• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Was the Ukraine War "Provoked" or Simply a Russian Decision?

The Minority View of US Libertarian Non-Interventionism

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Me to ChatGPT:

• Geopolitical dissidents claim the Ukraine war was "provoked" by the West. Please analyze this claim in great detail.[1]
• Yet, libertarian author Scott Horton claims in his massive 690 page tome "Provoked" (Amazon #1 in War & Peace) that this narrative is exactly what happened. How has this book been received?
• Where does libertarianism stand in terms of foreigh policy compared to neo-con and liberal policies?
• Which of these three approaches to foreign policy has caused the least amount of human suffering?
• How much support in the US does each of these schools of thought have, both past and present?
• Please give a breakdown of how different political figures align with these foreign policy schools today.
• With Donald Trump being elected in 2024 non-interventionism may be on the rise in the US?
• Trump now plans to withdraw aid from Ukraine and support for Europe, and befriend Russia, to weaken its ties to China. All based on America's pivot to Asia.
• How would this affect specific regions (Europe, Russia, China, Middle East)?

Geopolitical dissidents claim the Ukraine war was "provoked" by the West. Please analyze this claim in great detail.

The broader argument made by some geopolitical dissidents is that the war was provoked by Western actions rather than initiated outright by Russia. To analyze this claim, we need to evaluate key historical, political, and military developments leading up to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

1. The Argument for "Provocation" by the West

Critics of Western policy argue that NATO expansion, U.S. involvement in Ukraine, and Western support for the 2014 Maidan Revolution played a significant role in pushing Russia toward war. Their main points include:

A. NATO Expansion and Russian Security Concerns

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has expanded eastward, incorporating former Soviet bloc countries such as Poland, Hungary, and the Baltic states.

Russia has long expressed concern that NATO's growth poses a security threat. In 2008, NATO announced that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually become members, which Russia strongly opposed.

Russian officials, including Vladimir Putin, have repeatedly framed NATO expansion as a violation of agreements allegedly made with the West in the early 1990s (though there is no written agreement forbidding NATO expansion).

Dissidents argue that the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO—particularly under Zelensky, who sought closer ties with the alliance—was a key factor in Russia's decision to invade.

B. The 2014 Maidan Revolution and U.S. Involvement

In 2014, Ukraine's pro-Russian President, Viktor Yanukovych, was ousted following mass protests known as the Maidan Revolution.

Critics argue that the U.S. played an active role in this event, pointing to the leaked phone call between U.S. officials (Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt), which allegedly showed U.S. influence over Ukraine's post-revolution government.

Russia viewed the Maidan Revolution as a Western-backed coup, deepening tensions between Moscow and Kyiv.

After 2014, Ukraine moved further away from Russian influence, increasing its cooperation with the U.S. and NATO.

C. Ukraine's Military Actions in Donbas

Following the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, war broke out in the Donbas region, where pro-Russian separatists declared independence.

The Ukrainian government, under both Poroshenko and later Zelensky, launched military operations to retake separatist-controlled areas.

Russian officials argue that Ukraine's military actions in Donbas—including alleged war crimes against Russian-speaking populations—provided justification for their intervention.

Some critics claim that Ukraine did not fully implement the Minsk Agreements, which were meant to establish a ceasefire and grant autonomy to Donbas.

D. The U.S. and Military Aid to Ukraine

Before 2022, the U.S. significantly increased military aid to Ukraine, training and equipping its armed forces.

Some argue that these actions emboldened Ukraine to resist Russian influence, making a full-scale war more likely.

In early 2022, Zelensky reaffirmed Ukraine's intent to join NATO and took steps to integrate more closely with Western security structures.

Putin cited NATO's militarization of Ukraine as a primary reason for launching his invasion.

2. Counterarguments: Why the War Was Not “Provoked” by the West

While the above points suggest a complex geopolitical buildup, mainstream analysts argue that none of these actions justify Russia's full-scale invasion:

A. NATO Expansion Was Not an Immediate Threat

NATO did not establish military bases or station troops permanently in Ukraine before 2022.

Ukraine was not on the verge of joining NATO in the immediate future. Membership was not guaranteed.

Even Finland and Sweden (which joined NATO later) were not attacked despite their closer NATO ties.

Russia has invaded countries that were not NATO members (e.g., Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014), suggesting that NATO membership is not the primary trigger.

B. The 2014 Maidan Revolution Was a Popular Uprising

While the U.S. supported opposition groups, there is no conclusive evidence that the U.S. "orchestrated" the Maidan Revolution.

The protests were driven largely by Ukrainians rejecting Russian influence and Yanukovych's pivot away from an EU trade deal.

If the revolution was a "Western coup," it would not have been supported by millions of Ukrainians.

C. Ukraine's Actions in Donbas Were a Response to Russian-Backed Separatists

While Ukraine's military actions in Donbas were controversial, the conflict started because Russian-backed separatists took control of territory.

Reports of human rights abuses occurred on both sides, but they do not justify a full-scale invasion.

The Minsk Agreements were largely ignored by both Ukraine and Russia, but Russia also failed to respect them.

D. Russia's Invasion Was a Clear War of Expansion

Putin has framed Ukraine as historically part of Russia, suggesting a broader ideological motive.

The Russian government did not only demand neutrality from Ukraine; it sought to replace Zelensky's government entirely.

