The Cold War may feel like distant history, but its echoes are unmistakable in today’s geopolitical landscape as the United States once again arms foreign allies to counter authoritarian threats. Just as the United States armed Western Europe through NATO to contain Soviet expansion, today it supplies weapons to Taiwan and Ukraine to deter aggression from authoritarian powers. But as Joseph Nye argues in The Future of Power, success in today’s global order depends not only on military strength but also on the ability to shape global norms, alliances, and narratives — a concept known as “smart power.”1 A more effective approach requires not just military deterrence, but also sustained diplomacy through consistent communication, long-term partnerships, and multilateral cooperation. Supporting allies with weapons can buy time and create leverage. But without strong diplomatic engagement to address deeper tensions like national identity, territorial disputes, and economic dependence, conflict is more likely to escalate. To avoid open war and preserve global stability, the U.S. must pair defense with meaningful efforts to reduce miscalculation, open communication channels, and engage even with its rivals.
To understand modern U.S. diplomatic strategy, it helps to revisit the Cold War. Although the United States and the USSR were allies during World War II, cracks in their relationship emerged as early as 1945 due to conflicting visions for the postwar world — particularly over the political future of Eastern Europe and the spread of communism. In response, the United States adopted a policy to deter Soviet power through the Truman Doctrine, pledging aid to governments threatened by communist subversion, and the Marshall Plan, which provided billions of dollars in economic assistance to stabilize fragile democracies.
These initiatives were complemented by arms sales, a cornerstone of the U.S. strategy to counter Soviet expansion. By supplying NATO countries with weapons to fortify Western Europe, the United States sent a clear signal of its commitment to defending its allies while avoiding direct military confrontation. This strategy extended globally, with arms sent to nations battling communist insurgencies, such as Greece, Turkey, South Korea, and Vietnam. Arms sales shifted the balance of power in favor of U.S. allies and created a web of fortified partnerships that defined Cold War geopolitics.
Today, this strategy finds parallels in U.S. arms sales to Taiwan — but military support alone is not enough. The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 legally obligates the U.S. to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself, reflecting a Cold War-style commitment to deter authoritarian expansion, this time from China. By supplying F-16 fighter jets, Patriot missile defense systems, and precision-guided munitions, the U.S. seeks to strengthen Taiwan’s defensive posture and discourage a Chinese assault.
A balanced strategy would recognize that deterrence through arms is only part of the solution; it must be complemented by reestablishing direct military and political communication channels with Beijing to prevent dangerous misunderstandings, supporting regional coalitions to share security responsibilities, and investing in Taiwan’s civil and economic resilience. In other words, balancing strength with steady dialogue offers both a deterrent and an off-ramp, minimizing the chance of conflict while preserving space for resolution.
Modern deterrence must go beyond military might to include diplomatic strategy, multilateral cooperation, and economic engagement. Arms sales alone cannot resolve the underlying tensions in the Taiwan Strait or elsewhere because they do not address the structural roots of conflict, such as territorial claims, national identity, and trade imbalances. In the realm of diplomacy, perfection in communication is an abstract ideal— misunderstandings, mistranslations, and divergent interests are inevitable.
Yet this should not deter efforts toward improvement. Strengthening diplomatic channels through building a regular, formal communication between U.S. and Chinese military and civilian leaders, establishing crisis hotlines, expanding diplomatic staffing and language expertise in both countries’ embassies, and supporting track-two dialogues among scholars and former officials are crucial steps toward minimizing miscalculation and building a more stable international order. It also includes developing sustained forums— beyond reactive summits — for negotiation on areas of shared concern like climate change, trade, and global health. These concrete steps are essential to restoring trust and credibility.
In particular, U.S. engagement with China has lacked consistency and long-term direction. While recent efforts have focused on countering Russia’s aggression in Ukraine through firm diplomatic and military backing, similar engagement with China has been far more uneven. Though China is frequently treated as a strategic competitor — and sometimes an outright adversary — it remains one of the United States’ largest trading partners. This complex interdependence demands a steady and deliberate diplomatic strategy, not just episodic dialogue or reactive policy shifts. Without a clear, consistent approach to China, the U.S. risks deepening misunderstandings, provoking unnecessary conflicts, or losing strategic leverage on global issues, such as climate change and trade. If the U.S. fails to engage proactively, China may feel emboldened to act more aggressively. Michael Swaine, in Creating a Stable Asia, argues that relying solely on deterrence could exacerbate instability rather than prevent it. Washington must therefore invest not only in arms sales, but also in confidence-building measures and regular dialogue with Beijing to reduce uncertainty and miscalculation.
What’s needed is a consistent, bipartisan approach that prioritizes strategic diplomacy as much as strategic defense. That includes reopening and strengthening military and diplomatic channels with Beijing, setting clear terms for cooperation in areas such as climate change and public health, and building multilateral mechanisms in the Indo-Pacific that go beyond military alliances. Engagement does not mean appeasement — it means acknowledging interdependence and using communication as a tool to prevent escalation.
At the same time, Taiwan must also take a more proactive role in its own defense, reducing reliance on U.S. support while continuing to invest in asymmetric capabilities and resilience. If Taiwan does not strengthen its own defense capabilities, it risks becoming too dependent on the U.S., which could weaken its negotiating position and make it more vulnerable to Chinese intimidation. Taiwan’s reliance on external support could also strain U.S.-Taiwan relations if U.S. resources become overstretched due to other global commitments. A more self-reliant Taiwan would not only deter Chinese aggression but would also signal to both China and the international community that Taiwan is capable of defending itself, reducing the likelihood of a confrontation. A balanced strategy — combining self-reliance, constructive engagement, and targeted arms support — offers the best path to security without deepening regional instability.
From Vietnam to Iraq, history shows that deterrence without diplomacy often backfires. The 20th-century containment strategy may still be in use, but the world has changed. Taiwan must not become the next example. Military aid must be matched with sustained diplomatic engagement to reduce tensions and preserve stability. As Joseph Nye reminds us, “Power does not lie in brute strength, but in the ability to shape the preferences of others,” underscoring that diplomacy is not a soft alternative — it’s a strategic necessity.2 Only by balancing strength with strategy can the U.S. uphold its democratic ideals without reigniting Cold War-style crises.
Featured/Headline Image Caption and Citation: American and Taiwanese Flags, Image sourced from Flickr | CC License, no changes made