Phillips’s Newsletter

Share this post

User's avatar
Phillips’s Newsletter
War and Deterrence in the Indo-Pacific: Dont Forget the Neutral Powers

War and Deterrence in the Indo-Pacific: Dont Forget the Neutral Powers

India and Vietnam Could Determine the Winners or Losers

Phillips P. OBrien's avatar
Phillips P. OBrien
Jun 24, 2024
∙ Paid
73

Share this post

User's avatar
Phillips’s Newsletter
War and Deterrence in the Indo-Pacific: Dont Forget the Neutral Powers
55
5
Share

Hi All,

Well, this is the third part of the series on War and Deterrence in the Indo-Pacific. Here are Parts 1 and 2. For those new to this series, it was prompted by an intense week-long symposium that helped educate my perspectives and sharpen my thoughts on the subject.

Phillips’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This entry will covers by far the most under-discussed element of the subject, the role of the presently “non-aligned” in determining the outcome of any conflict (or indeed of causing or preventing the conflict). States not allied to either the USA or China have great interest in the region, and will have their own agendas to follow. How they behave needs to be prepared for closely.

It also reinforces one of the themes I want to stress throughout this series—which is that the focus needs to be broadened away from a myopic focus on the USA and China. This great power idea overstates what both states can do on their own—especially as the balance between their military capabilities might be rather close. Other states such as India and Vietnam would have real interest in the outcome of any conflict, and the military power to assert themselves. Other states could betray either power by not acting as planned.

States that are Neutral at the start of World Wars usually Determine the Result

We need to think about any war between the US and China in the Indo-Pacific as very likely metamorphosizing into the Third World War. Wars generally suck people in as either allies or neutrals that help one side or the other. And the larger the war the more the centrifugal force is created that draws states in.

I will go further and say that if history is any guide, it is states who are not active combatants at their start that usually decide the ultimate outcome. For the two World Wars that was the case. In the First World War the USA is the major example of this. Neutral (though a funny neutrality) until 1917, the entry of the US on the side of the Allies made a massive difference in how the war ended. It turned what arguably could have been a peace treaty with Germany in control of Central and Eastern Europe (Russia was teetering as the US joined) and turned it into a clear Allied victory by the end of 1918.

Share

Keep reading with a 7-day free trial

Subscribe to Phillips’s Newsletter to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in
© 2025 Phillips P. OBrien
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start writingGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture

Share