Distracted superpower: To effectively confront Beijing, Washington needs to limit European, Middle East efforts

As much of the world stood ravaged by the horrors of the globe spanning the Second World War in 1945, the United States stood atop the global pantheon of powers unrivalled.

Buoyed by its status as the world’s sole nuclear power, along with the mightiest naval and air forces, responsible for three quarters of global industrial output, America sought to establish key international organs like the United Nations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Serving as the foundation of this new world order, these organisations, supported by robust international support, would seek to put an end to devastating conflict and lay the foundation for the post-war era that would become known as the “Pax Americana” or the American Peace.

While the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Bloc would come to challenge the US-led global order, it would do so largely within the confines of the international order established largely by the United States in the dying days of the Second World War.

The same can be said for the primarily European colonial powers, many of whom were spent forces in the aftermath of the war, which meant that the US, could, for all intents and purposes, unilaterally chart the course of global peace and stability into the 21st century.

This established the United States firmly in the position as the world’s “indispensable nation”, where it would – through a combination of its economic, political and strategic power – provide global peace and security to the benefit of all.

Today however, as the world has rapidly become an increasingly competitive and multipolar place, the United States is facing multiple concurrent conflicts and scenarios that are stretching the “indispensable nation” and its capacity to maintain stability across the globe.

VIEW ALL

In particular, the resurgence of Russian aggression in Europe, the ongoing conflict between Israel, Iran and its proxies, and finally, Beijing and Pyongyang’s increasing belligerence in the Indo-Pacific all have the potential to stretch the United States to breaking point, leaving allied nations like Australia dangerously exposed and hilariously unprepared for the multipolar world.

Highlighting this uncomfortable reality is Dr Carlton Haelig, Fellow with the Defense Program at the Center for a New American Security, in a piece for Breaking Defense titled, To focus on China, US needs to wean off Europe and Middle East missions in which he calls for a greater drawing down of American economic, political and strategic muscle to focus on the rising threat of China.

Haelig explained this, saying, “General Charles Flynn, the head of US Army Pacific, appeared at the Center for a New American Security with a clear warning: China’s build-up in land, air, and naval power has put it on an ‘accelerated path’ toward military superiority in the region...

“Concerns about China’s military capabilities are par for the course in national security circles these days, but Flynn’s direct comments serve as a good reminder that the PLA’s growth is not something just happening in hypothetical papers, but something the US military is seeing in real time.”

Confronting the reality of a ‘pacing channel’

Washington has increasingly come to the recognition that Beijing is, in itself, a “pacing challenge”, following years of quiet capability building subversive “grey zone” conflict and operations at home and across disparate parts of the globe in an effort to bring down the US-led global order.

In doing so, Beijing’s leadership has, in large part, sought to focus on the long-term, playing out a game of geopolitical Go against an adversary or series of adversaries seemingly struggling to play a game of Checkers, much less Go.

Haelig does lay this largely at the feet of America’s global responsibilities, saying, “The problem is that for all the talk about how China is the ‘pacing challenge’ and needs to be the main focus for Washington, the US is overstretched at this most critical juncture. The uncomfortable reality: To be able to focus on China, American commitments need to change abroad.”

In particular, the perennial global hotspot, the Middle East, has only gotten worse in recent years, particularly following the devastating 7 October attacks and has drawn in the United States, the United Kingdom, many across Europe and even some from the Indo-Pacific to secure critical sea lines of communication upon which the global economy depends.

True to form, the United States has largely borne much of the weight of this security operation, drawing extensive US military assets away from Europe and the Indo-Pacific to the detriment of these equally important regions.

Haelig identified the impacts of this resource suck, particularly on US naval assets, stating, “In the Middle East, the US Navy has steadily chipped away at its already limited inventory of missiles intended to protect its ships in a war with China. In May 2024, Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro reported that the US launched more than $1 billion in missiles during operations against the Houthis, consisting of nearly 100 SM-2 and SM-6 surface-to-air missiles.”

Unpacking this further, Dr Haelig added, “In October 2024, US Navy destroyers fired roughly one dozen of the Navy’s advanced SM-3 surface-to-air missiles in one night, intercepting Iranian ballistic missiles targeting Israel – and expending an entire year’s worth of production for the Navy’s top-flight missile defence interceptor. For years, experts have warned that the US Navy was not acquiring the missiles it needed to defend itself in the Indo-Pacific fast enough and now it is using them up at an alarming rate in a secondary theatre.”

This ultimately serves to have a dramatic impact on the largely maritime Indo-Pacific theatre in particular, and for regional allies like Australia, spells major challenges for their own military capability and highlights a sense of urgency around expanding our own industrial capability to meet our own requirements, let alone support allied operations in the region.

