By James J. Devine
In recent months, a growing chorus of voices in the United States has argued that the country should prioritize protecting its own borders over supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russia’s unprovoked invasion.
These voices suggest that by cutting back on military aid to Ukraine, the U.S. can focus on domestic issues without becoming entangled in a distant foreign conflict.
At first glance, this sentiment may seem reasonable, especially to those concerned about the cost of foreign involvement and the need to prioritize national security. However, this line of thinking is deeply flawed, and could ultimately be disastrous for both the U.S. and global stability.
National Security is Global Security
The first and most critical flaw in this argument is the assumption that national security can be isolated from global security.
To date, the United States has provided $65.9 billion in military assistance since Russia launched its premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and approximately $69.2 billion in military assistance since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014.
Some argue that the U.S. should turn inward, focusing on domestic issues like immigration and economic challenges, rather than becoming involved in Ukraine’s fight for survival. The logic goes: “Our borders come first, and foreign conflicts should be secondary.”
This line of reasoning ignores the reality that national security in the 21st century is deeply intertwined with global stability.
The threats to America’s safety aren’t confined to its borders; they manifest in global hotspots, from Eastern Europe to Asia. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a clear example of how a failure to act abroad can eventually threaten American security.
If Putin’s expansionist ambitions are allowed to succeed in Ukraine, they won’t stop there.
Putin has made it clear that he seeks to restore Russia’s influence over former Soviet states, potentially bringing NATO into direct conflict with Russia. By supporting Ukraine now, the U.S. can prevent a broader conflict that could eventually drag the country into war—on much less favorable terms.
The Dangers of Appeasement
Another flaw in the argument for U.S. isolationism is the belief that doing nothing will somehow preserve peace. This line of thinking ignores the dangers of appeasement, a policy that has historically led to far worse outcomes. The failure to confront early acts of aggression, such as Nazi Germany’s territorial expansions in the 1930s, is one of the key lessons of history. Appeasing dictators only emboldens them, increasing the likelihood of a larger, more devastating conflict down the road.
If the U.S. and its allies abandon Ukraine now, the message sent to Putin and other authoritarian leaders will be clear: aggressive expansion can proceed without consequence. This emboldens not only Russia but also other authoritarian regimes—such as China, which may view a failure to defend Ukraine as a green light for taking aggressive actions in Taiwan. Inaction today could very well mean a much larger and more dangerous war tomorrow.
Ukraine’s Strategic Importance
It’s also crucial to understand the strategic significance of Ukraine in the larger geopolitical landscape. Ukraine is not just a small, distant country; it is a vital buffer between Russia and NATO countries. If Ukraine falls to Russian control, Putin would move closer to NATO’s eastern borders, threatening key NATO members like Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states. This increases the risk of direct conflict between NATO and Russia, and may eventually pull the U.S. into a war it might have otherwise avoided.
Far from being a peripheral issue, Ukraine represents the frontline of a broader struggle between authoritarianism and democracy. The outcome of this conflict will shape the global balance of power for generations to come. By helping Ukraine now, the U.S. is not just defending Ukrainian sovereignty but protecting the security of NATO and maintaining the international order that has largely prevented great-power wars since World War II.
The Moral Imperative
In addition to the strategic and security implications, there is a moral imperative to support Ukraine. The U.S. has long championed democratic values and the right of nations to self-determination. Allowing a dictatorial regime like Russia’s to trample on the rights of a democratic nation sets a dangerous precedent. If the world’s democracies fail to act in Ukraine, it sends a message to authoritarian regimes everywhere that the international community is unwilling to stand up for basic human rights and sovereignty.
A Choice Between War and Peace
Ultimately, the question of whether the U.S. should support Ukraine is not just about foreign policy; it’s about preserving peace and preventing a larger, more catastrophic conflict. The idea that the U.S. should withdraw and focus only on its own borders is shortsighted and dangerous. The cost of doing nothing is far higher than the cost of standing firm against Putin’s aggression now.
History has shown that when democracies fail to defend their allies in the face of authoritarian threats, the consequences are severe. By supporting Ukraine today, the U.S. and its allies can prevent a much larger war tomorrow—one that could very well drag America into direct conflict with Russia and, ultimately, ignite World War III. Standing by Ukraine is not just about protecting a single country; it’s about defending the global order and ensuring a stable and peaceful world for future generations.
In the end, America’s commitment to Ukraine is a commitment to peace. If the U.S. wants to protect its own borders and its future security, it must act decisively today to stop Russia from rewriting the rules of the international order. The stakes could not be higher.