On Monday, the U.S. voted against a UN General Assembly resolution that condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine and demanded that Moscow must return territories it seized since the conflict began in 2014.
With that vote, the old world died, and a new world was born.
The nations of Europe who had, in the past, depended on the United States for their survival, were forced to come to grips with this truly "new world order" with America no longer the world's policeman nor the "leader of the free world," as we used to call it.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is dead in everything but name. America didn't kill it. NATO died as a result of the arrogance and stupidity of Europeans who, for 75 years, believed that they could sit back and allow the U.S. to fight their battles for them. They lived with the mirage of peace and security while America bled in places like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. All that was needed for the mirage to disappear was for America to say "no."
On Monday, the U.S. decided to no longer fight the Europeans' battles for them. If Europe wants to protect Ukraine, have them send their troops to try to win back thousands of square miles of territory that Vladimir Putin seized. That's the only way that Ukraine's dream of reuniting Crimea and the Donbas to the rest of Ukraine will come to pass.
Russia will be fighting in Ukraine to keep the territory it conquered for 20 years or more. It couldn't reduce the Afghan resistance, and those were disorganized tribesmen. Ukrainian rebels will make it even more difficult for Moscow to prevail.
I hope Russians get good and bloody for their transgressions against their neighbor.
Matthew Continetti, writing in The Free Press, analyzes the significance of the UN vote and why it's a harbinger of a new U.S. foreign policy.
Underlying these policies is the belief that the international system America built after World War II no longer works. Rather than expend further blood and treasure preserving America’s status as the global superpower, and aid democratic allies without conditions, Trump wants to rebuild alliance and security structures to reduce and delimit U.S. military and financial exposure.
In other words, America under President Trump no longer acts as a status quo power. It is a revisionist power just as intent on changing the structure of international relations as are Russia and China. What that structure will look like once Trump is finished with it—and whether America will be a safer, richer place—is anybody’s guess.
In a large sense, Trump is trying to do with U.S. foreign policy what he's trying to do with the American government. He's trying to knock everything down and build back something different.
As Continetti points out, it's unknown if this new world order will be beneficial or, in the worst case, destroy civilization. The answer will largely depend on which side in this debate comes out on top.
On one side of the fight are the so-called “primacists,” who insist that American leadership and greater defense can revive the postwar order. On the other side are “restrainers,” who counter that America should reduce its overseas commitments and adopt balance-of-power diplomacy toward China and Russia. Primacists tend to be hawks and are often disparaged, incorrectly, as “neocons.” (The use and abuse of that term is a subject for another column.) Restrainers are doves. Trump sides with the restrainers—for the moment.
Currently, the restrainers have the upper hand. The most prominent and most articulate among them is Vice President JD Vance. Vance wiped the floor with Democrat Gov. Tim Walz in the vice presidential debate, and his speech at the Munich Security Conference so unnerved the Europeans that they nearly swooned.
"Everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as a defense of democracy, but when we see European courts canceling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we ought to ask whether we’re holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard," Vance said.
In Foreign Policy, the gold standard of establishment foreign policy, columnist Michael Hirsh called the speech "bizarre" and claimed that "a word synonymous with appeasement [Munich] may now signal the voluntary surrender of global hegemony."
Is that really so bad?
"Global hegemony" has not kept the world from conflict or kept the U.S. safe. Perhaps we should try another way.
Whether this revolution lasts depends on how successful it is. If a Democrat is elected in 2028, it will be difficult to return to the old ways if there is peace in Ukraine, Israel is secure, the U.S. border is under control, and the U.S. is respected again the world
