President Biden is considering the cancellation of former President Donald Trump’s successful China tariffs, ostensibly to mitigate the worst inflation the U.S. has faced in 40 years. Eliminating tariffs imposed on China would have a minuscule effect on inflation while emboldening yet another autocrat, as it would represent a unilateral concession to the Communist Chinese government. The People’s Republic of China is the premier threat to U.S. national security and a menace to its neighbors. It remains Beijing’s official policy to “reunify” with Taiwan. China’s conquest of Taiwan, home to 92% of the world’s production capacity for the advanced semiconductors that make modern life possible, would give it a commanding position over the indispensable sea trade lanes in East Asia and would be a disaster for the United States. The Chinese Communist Party supports the repeal of the Trump tariffs because they know it would advantage them. The tariffs established credible deterrence in our relationship with China for the first time in decades. They brought the Chinese Communist Party to the table for an unprecedented “Phase 1” trade deal in 2020, aimed at establishing fair and reciprocal trade. It required major structural changes by China in the areas of intellectual property, technology transfer, agriculture, financial services, currency, expanding trade and dispute resolution. At least one member of the Biden administration, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai recognizes the risk, saying, “Lifting tariffs now would cost the U.S. leverage at the negotiating table with the Chinese and would not do much to combat inflation.” Mr. Trump imposed these tariffs to address the unequal and predatory trade practices of the People’s Republic of China.

But the big story is this: Finland and Sweden now want to join the club. Sweden’s decision strikes me as the more surprising. It has a two-century-long history of neutrality, including during the Second World War and the Cold War. After the collapse of the Berlin Wall, most Swedes thought land invasions by European armies were as outmoded as Viking raids. Sweden doesn’t share a border with Russia, but there is a Russian fleet just 200 miles away in Kaliningrad, formerly the Prussian city of Konigsberg, now a Russian possession separated from the “mainland” by Belarus, currently a Russian vassal, and Lithuania, a NATO member formerly ruled from the Kremlin. Finland’s border with Russia is 830 miles long. The Finns were under Russian rule for more than a century, achieving independence in 1917. Less than a generation later, in 1939, the Soviets launched the Winter War. It would serve the U.S. national interest for NATO to become a stronger community - willing and able to defend the independence, rights and core values of its members. The U.S. will continue to be the major power within NATO. There’s no alternative. But we should insist that, over time, its European members bear more of the burden for European security so we can focus on Asia. And, longer term, NATO should grapple with the fact that Mr. Putin’s ally, Xi Jinping, ruler of neo-imperialist China, poses as much of a threat to Europeans as he does to Americans. Do we leave our children a world shaped by free peoples, or a world shaped by the tyrannical dictators in Moscow and Beijing?

Russian President Vladimir Putin is revitalizing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO), an alliance that has never been obsolete but had become obsolescent. Of course, boosting NATO was not the Russian dictator’s intention. He expected his invasion of Ukraine to divide and perhaps destroy this beneficial international community. NATO was founded in 1949 to prevent the Soviet Union - an ally against the Nazis but only after Hitler broke his pact with Stalin - from subjugating Western Europe as it had Eastern Europe. Even after the collapse of the Soviet empire in 1991, many East European nations were eager to join NATO. They believed that membership ensured independence - come what may. West Europeans, by contrast, tended to see NATO’s mission as accomplished. Many embraced the delusion that peace had become natural and war unnatural - at least in their corner of the world. So western Europeans allowed their military capabilities to weaken. A few years ago, I suggested to a senior German diplomat that his country was free riding at America’s expense while growing increasingly dependent on Mr. Putin’s fossil fuels. That dependence, I added, would sharply increase upon completion of Nord Stream 2, the underwater pipeline that was to deliver huge quantities of gas directly from Russia to Germany. “We’re not becoming dependent on their gas!” he protested. “They’re becoming dependent on our money!” A year ago, President Biden waived sanctions on the pipeline. Sen. Bob Menendez, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called out the mistake. He was right, but it required Russia’s latest barbaric aggression to cap the pipeline.

