<< Dallas TX, MAY 12 2025 >> NATO: Victory in Asia by Way of Europe Part I - Grand Strategic Objectives This series of articles declares that China is the main global competitor to the United States. It also makes the case that NATO is still very relevant in this competition with China. These articles will look at how NATO in its current form is dysfunctional. But a "Refactored" NATO may be the key to victory against China. So we first declare clearly and unambiguously, that China is the main threat to USA interests, now and in the foreseeable future. Stopping the rise of China is the Grand Strategic Imperative of our time. The ONLY way we can divert the necessary amount of resources to stop China, is by securing our eastern flank (Europe). This MUST be done is a cost efficient manor. What is Strategy Anyway ?? People throw around words like strategy, tactics, logistics, etc all the time but often really don't know what they mean. So we are going take a quick detour to make sure we define these concepts, and how they interact. A. Grand Strategy Definition: Grand strategy is the highest-level plan that aligns all national or organizational resources—military, economic, diplomatic, and cultural—toward achieving long-term, overarching goals. Scope: National or global level Long-term (decades or more) Uses all instruments of power (not just military) Example: During the Cold War, the US grand strategy of containment aimed to limit the spread of communism globally through military alliances (e.g., NATO), economic aid (e.g., the Marshall Plan), and ideological promotion of democracy. B. Strategy Definition: Strategy is the mid-level plan for how to use specific resources (often within a particular domain, like military or business or region) to achieve broader goals set by the grand strategy. Scope: Campaign or theater level Medium-term (months to years) Domain-specific (military, political, corporate, etc.) There are often multiple strategies to support the Grand Strategy. Example: In World War II, the Allied strategy in Europe was to defeat Germany first through a two-front war—Western Allies pushing from the west, Soviets from the east. C. Tactics Definition: Tactics are the lowest-level actions taken on the ground—specific maneuvers or operations carried out to win battles or achieve short-term objectives that support a strategy. Scope: Local or battlefield level Short-term (hours to weeks) Focused on execution and engagement Example: Using flanking maneuvers to defeat an enemy position in a specific battle during WWII is a tactical decision. How are these Concepts Related and Subordinated ?? Grand Strategy sets the direction ("What do we want to achieve long-term?"). Strategies define the paths ("How will we achieve that goal using our resources?"). Tactics handle the details ("What specific actions will we take on the ground?"). This series of articles will concentrate on the strategies (Military, Economic, Political) to check Russia to support the Grand Strategy of stopping China's bid for Global Dominance. Our basic premise is that cost efficient securing our eastern flank (NATO) allows for the re allocation of resources to the Pacific Theater to confront China. We assert that "Victory in Asia Starts in Europe". This will be achieved by "Re Factoring NATO" into a more lean, focused, mobile, and European organization. We will also spend some time on the tactical adjustments to implement this new NATO strategy. So here we go ! The Grand Strategic Objective - Stop Chinese Global Dominance China represents the most significant strategic adversary to the United States, and the long-term objective of U.S. policy should be the eventual defeat of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Historically, China has alternated between periods of internal consolidation and external expansion; under Xi Jinping’s leadership, it has entered an expansionist phase. Several factors show the growing threat the People’s Republic of China poses. First, its vast population provides the CCP with a deep pool of manpower to support sustained military ambitions. Secondly, China commands the world’s second-largest economy, far surpassing the Russian Federation's, granting it considerable financial and industrial capacity. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Beijing uses this economic policy to leverage economic power to extend its global geopolitical influence. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, “New Silk Road, is one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects ever conceived.” Thirdly, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) fields the world’s largest standing military, with approximately two million active-duty personnel. Additionally, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) now operates the largest naval fleet by vessel count, reflecting China’s growing maritime ambitions and its pursuit of regional dominance in the western Pacific. China has used this new naval strength to intimidate neighboring countries involved in maritime and territorial disputes. In particular, Beijing’s actions in the South China Sea have drawn widespread condemnation. The Chinese government has asserted sweeping claims in the region through the so-called nine-dash line and has constructed military installations on artificial islands. According to the U.S. Department of State, "the impact of PRC militarization is most acutely felt in the South China Sea, where the PRC built several bases despite President Xi’s unambiguous promise in 2015 to not militarize the Spratly Islands." These aggressive actions by China have increased tensions in the region. Sino-American and Russo-American relations are deteriorating, which is leading China and Russia to strengthen their ties and pursue a deeper strategic cooperation. Russia possesses natural resources, such as oil, gas, and critical minerals, which China needs to sustain its industrial and military ambitions. In turn, China has more industrial capacity to produce Soviet- and Russian-era military hardware, supplying Moscow with much-needed materiel as it faces Western sanctions, supply chain challenges, and the ongoing war in Ukraine. Together, their partnership could help insulate both powers from economic blockades imposed by American allies in the Pacific, as well as NATO forces operating in the Mediterranean, Baltic, and North Seas. However, while their interests currently align, this does not necessarily show a deep or lasting friendship. Their relationship