After World War II, the United States established a rules-based international order—institutions, alliances, and norms designed to prevent wars between great powers and safeguard the sovereignty of smaller nations. Today, this order is on the verge of collapse—America is imposing tariffs on its allies and discussing the potential for future cooperation with Russia. All of this is unfolding under the slogan “America First.” What will happen if the U.S. shifts toward isolationism and abandons internationalism and global leadership?
This does not bode well for smaller nations. However, before discussing the existential risks to their sovereignty and well-being, let’s consider the pragmatic rather than moral importance of the United States in maintaining this order. Ignoring this factor has led to the misconception that deterring aggressors in Europe represents aid rather than an investment with unprecedented returns.
Consider the example of Ukraine: After Russia’s full-scale invasion, the U.S. Congress has allocated $175 billion in aid to Ukraine since February 2022. This aid includes military support (weapons, training, intelligence) as well as economic and humanitarian assistance. Notably, a significant portion of the military aid still benefits the U.S. military-industrial complex. This amount represents only about 5% of the United States’ annual military budget and less than 1% of the federal budget.
We are indeed discussing a substantial amount. In fact, Ukraine has become the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in Europe—surpassing even the post-World War II Marshall Plan in absolute terms. However, this accounts for just 1% of the budget, which is less than the aid provided by many European countries in percentage terms and by the collective European Union in absolute terms. But what has America gained in return for this investment?
The weakening of Russia: The Russian military, considered one of the world’s most powerful forces before the invasion of Ukraine, has been decimated on the battlefield. Its weapons are running out, and its international influence is waning, leaving it with fewer opportunities to project power elsewhere in the world. Russia’s allies, who are also America’s enemies involved in international terrorism, are losing ground and giving up positions, with Syria and Iran being the most notable examples.
A stronger NATO: Russian aggression has brought the Western alliance closer together. European countries have significantly increased their defense budgets, strengthening NATO’s defense capabilities. Twenty-three NATO members are now spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense, up from just six in 2021. Finland and Sweden have also joined the alliance, effectively turning the Baltic Sea into a NATO lake. This has strengthened the alliance and increased its defense capabilities.
Global deterrence: Potential aggressors must see the cost of attacking the rules-based international system. If Russia is allowed to invade Ukraine, it will embolden Putin to try the same in Moldova, which is not a NATO member. If he succeeds there, then the Baltic states will be next. China is also closely observing the war in Ukraine. An effective response would compel China to reconsider using force against Taiwan. Investing in a Ukrainian victory today would avoid major conflicts tomorrow.
In short, 1% of the annual U.S. budget has at least halved the fighting potential of America’s major geopolitical rival. Russia is allocating over 40% of its budget to war and lost more soldiers in the first three months of the full-scale invasion than during the entire nine-year campaign in Afghanistan. The myth of Russia’s invincibility has been shattered, and the terrorist axis fueled by Russia has been weakened as all focus and resources were diverted to the front––all of this, and much more, without the loss of a single American life.
The Trap of Isolationism
History illustrates the costs of disrupting the international order. Following World War I, the U.S. turned towards isolationism and declined to join the League of Nations, hoping to avoid European conflicts. The nation closed its borders, imposed import tariffs, tightened immigration policies, and concentrated on domestic issues. However, the stock market crash of 1929 shattered this fragile stability. Tariff wars plunged the U.S. further into the Great Depression, not only prolonging the crisis but also empowering authoritarian regimes that resorted to aggression to escape their difficulties.
During that period, revisionist states acted almost without restraint. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan blatantly disregarded international norms. The League of Nations, the initial effort to establish a rules-based world order, proved ineffective without American leadership. The U.S. condemned the aggressors’ actions but failed to take substantial measures. As a result, Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935, and Hitler and Stalin, who were allies at the beginning of World War II (a fact many overlook), divided Poland.
Giving a free pass to the aggressors dragged the world into another global war––the bloodiest conflict in history, which could have been avoided at a far lesser cost through collective resistance.
This lesson established the foundation of the post-World War II order: the U.S. and its allies formed institutions like the UN and NATO and offered security guarantees to avoid a power vacuum. If these mechanisms no longer work, we will return to the Nietzschean world of the “supremacy of force.”
These history lessons should teach the United States that conceding to aggressors and abandoning Ukraine, Georgia, and similar countries to their fate entails significant risks for the U.S. itself. As Senator Arthur Vandenberg said in 1945, “We need maximum cooperation and minimum disagreement among our allies.”
The Fate of Small Countries in the New Order
Small countries will most acutely feel the dangers of making concessions to Russia and other revanchist empires. Their sovereignty and survival largely depend on the international community’s commitment to uphold the principle that borders should not be changed by force. When defenses are weakened, the consequences are immediate. We witnessed this in 2008 when Russia invaded Georgia. The international response was weak, and the U.S. initiated a “reset policy” with Moscow soon afterward, reinforcing the aggressor’s sense of impunity. This led to the annexation of Crimea and the outbreak of war in eastern Ukraine in 2014. The Kremlin interpreted the insufficiently tough response as a green light to escalate its actions. The result was the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which has undermined the prospects for sustainable international peace.
This outcome is even more tragic considering that in 1994, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal, which was then the third largest in the world. The Ukrainians did this in exchange for guarantees of territorial integrity received under the Budapest Memorandum. Herein lies another clear lesson: security guarantees are only as strong as states’ willingness to uphold them.
If the U.S. were to back down now, it could spell disaster for Georgia, the Baltic states, Taiwan, and all those countries that view the rules-based international system as a guarantee of their protection. The balance of power would shift toward “spheres of influence,” and force would overshadow the law.
In the reality mentioned above, authoritarian regimes will have significantly greater opportunities to intimidate or conquer their neighbors. Without American moral leadership, countries will be less inclined to resist regional superpowers and to develop democratic institutions. The axis of evil is indifferent to how rulers treat their own people. Therefore, the ideals of self-determination and independence will be severely threatened, further strengthening America’s rivals in the authoritarian camp.
To summarize, the disruption of the post-World War II world order is no longer just a theoretical political discussion—it has become a tangible geopolitical and economic risk. The decline of the U.S.’s global role could culminate in the collapse of 75 years of stability, potentially leading to spontaneous wars, financial crises, and the empowerment of aggressors. History and facts indicate that maintaining the existing world order is far less expensive than restoring it after a collapse.
Decisions made in the late 1940s determined whether the world would embark on a path of stable development or descend into chaos––this time, with nuclear weapons. The same choice remains today. Either we perceive support for Ukraine as an investment rather than an expense, or Churchill’s warning to Neville Chamberlain will again come true: “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, yet you will have war.”