The government, however, introduced crushing fines for taking part in unsanctioned meetings. The opposition split and the protest wave largely dissipated. But in 2013, a much more massive wave against Viktor Yanukovych, a leader supported by Mr. Putin surfaced in neighboring Ukraine. The Euromaidan revolt in Ukraine overthrew Mr. Yanukovych and was a blueprint for the overthrow of the regime in Russia. Mr. Putin responded by diverting attention with the annexation of Crimea and war in Eastern Ukraine. The strategy was a success. A wave of euphoria over the seizure of Crimea and “restoration of Russian greatness” swept the country. Mr. Putin’s popularity reached 89%. But the underlying problems of Russian society; corruption and economic and demographic decline had not been eliminated. This created the need after eight years again to rally the Russian population which, as in the past, was best achieved with the help of a new war. There was no reason for Russia to attack Ukraine at the time that it did. In his statement at Davos, Mr. Kissinger referred to a “proper place” for Russia in the European balance of power. But it is doubtful that the Putin regime agrees on the place that Mr. Kissinger has in mind for it. In 1993, well before the expansion of NATO in 1997, Russia was already laying the groundwork for future aggression. It defined a threat to Russia as “acts against the Russian population” in any neighboring country. If Ukrainians follow Mr. Kissinger’s advice and cede territory, they will not satisfy Russia’s appetite for war. For Russia to pursue peace, it must be finally convinced of the futility of war.

The bombings were blamed on Chechens and used to justify a new invasion of Chechnya. Mr. Putin was put in charge of the war. His popularity soared and he was elected president. A fifth bomb, however, in the basement of a building in Ryazan was discovered and defused. The bombers were caught and turned out to be not Chechen terrorists but agents of the Federal Security Service. Once in power, Mr. Putin benefited from an extraordinary economic recovery. It launched an economic boom that gave Russia its first taste of Western prosperity and led to a sharp rise in Mr. Putin’s popularity. In the meantime, the institutions of the state were steadily strengthened and the open criminality under Yeltsin was centralized under the control of the government. Between 2001 and 2005, bribes to government officials increased nearly tenfold. Mr. Putin maintained his popularity throughout the 2000s, but, as economic growth slowed in 2010, there was growing discontent over the regime’s corruption. In December 2011, the parliamentary elections were openly falsified and Mr. Putin announced that he was running for a third term as president. This gave rise to a protest by more than 100,000 persons in Moscow on Dec. 24 and demonstrations in Perm, Samara, Kazan, Ekaterinburg and Novosibirsk. They were the largest protests since the fall of the Soviet Union. The demonstrations unnerved the regime. It was difficult for the regime’s bureaucratic system to control the situation. Now mass popular protests became a reality. Leading businessmen and bureaucrats began seeking safe havens, laundering their money and shipping their assets abroad.

As Ukrainian forces mount a last-ditch defense of Severodonetsk in the Donbas region, it is more important than ever that Americans ignore the advice of self-described “realists” that Ukraine should surrender territory to Russia to achieve peace. On May 23, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in Davos called on the Ukrainians to demonstrate “wisdom” and not try to liberate all occupied territory. He said the defeat of Russia would have “disastrous consequences” for the long-term stability of Europe. But an outcome that looks like a Russian victory will not lead to stability. The regime put in place by former President Boris Yeltsin and consolidated by President Vladimir Putin fears its own people. It uses foreign aggression to strengthen its hold on power. In late 1994, Yeltsin faced a crisis as a result of the economic collapse that resulted from his policy of “shock therapy.” His solution was an invasion of the breakaway republic of Chechnya. The first Chechen war, in the end, proved neither short nor victorious but it set a pattern of sending barely trained and uncomprehending troops to die in the thousands to reinforce the leaders’ hold on power. On Sept. 8, 1999, Yeltsin told President Bill Clinton in a telephone call, that Mr. Putin, his newly appointed prime minister, would be Russia’s next president. Yeltsin’s rating at the time was 2%. It would have seemed that Yeltsin had no ability to name his supposedly democratic successor. On Sept. 9, however, an apartment building on Guryanova Street in Moscow was blown up in the middle of the night. It was the second of four apartment bombings in Moscow, Buinaksk and Volgodonsk that claimed 300 lives.

Chinese President and Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping has declared his country will have the world’s strongest military by mid-century. A revisionist power seeking to shape the world in its authoritarian image, Beijing represents a clear and present danger to the U.S. and our allies. Recently Chinese scientists announced their successful production of next-generation hypersonic weapons, which are equipped with infrared imaging technology. This breakthrough, heat-seeking capability would enable the Chinese military to expand its lethal targeting to include U.S. stealth aircraft and aircraft carriers. Hypersonic missiles are a key component of China’s strategy to project power and deter the U.S. and its allies from countering its plans to establish a regional hegemony in East Asia. China has denied developing a nuclear-armed hypersonic missile, but the U.S. must plan for this grim eventuality as well, since it would give China an alarming first-strike capability. Expressing grave concern about China’s advances in hypersonic missiles in November 2021, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Hyten warned China could soon surpass U.S. military capability “if we don’t do something to change it.” The U.S. is lagging dangerously behind China in the development of hypersonic missiles, with implications far beyond the military sphere. With military superiority, Chinese unfair trade practices would morph into even more sinister coercive measures. The Biden administration needs to take action with the greatest alacrity along three lines of operation.

