Posted on May 31, 2024
In the Strategic Competition with China and Russia, Talent Reigns Supreme
721K
38
8
28
28
0
In 1999, Gallup asked Americans to pinpoint the most pivotal moments of the 20th century. Topping the list were World War II and the advent of the atom bomb. The decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, effectively concluding WWII, hinged on a singular individual: Robert Oppenheimer. The decision of Oppenheimer’s father to immigrate to the United States not only facilitated this critical and strategic outcome during WWII but also paved the way for the United States’ rise as a global leader throughout the remainder of the 20th century and beyond.
It was talent – not merely technology – that proved decisive.
However, in contemporary times, the prevailing sentiment in Washington tends to view today’s "new war" – the strategic competition between the United States and China and Russia – exclusively through the lens of technology. While technology undoubtedly plays a significant role, it is the human dimension that will ultimately shape the governmental, economic, social, and political landscape within which technology is developed and deployed – much as it did in the last century with Robert Oppenheimer.
Even in the era of artificial intelligence, human talent remains paramount.
This reality is further underscored in the challenges both China and Russia face regarding population growth.
For China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, the future hinges on a race for talent. China's population has declined for the second consecutive year, and projections indicate that its population growth will plummet to -0.66% by 2050 and -1.21% by 2100. Russia faces a similar predicament; its current population of 146 million is less than it was 30 years ago and estimates suggest a 10% decrease in population over the next decade.
Given these significant and perhaps decisive demographic challenges, Xi’s objective of achieving the "great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” by mid this century may be imperiled or even unattainable. Without population growth, China and Russia may struggle to fulfill the economic objectives that are fundamental to its political ambitions. Moreover, since this downward trend is projected to persist throughout the 21st century, both China and Russia may resort to alternative pathways, such as territorial expansion, to compensate for their unrealized economic visions and achieve their political objectives through other means. This reality may have driven China and Russia’s formation of a “no limits” partnership.
Xi and Putin announced their "no limits" partnership just days before Putin's invasion of Ukraine, sparking the deadliest land war in Europe since WWII – a revisionist redux that has only fueled Xi and Putin’s ambitions. Elizabeth Economy, a former Senior Advisor for China at the US Department of Commerce, recently outlined the Xi-Putin global vision:
“By now, Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ambition to remake the world is undeniable. He wants to dissolve Washington’s network of alliances and purge what he dismisses as “Western” values from international bodies. He wants to knock the U.S. dollar off its pedestal and eliminate Washington’s chokehold over critical technology…Beijing’s playbook begins with a well-defined vision of a transformed world order.”
Xi and Putin’s vision for an alternative world order was further elucidated during Putin’s recent state visit to China. In a 7000-word treatise, Xi and Putin proclaimed their "new era" partnership, delineating a dystopian worldview that prioritizes “immutable sovereignty, state- directed political rights, and a vision that puts China at the center stage” while characterizing the United States as a destabilizing force worldwide.
Both Xi and Putin perceive the United States as the primary obstacle to realizing their vision. They view the ascendance of their power through territorial conquest – evidenced by Ukraine and Taiwan – as essential. Moreover, they see the reorientation of international institutions away from the West as critical to achieving their envisioned alternative world order. In this context of “might makes right” in Ukraine (not to mention potential conflict over Taiwan in the future) and soft power conquest through China’s Belt and Road Initiative, talent emerges as the key determinant of success.
Therefore, the United States and the West must find ways to continue to support the growth of our population and cultivate, retrain, retool, and renew the talent in our nation and society particularly in sectors crucial to economic growth such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, and other STEM fields. Strengthening and modernizing our talent infrastructure to support a 21st century economy will be more potent than any weapon system – be it a bomb, fighter jet, or aircraft carrier. It will enable us to outmatch the economies of Russia and China and emerge victorious.
Talent will prove decisive yet again.
Dr. Alex Gallo is a US Army Veteran and author of “Vetspective,” a RallyPoint series that discusses national security, foreign policy, politics, and society and highlights the analysis of thought-leaders, policy analysts, and scholars. Alex is a Senior Vice President with NobleReach Foundation. He also serves as a fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute and an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University.
Follow him on Twitter at @AlexGalloUSA.