The invasion included attacks on Kyiv and central Ukraine—far beyond Donbas—implying territorial conquest rather than merely responding to NATO.

3. Conclusion: Was the War "Provoked" or Simply a Russian Decision?

While Western actions—such as NATO expansion and support for Ukraine—may have contributed to Russia's sense of insecurity, this does not mean the West "provoked" the war in the sense of forcing Russia's hand.

Russia had other ways to address its concerns, including diplomacy, economic agreements, or cyber operations, rather than launching a full-scale invasion.

Many of Russia's justifications, such as the need for “denazification” or protecting Russian speakers, lack credibility.

In the end, the decision to invade was made solely by Russia, and no NATO country had attacked or threatened Russian territory.

Thus, while it is fair to discuss how Western policies may have influenced Russian calculations, the claim that the West provoked the war in a way that makes it responsible for Russia's invasion is not strongly supported by evidence.

Yet, libertarian author Scott Horton claims in his massive 690 page tome "Provoked" (Amazon #1 in War & Peace) that this narrative is exactly what happened. How has this book been received?

Scott Horton's book Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine has garnered attention for its critical perspective on U.S. foreign policy and its role in escalating tensions with Russia. The reception of the book varies across different audiences and platforms.

Positive Reception:

Goodreads Reviews: The book holds a 4.0 out of 5-star rating on Goodreads, based on 14 ratings. Reviewers have praised its comprehensive analysis and extensive documentation. One reader described it as a "brilliant" work that provides an in-depth look into Russian-NATO relations since the mid-1980s, highlighting the book's heavily referenced content and the author's effort to hyperlink thousands of references for easy verification.

Endorsements from Notable Figures: The book has received commendations from several prominent individuals:

Ron Paul, former U.S. Congressman, lauds it as an "invaluable chronicle" that exposes the consequences of interventionist foreign policy.

John J. Mearsheimer, a political scientist, refers to it as "manna from heaven" for understanding the origins of Western Russophobia and the U.S.'s role in the Ukraine conflict.

Col. Douglas Macgregor (Ret.) emphasizes that the book traces America's journey to war, urging a reevaluation before it's too late.

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano describes Horton as a "treasure" and the book as "the most thoroughly researched" critique of post-9/11 U.S. foreign policy.

The American Conservative Review: Scott McConnell, writing for The American Conservative, characterizes Provoked as a "monumental work" and an "essential guide" to understanding the deteriorating U.S.-Russia relations leading up to the Ukraine war. He notes that while the book is extensive, it serves as a scathing portrayal of the bipartisan Washington establishment's role in the conflict.

Critical Reception:

While specific critical reviews are less prominently featured in the provided sources, it's reasonable to infer that the book's contrarian stance may attract criticism from mainstream analysts and those who support current U.S. foreign policy. Potential critiques might focus on perceived biases, the interpretation of events, or disagreements with Horton's conclusions.

A one star Amazon review reads: "Horton's central thesis—that U.S. foreign policy is almost solely responsible for escalating tensions with Russia—comes across as one-sided. While his critique of NATO's eastward expansion and American interventionism is valid to some extent, the book often glosses over or minimizes the role of Russian actions, such as the annexation of Crimea, the military support for separatists in eastern Ukraine, and cyberattacks on foreign democracies. This selective approach gives the impression of an agenda-driven narrative rather than an impartial analysis."

"The extensive research and references included in the book, while impressive, are often used to reinforce a singular perspective. Instead of presenting multiple viewpoints, Horton constructs a narrative that aligns exclusively with his antiwar stance, leaving little room for readers to draw their own conclusions. For those unfamiliar with the broader context, this approach might lead to an incomplete or skewed understanding of the subject matter."

Conclusion:

Provoked has been well-received in circles critical of U.S. foreign policy, particularly among libertarian and non-interventionist audiences. Its detailed research and alternative perspective on the U.S.-Russia dynamic offer a substantial contribution to discussions about the origins of the Ukraine conflict. As with any work challenging established narratives, it is likely to face both acclaim and criticism, depending on the reader's viewpoint and interpretation of the events discussed.

Where does libertarianism stand in terms of foreigh policy compared to neo-con and liberal policies?

Libertarian foreign policy differs significantly from both neoconservative and liberal internationalist approaches, primarily emphasizing non-interventionism, diplomacy, and free trade over military engagements, alliances, or nation-building. Here's a comparison of the three:

1. Libertarian Foreign Policy: Non-Interventionism

Libertarians, particularly in the tradition of thinkers like Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, and Scott Horton, advocate for a non-interventionist foreign policy based on limited government, voluntary cooperation, and skepticism of military action.

Key Tenets of Libertarian Foreign Policy

No military intervention unless directly defending the U.S. – Oppose wars of choice, regime change operations, and military adventurism.

End military alliances (NATO, foreign bases, etc.). – Believe U.S. should not be the "world's policeman" and should withdraw from permanent alliances.

Trade and diplomacy over war. – Argue that free markets and peaceful relations are the best way to influence global affairs.

Opposition to foreign aid and nation-building. – View foreign aid as wasteful and ineffective, often propping up corrupt regimes.

Protect civil liberties at home. – Argue that endless wars lead to domestic surveillance, government overreach, and erosion of constitutional rights.

Examples of Libertarian Views in Practice

Opposed U.S. interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.

