An American word

commitments and consequences

The struggle for Ukraine’s survival continues, with a headline this morning claiming that President Vlodomir Zelenskyy’s visit to Washington this week was considerably “quieter” than in the early months when he received a hero’s welcome on Capitol Hill. Zelenskyy has indeed spoken with the U.S. government officials repeatedly over the now more than two and a half years since Vlad the Impaler invaded. The Ukrainian president has now appeared multiple times as he appeals for desperately needed resources to fight against a much bigger and better resourced non-democratic foe. It’s hard to recall this began on 24 February 2022.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley predicted six weeks after the original incursion that the conflict would require an enduring commitment rather than a brief investment of time and money. The days when so many had the blue and yellow Ukrainian flag flying proudly and defiantly next to the star-spangled banner faded into an era of Ukraine simply being another in the never-ending list of problem spots around the world, so many begging for our support.

Our country increasingly is split between those who are acquiescing to Russia’s claims against a sovereign nation versus those who see the need to protect our international commitments under the vaunted “liberal international order” to include thwarting unbridled aggression by a revanchist bully. That international order of our making is built on both the idea of sovereign states not invading other sovereign states and our financial support. Often Americans rail against China as the primary threat to those arrangements while forgetting the Kremlin is operating off equally dangerous views. The idea that Vlad is any less threatening than Zhongnanhai is somewhat perplexing as its actions are aggressive in its neighborhood as are China’s in East Asia.

Biden says he will honor our commitments to Ukraine and Taiwan, among other places. Announcement of further aid to Kyiv illustrates how we act upon our word.

Zelenskyy must fear President Joe Biden’s retirement as much as any leader in the world right now because of the iron clad commitment the White House continues to honor vigorously. Indeed, whatever Biden’s failings and increasing frailty, he unswervingly provides support personally promised to partners overseas, despite domestic pressure to reconsider.

The White House is providing a further training and equipping tranche that Defense News notes “{The package} will empty out the administration’s chest of remaining aid to Kyiv, in part out of necessity.“ The latter phrase refers to uncertainty about how Congress or any subsequent administration will view this priority among the ever-growing list of requests the United States receives at a time of increasing budget stress. The current package of $5.5 billion is in addition to prior infusions sum to well over $100 billion. It is clear Biden committed to Ukraine’s survival and intends to carry that through.

Similarly, and more controversially, is the President’s word given to Israel following the 7 October attacks. Israel is uniquely important to the United States for many reasons, not the least for those who cherish a democratic system embedded in a region of family aristocracies. The Jewish state is also crucial for Christians committed to the Holy Land. Many Americans simply support Israel as an underdog in a hostile neighborhood. And other reasons exist as well.

Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu have a complicated relationship as true of vevery U.S. president over the past thirty years as the brash Israeli leader is brash acts to safeguard his country. Biden’s forceful criticism earlier this spring regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza have not, in fact, prevented assistance as promised because the threat remains.

The international community, not to mention many at home, condemn Israel’s actions. Thousands of voters registered their disapproval of Biden’s strident maintenance of his commitment by voting against him in the primary when he was still running for president. Biden’s choice had real implications in Michigan a close vote will occur regardless when we reach November.

Biden’s sense of commitment will be one of the most noteworthy legacies of his tenure as he clearly views his word as equivalent to an American guarantee to foreign countries under threat. That has implications for Taiwan, NATO, the five mutual defense treaties we have in Asia, and organizations like the United Nations. These are the foundational blocks of the international order we so often accuse Russia and China of seeking to reject as if our own actions did not matter as well.

This coincides with the rise of many voters wavering on crucial question of participatory governance a pillar of our contemporary world. Countless men and women now profess admiration for regimes bent on restricting voting, spewing anti-Semitism and racism against minorities, curbing immigration under any conditions, and other behavior pretty different from our avowed perspective as a member of a rules-based international order.

Politics rise and fall so perhaps these shifting priorities by many around the world are unsurprising. But they have implications as those in vulnerable places worry that if we can support policies abandoning our traditional behavior, then perhaps we can discard our commitments to them as well. Why wouldn’t they worry?

My point is not that Biden is right or wrong on any of these individual threats; I highlight the focus of our nation’s commitments shown by whomever occupies the White House as the Chief Executive of the United States of America. We tend to have short attention spans on conflict—foreign or domestic—like so much else. We are ahistorical in grasping the motivating factors behind so many of wars while we kid ourselves about how we react to domestic questions as well. We are also so completely politicized at every turn these days so we do not recall that the rest of the world sees the occupant of the White House as the primary spokesman for our nation abroad. We are still a “Citty on the Hill” asJohn Winthrop opined in the seventeenth century but what that Citty portends is unclear as we move through the twenty-first century.

