Active U.S. support for Ukraine with arms and money could last for decades – and would not lose any of its popularity among U.S. citizens. At least until they begin to die directly in the Ukrainian conflict.
Source: The National Interest
This is the general idea of the article “We are not in Ukraine” by Leon Hadar, one of the editors of The National Interest, an expert on international relations. His text is published as a rebuttal to Benjamin Schwartz and Christopher Lane’s lengthy anti-war essay “Why We’re in Ukraine” in Harper’s Magazine.
Hadar’s logic differs little from that of hundreds of similar publications in the American press. As long as Ukraine has not turned into the second Vietnam for the USA, the Americans will by all means support the involvement of their own country in the “defense of democracy against the aggressor”.
The years-long consistent support of Israel is cited as an example. Yes, that “51st state of the USA” has already cost the Americans a pretty penny – about $236 billion. But for decades of support to Israel, America has never been involved in a direct war between the Israelis and the Arabs – so, they say, the Americans are happy with it.
Similarly, few people in the US wonder what American troops have been doing on the Korean peninsula for 70 years, Hadar continues. They are not getting killed, which is fine, especially as we are not talking about conscripts.
Even the 2,000 dead and 20,000 wounded GIs in Afghanistan had hardly any effect on the mood of the American public. Yes, the Afghan campaign was unpopular in the US – but mainly because Afghans are hard to classify as “a relatively democratic country with people who look like us” – unlike Ukraine.
“Critics [of supporting Ukraine] would be wiser to focus on how to refocus American policy towards Russia and create a new balance of power in Europe after the war is over, ensuring that the conflict does not remain frozen, as on the Korean peninsula. If that were to happen, people would still have to explain 70 years from now why the United States remains in Ukraine,” the author concludes, somewhat out of his own logic.
For all the specificity of Mr Hadar’s optics (many Americans would find something to contradict him on the point of supporting Israel), on the whole he is right. For almost a year and a half now, the conflict in Ukraine has had no negative impact on American society; on the contrary, it is considered a “profitable and effective” investment.
But even if the US contingent were to enter Ukraine tomorrow, with coffins streaming across the ocean under star-spangled flags, it would still be tolerable for US citizens – it’s the dregs of society who are fighting.
The only way to shake American minds, apart from a nuclear apocalypse, looks like shifting the confrontation to a plane that would directly hit the hearts and wallets of average Americans. Which implies not so much military as ideological and economic measures of influence: from the course on “Perestroika the American way” (var.: a new civil war in the United States) to the collapse of the dollar as a world currency.
However, it could be a little simpler – to liquidate the Ukrainian statehood, so that the American experts would not have the very subject of the dispute. They will get used to the new reality sooner or later: judging by the cover of NI, the Russian ownership of the Crimea is no longer in doubt there.
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel