Future of the European Union

[spmetla]

Russia and China are most successful through asymmetric warfare and aggressive diplomacy and mercantilism. No amount of defense spending alone is going to deter these actions, because Russia and China (mostly China) know we're not going to risk pre-emptive war over their incremental strategies. You need soft power to contain them; else they'll recruit enough auxiliaries to contain us.

Their methods of warfare can be countered but don't think for a second that they don't have substantial conventional capabilities as well. The collective lesson of Desert Storm to Russia and China were the marked advantage that quality currently has over quantity and hence their upgrades from massive armor/mechanized formations of medium quality (Russia) and massive infantry formations (PRC) to much more independent and qualitative formations.

The asymmetric warfare aspect however isn't new, it's essentially the same "Revolutionary Warfare" that the French encountered in Indochina and Algeria, that the US fought in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the British in Malaya, Northern Ireland, and Iraq.

To counter what the Russians have done in Ukraine and what the Chinese are currently doing in the South China Sea would require the US to engage more in propping up regional militias like Vietnam is currently doing.
Vietnam's Fishing ‘Militia’ to Defend Maritime Claims Against China
https://www.voanews.com/a/vietnam-fo...a/4335312.html
To counter the constant cyber attacks should take a concerted and centralized US/NATO response to standardize and upgrade systems, as well as find a suitable countermeasure and response to ensure that such attacks can't go unanswered anymore.

The biggest thing the US and NATO need to figure out is 'messaging' or "propaganda" in selling what we're doing. We have trouble even convincing our own populations to support even standard peace time operations such as the Baltic Air Patrols and the relevancy of NATO, how can we possibly convince our allies or local civilians in any conflict. While it's good to know that the US hasn't been good at propaganda since WW2 it certainly doesn't help us be "The Good Guys" that we want to be when the chief competitors are the ones succeeding at putting their messages and themes out.

There's a discussion for the precise sorts of hard power we most need to support the soft power, but revamping and accumulating conventional force is actually irrelevant in the long-term unless we can collectively sort out our vision for the world.

If nothing else it's a deterrent, Britain hasn't had to have another Falklands War since Argentina has seen that those islands will be contested. France's remaining colonial possessions and ties with it's close African allies have been maintained by a credible and timely use of force.
In Côte d'Ivoire, a Model of Successful Intervention
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ention/240164/
Operation Serval Another Beau Geste of France in Sub-Saharan Africa?
http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Porta...231_art014.pdf

The above cases are of course not at all directed toward a peer competitor such as Russia or China but given their gradual escalation in getting their way on the world stage over the last 15 years I personally believe it's building toward a short sharp conflict over something like Taiwan, North Korea, or the Ukraine in which they will try to give us a bloody nose and then open talks. Given the current apathy/dislike in the US and Western Europe toward Russia, the PRC, and most importantly the roles of the US and NATO in the world it'd be easy to see the PRC or Russians make such a calculated gamble that would be short of an all out war but at the same time demonstrate that the US is no longer a Superpower capable of contesting a Regional Power and thereby undermine any remaining confidence in our resolve to support friends and allies (think Suez in 1956 or South Vietnam in 1975).
With cold war tensions gone and mutual annihilation off the table (in the public's mind) the threat of a limited war with a Regional Power is actually more likely than before.

Let me emphasize: you're never going to have the opportunity to wield shiny toys, because the adversary won't let you choose those those terms of contest.

The adversaries have those same 'shiny toys' and if they gain a qualitative edge of significance they will likely demonstrate it. Until then they'll use Revolutionary Warfare with "polite people" in crimea and patriotic fishermen in the South China Sea and off the Senkaku Islands to ensure that if/when we need to defend ourselves it will initially be portrayed as us attacking civilians without cause.