Opposed NATO expansion, believing it provokes unnecessary conflicts.

Support ending the “War on Terror” and bringing troops home.

Oppose economic sanctions, viewing them as hurting civilians more than governments.

Support trade with all nations, including adversaries like China and Russia.

Biggest Critics: Neocons and interventionist liberals view this stance as isolationist and naïve, arguing that disengagement leaves a power vacuum for rivals like China and Russia.

2. Neoconservative Foreign Policy: Aggressive Interventionism

Neoconservatives (Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Victoria Nuland) believe in a muscular, interventionist approach to foreign policy, focusing on military dominance, regime change, and American-led global order.

Key Tenets of Neocon Foreign Policy

Preemptive military action. – U.S. should strike potential threats before they emerge.

Promoting democracy abroad. – Use military force or regime change to install pro-U.S. governments (e.g., Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan).

Strong alliances with global military presence. – Maintain bases worldwide, expand NATO, and use force as deterrence.

Containment of rivals (Russia, China, Iran). – Push aggressive policies against adversaries through military buildup and proxy wars.

High military spending. – Ensure the U.S. military remains dominant globally.

Examples of Neocon Views in Practice

Advocated for Iraq War (2003) and argued for regime change in Syria and Iran.

Supported Ukraine war funding to weaken Russia geopolitically.

Backed military action in Libya (2011) and supported U.S. intervention in Syria.

Favor military confrontation with China, including Taiwan arms deals.

Oppose any diplomatic engagement with adversaries unless it serves U.S. dominance.

Biggest Critics: Libertarians call this endless war imperialism, while liberals criticize its disregard for human rights and international law.

3. Liberal Internationalism: Soft Power + Interventionism

Liberal interventionists (Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama) share some elements of neoconservatism but prefer multilateralism, democracy promotion, and humanitarian intervention over unilateral wars.

Key Tenets of Liberal Internationalist Foreign Policy

Use diplomacy and alliances (NATO, UN, EU). – Work with allies rather than acting alone.

Promote democracy and human rights. – Support pro-democracy movements and interventions (e.g., Libya, Ukraine).

Humanitarian interventions. – Justify military action on moral grounds (e.g., stopping genocide).

Sanctions and soft power. – Use economic pressure and trade restrictions rather than direct military force.

Foreign aid and nation-building. – Support economic aid to developing countries and post-war reconstruction.

Examples of Liberal Views in Practice

NATO expansion and military aid to Ukraine.

Regime change in Libya (2011) but reluctance to engage in direct wars like Iraq.

Support for sanctions against Russia, China, and Iran.

Re-engagement with international institutions like the Paris Climate Accord and WHO.

Balancing military power with diplomacy, as seen in Iran Nuclear Deal (2015).

Biggest Critics: Neocons see liberals as weak and naïve, while libertarians see them as hypocritical—still interventionist but under moralistic pretenses.

Summary: How They Differ

Conclusion

Libertarians: Least interventionist, prioritize diplomacy, free trade, and sovereignty.

Neocons: Most interventionist, prioritize military dominance and regime change.

Liberals: In between, favor diplomacy but still support military interventions under moral justification.

Libertarianism offers the most radically anti-war stance, seeing both neocons and liberals as different flavors of global interventionism, with differing justifications but similar outcomes: war, instability, and military expansion.

Which of these three approaches to foreign policy has caused the least amount of human suffering?

The question of which foreign policy approach—libertarian non-interventionism, neoconservative interventionism, or liberal internationalism—has caused the least human suffering is complex and depends on how we define "suffering" and measure its impact. If we look at historical evidence, we can break this down into wars, civilian casualties, economic consequences, and unintended side effects.

1. Libertarian Non-Interventionism: Least Direct Harm, but Unintended Consequences?

Libertarian foreign policy, rooted in non-interventionism, has historically caused the least direct suffering because it avoids wars, sanctions, and military occupations. However, critics argue that inaction can allow suffering to persist in cases where intervention might have prevented atrocities.

Examples of Minimal Harm

No major wars initiated by non-interventionist policies. The U.S. followed a mostly libertarian approach before World War I, staying out of European conflicts.

Avoidance of large-scale civilian casualties that result from military actions.

Less economic harm due to avoidance of costly wars and economic sanctions.

Less domestic harm (e.g., fewer veterans suffering PTSD, no loss of civil liberties through wartime measures like the Patriot Act).

Potential Downsides

Failure to stop genocide or aggression – Critics argue that non-intervention could allow atrocities to occur, such as the Rwandan Genocide (1994) or Hitler's expansion before WWII.

Power vacuums – Not intervening in global affairs may allow authoritarian regimes (like China, Russia, or ISIS) to expand unchecked.

Conclusion: While non-interventionism causes the least direct harm, critics argue that doing nothing in the face of humanitarian crises can still lead to suffering.

2. Neoconservative Interventionism: Maximum Suffering Due to War

Neoconservatives believe in aggressive interventionism, which has led to many of the most destructive wars in recent history. These policies have resulted in millions of deaths, widespread displacement, and regional instability.

Examples of Harm

Iraq War (2003–2011) – Over 500,000–1 million deaths, millions displaced, long-term instability, rise of ISIS.

Afghanistan War (2001–2021) – Tens of thousands of civilian deaths, failed state after U.S. withdrawal.

