Posted on 03/02/2023 8:09:14 AM PST by SoConPubbie
Following up on my February 28th post regarding the Russia-Ukraine War, occasionally the question is sardonically asked why Russian President Vladimir Putin didn’t invade Ukraine while Donald Trump was President. The progressives who, to this day, believe Trump was a Russian stooge struggle for an answer. If they were correct, surely Trump would have done nothing more than harrumphed, gone off to play a round of golf, and told Ukraine good luck. Some on the right side of the aisle believe Putin held off out of fear as to how a loose cannon like Trump would respond, one option being loosing the American military’s cannons directly on Russia. Doubtful at best, but still within possibility’s realm. That said, a third reason suggests itself, one surprisingly centered not in foreign policy but domestic.
Trump’s central theme when President was nationalism. Nationalism puts into action the belief that one’s country warrants top priority over others. It believes competition sparks the best in people seeking to reap a reward available strictly through being earned, not doled out to all regardless of merit courtesy of a fuzzy, fatally flawed belief in mandated fairness that works solely within lollipop dreams under cotton candy skies realm. Nationalism prescribes taking care of one’s own first, suggesting to others that while no one objects to lending a hand where needed, the other hand will be holding mandatory reading on how to become more self-sufficient.
One of nationalism‘s benefits, something its evil pale cousin isolationism cannot claim, is in addition to promoting self-interest, it also promotes the concept of leaving other people alone. This very much ties into the theme of Washington’s farewell address. That said, avoiding entanglement in foreign affairs is not an open license to ignore the world around you. America’s interaction with other nations through economics, i.e., trade, and shared goals of confronting enemy powers plus other areas of mutual concern, is inexorable. Taking care of yourself first never precludes caring for others.
Taking this from the philosophical to putting it into practice, one of Trump’s greatest strengths was his willingness to work with potential adversaries respectfully, thus defusing their baseless yet believed fears of the evil American empire seeking their destruction. Remember how North Korean leader Kim Jong Un considerably calmed down after Trump treated him as his nation’s leader instead of a madman? Biden takes over the White House, and the missiles resume flying. Not a coincidence.
Putin could and did respect Trump because Trump made it clear America had no aggressive interests toward Russia, instead preferring peaceful and mutually beneficial economic measures. This is something the Biden administration cannot claim. Those who think they are best qualified to run the lives of American citizens seldom, if ever, stop at that point. Remember the idiotic comments the Afghanistan charge d’affaires recently made regarding Afghani women?
Ironically, Putin’s invasion, along with Biden’s ineptitude — pardon the redundancy — has scuttled what would have been a logical next step in Trump’s foreign policy: eliminating altogether, if not solely America’s participation in, NATO. With the Russian-perceived threat of NATO aggression removed, an economically engaged Russia loses much of its Ukrainian invasion rationale. This does not eliminate religious reasons; it is impossible to overstate their importance. However, it does at least sufficiently temper them to rationally believe Russia would have held off. Also, had other nations who have become dependent on Russian oil and natural gas developed legitimate energy source alternatives so if need be they could switch from Russian-supplied fuel to other providers, the economic havoc wreaked on Russia by cutting off its primary income source would give even the most hawkish Kremlin denizen pause for thought. A side note: The only effective method of combating increased Chinese-Russian cooperation is increased manufacturing here at home, thus enabling the United States to tell China, “Oh, you’re going there? Have fun with that, because you’re no longer coming here with your slave labor-built stuff.”
Nationalism’s unexpected — to the uninformed — side benefit is its natural enhancement of the peaceful way being the best way. Save for the genuinely despotic, a citizenry with food on the table and pay in the pocket is every government’s primary goal. Economic freedom is the great liberator. While not eliminating evil, it helps mitigate its appeal. If anything worthwhile comes out of the Russia-Ukraine War, it will be the realization that the Trump ways of doing things abroad and at home were, and are, the best way.
Something the usual suspects here (and in media and government) either don't understand or purposely conflate. And given the track record, more likely the latter.
And I'll add: people like McConnell, Graham, Romney and most Democrats do not have the national interest at heart. IMHO, DC and its various apparati these days almost acts as a hostile foreign power with respect to the United States.
Great article.
Great question: Why does the USA subsidize the defense of Europe while Europeans beat their proverbial swords into Multinational Corporations? Poland alone (or France, England, and Germany) is perfectly capable of defending Western Europe from any perceived Eastern Threat.
