America can't be isolationist and a global super power
America can't be isolationist and a global super power
The budget impasse over Ukraine is also a struggle about America's role in the world
The current impasse over Ukraine on Capitol Hill is a rerun of a show we've seen too often. America vows undying support, faces a challenge, and then enters a period of introspective navel-gazing that would make Hamlet look decisive.
The tragicomedy of this latest legislative limbo is that we've become our own worst enemy. Our domestic squabbles are broadcast in high definition to a global audience that's starting to doubt whether we're the hero of this story or just a cameo in the rise of the villains’.
Last week during a visit to Washington Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski eschewed all diplomatic niceties in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria
“To Mike Johnson I would say as a former Speaker to a current Speaker – Mr. Speaker, it is the fate of Ukraine, it is the tortured people of Ukraine who beg you. But it is also the credibility of your country that is at stake.”
And an audience at the Atlantic Council, he went on to warn about the larger global consequences if the US abandoned Ukraine:
"Putin will come to understand—as will other adversaries around the world—that he can get away with whatever he wants," he “It would then get noticed by dictators and aggressors around the world that, yes, the West will huff and puff... America will encourage to fight, but when push comes to shove, you can get away with it. And that would then be a very costly proposition.”
At the 2022 NATO summit in Madrid, President Biden pledged to “support Ukraine as long as it takes.”
“The word of the United States has been spoken," Sikorski told Zakaria about Biden’s promise. “It needs to be followed up with action, with deliveries.”
As I wrote on these pages in December, two years into the war, there are legitimate questions about the end goal and whether “as long as it takes” is still the right strategy for Ukraine. It’s also reasonable to ask whether another $60 billion would tangibly change the outcome.
But that’s not the debate we are having.
U.S. assistance to Ukraine since the start of the war, annualized, cost less than 5% of the Pentagon’s budget, with most of it spent on the necessary modernizing of our military capabilities and replenishing old weapons stocks. Close to 70 percent of spending, as the the American Enterprise Institute notes—has bee here in the United States.
That that stands to reason the debate is less about budgetary priorities than it is a larger struggle over America’s role in the world. Our role as a global superpower is at odds with a growing isolationist sentiment at home. This dangerous would-be reckoning threatens not just to reshape U.S. foreign policy but has profound implications for America's credibility.
Joseph Nye, the former Dean of the Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and architect of the concept of “smart power” who called credibility one of a nation’s most important resources, said America's greatest geopolitical threat today comes from within.
“If you look at what the Congress is doing now, destroying U.S. credibility on aid to Ukraine, this is costing us a lot more than the $60 billion that are involved in the aid package,” Nye said during a recent conversation at the Council on Foreign Relations
Nye also spoke with alarm about the Chicago Council's 2023 Survey of public opinion, on America’s role in the world which revealed a dampened support for continued assistance to Kyiv and a growing skepticism about the value of US engagement overseas.
About six in 10 Americans think the United States should play an active role in world affairs, among the lowest levels recorded since 1974. For the first time in nearly half a century, a majority of Republicans (53%) believe the United States should stay out of world affairs, reflecting a significant ideological shift within the party and among the American public.
Yaroslav Trofimov, the chief foreign affairs correspondent of The Wall Street Journal, and the author of the acclaimed new book, Our Enemies Will Vanish: The Russian Invasion and Ukraine's War of Independence, points out a Ukrainian loss two years ago at the beginning of the war would have been both a tragedy for Ukraine and a strategic victory for Russia. But, he says, it wouldn’t have been an existential defeat of America and the NATO alliance.
“Now, after hundreds of billions of dollars on weapons and other aid were sent to Ukraine, after all these high-level commitments to stand until the very end,” he told the WTH podcast.
“If Russia were to be successful in Ukraine now, no matter what they say in Washington, it's not our war. It would be seen as an American defeat everywhere in the world.”
There seems to be a collective amnesia about the long-term consequences of our actions—or inactions—on the world stage.
The memories of America's past abandonments—be it the "red line" in Syria, the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, or now the wavering support for Ukraine—are cumulative. Each instance chips away at the trust and confidence the world has in the United States.
For U.S. allies, the writing is on the wall. French President Macron is talking about possibly sending troops to Ukraine, and the Europeans are beefing up their defenses, not because they love spending on military hardware, but because America is wavering at a time when unity and resolve are paramount.
Let's not forget the audience watching this drama unfold: China, Iran, and Russia, ready to exploit any perceived weakness. Fair-weather friends like Hungary’s Viktor Orban are already deepening diplomatic and economic ties with China and Iran—following the lead of America’s Gulf allies, who have been hedging their bets against the United States for years. We are handing our adversaries an opening wrapped in a bow of indecision.
That fear is not lost on nine U.S. ambassadors stationed in the Indo-Pacific region, who urged Congressional leaders in a joint letter to secure passage of the legislation providing aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, saying America’s credibility with its strategic partners is on the line.
“Governments are watching what we do at this pivotal moment in history—a time when decisions that we take now will have lasting impacts for years to come,” said the letter. “They want to see that when the chips are down, the United States will be there for our allies and partners.”
A diplomatic plea of this nature is extremely rare from diplomats, whose sole job is to execute US policy overseas, not to question it. But the ambassadors, stationed at the frontier of America's strategic interests against the backdrop of a rising China, highlighted a truth we've been slow to acknowledge: In the game of international relations, you're only as good as your last promise.
Even voices from the business world, like Australian billionaire Andrew Forrest, have entered the fray, highlighting the global implications of America's stance on Ukraine. Forrest's stark warning—that public support in Australia for its alliance with the United States would "dwindle to dust" if Washington withdraws support for Ukraine—is a reminder that the world is interconnected, and America's credibility is a cornerstone of global stability.
That is why all corners of the world are sending a dramatically similar message: By stalling aid to Ukraine, we're not just letting down a friend; we're sending a VIP invite to every would-be aggressor that the U.S. is open to testing. Our adversaries are watching, popcorn in hand, as we debate whether supporting democracy abroad is worth the price of admission. How much weight, for example, should China assign to our “strategic ambiguity” over defending Taiwan?
Credibility is the currency of international politics, but credibility is not just about flexing military might or economic power. It's about consistency and the willingness to stand by our commitments. In the end, the saga of Ukraine aid is a litmus test for American reliability and whether we will choose the path of consistency over caprice. The question isn't just whether we'll support Ukraine; it's whether we can afford not to.
The notion that America can have its cake and eat it too, acting as a global leader without the requisite commitment, is a dangerous illusion. If we continue our gradual slide into a shell of isolationism, we may eventually find ourselves the subject of a future history lesson on how empires crumble: not with a bang, but with a long-drawn-out bureaucratic whimper.
You forget the fact that Joe Biden , inviting the Ukraine into NATO, prompted Russia into attacking. The Ukraine and Crimea are strategic and represent an existential threat if lost to Russia. The Party of War Neocon Biden, incompetent steward of American foreign policy, never negotiated peace in 2021 when Russia was at the table. Joe chose war, a half a million people have died, the Ukraine is losing, there is no end in sight with the Empire of America overextended and bungling into war globally. Maybe Joe should have listened to Washington, Eisenhower and Kennedy before him who warned of foreign entanglements and America’s military industrial complex. Maybe we should not have expanded NATO 14 times, against a promise to Gorbachev, to the border of Russia. Maybe America should lead by example and walk softly and carry a big stick. Maybe we should question the warmongering Empire that has become America.
Another terrific piece. I was especially struck by your quote from Yaroslav Trofimov about the reality of it now being America's war. That's an aspect of it I had not previously considered.