HUDSON INSTITUTE
1
SEVEN THINGS PACIFIC PRIORITIZERS
GET WRONG ABOUT AID TO UKRAINE
POLICY MEMO
Seven Things Pacic Prioritizers
Get Wrong about Aid to Ukraine
Daniel Kochis
Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
October 2024
As the United States’ real and perceived advantages over
China wane, many analysts are calling for a shift in US policy
to prioritize the Indo-Pacic at the expense of Europe. They
believe Washington needs to pare down US engagement in
other regions and marshal American military resources to the
Pacic to prepare for a confrontation with China. A leading role
in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and robust material
support for Ukraine have become luxuries America can no
longer aord, they argue.
1
Advocates for Pacic prioritization are correct in that an
increasingly aggressive China is a complex and signicant
threat to US interests. But they undervalue both the
destabilizing eects of continued Russian aggression and
Europe’s role in US interests—including in the Pacic. A siloed
approach to Chinese and Russian threats risks negative
outcomes in both theatres. The credibility of Western security
commitments is on trial in Ukraine, and Beijing is a key party to
Moscow’s war. Ignoring active Russian aggression to focus on
a simmering conict with China is a sure path to failure.
The appeal of a Pacic prioritization strategy is founded on
myths and misunderstandings. Below are the seven most
important myths and the reasons they are false.
Myth 1: Russia is a distraction from the most important
long-term threat to US interests, China.
• ChinawillbeasignicantthreattoUSinterestsforthe
foreseeable future. US policymakers should plan for all
contingencies, including a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. But
just as a homeowner would be foolish to spend time buying
insurance for a future ood while shrugging o a re raging
in the attic, the US should not ignore the ongoing war in
Europe because of the threat of war in Asia.