Libya (2011 intervention) – U.S.-NATO intervention led to the overthrow of Gaddafi but left the country in civil war and chaos, with open-air slave markets.

Syria (2011–present) – U.S. intervention (arming rebels) contributed to 500,000+ deaths and mass refugee crisis.

Ukraine (2022–present) – U.S. support for NATO expansion and Ukrainian military funding contributed to prolonged war, tens of thousands of deaths.

Economic Consequences

$8+ trillion spent on wars since 2001, leading to U.S. debt and loss of taxpayer money.

Massive refugee crises – Iraq, Syria, and Libya interventions created millions of refugees.

Domestic Consequences

Expansion of the surveillance state (Patriot Act, NSA spying).

Veteran suicides and PTSD – Tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers suffered mental health issues after prolonged deployments.

Conclusion: Neoconservatism has clearly caused the most human suffering, leading to millions of deaths, regional instability, economic devastation, and domestic erosion of freedoms.

3. Liberal Internationalism: Less Destructive Than Neoconservatism, but Still Harmful

Liberal foreign policy is less militaristic than neoconservatism, preferring diplomacy, sanctions, and multilateral intervention, but it still leads to suffering in different ways.

Examples of Harm

Libya (2011): Obama's intervention destabilized the country, leading to civil war, terrorist expansion, and human trafficking.

Sanctions on Iraq (1990s): U.S. sanctions led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children due to lack of food and medicine.

Syria (2011–present): Obama's support for rebels prolonged the war, worsening the humanitarian crisis.

Ukraine War (2022–present): While liberal internationalists frame their support for Ukraine as defensive, their policies (NATO expansion, military aid) may have contributed to the war's outbreak and escalation.

Economic Consequences

Sanctions often hurt civilians more than regimes – Economic sanctions on Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea have impoverished millions.

Debt from foreign aid and military spending – U.S. taxpayers fund wars and aid while domestic problems remain unresolved.

Domestic Consequences

Military-industrial complex benefits while working-class Americans suffer.

War on Terror expanded government power (e.g., drone strikes, indefinite detention without trial).

Conclusion: Liberal interventionism has caused less suffering than neoconservatism but still contributes to wars, economic devastation, and civil liberties erosion.

Final Verdict: Which Policy Has Caused the Least Suffering?

Ranking (Least to Most Harmful)

1 - Libertarian Non-Interventionism – Least suffering overall, as it avoids wars and economic destruction, but may fail to prevent crises.

2 - Liberal Internationalism – Causes moderate suffering through sanctions, failed interventions, and economic coercion.

3 - Neoconservatism – Causes the most suffering through endless wars, mass casualties, and permanent instability.

If we measure suffering in total war deaths, economic harm, and long-term instability, neoconservatism is the clear worst, while libertarianism, despite its flaws, has the least direct blood on its hands.

Key Takeaway

If minimizing human suffering is the goal, non-interventionism is the best approach, as history shows that war and sanctions usually cause more harm than good.

How much support in the US does each of these schools of thought have, both past and present?

The levels of support for libertarian non-interventionism, neoconservatism, and liberal internationalism have fluctuated over time based on political events, wars, and shifts in public opinion. Here's an overview of their historical and current levels of support in the U.S. political landscape.

1. Libertarian Non-Interventionism

Historical Support (Pre-WWII – Cold War)

Strong support before World War I & II – The U.S. had a tradition of non-interventionism dating back to George Washington's Farewell Address (1796), warning against "entangling alliances."

WWI & WWII debates – Non-interventionist movements like the America First Committee (AFC) opposed U.S. entry into WWII until Pearl Harbor shifted public sentiment.

Cold War decline – Anti-communist sentiment led to bipartisan interventionism, reducing public and elite support for libertarian foreign policy.

Modern Support (Post-Cold War – Present)

Post-9/11 Wars (2001–2010s) – Minimal support; most Americans backed the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars initially, marginalizing libertarians.

Ron Paul movement (2008–2012) – Increased popularity among younger conservatives and progressives disillusioned with war.

Trump Era (2016–2020) – Some America First rhetoric overlapped with libertarian non-interventionism, but Trump's actual policies were mixed (e.g., he increased drone strikes but opposed new wars).

Ukraine War (2022–present) – Support for non-interventionism remains low, as both major parties favor aiding Ukraine.

Current Support: 10–15% of Americans, mainly among libertarians, paleoconservatives, and progressive anti-war activists (e.g., Tulsi Gabbard, Matt Gaetz, parts of the populist left and right).

2. Neoconservatism (Hawkish Interventionism)

Historical Support (Cold War – Iraq War)

Cold War Consensus (1945–1991) – The U.S. embraced interventionism to contain the Soviet Union, with both parties supporting military build-ups (NATO, Vietnam, Korean War).

Post-Cold War dominance (1990s–2000s) – With the USSR gone, neocons became the dominant voice in Republican foreign policy.

Gulf War (1991) – Widespread bipartisan support.

Iraq War (2003) – Initially supported by over 70% of Americans, with bipartisan backing (Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Dick Cheney, etc.).

Modern Support (2010s–Present)

Post-Iraq War Decline – As Iraq and Afghanistan dragged on, public opinion turned against neoconservatives.

Trump vs. Neocons (2016–2020) – Trump criticized neocon wars, sidelining many Bush-era hawks.

