At the end of World War II, the countries of Western
Europe were in ruins. A xenophobic, egotistical believer in nationalism and white
superiority had gained control of the fledgling democracy.
Germany created a war machine with the simple objective of taking over Europe, creating a home for the Aryan race, and getting rid of, literally, those of Jewish or African descent. It nearly succeeded.
With the help of the new world, England, France, and Russia brought the warmongering nation to heel at a cost of billions of dollars and millions of lives. A new world order was desperately needed.
The Eastern European nations formed the Soviet Union, which increased distrust of them, and with good reason. What Churchill described as the Iron Curtain between the East and the West became literal when East Germany erected a wall between itself and its familial neighbors.
Article 5 of the NATO Charter states that an act of war against a member in Europe or North America is considered an attack against all. The only time it was invoked was on 9-11 when the U.S was attacked.
That world order kept peace in Europe for nearly eighty years. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.
Since Ukraine, a former Soviet Republic, was not a member of NATO, the Obama administration essentially did nothing to prevent the takeover. When Russia sent incursions further inland and occupied nearly 20% of Ukraine and shelled the rest, the U.S. sent armaments but ensured that there would be no U.S. boots on the ground. These actions cost billions of dollars; dollars that went to U.S. manufacturers to replenish our supplies.
The first Trump administration tried to gut NATO's effectiveness and saw little value in allied relationships between nations, except on a transactional basis. The second Trump administration has called for an end to the war, but again, on a transactional basis. Its basic approach has been to ask Ukraine to cede the land it has lost and eliminate its military on the condition that Russia not invade any more of the country. Perhaps that is an overgeneralization of the negotiations, but it's within the margin of error.
Essentially, the administration is saying that it is OK to invade another country with no expectation of retribution or costs. Moral standing is missing from that viewpoint. The world order is left to the strong over the weak. Transactional!
Why would you expect an administration to get all worked up over Russia invading another country when it has expressed its intention to take over Greenland, the Panama Canal, and annex Gaza, turn it into a resort site after expelling all of its citizens? The lack of understanding of international relations, mutual aid pacts, world economics, and a peaceful world order is overwhelming, to say the least. It’s embarrassing, and it causes chaos among nations that don’t know when the next early morning tweet will drop. We must do better.
I suggest a simple solution: if your country invades another country, the world will descend on you with all its might, and you will suffer the consequences for years to come on the stage of world opinion, and your armed forces will be decimated. No matter the cost.
The current administration has announced that it will give the peace process another week or so before it decides that peace is not worth the price or effort. That is not the American way. Russia’s military should be ousted from Ukrainian territory. Full stop. Russia should be ousted from the world economic stage for several years. There has to be a price for bad behavior.
When peace between nations becomes transactional, it increases the likelihood of full-scale wars down the road. Are we willing to say that we will not defend Poland when Russia invades, or if it invades Estonia, or Lithuania? What about Belarus or Moldova? Hungary or Slovakia?
