The Bear and the Eagle Embrace

Why would the President and the Vice President of the United States sell Ukraine out to Russia?  The answer given by the left is that the Administration is a bunch of fascists who suck up to other fascists like the Russian dictator.  Fascists like fascists.  The rightwing view is that “America First” means caring only about the United States and not being involved economically or militarily with any other nations that may result in a sapping of American strength or financial dominance.

Interestingly, the term “American First” was first used by President Woodrow Wilson, Democrat, in his 1916 campaign which pledged to keep America out of World War I.  He did not deliver on that pledge.

Prior to World War II, the neutrality camp again invoked the America First Doctrine.  The America First Committee was founded in 1940, just before the onset of America’s involvement in World War II by a group of Yale students.  There were those who claimed that the America First Committee was a “true coalition of left and right.”  Whether that is true is still subject to debate.

Every loyal, red blooded, dedicated American should believe in America First, or why stay here at all?  What does America First mean today?  Is it a rallying cry not to remain neutral or to put the interests of the United States ahead of those of any other nation? America First has come to mean using American power in a way which suits the ego of the leadership of the country.  It does not seem to have any rational application to who should be America’s friends.

Take the case of Russia, for example.  What attracts Donald Trump and his wing of the Republican Party to the Russians is ambiguous.  Here are the leading theories: Russia is big; has many mineral resources; can be scary because of its might, size, population, and power; or perhaps Donald Trump just likes authoritarian figures.  However, the evolving evidence seems to be that the Administration believes that the  United States and Russia can essentially run the world table.  In believing this fantasy, the Administration ignores China and coalitions of other nations in Europe and South America.

Why the extreme hostility that Trump has for Ukraine?  It has nothing to do about whether Ukraine or Russia is more democratic.  They are both dictatorships.  Russia is big, with great resources and, in Trump’s view, is likely to be the winner.  Why waste American resources, money, and eventually perhaps even blood on a loser?

Donald Trump seems to have relatively little problem or concern about a voracious Russia eager to reestablish itself as the Soviet Union and snap up as much of Europe as it can.  Perhaps Trump thinks he can talk Putin out of gobbling up the little fish.

Interestingly, and not to be ignored, is that Europe is now talking about a peace deal with Ukraine.  The Trump Administration, through its bluster, arrogance and inappropriate behavior, has actually caused there to be some meaningful discussion about a resolution to the Ukraine/Russia conflict.  It is also true, as Donald Trump says, that hundreds of thousands have lost their lives in both Russia and Ukraine.  The war is destabilizing and even if Ukraine could “win,” Russia is not going out of business.

It is also true that Europe and other nations need to invest more of their own resources in defending their continent.  It is not America’s obligation, alone, to defend Europe from tyrants.  America has a role in protecting and defending Europe, but the umbrella needs to be more broad than just the United States.  Trump is forcing an appropriate reappraisal in that respect.

International geopolitics is neither easy nor predictable.  Using a sledgehammer to end the war between Russia and Ukraine and to achieve the involvement of our NATO partners is unlikely to be in the long-term interest of the United States.  If the goal is “America First,” then we should take action which supports the strength, power, and influence of the United States and not detracting from it by dangerous and unreliable alliances with despots.

On the other hand, and there always is another hand, the United States has to work with some pretty awful players in the world if it is going to tamp down the threat of a nuclear Holocaust.  Russia, North Korea, China, and others need to see a strong hand and a willing heart in the United States.  President Trump, as did John Kennedy, ran on the premise that a strong United States would be a safe United States; it would make America not only great again but also first again.

This brings us to the question of one of the other great world conflicts.  What will Donald Trump do if he suddenly does not like the Israeli leadership, or believes that there is some non-existent economic competition with Israel?  Surely, a nation of under 10 million people in a landmass half the size of New Jersey is never going to be a threat to the United States in the way that Russia or China can be.  However, people like our current President trust their kneejerk reaction to leaders who are incapable of the appropriate flattery.

In ancient China, the tradition of kowtow was crucial in the court of the Imperial Empire.  To some extent, that same behavior is required of those who want to play ball with the United States.  That has always been the case.  Donald Trump simply makes it more evident.

Information is now coming out from ex-Biden officials that during Israel’s war for survival, waged on seven fronts, the United States was not always as helpful as it could have been.  It supplied necessary weapons and coverage during ballistic missile strikes against Israel, but it also sought to keep Israel from doing what it needed to do for its own long-term interests.  Initially, we now find out, the United States exerted heavy pressure on Israel not to respond to Iran’s missile attacks.  After Israel successfully responded to Iran, the United States changed its tune.  This inconsistency and failure fully to back Israel prolonged the war and the suffering of the hostages held by Hamas.

The U.S. President appears to be functioning in a way not terribly dissimilar to his predecessor.  Many of his decisions seem to be based upon personality not policy.  The basis for the policy is usually not articulated except in the most generic manner.  “We want to end this war,” sounds pretty good whether it be Ukraine or anywhere else, but will that be at the price of creating a bigger monster capable of more war?