Following the Cold War, America’s fight for global hegemony over the Soviet Union was nearly complete.
After decades fearing mutually assured nuclear destruction, communism was defeated and America was left without an existential threat.
America’s military and intelligence networks remained the most powerful in the world following the arms race, but with no enemy to fight. America then assumed its role as the leading world power and global police force.
Overseeing conflicts following the breakup of Yugoslavia and defense of Kuwait, America’s success was short lived as new rivals emerged, such as China, and America’s foreign policy was trying to reorient itself after the trauma of both world wars and toying with nuclear fallout with the Soviets.
But with the most elaborate intelligence and military industry in the world, empty hands are the Devil’s plaything.
Forever wars: America’s second favorite pastime
The best business models in any field involve jobs that can never be finished.
Communism and terrorism: they are often invisible enemies, some more real than others, but neither can ever truly be defeated. This logic applies to almost all -isms.
They are flexible, malleable and anyone can receive the label. A label which can provoke invasion, occupation and annihilation.
Additionally, in the defense of Domino Theory, America learned many lessons fighting foreign wars. The worst of which involved spilling young Americans’ blood for wars across oceans in the name of stopping the spread of an opposing ideology.
In short, America’s foreign policy has evolved to the more politically acceptable era of incinerating people halfway across the world with a drone, and America’s second favorite pastime, funding proxy wars.
Its perfect for politicians: no American blood spilled while still achieving American foreign policy goals and justifying defense spending. The problem only comes when half the money is missing.
In fact, it has been a recent talking point for Washington’s war hawks and much of the media. The logical reasoning behind the support being, “yes, war is okay as long as its killing bad guys” is a far cry from the same voices denouncing the War on Terror.
I suppose it all depends on how you define the “bad guy,” especially when forced conscription is involved.
Eisenhower warned of the corporate capture of American foreign policy in his famous farewell address, something Biden ironically referenced in his own farewell address despite arming both Israel and Ukraine to the teeth and dragging us dearly close to two continental wars.
Meet America’s newest colony, Ukraine
The Trump-Zelenskyy meeting was a spectacle. It could have easily been done in private, but the media storm and embarrassment was purposeful on Trump’s part. The goals was to make Zelenskyy out as a clown and ungrateful.
Regardless, it seems clear Trump wants concessions and Ukraine is not in a place to negotiate.
Ignoring Trump’s recent foreign policy spectacles, the moral argument is there. Russia invaded Ukraine after years of previous occupation and annexation, slowly creeping towards Kyiv.
Now, could the United States have been less bi-polar over the course of the last three decades? Yes. Clinton and Bush’s relationship with Putin was complex, especially considering the War on Terror, and Obama’s was permissive at best. Trump’s was confusing, and Biden’s reactionary and aggressive in response to Russia’s invasion.
I believe most Americans, if ideological capture was ignored, would morally support some degree of support to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The problem lies in the execution.
Trump claims $300 billion has been spent on the war so far. In Trumpian language, all exaggerations should be halved to achieve a statement close to its natural state.
Following this logic, the actual number cited by the Council on Foreign Relations seems closer to $175 billion in terms of funding appropriated by Congress.
Regardless of the exact amount, what was the return on investment? What is America getting out of this? How much money reached the battlefield? Why should anyone care?
Well, we have plenty of problems at home where the money could be spent. If I listed them all, well, this would be a full page story.
At the cost of using Ukrainians as human meat shields to weaken an already population-collapsing Russia, we have stopped the entire capitulation of Ukraine, but at what cost?
Ukraine has accrued at least 500,000 casualties and nearly seven million have fled the country. Ukraine is seeing post-World War demographic collapse to the point of no return, very similar to Russia’s scenario.
Additionally, Ukraine is now in foreign monetary bondage to America.
The likes of JP Morgan and Blackrock have already packaged $20 billion in international bonds to loan to Ukraine, pausing debt payments for at least two years. This is only a small slice of the World Bank’s estimation of half of a trillion dollars to rebuild the country. I am sure there is more to come.
Trump’s proposed mineral deal only adds to these issues for Ukraine but indeed sends a bipolar message once again.
America under Biden promised aid, while Trump is requiring payment. Despite which one is right or wrong, it is nonetheless confusing and adds to the complexity of inconsistent foreign policy for the United States.
Ukraine will take decades to rebuild its infrastructure and an unknown amount of time to recoup its demographics, if ever. They are free, but at what cost for themselves?
Not to mention attempts at peace progressed many times and failed. Who knows in the fog of war who chalked the talks, but Ukraine had regained a solid chunk of its territory during its previous offensive.
By that time, an overly enthusiastic America seemed adamant that Ukraine reclaim all of its territory. Even in the moment the ask seemed insane, and even more ridiculous now.
This is not a denunciation of support for forwarding American foreign policy goals, but rather an introspection and observation of how this war is more multifaceted than America helping the underdog and preventing the bully from getting what they want.
Now from a cold, Machiavellian perspective it could be seen as a win for American foreign policy and Europe’s defense. Minimal resources were spent and American companies will, maybe, be paid billions of dollars in infrastructure projects and returning Ukraine to a functional state. Plus the military industry will get a healthy bonus.
Who cares, money isn’t real anyways, right?
The only problem is a common American dilemma: none of this money will trickle down to the taxpayers funding this war.
America’s largest corporations won again with the moral imperative card. They will make out like bandits in Europe’s bloodiest war in recent memory, all funded by American taxpayers who missed out on the billions spent on a war across an ocean while millions at home go homeless, hungry, sick and without opportunity.
