starkly challenges a narrative long upheld by democratic elites. Meanwhile, China is using the situation in Ukraine to caution Taiwan against a similar fate, using the Ukrainian crisis as a warning and leveraging it for geopolitical intimidation.
This situation not only facilitates Russia’s reintegration into the global economy but also indirectly sets the groundwork for President Xi to potentially take military action against Taiwan. Reports from The Economist suggest that Beijing, under President Xi’s leadership, has already secured the endorsement of around 70 countries for a possible forceful takeover of Taiwan.
The trajectory of China’s actions toward Taiwan will hinge on President Xi’s strategic assessment of global and regional politics. If he perceives that circumstances are aligned in China’s favor, he may decide to act decisively against Taiwan. With perceived time constraints, this decision-making process could accelerate.
Also likely: A new fragmented world order endures for the next decades
The formation of a formidable authoritarian bloc led by Russia and China, and bolstered by nations like Iran and North Korea, was not an inevitable outcome. Instead, it was significantly aided by the arrogance of democratic elites, who clung to unrealistic and stubborn visions of the future. These misjudgments facilitated the unexpected alliance between Russia and China. Furthermore, the Trump administration has contributed to this dynamic by polarizing the democratic camp, thereby easing the path for authoritarian regimes to engage in more direct confrontations with democratic nations and pursue divide-and-conquer strategies.
The repercussions of these developments are profound and likely to endure. Repairing the rifts and reversing the damage could span generations, making this era a particularly challenging period for the democratic world, especially under the leadership of President Trump.
Contact us today for tailored geopolitical insights and industry-specific advisory services.
Sign up for our newsletter
Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.