In discussing the stance of the US in global affairs, this essay addresses some of the advantages of the US’s position in international issues. First, in reaction to Russia’s attack not only on Ukraine but also on internationalism, development, and political structure, President Biden’s address outlines a plain, positive policy that countries worldwide should embrace. Second, the US’s positive goals of regaining Ukraine’s freedom and letting it decide its destiny will advance critical US and alliance interests in preserving liberty, decentralization, and the rule of law, further demonstrating its support for Ukraine. However, the United States’ view on arming nations is misguided and appears to undermine administrations relying on it for defense against future invasions by other regions. Therefore, US decision to support sovereignty of nations, as witnessed in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, proves essential in maintaining world order.
The Position of the US on Global Issues
Personal freedoms, world inequality, the climate, commerce, industrialization, sovereignty, planetary morality, and the political landscape are among the inter-disciplinary issues studied in foreign affairs. Moore and Jerry enumerated, ‘Delegates of fifty nations met in San Francisco, California, USA, between 25 April and 26 June 1945 at the United Nations Conference on International Organization. It was a chronological crossroads comparable to 1945 in which it is conceivable for nations to reinvent the norms of world order from scratch. In the next months and years, the world doubts if it will hear a considerable measure about the necessity to restructure or abolish the United Nations. Therefore, the focus is on building modifications to the Security Council to prevent a stalemate like that witnessed in Ukraine.
First, President Biden’s statement on the Ukraine crisis has significantly defined America’s aims and objectives after weeks of public discussion characterized by doubt and worry regarding US motives and tactics in that crisis. It provides a straightforward, optimistic strategy that the world’s governments should support in response to Russia’s attack not just on Ukraine but also on multilateralism, prosperity, and social order. According ‘United with Ukraine – States Department of State’, President Joe Biden insinuated that the United States supports a liberal, autonomous, independent, and wealthy Ukraine with the capacity to prevent and repel further aggression. Thus, this short, positive articulation of the US purpose differs from adverse ones, such as diminishing Russia’s strategic and economic position or might. It conveys a signal that is pro-Ukraine and pro-freedom rather than anti-Russia, which is essential for bolstering the coalitions required to combat the Kremlin’s harsh. As a result, it helps enhance and strengthen the US-European connection.
Again, it is a necessary precursor to gaining greater support from African, Asian, and Latin American countries. “These states have hesitated to fully oppose Russia’s effort to turn back the 75-year struggle to build an international rules-based order,” (Kuzio 430b). The United States’ solidarity for Ukraine is further shown by its positive aims of restoring Ukraine’s independence and allowing it to choose its destiny, which will promote key US and ally priorities in defense of freedom, autonomy, and the legal system. Biden’s wording to describe the democratic, sovereign, and wealthy Ukraine, which the United States embraces, are meaningful. “A democratic Ukraine is one that will continue its tradition, in 30 years of independence, of freely elected governments. It will continue to respond to Ukrainians persistent demands, in the face of Russian resistance and corruption, for more transparent governance” (‘The United States Speaks Clearly on Russia’s Ukraine War.’). It will strive to react to Ukrainians’ continuous requests for more open administration, despite Russian opposition and malfeasance. A self-governing Ukraine retains the ability to choose its destiny, including prospective membership in the European Union or NATO. Therefore, a thriving Ukraine is devoid of Russian economic monopolies, which the Kremlin attempts to accomplish by conquering Ukraine’s surviving coastline, particularly the port of Odessa.
In addition, the Cold War theory of containment is pertinent to modern US international relations for understanding the US position on global matters. Slimia and Mohammad specify, ‘containment was explicitly a doctrine created for the nuclear age, in which we are still living’ (4). A lifelong commitment to restriction may aid the US’s Russia stance. However, the fundamental characteristic of suppression was the desire to control the Soviet Union; the well-known definition of the term is now used to Putin’s Russia. In this sense, and depending on this policy, the United States said its ties between the United States and Ukraine are firmer than ever.
Their common values and dedication to a united, free, liberal, and peaceful Europe are the bedrock of their strategic cooperation. The US and its allies are collaborating to solve common global issues; nonetheless, as the hostilities in Ukraine began, President Biden was eager to reassure the American public that they would not have to battle Russia; America was going to fight Russia till the last Ukrainian combatant. Thus, the United States must adopt a far more realistic and comprehensive methodology for the global context, as opposed to disregarding or dismissing the painful facts. The United States’ response must be deliberate and customized to the issues the world faces in consideration of its capabilities and risk tolerance. In this instance, the US Department of State said that since 2021, the threat posed by Russia, including its NATO members, has become very evident (Slimia and Mohammad 5). “In this case, the U.S Department of State claimed that since January 2021, the danger Russia poses, including to our NATO allies, is now very clear,” (Slimia and Mohammad 5). Therefore, it is clear that the US supports the sovereignty of nations, as in the case of Ukraine.
