Panel
Global Risk
Milken InstituteJim Brooks, General Wesley Clark, Ambassador Hussein Haqqani, Ambassador Paul Wolfowitz
- General Wesley Clark characterizes the situation in Ukraine as a sophisticated, pre-planned Russian military operation aimed at seizing Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, and Southern Ukraine to reconnect economically vital territories and secure military industrial complexes.
- The plan allegedly involves the use of disinformation, Russian special forces, and infiltrated advisors to create chaos, with the goal of presenting Russian troops as "peacekeepers" under UN or humanitarian auspices to seize territory where ethnic Russians are a minority.
- Clark observed that contrary to Western intelligence assessments, the Ukrainian interim government and citizens possess a "stomach for a fight" and have military experience from serving with U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Clark identifies a specific strategic sequence: a Russian brigade in Moldova attacking toward Crimea, forces from Eastern Ukraine moving inward, and Russian troops positioning in Belarus to encircle and isolate Kiev.
- Clark warns that the U.S. lacks a defense treaty with Ukraine but faces a global dilemma where inaction is interpreted as a sign of weakness by China, allies in the Pacific, and adversaries in the Middle East.
- Ambassador Paul Wolfowitz argues that the U.S. has a binding obligation under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and subsequent agreements (reaffirmed in 2009) to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity, noting that Ukraine relinquished nuclear weapons and a naval base in Crimea in exchange for these security guarantees.
- Wolfowitz contends that Russian intervention based on the protection of ethnic minorities sets a dangerous precedent that could destabilize the Baltic states and the broader European security order.
- He suggests the U.S. must signal resolve by arming decent opposition forces in Syria, a move he believes would be a powerful deterrent against further Russian aggression in Ukraine.
- Wolfowitz draws a historical parallel to the 1914 consensus that economic interdependence would prevent war, warning that ignoring geopolitical realities could lead to a conflagration analogous to World War I or the post-Vietnam/British withdrawal chaos of the 1970s Middle East.
- He emphasizes that U.S. leadership is required to prevent a shift toward a new "hundred years war" driven by sectarian divides between Sunnis and Shias, which threatens regions from West Africa to Southeast Asia.
- Ambassador Hussein Haqqani highlights a growing perception among non-Western allies and adversaries that the U.S. lacks both the will to lead and the patience for long-term strategic engagements.
- Haqqani notes that U.S. reticence in the face of the Ukraine crisis and the Syrian conflict has inadvertently emboldened groups like Al-Qaeda, citing a recent Al-Qaeda video from Yemen as evidence of the group's ability to mobilize and project power when superpowers appear passive.
- He warns that the "Islamist extremist threat" remains active and that the failure to maintain a consistent U.S. presence or influence creates vacuums for radicalization.
- Haqqani asserts that while the U.S. may avoid direct military intervention, the lack of clear deterrence encourages "19th-century" territorial revisionism by Russia and other powers.
- Jim Brooks points to the economic disparity between the West and Russia, noting that Russia's GDP is comparable to California's, while the U.S. and NATO collectively spend over $740 billion annually on defense.
- He observes a cultural divergence in strategic outlook: Western leaders prioritize trade and development, while Russian leadership views the world through a zero-sum, geopolitical "chessboard" lens, aiming to reassemble a sphere of influence akin to the Soviet Union.
- Brooks identifies the emergence of a global middle class (growing from 2 billion to an expected 3 billion) as a source of risk; as populations urbanize, they demand political transparency and legitimacy, potentially leading to populist or ideological backlashes if economic support from the West recedes.
- Brooks cautions that the withdrawal of U.S. quantitative easing (QE) and foreign aid simultaneously creates a double threat: removing economic lifelines from fragile states while potentially allowing militant groups to regroup.
- General Clark addresses the rise of China, noting that President Xi Jinping's "China Dream" aims to restore China as a global center, requiring the displacement of U.S. influence in the region.
- Clark projects that by 2019, China will possess four aircraft carriers and advanced ballistic missiles, potentially challenging U.S. dominance in air, sea, and space within the first island chain, including the Philippines.
- He warns that China's economic leverage over neighbors (e.g., $3.5 billion in monthly remittances to the Philippines) may sway regional allies toward Beijing in times of crisis, despite U.S. security guarantees.
- Clark warns that a perceived U.S. decline could trigger a massive mobilization of American military capacity, stating that the U.S. could build a dozen more aircraft carriers by 2019 if provided a unifying cause.
- Ambassador Wolfowitz evaluates Southeast Asia as a potential stabilizing force with a projected economy larger than Japan's by 2030, though tensions with China remain a deliberate destabilization strategy by Beijing.
- He criticizes the Obama administration's refusal to meet with the Malaysian opposition leader during a recent diplomatic trip as a missed opportunity to support democratic institutions in a country capable of leading the Muslim world.
- Wolfowitz identifies the MH370 incident as a significant strain on regional resources and highlights the deep-seated tensions between China and Japan, which Beijing actively cultivates to demonstrate U.S. unreliability.
- Jim Brooks provides an assessment of Latin America, categorizing nations into three groups:
- Deteriorating: Venezuela and arguably Ecuador and Argentina are moving in the wrong direction.
- Volatile: Brazil is a key watch-list nation where the failure to implement complex economic and institutional reforms could spark an "Arab Spring"-style uprising, particularly during the World Cup.
- Positive: Mexico is viewed as a bright spot due to labor, oil, and energy sector reforms, with potential to become a major energy partner for the U.S. and a hub for heavy manufacturing.
- Brooks notes that in Colombia, the successful resolution of peace accords with the FARC could lead to the rise of organized crime groups (like the clan del Golfo) repurposing their military skills for drug and arms trafficking.
- General Clark argues that the U.S. economy and energy sector are the bedrock of global strategic power, with the "fracking revolution" being the most significant geostrategic asset in 50 years.
- He asserts that U.S. economic growth is necessary to pull Europe back toward the U.S. and that deregulating the energy sector is the immediate priority to rebuild American power.
- Clark cites intelligence indicating that Russian medical brigades are mobilizing for Ukraine, predicting a potential offensive around May 9–11.
- He concludes that the primary U.S. strategy must be to strengthen Ukrainian defensive capabilities to deter Russian aggression and to re-engage diplomatically in Syria.
- General Clark proposes specific forward-looking actions to mitigate global risks:
- Ukraine: Immediately deter Russian action by strengthening Ukrainian military capacity to convince Putin the invasion is untenable.
- Energy: Accelerate the U.S. natural gas industry to become a global supplier, particularly to China and Asia, using floating liquefaction plants in Mexico to bypass U.S. permitting delays.
- Syria: Take a lead role in supporting armed opposition to prevent further regime consolidation and signal resolve to Moscow.
- Domestic: Restore U.S. economic growth to underpin global leadership, noting that a strong economy is the most effective tool for influencing global stability.
- Panel Consensus on U.S. Strategy:
- Leadership: All panelists agree the U.S. must reassert a leadership role, moving away from "leading from behind" to actively shaping outcomes, particularly in Europe and the Middle East.
- Alliances: There is a consensus that the U.S. must re-strengthen traditional alliances (NATO, Asia-Pacific) and build new global institutions to govern the world, as unilateral action is insufficient.
- Diplomacy vs. Hard Power: While acknowledging the limitations of military force in certain theaters (e.g., Syria), the panel emphasizes that the U.S. must maintain the credible threat of force and use "soft" diplomacy backed by "hard" capabilities.
- Economic Foundation: The panel agrees that U.S. economic vitality, driven by energy independence and trade, is the prerequisite for sustainable global influence.