Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the Chinese Communist Party has projected an image of a “peace-loving” civilization wronged by imperialism and devoted to harmony. Yet from the Korean War to Ukraine, from the Himalayas to the South China Sea, the historical record exposes a very different truth. Communism, by its very nature, is a militant ideology. It regards peace not as a moral good but as a temporary pause between battles. Mao Zedong built his regime on the doctrine of permanent revolution. Like the Soviet Union before it, the CCP must continually demonstrate its vitality through conflict to preserve its myths of infallibility and invincibility. For the CCP, aggression is not an aberration but an existential requirement. That imperative explains China’s unparalleled record of military adventurism. Scarcely a year after its founding, the regime sent millions of Chinese “volunteers” into Korea and transformed a regional civil war into a global conflagration that claimed millions of lives. In 1954 and again in 1958, it bombarded Taiwan’s offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu. In 1962, China invaded India and seized border territory under the false banner of “self-defense.” Only a few years later, Chinese and Soviet troops clashed along the Ussuri River in bloody battles that nearly triggered nuclear war between the two communist powers. In 1979, Beijing invaded Vietnam, launching a monthlong campaign that killed tens of thousands on both sides. No other major nation since World War II has initiated so many wars and border conflicts. Yet generations of Western apologists have continued to parrot Beijing’s propaganda that China is uniquely “peaceful” and “non-expansionist.”

In 1928, Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Western scholars and policymakers were uninterested, regarding it as nothing more than a religious-social welfare organization and therefore no threat to free nations. To comprehend what motivated al-Banna, you need to consider what happened in 1922: The Ottoman Empire, having made the mistake of siding with Germany in World War I, collapsed when Turkish nationalists, led by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, abolished the Ottoman Sultanate. The Ottoman Caliphate, a religious institution associated with the Sultanate, was abolished two years later as part of Ataturk’s secular reforms. To Mr. al-Banna, there could be no greater tragedy and humiliation. The Muslim Brotherhood’s mission: to establish an even mightier empire and caliphate based on Islamic supremacy. The Brotherhood today is not monolithic. Each branch determines the best approach to make progress in its region. Some, such as Hamas, conduct terrorist attacks ? though by calling violence directed against civilians “resistance”. The Brotherhood has come a long way since the days of al-Banna. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, president of NATO member Turkey since 2014, supports Hamas and embraces the Brotherhood’s broader goals. Final thoughts for today: Communism has not been defeated. On the contrary, Beijing is now the headquarters of the most powerful Communist Party in history. Nazism may be making a comeback. Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood is waging a jihad that began 1,400 years ago. All this reinforces my long-standing belief that there are no permanent victories, only permanent battles.

Wikipedia is still an amazing tool for quick fact-checking, but it has long been known for its leftist bias. Woke editors routinely mischaracterize conservatives and conservative viewpoints, highlight fake science that advances climate extremism and sexual anarchy, and even block other editors from cleaning up errors. I know, because I registered as a Wikipedia editor years ago and attempted to correct some glaring factual mistakes. Heavy-handed editors kept overriding my corrections. It became so tedious that I gave up. That’s why I was delighted by the Oct. 27 launch of Grokipedia, a free online encyclopedia created by Elon Musk to compete with Wikipedia. An offshoot of the xAI company’s artificial intelligence chatbot Grok, the site features 885,000 articles and is adding information exponentially. Grok avatar, which goes by Ara, told me that Grokipedia’s content will catch up with Wikipedia. Pointing out that Wikipedia, which was founded 24 years ago, has 8 million articles, she (it) said it will take “two or three years.” Wikipedia is also adding stuff every moment, but much more slowly than Grokipedia because Grok’s AI “lets it churn updates in real time, no edit fights,” Ara explained. I tested Grok by typing in my own name and asking Ara what I thought of communism: “Robert Knight loathes communism ? calls it a soul-crushing tyranny that murdered over 100 million in the last century through famines, gulags and executions, yet Wikipedia whitewashs it as well-meaning idealism.” “In his columns, it’s evil incarnate: anti-God, anti-freedom. He’d probably cheer if it got tossed in history’s trash.”

