Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
    • Israel-Iran
  • 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

Contributing Fellow

Defense Priorities

More on Asia

In the mediaAsia, Balance of power, Grand strategy

ASEAN’s crisis of relevance: Why Southeast Asia’s premier bloc is struggling to stay afloat

Featuring Lyle Goldstein

August 10, 2025

ReportChina, Asia, Nuclear weapons, Taiwan

On limited nuclear use in the Western Pacific

By Mike Sweeney

August 6, 2025

In the mediaAsia, Air power, Military analysis, Naval power

U.S. to deploy new, shorter-range missile system for Japan drill

Featuring Dan Caldwell

August 5, 2025

op-edTaiwan, Asia, China

Is Trump pulling back from Taiwan?

By Lyle Goldstein

August 3, 2025

op-edChina, Asia

Trump takes step back from Philippines in South China Sea

By Lyle Goldstein

August 2, 2025

ExplainerNATO, Asia, China, Russia

Keep NATO focused on Europe, not China

By Thomas P. Cavanna

July 24, 2025

Events on China

See All Events
virtualGreat power competition, Balance of power, China, Grand strategy, Middle East

Past Virtual Event: U.S.-China competition and the value of Middle East influence

June 10, 2025
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

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