Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • Israel-Hamas
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
    • North Korea
  • Research
    • Briefs
    • Explainers
    • Reports
  • Programs
    • Grand Strategy Program
    • Military Analysis Program
    • Asia Program
    • Middle East Program
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Media
  • About
    • Mission & Vision
    • People
    • Jobs
    • Contact
  • Donate
Select Page
Home / China / Dropping the Cold War Framework in U.S.-China Competition
China, Asia

April 9, 2024

Dropping the Cold War Framework in U.S.-China Competition

By Sabreena Croteau

Rhetoric around U.S.-China relations in the past few years has frequently been framed as an unavoidable “New Cold War,” pitting the U.S. and its allies as the “democratic bloc” vs a China-led “autocratic bloc,” with Russia playing a supporting role for the latter.

However, it’s a term and a framework that both U.S. rhetoric and policy need to turn away from, as the Cold War is a poor point of comparison for today’s great power competition between the U.S. and China. Even the lowercase “cold war” understanding of bilateral competition will continue to be overshadowed by capitalized Cold War ghosts, especially considering that the term was coined to describe U.S.-Soviet relations specifically.  If U.S. policymakers are trapped in an ill-fitting framework of historical memory, they will be more likely to recycle Cold War strategies, regardless of whether those strategies are the most effective means of promoting U.S. interests in the face of a rising China.

In the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union existed in almost entirely separate economic blocs, with little trade between them and certainly no economic interdependence. This left the two superpowers to focus their competition on military power and global spheres of influence. The U.S.-China situation looks very different, with a massive amount of economic interdependence between the two, despite efforts toward “decoupling.” Aggressive military posturing will therefore have very different consequences in this new era of competition. In attempting to hurt one another economically, the U.S. and China ultimately face mutually assured economic destruction and both regimes should be proceeding with more caution.

Read at RealClearWorld

Author

Photo of Sabreena Croteau

Sabreena
Croteau

Research Fellow

Defense Priorities

More on Asia

op-edAsia

The Trump administration cools off India-Pakistan conflict — for now

By Daniel DePetris

May 13, 2025

op-edChina, Air power, Asia, Balance of power, Global posture, Land power, Naval power, Taiwan

China tariffs deal could backfire on Trump

By Jennifer Kavanagh

May 12, 2025

op-edAsia, Air power, Nuclear weapons

Will India or Pakistan resort to the nuclear option?

By Rajan Menon

May 8, 2025

op-edGrand strategy, Air power, Asia, Balance of power, Global posture, Land power, Naval power

The Pentagon Is Ignoring Its Own Strategy

By Jennifer Kavanagh

May 7, 2025

ExplainerMiddle East, China, Europe and Eurasia

China can’t dominate the Middle East

By Rosemary Kelanic

May 5, 2025

In the mediaChina, Asia, Taiwan

Trump fires national security adviser, signaling new China line

Featuring Jennifer Kavanagh

May 2, 2025

Events on China

See All Events
virtualChina, Alliances, Balance of power, Diplomacy, Grand strategy, Russia

Past Virtual Event: China-Russia: Cooperation or a no-limits alliance?

April 3, 2025
virtualAsia, Basing and force posture, Burden sharing, China, Grand strategy

Past Virtual Event: Rethinking U.S. strategy in East Asia: do more bases mean more deterrence?

January 24, 2024
virtualChina, Asia, Grand strategy

Past Virtual Event: Rocks, reefs, and resolve? Examining the purpose of U.S. policy in the South China Sea

December 12, 2023

Receive expert foreign policy analysis

Join the hub of realism and restraint

Expert updates and analysis to enhance your understanding of vital U.S. national security issues

Defense Priority Mono Logo

Our mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.

  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2025 Defense Priorities All Right Reserved