Lastly, the US’s position on nations’ armament is ill-fated and seems to weaken governments that depend on it for protection against possible invasion by other states. While President Biden is confident that Moscow cannot undermine Ukraine’s aspirations to enter NATO, he has indicated that he has no imminent intentions to assist Ukraine in joining the league. In other words, the US leadership’s stance made it quite clear that President Biden pushed for a surrogate conflict with Russia on Ukrainian land. Ukraine is thus not a key interest of the United States and its European counterparts. “The US strategy aims to make the war costly enough that Putin will look for some kind of exit for forces, the US wants to see Russia’s military capabilities weakened, by arming Ukraine, with anti-tanks (including Javelins), anti-aircraft missiles, and training its troops, Drones, missile defense system (S300) …etc.,” (Slimia and Mohammad 5). The United States and its NATO partners are attempting to promote a covert battle against Russia in Ukraine, but not to the point where Russia would retaliate forcefully against them.
Additionally, Ukraine is not a key tactical priority for the US, but it is a key concern for Russia and not only Putin. Therefore, this indicates that the United States has personal goals and intentions. The Cold War illustrates the United States’ intense involvement in the conflict, which is necessary for comprehending the US’s secret goal. In 1949, the United States assisted in the founding of NATO to combat the Soviet threat in Europe. “Since the Soviet collapse in 1991, NATO has expanded several times,” (Slimia and Mohammad 5). Therefore, if Ukraine embraces NATO, it will have NATO support and security, which implies that NATO troops will be at the boundaries of Moscow.
Benefits of International Relations to the US and other Nations
International relations encourage effective international trade policy. International relations promote commerce, tourism, and immigration-related travel, giving individuals the opportunity to improve their life. The Ukraine crisis has already greatly impacted the significance of sophisticated military forces in contemporary warfare. Still, it has equally taught the future of the civic side of war. The conflict will make Russia an equal strategic priority for the United States. “The fighting seems to have become constrained to eastern Ukraine, and it has become a military struggle over control of the Donbass and global shipping.” (Anthony). Simultaneously, it has resulted in continuously intensifying Russian invasion of Ukraine’s whole civic economy and people. NATO, the European Union, and the United States have responded by going well beyond giving military help to Ukraine by launching sanctions against Russia. The total military effect is unknown, but Sweden and Finland have asked to join NATO, and in response, NATO has collectively planned substantial military expansions.
In addition, NATO appears likely to engage in significant military buildups, increasing their military expenditure by numerous percentage points of (Gross domestic product) GDP and further impacting their economies. “In addition, the buildups will impact on their economies while creating a massive arms race that will greatly expand their capability to threaten the other side’s population and economy” (Anthony). The Ukraine War may result in the accelerated development of hypersonic and other advanced attack weapons, the creation of cyber and space munitions, and the development of Strategic Integrated Operating Plans (SIOPs) comparable to those used in the past. Such contingency plans may require varying degrees of escalation. Still, they will be made possible by the continued capacity of US strategic nuclear weapons to generate far more harmful levels of assured destruction.
Moreover, the conflict in Ukraine will undoubtedly produce new regional issues for Europe. “The Russia-Ukraine conflict could provide Middle Eastern and North African states with significant new leverage over the US and Europe” (Lovatt). Thus, this may impede the Biden government’s attempts to shift its attention from the Middle East to Asia. Conversely, it may present new chances for European diplomacies, such as attempts to mediate between Morocco and Algeria to unlock energy pipelines. The conflict in Ukraine highlights the hazards associated with Europe’s reliance on Russian gas. Present tensions have raised worries of a Russian gas supply interruption. “This would intensify existing energy shortages and lead to even higher prices for European consumers who are experiencing a severe cost-of-living crisis” (Lovatt). In this context, substituting Middle Eastern gas for Russian gas may seem an interesting option.
Notably, as the second-largest supplier of liquefied natural gas (LNG) globally, Qatar remains the primary focus of attempts to identify alternative energy sources. “Since late January, Washington has been pushing Doha to reroute gas exports to Europe” (Lovatt). Nevertheless, Qatari production is near its full capacity, with most supply contracts with important Asian clients. Suppose the United States fails to persuade its Asian allies to divert some of their acquisitions for distribution to Europe. In that case, fresh gas shipments will be constrained and supplied at record-high spot market prices.
