Ukraine and the Global Order, Pt. 1

To put it mildly, there seems to be a shift taking place in American foreign policy. Unsurprisingly, there is much consternation among President Trump’s critics. I too experience feelings of worry that something is profoundly amok. What will the world look like after four or eight years of American alignment with Russia and the gallery of despotic states? What are the ramifications for liberal democracy and the West? What will become of occidental aspirations toward general enlightenment, secular pluralism, and human rights?

In addition to these serious concerns, there is also a moral and aesthetic panic that many find difficult to shake. The image of Donald Trump and J. D. Vance berating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in front of the whole world for not saying thank you enough, for being stubbornly unwilling to cut some slack to Vladimir Putin — the man who is currently raping his country — even going so far as to berate the Ukrainian president for risking World War III by his actions . . . The spectacle was so astonishingly disgusting and shameful, even for men like Trump and Vance, that one feels at a loss for words.

Share

Aside from the injustice of it all, it is difficult to imagine a context where it would be somehow okay to publicly bash a leader who has demonstrated his worth by marshaling and guiding the fighting spirit of his country to hold its ground against the attack of a malign superpower. Making this even more galling is the recent emergence of the trope that Zelensky has failed his people by balking at the terms of a “ceasefire” that have been prepared for him by Trump and Putin. The implication of this neorealist criticism is that Zelensky should have understood that he is the leader of a small, weak country, and small weak countries should not try to resists big strong ones.

The logic of this trope is spurious and vexed. Ukraine is a European society with a liberal, republican government. It is not in the West’s interest for it to be transformed into a Russian satellite, and moreover, if the West turned a blind eye to Russia’s efforts to transform Ukraine, this would make it more likely that Russia (and other despotic, illiberal nations) would do this sort of thing again. And again. There is a vivid and valid basis for the Ukrainians’ expectation that the West would support them in their attempt to defend themselves.

Moreover, with a bit of financial and hardware assistance, the Ukrainian people did indeed fight Russia to a standstill, against the expectations of almost everyone. This by itself would seem to challenge the ancient truism we’ve heard quoted so often lately from Thucydides’ Melian dialog: “The strong do what they can; the weak suffer what they must.”

The wider reality of the situation casts even more doubt on this ancient assumption. Putin, after being humiliated by a petit neighbor, turned to allies for support. For the past year and a half, many of the resources for fighting Ukraine have been supplied by other nations on Russia’s behalf. Thousands of the attack drones and medium range missiles Russia launches into Ukraine to kill civilians and destroy national infrastructure have been supplied by Iran. North Korea has sent thousands of troops into Ukraine to fight for Putin. China now provides critical aid to Russian weapons production by supplying dual-use technologies, including microchips and telecommunications equipment. China is also shipping weapons and body armor to Russia.

China, India, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Turkey have all increased their imports of Russian energy to fill in the economic breach created by Western sanctions by supplying Russia with crucial revenue.

Syria has expressed strong support for Russia and has reportedly sent fighters to assist Russian forces. UAE and Turkey have maintained economic ties with Russia and continue to facilitate arms shipments to Russia. Belarus has been a key ally of Russia, allowing Russian troops to stage operations from its territory and providing logistical support. In July 2023, Russian armed forces were reportedly observed using artillery manufactured in Myanmar.

So, it seems “the strong” need help too. I am unaware of any political realists who are calling into question the Russian effort in Ukraine on the basis of Moscow’s dependence on foreign support. My real point here is that this premodern intuition that small countries should simply submit to larger neighbors does not exactly amount to a slam-dunk argument. This should begin to call into question the neorealist assumptions of geopolitical asymmetry. (More on this in part two of this essay.)

Trump and Vance’s rhetoric, by which they lord it over Zelensky, telling him he doesn’t have “good cards,” and implying that he’s a lost cause without American backing, is self-serving and detached from the complex reality of the situation. This makes their public treatment of Zelensky all the more galling. Engaging in petty, childish taunts and crass jibes directed at a man fighting for the survival of his nation would be disgraceful enough, even if it were rooted in a fair accounting of the predicament. In reality, however, it’s little more than vain posturing and bullying, justified by a pretense to political realism.

Long-time Republican defenders of Ukraine, such as Lindsey Graham, have now been coopted by the White House. As usual, the GOP is falling in line behind Trump, and there is now a merciless piling-on as Republicans attempt to please their master by insulting Zelensky.

To those who grow weary of hearing the shrill noises of Trump’s critics: I get it. I’m sure it gets old. The bleating from Democrats and anti-Trump cable news and internet personalities are becoming increasingly unhinged. I would submit, however, that it is unrealistic to expect those of us who oppose this administration to refrain from stridently remarking on such odious displays from Trump and his valets. Still, we should acknowledge that such displays of moral and aesthetic defects should not be confused with what is most problematic with this administration’s approach to global politics.

In part two of this essay I’ll take up what I believe to be the more substantial concerns with MAGA foreign policy. There is much at stake and the dangers for the United States are quite real.