In an era where we see a proliferation of threats and increased disagreement at home over where to put our resources, this matters a great deal. Threats around the world abound as our concerns about China or Iran or Russia indicate. They are only three of many dangers. Other countries who we have called allies and partners want to know whether our guarantees are serious and sustained. If states don’t feel they can count on us, they may well decide nuclear weapons are the best defense. That move in East Asia alone could be extremely destabilizing if long fragile Japanese-Chinese relations deteriorated. That is a single example of why our commitments make a tremendous difference. But, Japan is only one instance of a possible consequence destabilizing the existing world which could affect our homeland as well.

Joe Biden may be, as one headline blared, the last Cold War president but he exemplifies why the occupant of the Oval Office and that individual’s sense of commitments matter a great deal to the world. Whomever occupies that chair in the future would do well to recall that the world obsesses with the words and actions coming from that office; they are far more than the partisan give and take of our political system that we see as normal. Others in fact hang on our words, digging to figure whether we intend to carry them out as they recognize their own vulnerabilities. Actions and words create consequences, unintended and deliberate. The implications for the people of this country and around the world are real.

Biden as the last Cold War president may be the best thing for the world or it may herald a spiral downwards. The question of how much risk we want to tolerate becomes real every single day. I cannot project what the public wants but I can say that commitments are more than partisan footballs to toss from side to side. I hope we all, regardless of party or persuasion, recognise that our actions affect our lives years from now.

Thank you for reading this column and any other Actions entry. If you find it of value, please circulate it. Definitely send me your thoughts, corrections, objections, and questions as I welcome each and every one in building measured, civil conversation on our world’s complexities. Thank you to the subscribers who keep this going with their contributions.

I wish you a safe weekend. Hopefully the damage from Hurricane Helene will not be as substantial as predicted. Leaves should begin changing across the northern hemisphere so do send some of your beautiful pictures. This is what we anticipate in Annapolis within a few weeks as the powerboat and sailboat shows close out our season.

Be well and be safe. FIN

Amanpour & Co, “Michigan’s Muslims Helped Biden Win in 2020. Will They back Harris in Nov?”, thirteen.org, 25 September 2024, retrieved at https://www.thirteen.org/programs/amanpour-co/michigans-muslims-helped-biden-win-in-2020-will-they-back-harris-in-nov-fjzndz/

Antony Blinken, “United States Announces $5.5 Billion New Military Assistance to Ukraine”, State.gov, 26 September 2024, retrieved at https://www.state.gov/united-states-announces-5-55-billion-new-military-assistance-for-ukraine/

Ronald Brownstein, “Biden faces widening partisan split over Israel”, cnn.com, 7 May 2024, retrieved at https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/06/politics/biden-israel-partisan-split-analysis/index.html

Karoun Demirjian, “Zelensky’s Star Power Fades on Capitol Hill”, newyorktimes.com, 26 September 2024, retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/26/us/ukraine-zelensky-washington-congress.html?searchResultPosition=1

Jeremy Herb and Niah Humphrey, “Top U.S. General warns Ukraine will be ‘long slog’”, cnn.com, 7 April 2022, retrieved at https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-04-07-22#h_159932cc7f997231747382d1411c3081

Alejandra Marquez Janse, Patrick Jarenwattananon, and Mary Louise Kelly, “The U.S. is withholding aid to Israel: will it work?”, npr.org, 10 May 2024, retrieved at https://www.npr.org/2024/05/10/1250589762/the-u-s-is-withholding-aid-to-israel-will-it-work

“Morning Joe: ‘Last major international speech by a Cold War president: Haass”, msnbc.com, 26 September 2024, retrieved at https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/-last-major-international-speech-by-a-cold-war-generation-president-haass-220104773713

Reuters, “US defense secretary plays down any red lines on aid to Israel”, reuters.com, 26 September 2024, retrieved at https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/risk-all-out-war-between-hezbollah-israel-pentagon-chief-2024-09-26/

Noah Robertson, ““White House announces billions in new Ukraine aid, f-16 training”, Defense News, 26 September 2024, retrieved at https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2024/09/26/white-house-announces-billions-in-new-ukraine-aid-new-f-16-training/

Ishaan Tharoor, “At the United Nations, overwhelming anger at Israel”, Washingtonpost.com, 27 September 2024, retrieved at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/27/israel-united-nations-netanyahu-general-assembly-un-anger/