Realism is the Future

Recent Republican primaries have shown that the future direction of Republican foreign policy rests on reality as it is and not what one would like it to look. Although this may sound obvious to most Americans, it is not. For decades previous administrations have made their policy on the basis of what they wish reality was instead. Bill Clinton desired to “enlarge” the democratic sphere of influence, and in 2000, political scientist Kenneth Waltz wrote that he expected “the United States [would soon] take measures to enhance democracy around the world” and that the “task, one fears, will be taken up by the American military with some enthusiasm.”

He was correct, as any reader of The American Conservative knows. The rest of the war was one of a number of wars against ideals that were overseen by both presidents. The initial invasion of Afghanistan under George W. Bush was clearly a result of 9/11, but the following 20-year occupation was bent on building a liberal democracy in a place which did not want one. It was built on the spreading of democracy just as much as weapons of mass destruction. There has never been any evidence that Iraqis are more desperate for democracy than Afghans. When Barack Obama followed Bush into the presidency, he failed to truly repudiate the Bush Doctrine and continued a policy of interventions based on ideals in Syria and Libya–both of which proved disastrous.

The Trump Administration was the first one to abandon this course. Donald Trump disapproved of the idea of endless wars, and he championed “America First” during his inaugural speech. However, it is not clear if Trump’s approach to the GOP would lead the GOP into the future or be a temporary blip. Trump was, after all, leading a GOP still composed in part of people who adhered to an idealized foreign policy, even if over the course of his administration many elderly neocons, such as Bill Kristol, openly defected to the Democrats. The future direction of American foreign policies remained ambiguous. Or would both sides continue with the same approach to foreign policy? Oder could the GOP split?

The war in Ukraine has shown that the cookie is falling apart. The establishment has transformed their old foreign policy, particularly the Democrats’, into a complete fantasy. The future of GOP’s foreign policy seems primed to become a reality.

Consider the case of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent statement that the war in Ukraine “must end with [Crimea’s] liberation.” Such a goal is effectively impossible; for Russia to relinquish Crimea it would have to face total state collapse and forget that its has nuclear weapons. It is normal for statesmen to offer their soldiers something to strive for in war; they can negotiate a deal during negotiations. The Biden administration’s response to this announcement is somewhat confusing. This administration is not quietly trying to woo Ukraine’s president. It has given Ukraine the green light, effectively indicating that U.S. support will continue as long as Ukraine wants to fight.

The establishment’s apparent lack of oversight over aid use is another concern. America has spent over $50 billion on Ukraine; around $10 billion of this spending went to the “Economic Support Fund”–essentially a pure cash injection into the Ukrainian treasury. The rest was a mixture of weapons and aid, but a startling recent CBS report questioned how much of those materials were actually reaching the front lines.

All of these, and an inability not to be labeled proRussian have accelerated a shift within the GOP’s view on Ukraine and its foreign policy writ big. The Trump Administration has seen a shift in how Republican candidates have viewed foreign policy. Joe Kent, who recently bested Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler in a Washington primary, campaigned explicitly against a policy of idealism on Ukraine, calling Putin’s demands in Ukraine “very reasonable” and concurring with descriptions of Zelensky as a thug. He defeated Herrera Beutler (a more conservative GOPer) to win the Washington primary. His victory suggests that Trump’s changes in foreign policy thinking are not a passing fad.

Kent is following many primary victorious and rising officials, who doubt wanton ideallism. J.D. Vance, the GOP nominee for Senate in Ohio, said that he “didn’t care” what happens in Ukraine to much media backlash–and went on to win his primary. Blake Masters, Vance’s Arizonan counterpart, tweeted that the “new liberal Doctor Strangeloves” would “get us all killed” with their ignorance of reality, and likewise won his primary. Incumbent Senator Josh Hawley, a rapidly rising star, recently explained in the National Interest why he was voting against adding Sweden and Finland to NATO, saying that America needed a “truly strategic…foreign policy–one that looks to this nation’s strategic interests now, rather than the world of years ago.” And Trump himself has said that Ukraine “should have made a deal” with Russia and should have bowed to reality over certain things like Crimea and NATO.

Reality and not ideals seem to be the governing principles of Republican foreign policy. It is probable that this will be confirmed by the results of the two next rounds. All of the aforementioned candidates have a strong chance to win in November; should Donald Trump take the White House in 2025, he would likely return to Washington alongside even more newly elected senators and representatives who share these views.

This should be a wake up call for the Ukrainian leadership and uniparty. Instead of Vogue shoots and legalizing gay marriage, if they want the gravy train to continue they should be developing arguments as to why support for Ukraine is in America’s national interest. By 2025 “Because we’re a democracy and Russia isn’t” simply won’t hold water anymore, and it certainly won’t convince GOP-led executive and legislative branches to give billions more in aid. It seems that the Republican Party and soon the American government will ask more realistic questions: “What will it do for us?” All problems will be seen through America First’s lens, and Ukraine will have to adapt to this reality if it is not.

Subscribe Today

Get weekly emails in your inbox

This sea change will also affect the rest of Europe, and the globe. In 2020 Germany’s foreign minister called it “unacceptable” for President Trump to move one-third of his own troops out of the country, and two years before that German officials laughed during a speech Trump delivered at the U.N. in which he suggested that Germany would one day pay for its over-reliance on Russian oil. And now, even after the Russian invasion, a think tank has concluded that Germany would be unlikely to keep its promise of spending 2 percent on defense by 2024. Germany and most of Europe are simply hoping the conflict in Ukraine will end soon so they can get back to their normal business.

This hope seemed reasonable when it wasn’t clear which way the Republican Party would take. The new America First Republicans proves this is false. European defense companies and Europeans who believe America will remain a NATO member should reconsider their assumptions. The new foreign policy is not limited to NATO. It was an American priority to obtain as many FTAs as possible for decades following the Cold War. At times, it appeared that each administration would be competing with the other in order to get the most FTAs. Trump’s trade policies are set to last. All of these candidates, and many others have voiced skepticism about free trade or shipping overseas. Trump himself at CPAC 2022 called for the tariffs he placed on China to be written into law and for expanded presidential tariff powers. Should he regain power in 2025 with a GOP Congress, passage of such a bill would be almost a certainty.

You can either deal with reality or be certain that reality will deal with you. Reality is what the new GOP wants to address. What about the rest of the globe?