Sources:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/3427/most-important-events-century-from-viewpoint- people.aspx
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-population-drops-2nd-year-raises-long-term- growth-concerns-2024-01-17/
https://www.newsweek.com/2050-population-data-that-could-ruin-china-century-1903597
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russias-vladimir-putin-meets-with-chinese-leader-xi-jinping-in- beijing [login to see] 3
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/chinas-alternative-order-xi-jinping-elizabeth-economy
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/17/china/xi-putin-china-visit-takeaways-intl-hnk/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-visit-chinas-xi-deepen-strategic-partnership-2024-05-
15/
It was talent – not merely technology – that proved decisive.
However, in contemporary times, the prevailing sentiment in Washington tends to view today’s "new war" – the strategic competition between the United States and China and Russia – exclusively through the lens of technology. While technology undoubtedly plays a significant role, it is the human dimension that will ultimately shape the governmental, economic, social, and political landscape within which technology is developed and deployed – much as it did in the last century with Robert Oppenheimer.
Even in the era of artificial intelligence, human talent remains paramount.
This reality is further underscored in the challenges both China and Russia face regarding population growth.
For China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, the future hinges on a race for talent. China's population has declined for the second consecutive year, and projections indicate that its population growth will plummet to -0.66% by 2050 and -1.21% by 2100. Russia faces a similar predicament; its current population of 146 million is less than it was 30 years ago and estimates suggest a 10% decrease in population over the next decade.
Given these significant and perhaps decisive demographic challenges, Xi’s objective of achieving the "great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” by mid this century may be imperiled or even unattainable. Without population growth, China and Russia may struggle to fulfill the economic objectives that are fundamental to its political ambitions. Moreover, since this downward trend is projected to persist throughout the 21st century, both China and Russia may resort to alternative pathways, such as territorial expansion, to compensate for their unrealized economic visions and achieve their political objectives through other means. This reality may have driven China and Russia’s formation of a “no limits” partnership.
Xi and Putin announced their "no limits" partnership just days before Putin's invasion of Ukraine, sparking the deadliest land war in Europe since WWII – a revisionist redux that has only fueled Xi and Putin’s ambitions. Elizabeth Economy, a former Senior Advisor for China at the US Department of Commerce, recently outlined the Xi-Putin global vision:
“By now, Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ambition to remake the world is undeniable. He wants to dissolve Washington’s network of alliances and purge what he dismisses as “Western” values from international bodies. He wants to knock the U.S. dollar off its pedestal and eliminate Washington’s chokehold over critical technology…Beijing’s playbook begins with a well-defined vision of a transformed world order.”
Xi and Putin’s vision for an alternative world order was further elucidated during Putin’s recent state visit to China. In a 7000-word treatise, Xi and Putin proclaimed their "new era" partnership, delineating a dystopian worldview that prioritizes “immutable sovereignty, state- directed political rights, and a vision that puts China at the center stage” while characterizing the United States as a destabilizing force worldwide.
Both Xi and Putin perceive the United States as the primary obstacle to realizing their vision. They view the ascendance of their power through territorial conquest – evidenced by Ukraine and Taiwan – as essential. Moreover, they see the reorientation of international institutions away from the West as critical to achieving their envisioned alternative world order. In this context of “might makes right” in Ukraine (not to mention potential conflict over Taiwan in the future) and soft power conquest through China’s Belt and Road Initiative, talent emerges as the key determinant of success.
Therefore, the United States and the West must find ways to continue to support the growth of our population and cultivate, retrain, retool, and renew the talent in our nation and society particularly in sectors crucial to economic growth such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, and other STEM fields. Strengthening and modernizing our talent infrastructure to support a 21st century economy will be more potent than any weapon system – be it a bomb, fighter jet, or aircraft carrier. It will enable us to outmatch the economies of Russia and China and emerge victorious.
Talent will prove decisive yet again.
Dr. Alex Gallo is a US Army Veteran and author of “Vetspective,” a RallyPoint series that discusses national security, foreign policy, politics, and society and highlights the analysis of thought-leaders, policy analysts, and scholars. Alex is a Senior Vice President with NobleReach Foundation. He also serves as a fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute and an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University.
Follow him on Twitter at @AlexGalloUSA.
