No images? Click here [link removed]
The People's Liberation Army and the PLA Navy conduct a live-fire drill in Zhangzhou, China, on August 24, 2022. (CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty Images)
Policymakers are right to convey a sense of urgency toward China, but ending support for Ukraine’s defense would not lead to a swift pivot to the Pacific or expedite weapons deliveries to Taiwan.
In a new policy memo [[link removed]], Senior Fellow Rebeccah Heinrichs [[link removed]] lists five ways the US can continue arming Ukraine while bolstering Taiwan’s defense.
Read the Policy Memo [[link removed]]
Key Insights
1. The China and Russia threats are connected.
China and Russia have chosen to collaborate to undermine the US and its allies and interests. If Russia were to prevail in Ukraine, China would have greater leverage over Europe and would be the biggest benefactor of Russia’s success.
2. The US should consider the perspectives of its allies.
The US is the most powerful nation supporting Ukraine’s defense, but it is neither alone nor the only source of support. Indo-Pacific allies have also aided Kyiv and vocally linked enabling a Ukrainian victory with ensuring Indo-Pacific security. Suddenly ending US support to Ukraine would also severely damage America’s alliance relationships in both Europe and Asia.
3. Not a single weapon the United States has delivered to Ukraine was scheduled or intended to go to Taiwan.
Taiwan has been supported through Foreign Military Sales (FMS). Meanwhile, America is arming Ukraine through the presidential drawdown authority, which allows us to send weapons already in US stockpiles, and through Ukraine Security Assistance funding and Foreign Military Funding. The entirety of the FMS backlog existed before a shot was fired in Ukraine. Instead of ending deliveries to Ukraine, the US should seek to rebuild its defense industrial base so that it can produce the necessary weapons to meet the demand.
Quotes may be edited for clarity and length.
Read the Policy Memo [[link removed]] Go Deeper
Ukraine Should Take Crimea from Russia [[link removed]]
Any settlement that does not return Crimea to Kyiv’s control would amount to geopolitical negligence—regardless of whether policymakers care about Ukraine’s territorial integrity. In the Wall Street Journal [[link removed]], Hudson Senior Fellow Luke Coffey [[link removed]] explains the historical and strategic significance of Ukrainian control of Crimea.
Read [[link removed]]
Debate: Winning in Ukraine Is Critically Important for Deterring a War in Taiwan [[link removed]]
On Monday, Hudson President and CEO John P. Walters [[link removed]] and Marathon Initiative Co-Founder and Principal Elbridge Colby will take part in a one-on-one debate [[link removed]] about whether Ukrainian victory is critically important for deterring war in Taiwan.
Watch [[link removed]]
Arm Ukraine or Prepare for China? Wrong Question. [[link removed]]
In Foreign Policy [[link removed]], Europe and Eurasia Center Director Peter Rough [[link removed]] and Center for the Future of Liberal Society Associate Director Mike Watson [[link removed]] argue that ramping up munitions production to aid Ukraine will provide the American defense-industrial base with the running start it needs to compete with China.
Read [[link removed]]
Ukraine Is No Distraction from Asia [[link removed]]
“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a wake-up call to us all,” Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen said [[link removed]] last month in her Hudson Global Leadership Award acceptance remarks. In the Wall Street Journal [[link removed]], Hudson President and CEO John P. Walters [[link removed]] explains why the fate of Asia is directly connected to the security of Europe.
Read [[link removed]] [[link removed]] Share [link removed] Tweet [link removed] Forward [link removed] Hudson Institute
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Fourth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20004 Preferences [link removed] | Unsubscribe [link removed]