remains largely transactional, rooted in mutual strategic needs rather than ideological alignment or historical trust. As former British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston once remarked, “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” This insight aptly describes the current dynamic between Beijing and Moscow. Despite past tensions—notably the Sino-Soviet split during the Cold War—the two nations now see the United States as a common geopolitical rival. Their growing alignment reflects a shared desire to counterbalance Western influence and reassert control over what each perceives as their historical sphere of influence. Over time, what begins as a transactional, neutral partnership may evolve into a more coordinated, self-interest-driven alliance. The United States needs to neutralize the Russian Federation, which remains a threat and should remain the second-highest priority for U.S. national security strategy on the Russian Federation. An active defensive posture in Europe and possible clandestine operations should be the central focus of U.S. and NATO strategic policy toward Russia. We should avoid any operations that could escalate tensions into an active theater of war. NATO should refrain from offensive operations or conventional incursions in or near Russian territory, as such actions could provoke direct conflict. Instead, NATO members—particularly those in Eastern Europe—should strengthen their defensive capabilities. This active defensive posture supports the broader U.S. objective of denying Russian influence over Europe’s periphery while avoiding actions that could trigger direct confrontation. The U.S. must maintain a high state of readiness, ensuring the ability to rapidly deploy forces to mainland Europe if needed. This posture will reinforce NATO's collective defense commitment and help deter Russian aggression. Additionally, European NATO members must uphold their defense spending commitments, ensuring that each contributes at least two percent of GDP to defense. A Heritage Foundation Report by Miles Pollard and Jordan Embree stated, “The majority of NATO members finally reached the threshold in 2024, NATO members over the past decade averaged only 1.59 percent.” For those members who have not met the minimum commitment threshold, it is imperative to step up their military modernization efforts, ensuring their forces are robust enough to defend against potential Russian aggression from the East. According to NATO, “ NATO Allies have also agreed that at least 20% of defense expenditure should be devoted to major new equipment.” According to the Secretary General Annual Report 2024, “ NATO Allies in Europe and Canada invested a total of USD 486 billion in defense, a 19.4% increase in real terms from 2023.” What you can buy with this 486 billion will be delved deeper into in a later section. While the United States plays a crucial role in ensuring European security, the reliance on "Pax Americana" has diminished the fighting spirit of Western European nations. From a European perspective, the question arises: Why invest heavily in defense when the U.S. spends large amounts of money defending Europe? The reality, however, is that the U.S. does not face the same direct threat of land invasion from Russia, nor does the Russian Federation hold the same power it did under the Soviet Union. The Europeans—particularly those in Eastern Europe—face the actual danger of Russian aggression. Nations in this region, having experienced the hardships and brutality of totalitarian regimes, which has reinforced their commitment to safeguarding their sovereignty and defending democratic ideals. Their understanding of the threat posed by Russia is rooted in their historical experiences, and their resolve to invest in defense reflects a steadfast commitment to a defensive posture. Poland is an excellent example of this defensive commitment. According to Michał Oleksiejuk in the NATO Review, “Warsaw has increased its defence spending from 2.7% of GDP in 2022 to 4.2% in 2024, and this is projected to rise to 4.7% in 2025”. In contrast, while still vulnerable, Western European nations may not share the same urgency in defense spending. This shows the importance of a collective NATO effort, with each member contributing equitably to the alliance's defense and security priorities. In addition to a robust military posture, U.S.A strategies for countering Russia must involve the political and economic domains. Short Summary As a strategic imperative, the United States must adopt a grand strategy that places China as its primary strategic competitor, while treating Russia as a secondary—but still dangerous—adversary. The growing yet transactional partnership between Beijing and Moscow demands a calibrated response that avoids direct confrontation but undermines their ability to project power. Weakening Russia through covert means and reinforcing NATO’s defensive posture, particularly along its eastern flank, this will not only help contain Moscow but also put pressure on China. Ultimately, sustained American leadership and a reinvigorated and equitable NATO alliance are essential to counter Russia and China, which will help preserve U.S. interests in the decades ahead. In Part II, we will itemize these Counter-Russian strategies (Military,Political,Economic and Covert). We will then describe them in Detail. In Part III we will itemize the specific tactics that will implement the Counter Russian strategies. Lets Roll ! Citation page McBride, James, et al. “China’s Massive Belt and Road Initiative.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative. Accessed 14 May 2025. Pollard, Miles. “NATO’s Underspending Problem: America’s Allies Must Embrace Fair Burden Sharing.” The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org/defense/report/natos-underspending-problem-americas-allies-must-embrace-fair-burden-sharing. Accessed 14 May 2025. “Secretary General Annual Report 2024.” North Atlantic Treaty Organization , May 2024. U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, 2017-2021.state.gov/chinas-military-aggression-in-the-indo-pacific-region/. Accessed 14 May 2025. Oleksiejuk, Michal. “Sharing the Burden: How Poland and Germany Are Shifting the Dial on European Defence Expenditure.” NATO Review, Nato Review, 14 Apr. 2025, www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2025/04/14/sharing-the-burden-how-poland-and-germany-are-shifting-the-dial-on-european-defence-expenditure/index.html.