As commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces, Donald Trump will face many tests from abroad. Though the president-elect seems more concerned with the threat posed by non-state actors and terrorism, it will most likely be a foreign capital that imposes on Trump his first real crisis as president. It almost always is. Trump’s earliest tests are already coming into view, and they have the potential to become disasters if they are handled irrationally.
Recently, reporters have begun to notice a subtle shift in tone from the often-bellicose Trump when it comes to America’s bilateral relationship with China. Obama administration sources are warning North Korea’s rapidly modernizing nuclear potential and the regime’s misguided belief in its own material superiority could make for a confrontation early in the next president’s term. Trump will need China to deescalate this dangerous confrontation, but the prospects for cooperation are in doubt.
Donald Trump could, of course, choose to resolve the crisis on the Korean Peninsula unilaterally and with the use of military force. But ordering a preemptive strike on the DPRK’s nuclear capabilities would result in a broader regional war involving tens of thousands of American troops. The prudent course for the next president would be to contain the Korean regime, prohibit its efforts to support and finance terrorism abroad, and wait for the regime to implode. China’s support for that project has been less and less reluctant every year, but Beijing may demand a pound of flesh from the next president in exchange for its aid.
Already, China has received a great gift from Donald Trump in the form of his commitment to kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Already, America’s Pacific Rim partners like Australia and Peru are signaling they will seek a China-centric alternative trade agreement already in the works to replace the TPP, but that agreement will exclude the United States. China’s grand strategic objective is to push the United States out of the Pacific theater, and a North Korea crisis provides an opportunity to advance that objective. Analysts expect that China will demand that the United States withdraw an agreement with the South Korean government to provide Seoul with Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System anti-missile batteries (THAAD). China reportedly views the defensive ABM system as a destabilizing presence and a threat to its regional ambitions. For Trump, the path of least resistance may be to give in to China’s demands, but that would only catalyze a graver conflict further down the road.
Armed with high-minded ideals, the Obama administration, too, gave in to an aspiring regional hegemon that demanded the withdrawal of an allegedly provocative anti-missile system on its doorstep. The Obama White House’s decision to scrap a Bush-era deal to install radar and interceptor missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic to appease Russia had far-reaching consequences. Vexed by an aggressive and expansionist Russia, the Obama White House seems to be trying to convince Trump not to make their mistakes all over again. But Russia will test Trump just as it has tested every American president.
Barack Obama famously sought to provide the Russian President with “more flexibility” in his second term. That message was dutifully transmitted to Vladimir, who proceeded to invade and annex territory in Europe and intervene in a Syria, where he targeted the assets of NATO powers brazenly and discriminately. Barack Obama was nowhere near as deferential to Russian national interests as Donald Trump has been. Moscow will seek to assess exactly how much latitude this new friendly American president is inclined to provide them. That could result in an unparalleled disaster.
Russian forces have been conspicuously on the rise in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. NATO sources estimate that Russia has inserted 225,000 troops in the region, including paratroopers. Moscow’s recent decision to move short-range, nuclear-capable S-400 Iskandar missiles to the region has put Eastern Europe on alert. Retired four-star General Jack Keane recently voiced fears that this buildup is prelude to a provocation and the semi-occupation of territory in the Baltic States similar to that which led to the carving up of Ukraine.
Gambling that the U.S. president and Western capitals won’t go to war for their tiny Baltic allies, Putin may seek the rewards for kicking in the Atlantic Alliance’s door worth the risks. If a Baltic capital invoked the treaty’s mutual defense provisions and the Alliance did not respond, NATO would be effectively defunct. What if, however, Putin misjudges the will of the West to respond to an attack on their collective security? What if the incentive structures and institutional pressures Donald Trump faces as president compel him to abandon his misguided campaign trail rhetoric? A Baltic crisis could be a spectacularly misguided adventure with untold consequences. The world has marched reluctantly and eyes-wide-open into great cataclysms before.
These and other sobering trials await Donald Trump on the other side of January 20. Here’s hoping he is up for the job.