Shifting dial to the European theatre, America’s ongoing support for Ukraine’s war effort against Russia has seen vast volumes of munitions and combat equipment donated, not just by the US, but by NATO partners and nations like Australia, seeing the war stocks of these nations rapidly depleted.

Dr Haelig explained the impact of the ongoing Ukrainian conflict, saying, “In Europe, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has captured America’s attention for nearly three years, drawing the focus away from China at a crucial time. American military deployments to Europe continue to grow as Russian actions in Ukraine distract from China’s efforts to displace the United States as the guarantor of the prevailing international order.

“With the United States focused on the conflict in Ukraine, China has been emboldened to challenge American interests in the Indo-Pacific, raising questions about whether US support for Ukraine detracts from support for Taiwan and, more broadly, American efforts to secure a free and open Indo-Pacific.”

What this all adds up to is an inescapable reality that the United States, as it stands, is an “overstretched superpower” across every metric, with major fallout for allies like Australia which depend on the United States for its real and implied deterrence across the globe.

Haelig explained this further, saying, “If the United States remains overstretched, it will only further the ambitions of the so-called ‘Axis of Upheaval’... the loose coalition of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea intent on disrupting the American-led international order that has ensured economic, political, and security stability since the Second World War.”

Simply put, America can’t do it all any more

This uncomfortable reality should undoubtedly sound alarm bells across capitals in the Indo-Pacific and Europe, as US allies in these regions have become increasingly dependent upon the United States to largely provide their security.

As a result of the mounting challenges faced by China in particular, America will be required to scale back its contributions to security both in Europe and the Middle East – this would undoubtedly come as a shock to America’s regional allies.

Dr Haelig detailed this, saying, “In Europe, American military power and its extended nuclear deterrent must remain the bedrock of European security, but the US should continue pressing its NATO allies to invest in collective defence ... The US should push NATO to capitalise on these developments by expanding its Enhanced Forward Presence mission, ensuring that it can support frontline NATO battlegroups with the necessary reinforcements during a crisis, and continuing to support defence innovation in key areas among its member states.

“That would allow the US to draw down its presence in Europe, freeing up assets for use in the Pacific – the kind of movement that was underway before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

With eyes on the Middle East, Dr Haelig added, “In the Middle East, the US should reduce its commitment of high-end capabilities within the region and redeploy them to the Indo-Pacific region. The rapid expenditure of advanced munitions in the region is unsustainable. The US should take the lead in organising a multinational coalition of allies and partners to protect commercial shipping, allowing American military forces to take on a reduced role in the interception of Houthi missiles.”

Despite what would be a monumental shift in US foreign and strategic policy and would culminate in a major culture shock for many across both Europe and the Middle East, the redeployment of US tactical and strategic assets, along with the forward deployment and prepositioning of key war stocks is no guarantee of success in any potential conflict.

This is something that Australia, in particular, not only needs to confront and accept, but rapidly plan and respond to lest we find ourselves facing a region where our primary ally has been dealt a devastating blow on the field and we have to carry on a fight on our own in large part, with minimal support from the US, at least for a protracted period of time.

Ultimately, this will require Australian leadership, planning and development to mobilise our population, our industrial base (what little of it remains) to rebuild our capacity to stand against adversaries who seek to undermine and challenge our way of life.

Final thoughts

Australia’s uncomfortable reality has always been dominated by its need to balance its position as a “loyal deputy”, whether to the British Empire or, more recently, with the United States, with its own national interests in remaining and maintaining its role and capacity as an “anchor nation” to maintain the regional balance of power and stability.

Regardless of whether we are in a “pre-war” or traditional “Cold War” environment, it is clear that successive generations of Australian leaders have let the country down, too entranced and seduced by the promise of “Peace Dividends” and the “End of History” to recognise the cold reality of the world, particularly developing concurrently with the “Clash of Civilisations” during the Global War on Terror.

Equally, many an academic, strategic thinker, and policymaker were seduced by the march of hyper-globalisation and the ultimate triumph of liberal democratic values that either naively overlooked the importance of historical context, religion, ethnic loyalty and rivalry and ideology that has left Australia dangerously exposed and unprepared for the challenges we now face.

As I have said many times before, it isn’t too late if we pivot now and accept the reality of the world and the region as it is, rather than how we would wish it to be, or as the US Marines say, “embrace the suck”.

Responding to the challenges arrayed won’t be easy and it will require the whole-of-nation effort to put its shoulder behind the effort, but if we can engage the Australian public and industry early and bring them along, I promise it will be worth it in the long run.

Because if we don’t, when it comes to paying the bill, the cost will be too devastating to comprehend.

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..