Only the Soviet empire expanded. That lasted until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 - just months after China’s Communist rulers suppressed the pro-freedom movement in Tiananmen. The People’s Republic of China is already an empire. Tibet and Xinjiang are captive nations within it. In 1997, Britain agreed to turn over Hong Kong to the Chinese Communists in exchange for their promise that for a half-century the former Crown Colony would maintain substantial independence. That promise is now being broken, most recently by Beijing’s imposition of a law effectively criminalizing dissent. China’s rulers also are more aggressively threatening Taiwan. But Beijing’s imperial dreams extend far beyond its immediate neighborhood. Seven years ago, it launched what is now called the Belt and Road Initiative. At first, the BRI was widely viewed as a benign foreign assistance, trade and development program. The Chinese would build roads, rail lines, airports, seaports, dams, power plants and communications networks cheaply and efficiently. They’d offer loans. What’s not to like? Elaine K. Dezenski, a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Economic and Financial Power, has asked that question, and provides some answers in a new report: “Below the Belt and Road: Corruption and Illicit Dealings in China’s Global Infrastructure.” BRI projects, her research reveals, are “often white elephants that benefit mainly the companies that build them and politicians who allow them to proceed.” In Sri Lanka, BRI funds were used to build “the world’s emptiest airport, along with a new seaport that is operating at two percent capacity.

A century ago, Vladimir Lenin wrote a book titled “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.” I doubt it occurred to him that imperialism might one day become the highest stage of communism. Yet that day is here. The end of the Cold War was widely interpreted as communism’s downfall. But while the Soviet Union collapsed, communism survived, most consequentially in China. Analysts on both the left and right didn’t get that. After all, China’s rulers were allowing private ownership of some means of production, and some Chinese citizens, not all of them government officials or even members of the Communist Party, were getting rich. Isn’t that capitalism? Not exactly. There’s no heresy in socialist regimes refraining from nationalizing businesses so long as those businesses take orders from the party and state. One famous example: Lenin’s 1921 New Economic Policy. Most China-watchers also believed that the more prosperous the peoples of China became, the more they would want freedoms and representative government. Surely, the authorities would acquiesce. Even after the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, the dominant view among academics, diplomats and journalists was that China was on the road to moderation and liberalization. But the dominant view was wrong. Returning to Lenin: He saw imperialism as the means by which capitalist countries could most effectively extract wealth from less-developed countries. But World War II abruptly ended the imperial ambitions of Germany, Japan and Italy. Other European empires were soon dismantled as well.

In today’s world others are not as willing as they once were to tolerate the sort of overt aggression that took place during the days when Nazis and Communists were running amok, forcing aggressor nations to find subtler ways of taking over their neighbors. Thus, though Moscow might like to rebuild the empire that collapsed along with the Soviet Union it is encountering more pushback than perhaps expected when it retook Crimea and essentially occupied eastern Ukraine. Sanctions and condemnation may have proved too little and far too late for Crimea and eastern Ukraine, but one has to think that Moscow will think twice before going after more of its neighbors. Watching all this, the ever-inventive Chinese leadership in Beijing seem to have come up with new and intriguing ways of expanding their sway in Asia. Failing in various attempts to claim islands that aren’t theirs, they simply decided to build their own astride sea lanes to which they have no legal, moral or other claim, declare them Chinese territory and provision them with hardware and troops to “protect” them. The West and China’s neighbors were initially flummoxed but are beginning to come together to let Beijing know that they are prepared to push back and are refusing to recognize their attempt to exercise control over traditionally free sea lanes. But Beijing has other cards up its sleeve. With a growing economy and plenty of cash, China’s rulers are morphing into the international equivalent of predatory mortgage lenders; providing funds to high-risk borrowers knowing they will never be able to repay. That is precisely how Beijing recently acquired a 99-year lease on a strategic port and chunk of land in Sri Lanka.

