It’s a daring move to draw grand conclusions from a list of examples, and I apologize, as that’s exactly what I intend to do with the countries listed in the title. The reality is that, excluding Panama in 1989, the United States has clearly won no war since 1945 where it was the main combatant, but its ability to endure has been decreasing. This shift is partly due to its demanding electoral system, with national elections every two years, which doesn’t help in maintaining long-term commitments, especially in colonial-style wars that are often unpopular back home.
In an advanced democracy with freedom of expression and advanced technological networks, public opinion can quickly turn against prolonged military engagements. This phenomenon is not unique to the United States, but its democratic government, responsive to public opinion, makes it particularly susceptible. Meanwhile, in countries like Russia, Iran, and China, the government’s ability to control the narrative and suppress dissent gives them a different kind of endurance in pursuing their military objectives.
Shifting Alliances and Perceptions
More than one American ally has witnessed the United States withdraw from a conflict, from Saigon to Kabul. The question now is whether Kyiv will be next. The current administration has suggested that a negotiated settlement might be the most realistic outcome, with the focus shifting towards Asia. This approach marks a significant change in how the U.S. prioritizes its geopolitical interests and alliances. The difference this time is that the allies in question are Europeans, who are being told that the problem is now theirs to handle, as U.S. attention turns to Asia. While this argument may seem simplistic or even tinged with racism, it reflects a geopolitical reality that has shaped international relations since World War II, under the concept of the West.
Evaluating Outcomes and Implications
Is such a shift possible and can it be successful? The first is certainly achievable, but the success of this strategy is less clear. Many believe that Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine militarily in 2022 was influenced by the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in the summer of 2021. This perspective is debatable, but not unreasonable. Ukraine has been slowly retreating in the territorial battle for many months, with significant human losses and economic costs for Russia. The implications of a Russian military victory in Ukraine are profound, not just for Ukraine and Europe but also for how other nations perceive U.S. guarantees and commitments, from the Philippines and Vietnam to Taiwan, and even Finland, Sweden, and the Baltic countries.
Global Repercussions and Historical Context
Nothing in geopolitics is permanent, including U.S. presidencies or congressional majorities. Historical course changes are full of unexpected turns, and we might be facing one now. The European Union believes this is possible, with Vice President Vance suggesting it’s safe to say that European public opinions have shifted, and their current leaders are trying to ignore this change, which isn’t entirely false. However, historical changes often begin in one direction and end in another, making it impossible to predict the exact outcome.
The Future of Global Leadership
It’s not unreasonable to consider that other nations might try to fill the void left by a perceived decline in U.S. global leadership. China, with its massive export power and undeveloped domestic consumer market, is a significant contender. Russia, despite not being an economic power, has managed to maintain its gas sales levels despite sanctions. The new U.S. administration’s approach to Putin, inviting Russia to be part of the G-7 despite its alliance with China, raises questions about U.S. strategy and whether a victorious Putin is indeed what the American president is seeking.
This strategy could be a serious American strategic error, akin to past missteps with North Korea or preventing peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. The disappearance of the West as a geopolitical concept would be a transcendental event, not affecting the U.S.’s economic exceptionalism or corporate dynamism but altering political balances in unforeseeable ways.
Conclusion: Geostrategic Loneliness
The EU faces a sense of geostrategic loneliness, with a vacuum that will inevitably be filled. For those familiar with Graham Greene, it might be time to reread “The Quiet American.” The action has shifted from Saigon in 1952 to Kyiv in 2025, but the underlying themes of power, influence, and the unpredictable nature of international relations remain. As the President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, pondered, are we in a moment akin to Yalta 1945 or Helsinki 1975? It’s a good question, one that underscores the complexity and the historical significance of the current geopolitical landscape.