Biden & Ukraine War (2022–present) – Neoconservatism made a comeback, with many former Bush-era hawks supporting Biden's Ukraine policies.

Current Support: 30–40% of Americans, mostly establishment Republicans, centrist Democrats, and defense-oriented policymakers.

3. Liberal Internationalism (Multilateralism & Selective Intervention)

Historical Support (20th Century – Cold War)

Woodrow Wilson & League of Nations (1919) – Early liberal interventionism, but rejected by the public.

FDR & WWII (1941–1945) – Liberal internationalism became dominant after Pearl Harbor.

Cold War Consensus (1945–1991) – Liberal internationalism coexisted with neoconservatism, with Democrats advocating NATO expansion, Vietnam War, and human rights-focused interventions.

Modern Support (1990s–Present)

Clinton (1990s) – NATO interventions in Bosnia (1995) and Kosovo (1999).

Obama (2009–2017) – Drone strikes, Libya intervention, and diplomatic deals (Iran Nuclear Deal) increased partisan divide.

Biden & Ukraine War (2022–present) – Strong bipartisan support for Ukraine aid and NATO-led diplomacy.

Current Support: 50%+ of Americans, mostly Democrats, moderate Republicans, and pro-globalist elites.

Conclusion: Foreign Policy Trends in the U.S.

Current Ranking of Popularity (2024–2025)

1 - Liberal Internationalism (~50% support) – Most mainstream Democrats & centrists support NATO, Ukraine aid, and diplomacy.

2 - Neoconservatism (~30–40% support) – Making a comeback among hawkish Republicans & establishment Democrats.

3 - Libertarian Non-Interventionism (~10–15% support) – Gaining traction among populists, but still a minority position.

Final Thoughts: What's Next?

If Ukraine escalates into a larger war, support for neoconservatism could increase.

If economic problems grow, Americans may lose patience for international spending, boosting non-interventionist views.

If Trump or a similar candidate wins in 2024–2028, we might see more foreign policy isolationism.

Please give a breakdown of how different political figures align with these foreign policy schools today.

Here's how key political figures and movements align with the three major foreign policy schools today.

1. Libertarian Non-Interventionism (Minimal Military Involvement, Avoiding Wars)

Key Advocates:

Rand Paul (R-KY) – Opposed U.S. involvement in Ukraine, Syria, and NATO expansion.

Tulsi Gabbard (Former D-HI) – Left the Democratic Party, opposed "regime change wars" in Syria and Iraq.

Thomas Massie (R-KY) – Only Republican to vote against Ukraine aid and military spending bills.

Donald Trump (R) (partially) – Campaigned on "America First" foreign policy, but had hawkish moments (Soleimani assassination, heavy sanctions on Iran, record drone strikes).

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Independent) – Criticizes Ukraine aid, blames NATO expansion for escalating tensions with Russia.

Political Base:

Populist conservatives (e.g., Trump-aligned Republicans, MAGA movement)

Progressive anti-war activists (formerly represented by Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard)

Libertarians (Rand Paul, Mises Caucus)

Policy Positions:

End "endless wars" (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria).

Reduce military spending, withdraw troops abroad.

Oppose NATO expansion and military aid to Ukraine.

Stop regime change operations (Libya, Syria).

Seen as too isolationist by critics, especially on global threats like China.

Recent Influence:

Gained traction under Trump but marginalized in Congress.

Slightly growing as war fatigue increases in the U.S. public (Ukraine, Middle East).

2. Neoconservatism (Aggressive Military Intervention, U.S. Global Leadership)

Key Advocates:

Nikki Haley (R-SC) – Supports strong military action against Iran, Russia, and China, calls for permanent U.S. presence in global hotspots.

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) – One of the most hawkish senators, pushed for U.S. escalation in Ukraine, Syria, and Iran.

John Bolton (Former Trump NSA, R) – Strong advocate of regime change in Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela.

Marco Rubio (R-FL) – Supports aggressive U.S. stance on China, Ukraine, and Cuba.

Hillary Clinton (D) (partially) – Backed Iraq War, Libya intervention, Syria policy.

Victoria Nuland (Biden Official, D) – Key figure in NATO expansion, Ukraine policy since the Bush era.

Political Base:

Establishment Republicans (Bush-era conservatives, foreign policy hawks).

Some establishment Democrats (e.g., Biden and Clinton-aligned figures).

Defense industry supporters (military-industrial complex).

Policy Positions:

Maintain U.S. military dominance worldwide.

Support aggressive sanctions and interventions (Iran, North Korea, China, Russia).

Expand NATO and confront adversaries like Russia.

Promote "democracy" abroad (but often via military force).

Criticized for "forever wars" and destabilizing the Middle East.

Recent Influence:

Weakened after Iraq War failures but rebounded with Ukraine war.

Bipartisan neocon resurgence seen in strong U.S. support for Ukraine under Biden.

3. Liberal Internationalism (Diplomacy, Alliances, and Selective Intervention)

Key Advocates:

Joe Biden (D) – Strong support for NATO, Ukraine, diplomatic efforts, and selective interventions.

Antony Blinken (Secretary of State, D) – Leading U.S. diplomatic engagement with Europe, China, and Middle East.

Pete Buttigieg (D) – Supports humanitarian interventions, but opposed Iraq-style wars.

