Defender of the Free World

May 5

People gather in front of the White House on February 27 to protest Russia's invasion of Ukraine. — Demonstrators gather in front of the White House to protest Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine. Numerous demonstrations like this have occurred across the United States, and the World.

Categories:

A Recipe for War, Analysis of History, Current Events, Disinformation, Military History, Parallels to World War II, The Involvement of the United States in the Russo-Ukrainian War

Tags:

Connections to the Past, Understanding the Past, Weaponizing History, Repercussions of Events, Propaganda, Current Views, #A Recipe for War, #Ukraine, #War

May 5, 2022

While biking through San Francisco several days ago, I couldn’t help but notice one new addition to a large number of the city’s many beautiful houses. The blue and yellow flag of Ukraine was hanging in every other window. There were probably more Ukrainian flags in that part of town than American flags. The number of Ukrainian flags has steadily grown since the start of Russia’s invasion more than two months ago, and it’s still climbing. Often, the tallest building in San Francisco (Salesforce Tower) is illuminated with the colors of the Ukrainian flag at night. Of course, this trend isn’t limited to San Francisco. Cities across the United States of America, and the world, are proudly showing their support for Ukraine by raising its flag everywhere. This display of solidarity certainly isn’t limited to flags. The oseledets, the classic Ukrainian Cossack Haircut, is gaining popularity amongst supporters of Ukraine, as is the traditional Ukrainian suit: the vyshyvanka. All of these symbolic gestures are only part of this wave of support, as everyone from numerous big companies to small groups of individuals have started charities to raise money for Ukraine. Of course, we shouldn’t forget the most important aid being sent to the country: weapons. Tanks, rockets, bullets, guns, and money for more weapons are pouring into Ukraine from Europe and the United States. All this makes it clear that the US is far away from the isolationism of the early 1900s, though its influence hasn’t fully gone away. Now, we are truly the “Defender of the Free World,” helping our “free” allies wherever they are threatened, albeit not through direct action. It is clear that the people of the United States of America are coming to accept their nation’s role in the indirect protection of democracies abroad. The effects of this new foreign policy have already started to become clear, and in years to come, they may reverberate to impact nations and people all across the globe.

After December 7, 1941, “isolationism” became a bad word in US foreign policy, though it had been incredibly influential in the decades and even centuries prior. George Washington warned his compatriots as far back as 1796 to avoid foreign entanglements. For over a century afterward, the United States did indeed avoid getting involved in conflicts in Europe and Asia. There were foreign interventions during this time, but they were largely executed to protect US economic interests and lives. Isolationists steadfastly resisted the entry of the United States into World War I, and later World War II. In both wars, the US entered only after its enemies essentially forced it to do so. In World War I, the entry was due to the sinking of US merchant ships by German U-boats, and the attempt by Germany to get Mexico to invade the United States. In World War II, it was the destruction of the US fleet at Pearl Harbor by Japan. In both cases, the US government didn’t change its stance on war overnight. Before World War I, funding for the US army increased massively, even as President Woodrow Wilson loudly proclaimed the nation’s neutrality. In World War II, the situation was somewhat different. While Wilson had proclaimed that all Americans should remain neutral “in thought as well as in deed,” President Roosevelt said that he “[couldn’t] ask that every American remain neutral in thought as well.” In fact, he believed that the US had a duty to help its European Allies. To this end, the US increased funding for the military again and even launched a peacetime draft. However, the most important contribution by the United States before its entry into the war was Lend-Lease, a program that sent millions of dollars in military equipment to the European Allies powers, allowing them to replace their losses against their Axis foes. Today’s situation demonstrates some important parallels to this period. After initially hesitating, the United States government started aiding Ukraine by sending massive amounts of supplies due to public pressure. It has sent much aid and will send even more in a new Lend-Lease Program if approved by President Biden. However, that same government has also steadfastly refused to involve itself directly in Ukraine. US soldiers are guarding NATO territory near Ukraine, but they won’t enter the country. The no-fly zone that the Ukrainian government is calling for is unlikely to materialize in the future. The public in the United States largely seems to accept this current state of affairs somewhat resembling the position that their country took before it entered World War II. In fact, according to Pew Research Center, about 75% of Americans believe that we’re sending either enough or too little aid to Ukraine. Yet according to a poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC news, roughly the same number of Americans are against direct involvement.

Pearl Harbor attack | Date, History, Map, Casualties, Timeline, & Facts | Britannica — The USS Arizona sinking in the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941. The attack ended most isolationist opposition to the entry of the United States into World War II.

The actions of the United States government stem from several weighty considerations. The public in the United States is tired of “endless wars,” including 20 years of the war on terror. At the same time, American leadership has been largely focused on the terrorist threat, as the US hasn’t been involved in any conflicts not somehow revolving around containing the threat of terrorist groups. The last such conflict was the bombing of Kosovo in 1999. Since then, foreign policy has generally taken a backseat to domestic crises such as the Great Recession and the Covid-19 pandemic. Because of this, the US government finds itself unwilling to suddenly involve itself in the massive quagmire that is the Russo-Ukrainian War. In fact, the government found itself in a similar situation 100 years earlier, after World War I. The costs of that war led to the government’s unwillingness to involve itself in other wars, and instead turn its focus inward. It appears that this isolationist thinking hasn’t completely gone away. The current US government simply doesn’t want to get involved in costly overseas conflicts anymore, and wants to focus on issues on the domestic front. However, the US government is no longer totally isolationist, as weapons are being sent to Ukraine with public approval.

The US government’s official policy towards the Russo-Ukrainian War is clearly a mix of interventionist and isolationist thinking. On the one hand, it has refused to completely involve itself in the conflict. In 1940, President Roosevelt promised the American people: “Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” It is likewise quite unlikely that we’ll be sending them to war this time. However, the US government has sent much aid to Ukraine, and occasional outbursts of open support of Ukraine have occurred, such as when President Biden said about Russian President Putin: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power!” If anything, the US public is isolationist neither in thought nor in deed in this conflict, even though it doesn’t support outright intervention in Ukraine, and it is likely that future events like this will follow a similar pattern. The US public will rally to the aid of the oppressed nation, and the US government will aid it indirectly, though direct involvement will always be off the table. Depending on the success of the US and its NATO allies’ approach, it is entirely possible that our response to the Russo-Ukrainian War has set a precedent that will last for decades to come. In many ways, this approach reflects the capability of nuclear armaments to deter direct intervention that could provoke a World War in which there would be no winners. This leaves indirect intervention as the US’s go-to strategy, for now.