Unfortunately, many signs for the last decade or so that the peace dividend has begun to wane. Hopefully a good part of it lasts for many years to come.
The growing scale of Russian colonialism is unmatched since WWII. China is becoming more and more assertive over recent years trying to claim and enforce their false sovereignty over vast littoral areas and islands that belong to their neighbors. And now we see the growing influence of Iran more evident in the last 1.5 years within the Ukraine war and Israel in the last 2 days. Saudi Arabia cares much less what the U.S. thinks these days. Others such as India are also starting to feel more confident...
The Saudi/US relationship has soured in recent years. The rise of MBS in Saudi Arabia hasn't helped them, but Saudi Arabia is also becoming less important to US global calculus. Both the US and Saudis know that Saudi oil reserves are in sharp decline. They front that there is nothing wrong, but anyone who understands oil production knows Saudi Arabia is in terminal decline as an oil producer. It's not over yet, but their vast influence in the oil market is fading.
The old demarcation lines are fading and the world is realigning. Who knows how things will shake out.
The most important requirement is that the US gets more help and occasionally allies help solve problems with the US is distracted.
Countries/regions broadly aligned with the US include:_
- EU
- UK
- Japan
- South Korea
- Israel
- Australia
- India (particularly in the case of China)
- NZ, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand (particularly in the case of China)
The Asian US allies are not backing Ukraine strongly but would almost certainly be on the US side in any conflict with China,
The key for the US is to ensure the EU would be on the US side in any conflict with China.
As bad as the war is, I expect Israel to win because they have overwhelming firepower, the conflict is a complete mismatch...
It is very disappointing that there have never been a good solution to the Palestinian problem. At various times when they seemed close to a deal one of the sides has walked away. I don't blame the US for that, and I don't see how the US could have prevented this war.
A likely outcome of this war is that Israel will start to view Hamas/Iran/Russia as aligned and may be prepared to offer Ukraine more military support.
Sympathy for the Palestinians in many parts of the world has been sapped by this conflict.
The common thread here is that like Putin, Hamas has made a very bad decision and started a war that should end badly for them..
Basically all the stable, liberal democracies are aligned with the US (with a couple being neutral but tend to build out their militiaries with NATO standard equipment). A few more shaky democracies are also aligned with the US because they have someone they want to defend against.
The more authoritarian states are making noises about going their own way, including some countries that used to be liberal democracies, but an authoritarian came to power. In many cases these authoritarians have drifted into Moscow's orbit because Moscow stands against the US hegemony. But the alliance with Moscow is usually a loose one.
India has inched away from Russia since the war began. But India is large enough they can stand on their own. Alliances would be helpful for them, but they can survive because they are too big to be conquered. Nobody in the world can raise a 24 million person army to occupy India.
I do expect Hamas' successes will be short lived. From an Israeli ex-pat I knew a few years ago (he was married to a friend and divorced her as soon as he got his green card), the Israeli military is not as good as it was 50 years ago. There is more resistance to the draft now than they used to be and training of conscripts is not to the same caliber. Israel still has a vast power advantage over Hamas.
Hamas could run a successful insurgency were Israel to occupy the Gaza Strip, but operating in Israel itself Hamas only has the advantage of surprise which is gone now. Insurgencies are effective at denying another power control over territory that is home turf for the insurgents, but they are not going to be an effective expeditionary army. Once they get off their home turf most of their advantages vanish.
China is an unknown militarily. When any army goes to war, there are things they don't know they don't know and they learn hard lessons in the process. An army with recent conflict experience has learned a lot of those lessons and the learning curve for the new war is shallower. Germany got involved in the Spanish Civil War and had some minor military actions taking Czechoslovakia, Austral, and the Rhine back so they were better prepared for war than Britain and France who hadn't really been to war since 1918.
China's last military conflict other than a few minor border skirmishes with India was 50 years ago which was long before they modernized the military. Not only is everyone who participated in their last conflict a pensioner or dead, but the lessons learned in that conflict are completely out of date because not only has military technology changed, but the entire make up of the Chinese army is different.
On paper China has a strong military with a lot of modern equipment, but they have zero experience using it in a conflict.
Contrast this with many western countries and especially the US who have combat experiences from the last decade (in Afghanistan, Syria, and some in Africa). The US knows how to use all the equipment in its inventory. It has not faced a near peer adversary in 70-80 years (depending on whether you count Korea as a near peer), so there would be some learning there in a conflict with Russia or China. In a war with the US China would be learning the same sort of near peer lessons the US is learning, plus learning how all their new equipment performs in real world combat.
China has built a naval force that on paper could invade Taiwan, but amphibious operations are very, very tough. One of the most difficult things any military can do is an amphibious operation at scale (raids with special forces are a different issue). The US developed the best force for conducting amphibious operations the world has ever seen, but it hasn't been tested since 1950. The US would struggle to conduct a successful opposed landing today and it trains for that. (The UK was pretty good at it too, but the US was able to do it at a scale nobody else ever could.)
One area where combined arms is critical is in amphibious operations. Keeping the enemy at bay long enough to get a strong force ashore to have a good beachhead is critical and that takes air and naval power working in harmony. Combined arms requires a lot of training and there is little evidence that China is training their amphibious forces and amphibious support to the level needed to invade Taiwan.
China is a dangerous near peer opponent, but they have some big weaknesses and no easy way to overcome them short of a full scale war.
