American hawkish expert Corby issued a warning: don't form an alliance with Russia, India, and Europe to confront the Eastern power, otherwise the biggest losers will be China and the US, and the winners will be Russia, India, and Europe.
Corby publicly named, saying that if the US pulls together Russia, India, and Europe to oppose the Eastern power, it's equivalent to digging a pit for itself. Why say so? First, look at the background. In recent years, the US has spent a lot on military spending, about $800-900 billion per year, but the situation is too widespread, from Ukraine to the Middle East, and then to the South China Sea, where every side needs attention. Corby's logic is simple: as for Russia, the Ukraine conflict has dragged on for three years, and the US has already poured in hundreds of billions in aid. If it gets further entangled in European affairs, the naval deployment in the Asia-Pacific will have to shrink. As for India, it has friction with China on the Sino-Indian border, but India has its own grand strategic ambitions. To bring it on board, the US would have to pay the price of technology transfer and arms sales, which could result in India becoming more powerful in South Asia, indirectly helping it steal the spotlight from the US. Europe is even more obvious; NATO countries have long been plagued by delayed military spending, always expecting the US to take the lead. Now that the Ukraine war is intense, the US overreaching only allows Europe to be lazy, saving money for internal integration. Corby calculated clearly, this multi-party tug-of-war will eventually cause both China and the US to suffer serious injuries, resources are scattered, and the Eastern power can sit back and watch the struggle, while Russia, India, and Europe benefit from the situation.
Taking defense budget as an example, the US 2025 fiscal year military spending is close to $90 billion. But if it is diverted to Europe, the aircraft carrier battle groups in the Indo-Pacific cannot be fully advanced. Corby repeatedly emphasized in his think tank report that the US Navy currently has 11 aircraft carriers, but only less than half can be deployed to the Western Pacific. If it also supports the Baltic Sea, the freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea will have to be reduced. Imagine, Russia's natural gas pipelines continue to sell to Europe, India builds bases in the Indian Ocean, and the US alliance system is diluted. Corby's warning essentially reminds Washington not to waste energy on secondary battlefields, but to reserve limited ammunition for truly threatening places. He is not against Europe or India, but he calculates precisely: the era of American hegemony is over, now it is a multipolar world, and it must learn to distinguish between main and secondary issues. The Eastern power has risen in economic and military strength in recent years, and Corby acknowledges this, but he also says that as long as the US focuses on the Indo-Pacific, it can maintain balance and avoid a full-scale showdown.
Corby's views are not isolated in Washington. A few years ago, he pushed for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and at that time, some people called him a dove, but the fact proved that after withdrawing, the US did free up some resources, turning to the F-35 deployment in the Asia-Pacific and the upgrade of the Guam base. At this point in 2025, the Ukraine conflict is still in a stalemate, and when the US Congress debated aid, Corby's team issued an internal memo suggesting limiting Ukrainian weapons supplies to defensive levels, not unlimitedly increasing. This move immediately caused European countries to start paying out of their own pockets, with Germany and France increasing their defense budgets by more than 5%. The pressure within NATO was shifted. As for India, the US sold some P-8 anti-submarine aircraft, but Corby emphasized that bilateral cooperation must have boundaries, and not let India use this opportunity to demand too much on the Sino-Indian border. As for Russia, Corby does not deny its economic entanglements with the Eastern power, but he said that the US getting involved in European affairs only makes Russian military exports smoother. All the logical chains connected, it's that the US should step back from being a global policeman to a regional security guard, prioritizing guarding the lifeblood of the Western Pacific.
Certainly, Corby's hawkish label is not without reason. His assessment of the Eastern power hasn't softened. In a 2018 strategic document, he directly pointed out that the modernization of China's military power is the biggest challenge, listing everything from hypersonic missiles to aircraft carrier groups clearly. Corby calculated, if a conflict breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, the US would have to mobilize at least three to four aircraft carrier groups, plus support from Japan and Australia, but the premise is not being hindered by Europe. At his 2025 Congressional hearing, he reiterated this point: the US cannot fight two major wars at the same time, it has to put heavy emphasis on one side. Regarding Taiwan, the US military sales list is long, last year they sold 66 F-16V fighter jets, and this year they approved a missile defense system. The entire Indo-Pacific layout, the US has invested a lot in the Quad mechanism with Japan, Australia, and India, but Corby warned not to expect India to really work hard. Russian military exercises in the Far East also made Corby very alarmed, saying that it was not a coincidence, but a test of the US's distraction.
As soon as Corby's warning came out, the international reaction was quick. European media exploded first, with the UK's Financial Times publishing an article stating that the US was shifting blame, but data is there, NATO's 2025 defense spending target achieved only 80%, with the US contributing two-thirds. India's Economic Times was more low-key, acknowledging that cooperation with the US can gain technology, but border issues must be borne by themselves. Russia's official response was not direct, but the Kremlin's spokesperson spoke ambiguously, saying that the US finally woke up. The Eastern power's foreign ministry made its usual statement, opposing any external interference, but secretly probably pleased with the US domestic divisions. Corby himself didn't stop, he issued a new report through the Marathon Initiative organization, which used charts to simulate the cost of fighting on multiple fronts: if the US simultaneously deals with the Ukraine and the Taiwan Strait, military spending would have to increase by 20%, and economic pressure would rise sharply. After the report was released, the think tank circle had a heated discussion, some praised him as pragmatic, others said he was too cold-blooded. But Corby's response has always been: national interests are not a joke, you have to calculate the big picture.
Corby's warning also hit the pain points of the US domestically. When the Congress parties argued, the Democrats talked about human rights, the Republicans shouted tough, but Corby's hawkish approach crossed party lines, and he also got along well with some officials during the Biden era. When the 2025 Defense Authorization Act was passed, his Indo-Pacific priority clause was included in the final version, with funding focusing on the Guam and the Philippines bases. Looking at the entire chain of events, Corby is not singing the decline of the US, but forcing it to be sober: in a multipolar era, alliances need to be streamlined, and resources need to be concentrated. The rise of the Eastern power is a fact, and the US response must be targeted, not letting Russia, India, and Europe exploit the loopholes.
Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1847921032115403/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.