US. policymakers insist on seeing the fight with Russia in Ukraine or China in Taiwan in local terms but in both places, the adversary enjoys the manifest advantages of proximity. The military experts indicate that the U.S. Navy and Air Force would face great challenges supplying Taiwan now that China has modernized and expanded its forces. Saying to Beijing unambiguously, cross the straits and America will defend the island state is foolish - American forces would likely get their butts kicked. Instead, tell Beijing: Cross the straits and China is in a global war with the U.S. Navy, and be prepared to sink Beijing’s dreams of Pacific glory within a week. Even the most appropriate statement of policy and realignment of American forces rings hollow when in Europe, where the U.S. enjoys superiority, it refuses to even permit its surrogate to take the fight to the Russians. The U.S. can best avoid an invasion of Taiwan by standing up to Russia now. That should begin with the United States through NATO or another coalition of willing nations, providing naval escorts for Ukrainian exports to break the Russian blockade and providing Kyiv with offensive weapons. Make it plain that if Russia resorts to its nuclear, chemical, hypersonic missiles and other asymmetrical weapons or so much as plucks the hair from the head of a single allied soldier, the U.S. Navy would sink the Russian Navy and commercial vessels wherever they sail. We need to clarify our strategy and revitalize our forces in the Pacific, but those won’t keep the peace if Russian President Vladimir Putin cows Mr. Biden in Europe.

President Biden’s recent statement that the United States would intervene militarily if China tries to take Taiwan by force was hardly a gaffe. White House denials notwithstanding, the U.S. policy of strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan is long past its pull date. When then-President Richard Nixon went to China and opened the dialogue that ultimately normalized the People’s Republic diplomatic relations in 1978 and trade relations in 2000, the U.S. officially recognized only one China. Washington opposes Beijing reuniting Taiwan through force, but has been purposefully ambiguous about whether it would intervene militarily if China invaded. The U.S. provides Taiwan with defensive weapons but withholds an ironclad assurance that America would rush to its defense. This had two objectives: First to discourage Taiwan from taking a provocative act like declaring its independence. Second, to avoid antagonizing Beijing. China has hardly been restrained in its military buildup, efforts to intimidate Taiwan and its neighbors in the Pacific or preparations for an invasion if it becomes so disposed. For the United States, the Taiwan challenge is multifaceted and global. Taiwan and Ukraine both have great strategic significance. America, by ceding control of the Black Sea and Ukrainian ports, permits Russia a chokehold on the global swing supplier of wheat and several other key agricultural commodities. Moscow has the capacity to create instability throughout the developing world with skyrocketing food prices and shortages. Taiwan provides the world with 92% of the global supply chain’s advanced semiconductors. Consequently, a Chinese invasion or even a blockade would bring Western economies to their knees within months.

Meanwhile, the June harvest will produce millions of more tons of Ukrainian grain the export of which Russia will keep trying to block. A simple answer would be to force our way through the Russian blockade with the U.S. or NATO or a coalition of nation’s combatant ships to escort cargo ships to and from Ukrainian ports. Some, such as Adm. James Stavridis (USN, Ret.) have suggested exactly that. Like many simple answers, this one is entirely wrong. Our navy, with NATO’s or a hastily-formed coalition’s support, could force its way through the Russian blockade to escort grain ships in and out of Ukraine’s ports. But that couldn’t be done without fighting Russian ships maintaining the blockade. As I have written consistently, we need to support Ukraine by sending them anything that shoots, but we should not go to war with Russia on Ukraine’s behalf because we don’t have a vital national security interest in that nation. Mr. Putin’s grain blackmail has and will continue to raise grain prices in the Western world and create shortages. In poorer countries, especially in Africa, this could result in hunger and famine. But this blackmail isn’t enough to relieve Russia of sanctions. President Biden’s policy toward Russia and Ukraine is, at best, confused and as half-hearted as the EU’s. His decision on sending Ukraine advanced missile systems has been reversed twice and maybe again. Mr. Putin won’t stop this war unless Russia is defeated or he falls from power. We need to keep supporting Ukraine to make it Mr. Putin’s Afghanistan. Mr. Biden should not tell Ukraine it should trade land for peace with Russia. If he adopts that strategy, it will be his 1938 Munich moment.