Sources:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/3427/most-important-events-century-from-viewpoint- people.aspx
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-population-drops-2nd-year-raises-long-term- growth-concerns-2024-01-17/
https://www.newsweek.com/2050-population-data-that-could-ruin-china-century-1903597
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russias-vladimir-putin-meets-with-chinese-leader-xi-jinping-in- beijing [login to see] 3
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/chinas-alternative-order-xi-jinping-elizabeth-economy
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/17/china/xi-putin-china-visit-takeaways-intl-hnk/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-visit-chinas-xi-deepen-strategic-partnership-2024-05-
15/
International Affairs
VetSpective
China
Russia
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
5
5
0
3
3
0
1
1
0
Great post. I am reading “The Triumph and Tragedy of Robert Oppenheimer” now. What a wonderful man. I keep thinking of the DEI agenda. As a straight, white Jewish male he would have been toast for advancement and selection to lead at Los Alamos and the production of the Atom Bomb. Right now Biden’s chief economist has education and background in music and social work.
(1)
(0)
SP5 Delphis Kaczowski
Remember that Premier GOLD MEIR of Israel was born in Kiev, Ukraine & President Zelensky is also Jewish. PUTIN is trying to finish this religion like Hitler tried.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Interesting read. I've been eyeing China and their exploits since 2005 from overseas locations across 2 continents. There are some realities that our government needs to come to terms with along this thread. First, there will never be a world without China.
From a strategic standpoint, trying to 'contain' China is like trying to draw all the CO2 from the air. Because the US has struggled with this for the past 40 years has led us to where we are today. China now has overtaken us in some sectors of industry and military strongholds. They have done this by a method using their financial prowess to allure, then trap smaller developing countries such as Zimbabwe, Cambodia, and Laos to take on tremendous debts owed to China in return of infrastructure and development partnerships.
When I was stationed in Cambodia, I saw how China had not only edged out US projects along Sihanoukville and the Ream Naval Base, but lost ground on social and economic expansion in the SEA country. Infrastructure that was paid for on their military bases were taken down and/or replaced by the Chinese. The leaning of the higher tier of the govt - post Hun Sen should have Washington second guessing whether the olive branch they had extended to Hun Sen was genuinely received. The DAO can only do so much, and even with USAID and other agencies with boots on the ground behind the scenes the rapport seems stronger with China than the US.
From my point of view, if China wants to become the Walmart of the world, then let them. We could either do right by our own country and re-introduce huge manufacturing BACK in the US as we did 40 years ago, stay silent and see if we can at least become a contender. We all have to buy our products from someone, so as long as free enterprise exists, then we can at least provide options. Manufacturing is a big MISSED opportunity that I can't fathom why our last 5 presidents didn't move harder on. The only real importance to the US is security and that is thousands of miles above the land we walk on.
To date, our Space Force is scurrying, trying to even keep up with this new branch and at least President Trump lit the fuse for that service. Though China is no longer the most populated country (now India) it is far from its doomsday scenario. Regarding the US being toppled from the use of our currency on the international forum, it won't happen because too many countries rely upon, and agree with the use of our fiat currency. If that construct were threatened, someone would devise a way to total their economy so it would scamper back with its tail between its legs. I believe we see what economic hardships can due - just look at Venezuela and Haiti. Regarding the 'no limits' relationship between China and Russia. Nope. There is no such animal as 'no limits.' Behind closed doors they also understand this. This century is the century where many antagonists have plotted to defy, and disassemble the US in a myriad of ways. America is too tough to be overrun or controlled - at least externally.
From a strategic standpoint, trying to 'contain' China is like trying to draw all the CO2 from the air. Because the US has struggled with this for the past 40 years has led us to where we are today. China now has overtaken us in some sectors of industry and military strongholds. They have done this by a method using their financial prowess to allure, then trap smaller developing countries such as Zimbabwe, Cambodia, and Laos to take on tremendous debts owed to China in return of infrastructure and development partnerships.
When I was stationed in Cambodia, I saw how China had not only edged out US projects along Sihanoukville and the Ream Naval Base, but lost ground on social and economic expansion in the SEA country. Infrastructure that was paid for on their military bases were taken down and/or replaced by the Chinese. The leaning of the higher tier of the govt - post Hun Sen should have Washington second guessing whether the olive branch they had extended to Hun Sen was genuinely received. The DAO can only do so much, and even with USAID and other agencies with boots on the ground behind the scenes the rapport seems stronger with China than the US.