Today, Russia still has the largest nuclear arsenal and is the only other nuclear superpower. But its conventional power is a shadow of its Red Army past. In fact, many of the countries that once made up the Warsaw Pact are now NATO members. What the United States desperately needs today is to conduct an honest, updated assessment of the world as it is. We should identify the strengths and weaknesses of our friends and potential adversaries, determine the direction in which emerging trends and opportunities are going, and then establish new policies commensurate with our national interests. A new, forward-thinking policy won’t be to merely ask NATO members in Europe to pay more for having American troops on their soil, but to begin methodically and professionally transitioning the burden of European security to the Europeans themselves. There are three main reasons EU countries have not been willing to take responsibility for their own security (many of which spend as little as 1 percent of GDP on their national defense). First, they believe the United States will serve as the first line of defense for any threat to their security. Second, they would rather spend their money on their domestic population and let the United States pay to keep them safe. Third, as proven by how little they spend on defense, the truth is most European governments regard the threat from Russia to be marginal and manageable. Europe already has a substantial combined military advantage over the Russian army in every category and could defeat Russian conventional forces even without U.S. intervention. They have the modern economies to fund national militaries. It’s time to reform NATO so that European states take the lead on their security and America becomes the strategic reserve.

A wealthy, strong, and - critically - independent Europe is in America’s interest. A re-evaluation of the trans-Atlantic relationship is long overdue. Central to a prudent re-evaluation is the recognition that today’s global environment is no longer like the one that existed during the heat of the Cold War, when most of our current security relationships were formed. NATO was created in 1949 under the still-smoldering wreckage of World War II and as the Soviet Union was becoming a global player. Germany was divided, with most of its industry in ruins. France and England had suffered grievously and had together lost more than a million citizens to the war. The United States, however, was the undisputed Western power in both military and economic might. We initially had a nuclear monopoly and an industrial machine undamaged by the war. Through the economic package of the Marshall Plan (which provided billions for European countries to rebuild) and the military pact of NATO, the United States was the West’s indispensable nation. It is no exaggeration to say that without Uncle Sam’s extensive involvement, Europe may have collapsed or succumbed to the infection of communism spreading throughout the post-war world. During the Cold War, Europe relied on America. The first NATO Secretary-General, Lord Hastings Ismay, famously said that NATO existed to “keep the Soviets out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” But with the collapse of the U.S.S.R. - along with the rise of France, the U.K., and a reunified Germany as rich nations - the fundamental reasons for NATO’s existence vanished. The once-compelling justification for the United States to underwrite the security of Western Europe has likewise disappeared.

Supporters say vaping can help wean hard-core tobacco smokers off of cigarettes, much like methadone helps heroin addicts kick their drug habit. And the public health benefits are undeniable: Since vaping does not burn tobacco, it produces no tar residue, the toxin that causes emphysema and lung cancer. But that hasn’t kept anti-vapers from pressing their case. They’ve pointed to the nicotine contained in some vaping liquids. Critics say that vaping is likely to turn a new generation of teenagers into nicotine fiends. It’s hysteria for the most part, the kind of moral panic liberals love to stoke to justify a crackdown which invariably places government regulators - the ultimate kill-joys - in control of national policy. But many and perhaps most vaping liquids contain no nicotine at all. Especially for first-time smokers, imbibing nicotine is not vaping’s primary appeal. Anti-vapers know this and have begun targeting the vaping liquid’s sweet-tasting flavor additives - 12,000 varieties and counting - that young adults especially find so appealing. The main ingredients in vaping liquid, vegetable glycerin and propylene glycol, are not toxic when ingested. What happens when these same ingredients are burned at high temperatures? No one knows, but that hasn’t stopped a bevy of recent studies from concluding, with the flimsiest of evidence, that trace metals found in these liquids are likely to increase the risk for cancer. But in a free society we do not start with the presumption of guilt and harm to stigmatize the pursuit of happiness.

To be sure, individuals who refuse to identify with their biological sex deserve all the rights afforded to every American. Their state of mind, however, ought not to entitle them to special privileges unavailable to the less imaginative. By way of example, dyslexia causes some sufferers to read words backward. It’s unfortunate, and a sympathetic society makes some allowances, such as giving dyslexic students extra time when taking standardized tests. However, the law provides no exceptions for medical conditions that could result in harm to others like mixing up traffic signs and driving on the wrong side of the street. Boys confused over their sexual identity deserve compassion when something in their hearts says “girl” while every cell in their bodies is infused with “boy” DNA. Male physiology includes skeletal and muscular structures that grant boys a physical edge like greater strength and lung capacity. Female hormone treatment that some transgender boys undergo can reduce the natural advantage, but not fully neutralize it. Idaho is far from the only state fighting for the legitimate right of young women to engage in athletic competition on an even playing field. Transgender athletes have broken into girls’ sports in 17 states plus the District of Columbia. In particular, two transgender sprinters, Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood, together have won 15 state indoor and outdoor girls’ track championships during their high school careers. Their victories have relegated competing female athletes to also-rans, denying them recognition and, potentially, valuable scholarships.

