The United States stands at a historical crossroads, whether we consciously recognize it or not. A part of what makes this time so historic is due in part to how much power we have, as a nation, to impact the future. And when I say impact, I mean to steer the course of history; to ultimately understand the potential for more crisis and tactfully avoid it through sensible, efficient, clear, pro-American policy.
The reason pointing that out is so crucial is because there is no indication we have been doing that for some time, decades even. Under the Biden administration, foreign policy has been an endeavor in reactionary decision making and crisis management. As a nation, genuine foreign policy ventures need to shape the geopolitical landscape in a way that circumvents our adversaries abilities to challenge the Western-led order.
Failed wars in the Middle East have emboldened Islamic extremists and anti-Western terrorist organizations. Lackluster policy in Europe has invited Russia to wage war in its perceived sphere of influence. Decades of failures to protect our technology, manufacturing, and educational institutions have created a pacing threat in China; a threat that stands to subvert our way of life entirely, and spur on the next major global conflict.
Whether or not policy can truly avoid such developments is an entirely different discussion in the realm of international relations. But that does not change the fact that the United States has resorted to reactionary policy with the big-ticket items being foreign military aid and sanctions.
The war in Ukraine is a great example of America’s lazy, reactionary foreign policy, and for two main reasons:
- The war in Ukraine was a product of the 2014 Ukraine Crisis; we invited escalation by allowing Russia to set conditions without reprisal and
- Sanctions against Russia have been circumvented entirely, both in 2014 and today
Sanctions is really a big key in this, mostly because it has been America’s go-to response when we lack substantial, meaningful solutions to events that challenge us. Sanctions as we have seen them only have a few real benefits, and they do not necessarily last indefinitely:
- They disrupt the targets supply chains
- They generally target resources, and our adversaries ability to utilize those resources for both purchasing and generating revenue
- They increase economic and social pressure by increasing the cost of goods
There are certainly more effects to sanctions, and they vary in the nature of the sanctions themselves. The ones I have listed, while not an exhaustive list, tend to be the wide-sweeping effects we look for. In theory, sanctions are a part of a broader foreign policy “strike package,” if you will.
In the case of the sanctions on Russia due to the war in Ukraine, sanctions serve as the metaphorical anvil while direct military aid — in the form of weapons, munitions, and cash — serve as the hammer.
In part, the strategy has worked. For example, the gifting of artillery and air defense systems to Ukraine are responsible for the crippling of Russia’s command and control capability and their preponderance of aviation assets. Additionally, general military aid have also bolstered Ukraine’s capabilities. It is safe to assume that American military aid to Ukraine — which is in the tens of billions and seemingly growing with no limit — is the defining factor in Russia having not seized Kyiv.
So why is the war in such frigid state? Shouldn’t Ukraine be succeeding in its major counteroffensive? These are all valid questions people are asking.
There are two unsavory details, however, that Westerners and globalist shills do not like to hear. First is the possibility that Russia is not struggling as hard as Western media would have us believe. Sure, hundreds of thousands have died, and weapons systems and munitions are depleted. Russia is not in danger of being entirely overrun or invaded though (US leadership have reaffirmed that). Additionally, the territory in Ukraine’s east is still firmly in Russia’s control. Is Russia “winning?” No. Are they on the brink of collapse and civil war? Also no.
And this brings us to the second unsavory detail: American and Western sanctions are complete failures. For example, in a DW Documentary posted to YouTube on July 6, the creators note that while exports directly to Russia have plummeted, exports to Russia’s neighbors have dramatically increased.
For example, in Georgia, a nation at fierce odds with Russia, has seen a 48% increase in exports from Germany. For Armenia, 132%. And for Kyrgyzstan a whopping 773% increase in exports from Germany.
Another way in which sanctions have failed is that Russia has increased its trade with countries that remain friendly. Part of the bid for harsh sanctions on Russia (which also destroyed the diplomatic relationship) were that an added affect would be the difficulty in “finding new trade partners” on Moscow’s part. That didn’t happen.
Russian goods to Kyrgyzstan increased 345%; to Armenia an increase of 165%, to Uzbekistan an increase of 130%, to Kazakhstan an increase of 94%, to Georgia an increase of 58%, and to Turkey an increase of 23%.
EU exports to Russia's neighbours have risen sharply
The situation is leading to concerns that sanctions are being circumvented as these countries continue to trade freely…
The clear lesson here is that American foreign policy needs a revision. Endless military aid may help the war effort and make for good headlines, but it hasn’t stopped the war; the killing persists. And sanctions are only revealing themselves, more and more, to be a response by bureaucrats lacking substantial solutions; goods and services are still entering Russia as if the war never happened.
All the while, the allocation of resources, military posturing and preparations, and diplomatic missions in the Pacific remain delayed and undernourished.
— — — — —
What do you think? Is American foreign policy a shadow of its former self? Let me know in the comments below.