Susan Rice (Former NSA, D) – Obama-era strategist who promoted interventions in Libya and Syria.

Jake Sullivan (Biden NSA, D) – Supports "rules-based order" strategy, managing alliances.

Bernie Sanders (D-VT) (partially) – Anti-war but supports Ukraine aid, NATO diplomacy.

Political Base:

Establishment Democrats (Biden, Obama supporters).

Moderate Republicans (e.g., some Bush-era figures who dislike Trump).

Globalist institutions (NATO, EU, UN, World Economic Forum).

Policy Positions:

Strong alliances (NATO, UN, G7, EU).

Promote democracy & human rights through sanctions, foreign aid, diplomacy.

Support Ukraine, Taiwan, and U.S. allies against adversaries.

Use military force selectively (Libya, Syria, Kosovo, Afghanistan).

Criticized for economic sanctions hurting civilians (Iraq, Venezuela, Iran).

Risk of "liberal hawkishness" (e.g., Libya intervention backfired).

Recent Influence:

Dominates U.S. policy under Biden, especially in Ukraine, NATO expansion, and China strategy.

Faces backlash from anti-war voices (left and right).

Comparison Chart of Major Figures & Their Foreign Policy Stances

Final Observations

1 - Libertarian Non-Interventionism is still a minority view but is growing on both populist right (Trump, RFK Jr.) and anti-war left (Gabbard, progressives).

2 - Neoconservatism declined after Iraq/Afghanistan but is resurging due to Ukraine tensions.

3 - Liberal Internationalism is the dominant U.S. policy under Biden but is facing criticism from both left and right.

With Donald Trump being elected in 2024 non-interventionism may be on the rise in the US?

Yes, now that Donald Trump has won in 2024, non-interventionism will likely rise in U.S. foreign policy, but it won't be a pure or consistent shift. Here's why:

1. Trump's Foreign Policy Record (2017–2021): A Mix of Non-Interventionism & Aggression

Trump's 2016 campaign was anti-war, anti-globalist, and "America First." However, his actual presidency was a mix of non-interventionist and hawkish policies:

Non-Interventionist Moves:

No new major wars (unlike Bush, Obama).

Tried to withdraw from Afghanistan (though Biden completed it).

Reduced U.S. troop presence in Syria and Iraq.

Tried to negotiate with North Korea (but talks failed).

Criticized NATO, calling it “obsolete.”

Interventionist Moves:

Record military spending (increased Pentagon budget).

Launched missile strikes in Syria (2017, 2018).

Ordered assassination of Iran's General Qasem Soleimani (2020).

Supported Ukraine with lethal weapons (Javelins) against Russia.

Increased economic sanctions on Venezuela, Iran, and China.

Conclusion: Trump was less interventionist than Bush or Obama, but not a true non-interventionist.

2. What Would Trump 2024's Foreign Policy Look Like?

When elected in 2024, Trump is likely to move the U.S. toward partial non-interventionism, but with exceptions:

Likely Non-Interventionist Policies Under Trump (2025–2029)

Ukraine War:

Reduce or end military aid to Ukraine.

Pressure Zelensky to negotiate with Putin.

Possibly withdraw U.S. support for NATO expansion.

China-Taiwan Tensions:

Avoid military confrontation with China.

Prioritize economic war (tariffs, sanctions) over military intervention.

Middle East Policy:

Less focus on "nation-building" wars.

Reduce U.S. military involvement in Syria, Iraq.

Continue peace talks with Israel and Arab states.

Likely Interventionist Policies Under Trump

Iran:

Trump could increase sanctions or airstrikes against Iran.

Possible conflict if Iran escalates nuclear program.

Israel-Gaza Conflict:

Strong U.S. military and financial support for Israel.

Might increase airstrikes on Iranian-backed groups (like he did before).

Venezuela Regime Change:

Trump might restart efforts to overthrow Maduro (who Biden is tolerating).

How Would This Change U.S. Global Standing?

End of Ukraine aid => NATO weakened, Russia stronger.

Less focus on Middle East => U.S. avoids costly wars, but Iran gains power.

More economic warfare (tariffs, sanctions) => Global trade shifts, tensions with China.

3. Will Non-Interventionism Grow in the U.S. Under Trump?

Yes, but it will be limited. Trump will likely reduce foreign wars and cut Ukraine aid, but he isn't a full non-interventionist (Iran, Israel, China could still see aggressive policies).

Libertarian non-interventionists (like Rand Paul, RFK Jr.) may gain influence, especially among Trump's populist base.

But Neocons (like Nikki Haley, Lindsey Graham) will resist this shift. The military-industrial complex, think tanks, and media will push back against Trump's anti-war moves.

If Trump withdraws from Ukraine/NATO, Europe will be forced to increase its own military spending and rely less on the U.S.

Final Verdict: Trump's 2024 victory would move the U.S. closer to non-interventionism but won't eliminate military conflicts entirely.

Trump now plans to withdraw aid from Ukraine and support for Europe, and befriend Russia, to weaken its ties to China. All based on America's pivot to Asia.

Yes, if Trump follows through with this strategy, it would mark a major realignment of U.S. global priorities—reducing involvement in Europe while shifting focus to Asia. Here's how this would unfold:

1. Trump's Strategy: Withdrawing from Europe, Strengthening Ties with Russia, Focusing on China

Key Moves in This Plan:

Cut Military & Financial Aid to Ukraine – Pressuring Ukraine to negotiate peace.

