The tradition of Americans distancing themselves from global conflicts has deep roots in our nation’s past. After extending our borders coast-to-coast over a hundred years, the U.S. entered both World War I and World War II tardily and with hesitation. During this interim period, we also imposed higher tariffs and enacted laws aimed at maintaining neutrality.
Following this, despite the presence of the Soviet Union, significant resistance persisted against American involvement in NATO. The "America First" isolationist sentiment has a long-standing tradition.
However, what is occurring presently is different from that.
A full realignment
During Donald Trump’s tenure, we're witnessing a significant shift. America is changing allegiances. Instead of supporting those fighting aggression as they have traditionally done, the U.S. is now shutting its doors and abandoning them. Moreover, it is currently backing these international bullies and replacing moral standards and ideals with base commercial deals.
First, we accomplish this by intimidating long-standing allies in North America (such as Canada and Mexico), South America (like Colombia), and parts of Europe. We substitute collaborative efforts with costly trade conflicts, coupled with threats aimed at Panama regarding the canal administration. Additionally, there have been bizarre initiatives to incorporate Canada as the 51st U.S. state and seize control over Greenland.
This kind of conduct not only weakens our internal partnerships—much to the delight of Moscow—but also mirrors how Russia acts towards neighboring nations such as Ukraine. However, under President Donald Trump, this situation takes on an additional layer of complexity. It’s akin to a protection racket: ("Lovely establishment you have here; it would be tragic if something were to happen to it"), where the leader encourages Russia to act however they wish against NATO member states that fail to meet his perceived equitable contribution level (disregarding the actual risks faced by those at the forefront).
The released Signal recordings most vividly showcase this sentiment. Vice President JD Vance implies that targeting the Houthis in Yemen would be unwise because Europeans utilize the impacted trade routes more frequently than Americans do. He states, "I despise having to rescue Europe once more." Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth criticizes Europe's reliance as both "lamentable" and "pitiful."
"Not to fret," asserts National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, "we'll present them with the invoice." It seems that backing long-standing allies and safeguarding maritime freedoms will now come at a cost; one must pay us for these services.
Accomodating the Rusians
One major aspect of global diplomacy for many years has centered around U.S.-Russian ties, with leaders from both the Democratic and Republican parties striking beneficial agreements. However, under President Donald Trump, the United States has moved into what may be its most conciliatory stance ever recorded in this relationship.
During his initial term, Donald Trump acknowledged Vladimir Putin's claims that Russia wasn’t interfering in U.S. elections—despite significant FBI evidence suggesting otherwise. However, during what would have been his hypothetical second term had he won again, Trump surpassed previous actions to please Moscow. Besides weakening the unity between the U.S. and Europe and substituting NATO-driven security with ambiguity, the Trump administration implemented various independent steps aimed at easing pressures on Russia.
The Justice Department task force responsible for monitoring Russian oligarchs' circumvention of U.S. sanctions was disbanded under Washington's orders. Additionally, the U.S. ceased its cyber activities targeting Russia, leaving officials acknowledging an increased vulnerability to possible cyber-attacks originating from Moscow. Shockingly, Trump terminated and subsequently briefly reinstated funds meant to support Ukrainians in tracing the whereabouts of approximately 20,000 children who were forcibly moved into Russia. Furthermore, Elon Musk's actions have undermined some of America's key informational tools aimed at countering Russian misinformation; he cut ties with entities like VOA, RFE/RL, and RFA before halting USAid initiatives globally.
Nobody is more delighted to witness discord amongst Western allies than Vladimir Putin. Under his administration, the U.S. has ceased collaboration with Europe on various matters such as climate change, trade regulations, and addressing concerns related to Iran. This administration showers gifts upon a nation that breached both international standards and its own contractual obligations by attacking an adjacent territory. Just when cease-fire talks were suggested, Russia intensified its bombardment of Ukraine. In reaction, Donald Trump commented that Putin was merely acting "as anybody else would."
No event underscores America's shifting stance as vividly as what's happening in Ukraine. Donald Trump has both threatened and implemented stops on essential military aid and critical intelligence support to Ukrainian forces. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Rubio is engaging in negotiations with Moscow regarding Ukraine’s governance, boundaries, and prospects—all without including the Ukrainians themselves—in deals that have largely conceded to Russian demands, such as ceding territory. Subsequently, President Trump accused Ukraine of instigating the conflict, stating, "You should have struck a bargain," he remarked.
For three years, the Ukrainians have been fighting the Russians alone, enduring over 46,000 military fatalities, almost 400,000 wounded soldiers, and approximately 40,000 civilian casualties. One out of every six Ukrainians has become a refugee, many others remain internally displaced, and the economic toll includes billions worth of destroyed infrastructure. A fifth of Ukrainian territory remains under Russian occupation; despite this fact, Russia’s leadership refuses to acknowledge Ukraine’s sovereignty. Given these circumstances, what kind of "agreement" could be expected from the Ukrainians? Moreover, the Trump administration insists on obtaining exclusive rights to half of Ukraine’s valuable rare earth minerals as part of the deal.
Transactions instead of values
This approach won’t enhance our security and definitely doesn’t provide comfort to long-standing allies. (What implications might Beijing draw regarding Taiwan? And how might Taiwan interpret these actions concerning China?)
The NATO alliance and the strength of democracy rest on principles that once held significant weight. As journalist Anne Applebaum noted, "Under these conditions, every aspect is open to interpretation, and all alliances can be negotiated."
In February, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution denouncing Russian aggression. Historically, the US has consistently backed these measures. However, this time around, our vote was "No." We didn’t choose to abstain; instead, we cast our ballot against it.
Alongside North Korea and Belarus.
Ronald H. Linden is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the University of Pittsburgh, having previously led both the Russian and East European Studies Center and the European Studies Center. His last article was titled “ The evening the Berlin Wall fell .”