I sense another bout of historical revisionism coming on... what exactly was the US supposed to do in the 1950s to "counter any potential future military threat" from Russia and China? Nuke them? How and why does one go about countering potential future threats? Are we to try to preemptively counter any threat that might possibly someday exist?
So far the US hasn't given any ground at all. The Russians certainly did: they lost an immense amount of ground with the fall of the Soviet Union. Of course that ground wasn't gained by the US, it was gained by the people who live on it, which is as it should be.
Neither Russia nor China can reasonably called "aggressively expansionist", and the US isn't "losing ground" to anyone. We're adjusting to a more multipolar world with greater economic balance, but that's inevitable and needn't be something to fear.
Neither can either "counter and if necessary defeat" the US if push comes to shove. There's a very strong incentive not to let push come to shove, as there was during the cold war... and that's not necessarily a bad thing. If any of these powers had the capacity to conclusively defeat any other, they'd be tempted to use that capacity. The less of that the better.
Bookmarks