Only Trump posted NATO allies to pay their unpaid dues. Europe and other wealthy places should be capable of defending themselves rather than the United States being their uncompensated security force. Doesn’t mean we can’t be the biggest and best just that our blood and treasure shouldn’t be the only sacrifice in conflicts that have little to do with our interests. Trump rebuilt the military and pursued an aggressive strategy of trade relationships. He tried to sell North Korea on western style economic prosperity even creating a mock resort destination video. Engagement was key for Trump. Trump was a wild card but Trump also many times told Europe to avoid getting dependent on Nordstream 2 and Russian energy. He understood it out Europe at a strategic risk. It’s his strategic engagement and advocating allies to react in their self interest that defies the narrative that Trump was Putin’s puppet. His America First along with buy and hire American themes were proven true by Covid and the supply chain disruptions. He upset a lot of allies because he was holding them accountable.
The dollar ax the world’s reserve currency depends strongly on America’s power and influence, and a major part of that influence rests on America guaranteeing global security. Without this, there is no motivation for other countries supporting the Breton Woods agreement that cemented the dominance of the dollar in global trade.
Believe me, you do not want to see the USD collapse, because the demand for the USD has been keeping the US economy afloat for decades in spite of levels of spending other countries could only dream of.
A lot of these neocons, warcons, etc... Would call Trump a Putin lover simply because he wanted America first policies. These so-called conservatives are not conservative and they don’t have America’s interests at heart, only war.
Reagan built up the military and yet used it sparingly and only when necessary and watched the old Soviet empire die. Bush and the rest of that gang immediately decided we paid for it and we are going to use this military for international reasons, not necessarily American strategic reasons and the borrow/tax spend for more war has been the norm ever since except for 2017-2021...
Isn’t that the entire point of the Great Reset? Which we have firmly embraced?
This argument works if one believes the story that Russia is so afraid of NATO that it would risk invading a good size country (going right for it’s capitol, and other large areas not even ethnically Russian, I might add) to push NATO back, with the predictable consequence of European NATO countries going on a defense spending spree and Finland and Sweden joining NATO (a VERY significant enhancement.)
That even though NATO as of 1/1/2022 was not structured or armed or anything else to present any serious offensive threat to Russia. Also, several major NATO members consistently started firm opposition to Ukraine joining NATO, nor were their populations remotely in favor of such — and it only takes one to block an admittance. Plus there are other NATO rules about not admitting nations in unstable situations.
The truth is that Russia’s invasion is about FAR more than fear of NATO. Some might say NATO is the tip of the iceberg. I view it as more like a wave on top of a current of deeper cultural, economic, sociological, and strategic forces and changes. Putin sometimes touches on the “current” a bit, but is generally dishonest about it.
Be that as it may, maybe nationalism or introspection on the part of the US could affect the wave a bit, but short of a breakup of NATO / Europe (incredibly dangerous!), the underlying current and Russia’s fear of it would not be altered.
Whups, left out an important comma:
This argument works if one believes the story that Russia is so afraid of NATO that it would risk invading a good size country (going right for it’s capitol, and other large areas not even ethnically Russian, I might add) to push NATO back, with the predictable consequence of European NATO countries going on a defense spending spree and Finland and Sweden joining NATO (a VERY significant enhancement.)
That, even though NATO as of 1/1/2022 was not structured or armed or anything else to present any serious offensive threat to Russia. Also, several major NATO members consistently started firm opposition to Ukraine joining NATO, nor were their populations remotely in favor of such — and it only takes one to block an admittance. Plus there are other NATO rules about not admitting nations in unstable situations.
The truth is that Russia’s invasion is about FAR more than fear of NATO. Some might say NATO is the tip of the iceberg. I view it as more like a wave on top of a current of deeper cultural, economic, sociological, and strategic forces and changes. Putin sometimes touches on the “current” a bit, but is generally dishonest about it.
Be that as it may, maybe nationalism or introspection on the part of the US could affect the wave a bit, but short of a breakup of NATO / Europe (incredibly dangerous!), the underlying current and Russia’s fear of it would not be altered.
Mostly agreed, but we have to be very careful about “Europe and other wealthy places should be capable of defending themselves”. NATO was set up the way it was not only because of fear of Russian ambitions and Europe at the time badly drained, but because of the nature and history of Europe itself. Without the USA as sort of the glue to hold it together, and the force needed to add to NATO to win overwhelmingly in a major war, great danger lurks in Europe under it’s present veneer.
I’d say the old guideline of 2% of Euro countries’ GDP, in times with no large threat in the near term, is still fine. After, say, 2008? 3%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.