Russia has become an active and impactful tool of China’s ruthless global influence campaign. China never considered pressuring Russia to end the war because China is benefiting too much from the ongoing fighting. Vladimir Putin has failed to achieve his strategic objective of overthrowing the democratically elected government of Ukraine and installing a puppet regime. China, meanwhile, is exploiting Russia’s geopolitical weakness for its own economic and strategic gain while transforming Mr. Putin’s quagmire into a proxy war against the U.S. China imports Russian hydrocarbons at reduced prices and exports large supplies of fiber-optic cable, equipment and manufactured goods, many of which are dual military use, to Russia. While the Kremlin has been spilling Russia’s blood and treasure in Ukraine, China has been encroaching on Russia’s historical sphere of influence in Central Asia. China is also hreatening Taiwan’s sovereignty and militarizing the South China Sea, China wants to weaken Europe and drive a wedge between the U.S. and NATO, thereby rendering Europe more vulnerable to Chinese wolf warrior diplomacy and mercantilist unfair trade practices. China has also incorporated valuable lessons about engaging in combat against NATO weapons, integrating intelligence into the battlefield and deploying drone technology. Without China’s diplomatic, military and economic support, Russia’s war machine would have already likely ground to a halt. China is a communist police state guilty of massive human rights violations at home and abroad. It is at war with democracy and every principle enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Mr. Xi wants China’s adversaries to be weak and divided.

President Trump’s new National Security Strategy has generated a lot of commentary and criticism, much of it from unlikely sources. The European Union, whose list of members is virtually indistinguishable from NATO’s, seems to believe that Mr. Trump is abandoning NATO to side with Russia. China has been observing these events with a puzzled smile. One of the principal criticisms is that, by insisting on European responsibility for the Russia-Ukraine war, Mr. Trump wants to destroy NATO. Another is that by minimizing the threat of China, Mr. Trump is withdrawing support from our allies in the Pacific. The National Security Strategy begins with the statement that it is not grounded in traditional political ideology. That is certainly true. It focuses mainly on America’s commercial interests and not on the security of the regions in which we have vital national security interests. The National Security Strategy’s harshest words are reserved for Europe. It says, “Should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less.” “As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies.” From these words comes NATO’s worry of abandonment. One British think tank estimates the cost for Europe to spend enough on defense to be around $1 trillion. By that estimate, NATO would have to reduce its reliance on America for items such as airborne and geospatial reconnaissance, as well as long-range strike weapons. That is far beyond NATO’s capability and intention. If America abandons the Russian war on Ukraine to Europe, that will mean the Russian conquest of Ukraine.

There are now nine nuclear weapons states and concern that more countries will seek the resources necessary to produce their own nuclear weapons or to buy them. In East Asia, North Korea has increased its stockpile of nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons of mass destruction. Given the likely assistance North Korea is receiving from Russia with its nuclear and missile programs, it’s possible that South Korea and Japan, threatened by a belligerent North Korea, will conclude that they need their own nuclear deterrent programs too. Indeed, a recent poll in South Korea found that more than 70% of the people think the country needs its own nuclear weapons program instead of relying on the U.S. nuclear umbrella. South Korea and Japan are watching what happens to Ukraine. This is a sovereign country invaded by a Russia that disregarded its security guarantees to Ukraine, with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum also signed by the U.S. and Britain. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons for security assurances that Russia ignored. Will the U.S. and NATO be there for Ukraine this time, or should Ukraine pursue its own nuclear deterrent? The U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear sites Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz in June was in response to Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium. If Iran produces or acquires nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt would rush to create their own nuclear weapons programs. The U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear sites in June was an effort to ensure that Iran did not go nuclear. There is real concern by a few non-nuclear-weapons states that they need their own nuclear weapons to address the threat from North Korea and Iran.

The decades that followed the Korean War were tense, with a belligerent North Korea determined to threaten and provoke South Korea. Despite these provocations, South Korea was able to develop into a model liberal democracy with the 13th largest gross domestic product in the world. During the past seven months, Mr. Trump has shown the world that he is a proactive peacemaker, determined to help resolve conflicts afflicting a growing number of countries. We saw this with Pakistan and India, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Thailand and Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, Serbia and Kosovo, and Egypt and Ethiopia. Mr. Trump’s efforts to bring an end to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza continue. The Lee administration has reached out to North Korea, making it clear that the new president wants a good relationship with it. The response from the North has been negative, with the powerful sister of Kim Jong Un, Kim Yo Jung, making it clear that North Korea views South Korea as the enemy, eschewing peaceful reunification of the two Koreas. North Korea’s new strategic relationship with Russia must be of considerable concern. Its mutual defense treaty with Russia and North Korean troops participating in Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine are of concern, as are the ballistic missiles, artillery shells and other weaponry the North is providing to Russia. North Korea that views South Korea as the enemy, previously threated to use tactical nuclear weapons against the South. The reality is that North Korea’s new relationship with Russia could embolden Mr. Kim and incite him to do something provocative against South Korea, which we’ve seen in the past. This could escalate quickly. North Korea previously acted recklessly - and that was when it didn’t have nuclear weapons or a mutual defense treaty with Russia.