From my point of view, if China wants to become the Walmart of the world, then let them. We could either do right by our own country and re-introduce huge manufacturing BACK in the US as we did 40 years ago, stay silent and see if we can at least become a contender. We all have to buy our products from someone, so as long as free enterprise exists, then we can at least provide options. Manufacturing is a big MISSED opportunity that I can't fathom why our last 5 presidents didn't move harder on. The only real importance to the US is security and that is thousands of miles above the land we walk on.
To date, our Space Force is scurrying, trying to even keep up with this new branch and at least President Trump lit the fuse for that service. Though China is no longer the most populated country (now India) it is far from its doomsday scenario. Regarding the US being toppled from the use of our currency on the international forum, it won't happen because too many countries rely upon, and agree with the use of our fiat currency. If that construct were threatened, someone would devise a way to total their economy so it would scamper back with its tail between its legs. I believe we see what economic hardships can due - just look at Venezuela and Haiti. Regarding the 'no limits' relationship between China and Russia. Nope. There is no such animal as 'no limits.' Behind closed doors they also understand this. This century is the century where many antagonists have plotted to defy, and disassemble the US in a myriad of ways. America is too tough to be overrun or controlled - at least externally.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I find your post interesting. The one thing it lacks, in my perspective, is the need to not only find and develope the 21st century skills/knowledge (as you elude to) but we need to incorporatethe skills and knowledge of our past as well. We see in current drain out conflict that older technology has had to be brought out of mothballs. Those of us from the cold war and prior eras have the wisdom and talent to lend our prior skills/knowledge to these threats as well for the development of technology that not only overcomes present day advancements but incorporate in the new advancement the knowledgeof how to defeat old technology which is a missing factor in our current defense ability. Ground offense changed to urban defense in our overall training ING. We need both used in a fashion to defend against old tech, current tech and upcoming future tech. If we incorporate AI with ability/knowledge from generations we can produce the most profound military capability. At one point in my career I was fortunate enough to be part of a team which rewrote mechanized missile deployment using both old and new to effectively increase our mission sustainability. The same applications could well propell us into the next century.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I believe your premise is both important and flawed at the same time.
We identified the need for the bomb. If it wasn't Oppenheimer, it would have been someone else. Yes, Oppenheimer stepped up, did the job, and did it well. His particular talent was needed and properly applied. But was Oppenheimer the *only* person in the entire US who could have gotten the job done? I don't think so.
Yes, talent is important. Because we need that talent to develop the technology. And as technology develops and is deployed, it sparks and generates new forms of talent. It is a symbiotic relationship, not a master/slave one.
Talent is vital. But talent without direction, without development, and without support is meaningless. Saying it "reigns supreme" denies the reality of everything that goes into development and advancement.
If Oppenheimer never existed, we would have still had the bomb. But if we didn't have the funding? Or if Truman was unwilling to use it? If we refused to learn from the uses and develop further technology, create specialized fields?
Far more important than talent, IMHO, is political will. If the people want something, they will find the talent. If the people do not, no amount of talent will matter.
Also, population growth or shrinkage is irrelevant to the thesis.
We identified the need for the bomb. If it wasn't Oppenheimer, it would have been someone else. Yes, Oppenheimer stepped up, did the job, and did it well. His particular talent was needed and properly applied. But was Oppenheimer the *only* person in the entire US who could have gotten the job done? I don't think so.
Yes, talent is important. Because we need that talent to develop the technology. And as technology develops and is deployed, it sparks and generates new forms of talent. It is a symbiotic relationship, not a master/slave one.
Talent is vital. But talent without direction, without development, and without support is meaningless. Saying it "reigns supreme" denies the reality of everything that goes into development and advancement.
If Oppenheimer never existed, we would have still had the bomb. But if we didn't have the funding? Or if Truman was unwilling to use it? If we refused to learn from the uses and develop further technology, create specialized fields?
Far more important than talent, IMHO, is political will. If the people want something, they will find the talent. If the people do not, no amount of talent will matter.
Also, population growth or shrinkage is irrelevant to the thesis.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Remind me why the word "academic" is a synonym for "meaningless?" We simply are not developing talent in much of any field beyond entertainment. Twenty years after welfare reform, we have cities in ruins. Poverty has become an industry, with powdered milk from - China - and macaroni from Egypt doled out at food pantries. The only business I see flourishing in my neck of the woods is marijuana. It's not the hippy stuff of half a century ago.
I love my country, but it has gone soft.
I love my country, but it has gone soft.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google