Human progress is fueled by limitless flights of imagination. That’s a good thing, except when the individual fantasy runs smack-dab into objective reality. Then it is best that the image so dear to one and so harmful to others remain a private reverie. Such is the case of young male athletes who claim to be young women, at least in their own minds. The physical advantage that lads have over lasses cannot be erased by wishful thinking, drugs or scalpels. Only the delusional refuse to accept that boys will be boys. The modern-day culture war, which urges individuals to fashion their own truth, has opened deep cracks in common sense. In the corresponding battle of the sexes, though, unvarnished fact is staging a comeback. Recently the Department of Justice came down on the side of logic when it agreed with Idaho in defense of the state’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, a law prohibiting biological males identifying as females from competing in girls’ sporting events. “Allowing biological males to compete in all-female sports is fundamentally unfair to female athletes,” wrote Attorney General William P. Barr in a statement, adding: “Single-sex athletics is rooted in the reality of biological differences between the sexes and should stay rooted in objective biological fact.” The Justice Department went on to state that “the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution does not require States to abandon their efforts to provide biological women with equal opportunity to compete for, and enjoy the life-long benefits that flow from, participation in school athletics in order to accommodate the team preferences of transgender athletes.”

In an email conversation with me, he wrote: “What price do we put on the lives of innocent victims of state torture, murder and thought control? At some point you just have to walk away.” Policy makers are not the only ones who should be pondering this moral dilemma. Consumers, too, might want to think twice before buying products made in China. And in a New York Times op-ed recently, the American Enterprise Institute’s Danielle Pletka and Derek Scissors noted: “American financial heavyweights and pension funds have in recent years shunned fossil fuels, guns and other investments on ethical grounds.” “Yet when it comes to providing capital to Chinese companies ? including those directly engaged in surveillance or supporting the People’s Liberation Army ? many haven’t resisted investment.” If the United States were to make clear that China’s access to American consumers and investors is now in jeopardy, might the regime change its behavior? Mr. Rickards contends that while China may appear to be “a monolithic juggernaut,” in reality it is a “fragile construct that could descend into chaos.” Do China’s rulers secretly agree? Were we to start cutting them off, we might find out. Nevertheless, transforming hostile actors into peaceful, prosperous and cooperative neighbors is no mean feat. Consider Russia, North Korea, Iran, Cuba. What should be less difficult: One strategic rule by now should be obvious: Do not enrich thine enemy. Or, to paraphrase a quote attributed to Lenin: Don’t sell your enemy the rope with which to hang you, or let him steal from you the technology for building gallows.

It was a lovely theory, but it’s been conclusively disproven by realty. Xi Jinping is the most totalitarian Chinse ruler since Mao Zedong. And China did not become capitalist as has been widely believed. Instead, it developed a mercantilist brand of socialism, substituting state control of the means of production for state ownership of the mean of production, while mandating “military-civil fusion.” I think the term is self-explanatory. Give credit where credit is due: Unlike his predecessors, President Trump recognized the growing menace China’s rulers now pose. Mr. Trump’s National Security Strategy (NSS), written when Gen. H.R. McMaster was his national security adviser, states plainly that China is a “revisionist” power that regards the United States as its geopolitical rival, a challenge to which the United States must respond with more than hope for change. The NSS warns that China uses “implied military threats to persuade other states to heed its political and security agenda,” and is increasingly engaging in “cyber-enabled economic warfare.” Cyber-enabled economic warfare implies the use of high-technology weapons to debilitate America economically in order to cripple America militarily. Which leads us to two questions. First: Is there a moral case for continuing to intertwine our economy with China’s, for helping the regime prosper? My answer: Clearly not. Second: Would it be easy and painless to decouple the U.S. economy from China’s? My answer to that also would be no. However, James Rickards, a longtime adviser on international economics and financial threats to the Department of Defense and intelligence community has a different answer: “So what?”