When most people hear “trade negotiations,” they think of tariffs and market access. For the Trump administration, however, any new U.S.?European Union trade talks must also address something far more dangerous than a tariff schedule: the creeping imposition of Europe’s emissions mandates on American companies. If the 47th president is serious about restoring U.S. sovereignty and American energy dominance, ending the European Union’s corporate sustainability reporting directive and carbon border adjustment mechanism should be a nonnegotiable part of the deal. The corporate sustainability reporting directive is nothing less than Brussels exporting its environmental ideology to foreign soil. It forces companies that generate even modest revenue in the European Union to comply with sprawling environmental, social and governance reporting rules, including disclosures on greenhouse gas emissions, “transition” plans and value chain impacts, regardless of where they are headquartered. That means a U.S. manufacturer in Ohio, with no operations in Europe other than a sales office, could be compelled to hand over exhaustive emissions data to satisfy EU regulators. Then there’s the carbon border adjustment mechanism, a carbon tariff designed to penalize imports from countries whose emissions policies the European Union deems insufficiently ambitious. If you think this is just about “leveling the playing field,” think again. It is about creating a global enforcement mechanism for the Paris Agreement and other so-called climate mandates, bypassing national governments and voters. If the U.S. caves on this, we set the precedent that foreign regulators can dictate our policies through trade leverage.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has the benefit of Iranian drone production and North Korean ammunition. We lack both, and we have a bigger problem than Ukraine: China. In May, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said China plans to invade Taiwan in 2027 and warned of the enormous consequences for the region. The problem is that, among other things, we would lose thousands of lives and billions of dollars in equipment (ships, aircraft and satellites) in that war, and we would certainly run out of ammunition (missiles, bombs and more) if the war lasted more than a few days or weeks. This has been proved over and over in war games and studies. That is because of the deindustrialization of the United States and the hyperindustrialization of China. The Chinese are outproducing us in everything related to war: ships, aircraft, missiles, bombs. That wouldn’t be a problem but for the fact that our technological edge has been whittled down to the point that many Chinese (and Russian) weapons systems are just as good as ours. Some may even be better. We need to actively engage the means of producing the missiles, aircraft and other tools of war necessary to defeat the Chinese. The right approach is to rebuild our defenses with a war against China in mind. When a war with China breaks out, we must suspect that the Chinese will do some or all of the following: seek to destroy our navigational, communications and spy satellites; launch air and missile attacks on our ships both near and far from Taiwan; attack vulnerable U.S. air bases such as Yokuta in Japan; and attack our cyber capabilities to a degree never before seen. That’s just the beginning.

It would also undermine American alliances with Japan and the Philippines, threaten Guam and destroy U.S. credibility as a security guarantor in Asia. It would accelerate the regional collapse of democratic self-confidence and embolden authoritarian expansion elsewhere. Most important, it would allow Beijing to challenge U.S. naval and air dominance in ways that would directly affect American economic and security interests for decades. Yet Washington still frames the Taiwan question largely in terms of supporting a fellow democracy or resisting coercion. These are worthy goals but are insufficient for mobilizing sustained national commitment. The United States needs the same kind of strategic clarity that Ms. Takaichi has articulated: Taiwan’s defense is not merely Taiwan’s problem, nor even primarily China’s problem. It is an American problem, with immediate consequences for America’s own security. By viewing Taiwan through the lens of self-interest rather than altruism, Washington can more effectively explain, both to itself and to its allies, why the island matters. It is not simply about protecting a democracy or avoiding conflict. It is about preventing a sweeping shift in the global balance of power that would leave the United States less secure, less influential and less able to shape the international order. Ms. Takaichi’s argument is not just a reminder of Japan’s geographic vulnerability. Taiwan’s defense is in Japan’s national interest and in America’s as well. Ms. Takaichi suggests that democratic nations should focus on their own security.