With the rejection of the proposed Treaty between the US and Russia on Security Guarantees and agreement on Measures to Ensure the Security of Russia and the Member States of NATO, both of which were sent by Russia as ultimatums in December 2021, US “arrogance” finally led to the European security crisis, writes Sung-Hoon Jeh, Head of the Department of Russian Studies at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (HUFS)
Since the start of Russia’s Special Military Operation, tensions have been rising in East Asia. While the trilateral alliance of South Korea, the US and Japan, built around the US commitment to extended deterrence, is strengthening, Sino-Russian and North Korean-Russian relations are growing closer, and North Korea is increasing its military capabilities by developing missiles and reconnaissance satellites as well as upgrading its nuclear arsenal. US-China tension over the Taiwan Strait is intensifying, and the possibility of an armed conflict between North and South Korea on the Korean Peninsula is growing.
European security crisis caused by US “arrogance”The hegemonic post-Cold War US strategy of NATO expansion and Russia’s hegemonic strategy of pursuing the integration of the post-Soviet region eventually collided in Ukraine, which is both part of Europe and part of the post-Soviet region, leading to the European security crisis. Geopolitically, Washington’s global hegemony depends on the US maintaining its presence in Europe. For this reason, the US expanded and developed NATO, a mechanism for intervening in European security, during the post-Cold War era.
The inextricability of East Asian security crisis from the European security crisis
The European security crisis is inextricably linked to the East Asian security crisis in two ways. First, the European security crisis is itself a product of the changing world order. The European security crisis is essentially a result of the transition from the US-led “unipolar order” to a “multipolar order” in which states with strategic autonomy can come together to co-operate or conflict on a case-by-case basis. As the US is no longer able to monopolise hegemony, autonomous behaviour by states outside of US control has been activated in East Asia. China is asserting its core interests in line with its economic and military power, and North Korea is consolidating its status as an unofficial nuclear-weapon state, no longer expecting a “big deal” with the US
Second, the US and Russia, both key players in European security, have interests in East Asia. As Zbigniew Brzezinski noted earlier, Washington’s traditional Eurasian strategy is to maintain a “bridgehead” in Europe and an “anchor” in East Asia, which is why the US maintained NATO in Europe and the US-ROK and US-Japan alliances in East Asia during the post-Cold War era. Not only did the US create AUKUS in September 2021 with the participation of the United Kingdom, a European country, to keep China in check, but since the start of Russia’s Special Military Operation, the US has been attempting to link the Euro-Atlantic alliance with the Indo-Pacific alliance by holding leaders’ meetings of the four Asia-Pacific partners (AP4) and the South Korea-US-Japan Summit on the sidelines of the NATO Summit.
Russia maintains a friendly and co-operative relationship with China, while strengthening its ties with North Korea. Indeed, it would not be possible for Russia to mobilise a large number of troops, weapons and equipment for its Special Military Operation without its “friendship without boundaries and cooperation without forbidden areas” with China, with which it shares a long border. In addition, as Russia reassesses the strategic value of North Korea, it is strengthening its ties with Pyongyang to distract Washington at the global level, to counter its alignments with Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific groupings in East Asia, and to check South Korea’s support for Ukraine on the Korean Peninsula.
Logic of “peace through force” as an article of faith
While the European security crisis is inextricably linked to the East Asian security crisis, the resolution of the European security crisis will not necessarily lead to the resolution of the East Asian security crisis. The East Asian security crisis is set against the backdrop of more than 70 years of military confrontation between North and South Korea, and its legacy of exclusive alliances, as well as the competition between a declining hegemonic power and a rising challenger. Moreover, the deep-rooted nationalism of East Asian countries has made any idea of a common security architecture for the region unrealistic. As such, the crisis is simultaneously old and new. In East Asia, the logic of “peace through trust” is increasingly seen as a delusion, and the logic of “peace through force” is becoming an article of faith.