Again, the Russia-Ukraine crisis might offer North African and Middle Eastern governments additional power over the United States and Europe. Saudi Arabia and Qatar will probably try to bolster their positions using energy dynamics.
In line with the above statement, “The US designation of Qatar as a major non-NATO ally in January 2022 may be one gesture in this direction” (Lovatt). Qatar, though, will certainly demand concessions from Europe. The European Commission’s four-year inquiry into Qatar’s suspected use of long deals to obstruct natural gas supply to the European common market could be at the front of Qatar’s wish list. In Saudi Arabia, Riyadh may attempt to recover the West’s favor by responding to US and European demands for expanded oil deliveries. Therefore, this may include a long-desired appointment with President Joe Biden of the US and a general easing of US critiques of Saudi Arabia.
Finally, Beijing’s equivocal stance on the Ukrainian issue and Crimea’s secession is not detrimental to China’s interests. China has always rejected meddling in the affairs of other governments. “Beijing finds it difficult to explain Moscow’s meddling in Ukraine. Beijing has a difficult time justifying Moscow’s interference in Ukraine, but China also defines the imposition of international sanctions as a form of interference and in principle opposes these, except in very limited cases, such as on Iran and North Korea” (Rumer et al.). China refrained from a UN Security Council motion criticizing the Crimean referendum, which Russia vetoed. “Beijing condemned all violent acts, called for maintenance of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and urged international financial institutions to support Ukraine’s struggling economy” (Rumer et al.). Nonetheless, China stands to benefit from the stance it has taken on the issue.
First, Russia is alienating itself, enabling China to profit by refusing to engage in the seclusion and providing Putin diplomatic room. Even if China does not publicly oppose involvement in sanctions on Russia, its enforcement history shows it will be reluctant to penalize the Russians. “Second, China has been chafing at the Obama administration’s “rebalance” to Asia” (Rumer et al.). Beijing will be glad to see the United States entangled in issues far from Asia-Pacific. Thus, this may encourage Beijing to be tougher on its contentious neighbors who rely on outward displays of support from the United States.
In conclusion, global relations in the twenty-first century are characterized by unprecedented market interdependence, formidable threats to security and stability, and an international emphasis on social responsibility and environmental protection. Moscow’s efforts in Ukraine risk creating new precedents on European soil, undermining core international peacekeeping principles. After weeks of public discourse dominated by uncertainty and concern regarding US motivations and methods in the Ukraine issue, President Biden’s remarks dramatically clarified America’s goals and intentions. It proposes a plan, hopeful solution to Russia’s attack not only on Ukraine but also on global cooperation, profitability, and social order, which governments worldwide should support. International relations foster effective global commerce regulation. NATO is likely to engage in substantial military buildups, which will boost their military spending by several percentage points of GDP and further harm their economies. Additionally, the situation in Ukraine will raise new regional concerns for Europe. Although Middle Eastern and North African nations will not be able to replace Russia as Europe’s principal energy provider, they will have more influence than the West.
Anthony, Cordesman. “The Longer-Term Impact of the Ukraine Conflict and the Growing Importance of the Civil Side of War.” Csis.org, 2022, Web.
Kuzio, Taras (a). “Russia–Ukraine Crisis: The Blame Game, Geopolitics and National Identity.” Europe-Asia Studies vol. 70, no. 3, 2018, pp. 462-473.
Kuzio, Taras (b). “Euromaidan Revolution, Crimea and Russia–Ukraine War: Why it is Time for a Review of Ukrainian–Russian Studies.” Eurasian Geography and Economics vol. 59, no. 3-4, 2018, pp. 529-553.
Lovatt, Hugh. “Unsettled: The Impact of the Russia-Ukraine Crisis on the Middle East and North Africa.” ECFR, Web.
Moore, John Allphin, and Jerry Pubantz. The new United Nations: International organization in the twenty-first century. Routledge, 2017.
Rumer, Eugene, et al. “What Are the Global Implications of the Ukraine Crisis?” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Web.
Slimia, Awad, and Mohammad Fuad Othman. “The Russia-Ukraine War and the Hidden Agenda of the United States.” Law and Humanities Quarterly Reviews, vol. 1, no. 2, 2022, pp. 1-8.
“The United States Speaks Clearly on Russia’s Ukraine War.” United States Institute of Peace, Web.
“United with Ukraine – United States Department of State.” United States Department of State, Web.