Reduce U.S. Support for NATO & Europe – Forcing Europe to take responsibility for its own defense.

Befriend Russia – Ending hostilities with Putin, weakening Russia-China ties.

Pivot to Asia – Making China the primary U.S. geopolitical adversary.

This strategy aligns with Trump's past views: he has always been skeptical of NATO, Ukraine aid, and military entanglements in Europe, while emphasizing competition with China.

2. Why Would Trump Want to Improve U.S.-Russia Relations?

The main goal: Drive a wedge between Russia and China, preventing them from forming a strong anti-U.S. alliance.

Past Situation (Under Biden):

Russia & China have grown closer, increasing trade & military cooperation.

The U.S. fighting both at the same time (Russia in Ukraine, China in Taiwan) stretches American resources.

Trump's Expected Approach:

Make peace with Russia to end the Ukraine war.

Offer economic incentives or lift sanctions to weaken Russia's dependence on China.

Avoid a two-front Cold War (one with Russia, one with China).

Does This Strategy Have Precedent?

Yes—this is similar to Richard Nixon's “China Card” strategy in the 1970s, where the U.S. normalized relations with China to isolate the Soviet Union. Trump would try the reverse—befriending Russia to isolate China.

3. What Happens If Trump Abandons Ukraine & Europe?

Immediate Effects on Ukraine:

Without U.S. aid, Ukraine would struggle to continue the war.

Europe would need to step up massively, or Ukraine would be forced into a peace deal on Russia's terms.

Putin would likely consolidate Russian control over eastern Ukraine & Crimea.

Impact on NATO & Europe:

NATO would be weakened if the U.S. withdraws support.

Germany, France, and Poland would need to spend more on defense to compensate for lost U.S. backing.

Europe might distance itself from U.S. influence and pursue a more independent military strategy.

Russia's Reaction:

Putin would welcome this shift and likely end the war on more favorable terms.

If U.S. sanctions ease, Russia's economy strengthens, giving Putin more leverage globally.

But will Russia actually break away from ChinaThat's uncertain—China is Russia's biggest economic partner, and distrust of the U.S. runs deep in Moscow.

4. The Bigger Picture: America's Pivot to Asia

Trump's real enemy is China, not Russia.

Why Focus on China?

China is the world's second-largest economy, challenging U.S. dominance.

Military expansion in the South China Sea threatens U.S. allies like Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines.

China's economic influence (BRICS, Belt & Road) rivals Western power.

How Trump's Asia Pivot Might Play Out:

Strengthen U.S. military bases in Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines.

Increase economic & military support for Taiwan.

Tougher trade war—higher tariffs and restrictions on Chinese tech.

Form new military alliances (like AUKUS with Australia & UK).

If Trump pulls U.S. resources from Ukraine & NATO, it frees up military spending & focus for Asia.

5. Would This Strategy Work?

Possible Successes:

Ends the Ukraine war, saving U.S. money.

Forces Europe to become self-reliant.

Reduces the threat of a two-front war (Russia & China).

Increases pressure on China in the Indo-Pacific.

Potential Risks & Failures:

Russia may still stay close to China, undermining the strategy.

Europe could drift away from U.S. influence, weakening American global power.

A U.S.-Russia friendship could alienate Eastern Europe (Poland, Baltics, etc.).

China might retaliate with stronger economic warfare or military action in Taiwan.

6. Final Thoughts: A New Global Order Under Trump?

If Trump abandons Ukraine & NATO while shifting to Asia, it could reshape global power in the 2020s.

Russia might grow stronger, but Europe would become more independent.

The U.S.-China conflict would intensify—potentially becoming the dominant geopolitical struggle.

How would this affect specific regions (Europe, Russia, China, Middle East)?

Let's break down the regional impacts of Trump's potential pivot to Asia, withdrawal from Ukraine & NATO, and effort to foster U.S.-Russia relations.

1. Impact on Europe: NATO, the EU, and Security Dynamics

NATO and the U.S.-Europe Alliance

Weakened NATO: If Trump pulls back U.S. support for NATO and its military commitments to Europe, the alliance could lose its cohesion. Many Eastern European countries (like Poland, the Baltics) depend heavily on U.S. defense support as a deterrent to Russian aggression.

European countries would need to step up in terms of military spending, which is a big ask—especially given the current focus on social and economic issues in many European countries.

Potential fragmentation: While Western European countries like Germany and France may try to form their own security framework, it could lead to greater internal divisions within the EU over military spending and foreign policy priorities.

Emergence of a "multi-speed" Europe: A situation where some countries (particularly those with a more neutral stance toward Russia, like Austria and Hungary) may align with a more Russia-friendly approach, while others (Poland, the Baltic states) push for stronger deterrence against Russia.

Germany and France's Role:

These countries may attempt to take a more prominent role in European security policy, leading to a divergence from U.S. influence.

However, the EU's economic ties with the U.S. (e.g., the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP) would still push some European countries to stay aligned with the U.S., though more independently.

European Energy Security and Russia

Shift in Energy Dynamics:

Europe's energy security was heavily tied to Russian natural gas and oil. A U.S.-Russia rapprochement could mean easing of sanctions on Russia, making Russian energy supplies more accessible to Europe.

European countries could seek more direct economic and energy ties with Russia, reducing reliance on U.S. energy imports. This could reshape Europe's energy market and possibly lead to more EU-Russia bilateral relations.

Russia and Europe: A Shift in Relations?

Russia's Influence in Eastern Europe:

If the U.S. withdraws from its traditional role in deterring Russian aggression, it opens the door for Russia to exert more influence over its neighbors, including former Soviet republics and Eastern European countries like Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova.

Poland and the Baltics would be especially vulnerable to Russian encroachment, which could destabilize the region.

2. Impact on Russia: U.S.-Russia Relations and Strategic Shifts

Strengthened Russian Position

Economic Opportunities:

Lifting U.S. sanctions on Russia would give it a boost economically. Russia could reassert itself as a global energy superpower while benefiting from increased trade with both the EU and China.

Russia-China Economic Cooperation: Even with U.S. attempts to create a wedge, Russia would likely still maintain close economic ties with China—especially in energy (oil, gas, and raw materials) and military cooperation (arms sales, joint military exercises).

Reduced NATO Threat:

De-escalation of tensions: A U.S.-Russia rapprochement would mean less military presence in Eastern Europe, giving Russia more freedom to act in its “near abroad” (former Soviet states).

This may enable Putin to solidify control over Ukraine and other post-Soviet republics, as Trump's withdrawal of support for NATO would likely lead to less resistance to Russian influence in these regions.

Geopolitical Gains for Russia:

Influence in the Middle East: Russia could increase leverage its alliances with Syria and Iran to shape the balance of power in the Middle East—gaining influence over countries like Iraq, Lebanon, and even Egypt.

Russia might also capitalize on Europe's internal divisions (e.g., between EU member states) to further undermine the EU's unified foreign policy.

Could Russia Break from China?

It's unlikely that Russia would fully abandon China. While the U.S. would prefer Russia to distance itself from China to weaken the Sino-Russian partnership, the economic and strategic benefits of this relationship are hard to ignore for Russia.

China's economic dominance and trade partnerships outweigh the benefits of a closer U.S.-Russia alliance for Putin.

Moreover, the Russia-China relationship is largely about countering U.S. dominance in global affairs, and any U.S.-Russia rapprochement would not be enough to end this strategic partnership.

3. Impact on China: The U.S.-China Rivalry Intensifies

Economic and Military Dynamics

Escalating Trade War:

With Trump's pivot to Asia, he would likely ramp up economic confrontation with China, focusing on issues like intellectual property theft, trade imbalances, and technology restrictions.

Higher tariffs and sanctions on Chinese companies could be expected, targeting high-tech industries like 5G, AI, and semiconductors, areas where the U.S. sees China as an emerging threat.

Increased U.S. Military Presence in the Pacific:

The U.S. would likely strengthen its military presence in the Indo-Pacific, particularly in Taiwan, the South China Sea, and Japan.

AUKUS, a security pact with Australia and the UK, could expand with additional military assets, especially focused on countering Chinese naval expansion in the region.

Strategic Alliances: The U.S. could work with India, Japan, and Australia to form a Quad Alliance that challenges China's maritime dominance in the Indo-Pacific.

The Taiwan Issue

Support for Taiwan:

Trump's approach to Taiwan would likely involve a stronger show of support, including military aid and possibly more direct defense assistance to deter Chinese aggression.

The pivot to Asia would see China's aggressive territorial actions in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait becoming the primary flashpoint in U.S.-China relations.

China's Reaction to U.S. Policies:

China would retaliate economically (through tariffs, currency manipulation) and militarily, especially if the U.S. takes more provocative actions regarding Taiwan or the South China Sea.

However, China would also seek to enhance its economic relations with Russia, continuing to integrate both countries into a counterbalance against U.S. influence globally.

4. Impact on the Middle East: U.S. Interests and Alliances

U.S. Withdrawal and Regional Power Shifts

Iran:

If Trump seeks to weaken NATO and reestablish U.S.-Russia ties, he could ease the maximum pressure campaign on Iran, allowing the country to reassert its power in the region, particularly in Iraq and Syria.

Saudi Arabia and Israel might grow wary of less U.S. involvement in their security, but they would likely align more closely with Russia and China to secure arms and trade deals.

Syria and Israel:

The U.S. could step back from Syria, but Israel would likely continue its aggressive stance against Iranian influence in the region.

Russia could increase its role in Syria, benefiting from a weakened U.S. presence.

Conclusion: A New Geopolitical Landscape

Europe could drift away from U.S. dominance, potentially leading to more independent defense and diplomatic policies.

Russia would likely gain economically and diplomatically in Europe, but maintain its close ties with China.

China would face intensified economic and military pressure from the U.S., especially in the Indo-Pacific, while Russia's support would help maintain a counterbalance against American power.

Middle Eastern alliances could shift, with Iran's influence growing and Israel/Saudi Arabia exploring new partnerships outside of U.S. support.

Trump's pivot to Asia would reshape the global balance of power, but could also create new challenges for U.S. global influence, especially in Europe and the Middle East.

NOTES

[1] To get a "second opinion", I consulted Grok 3 about this same question. It is quite firm in its conclusion: "Responsibility for the war lies with Russia, not with those it accuses of provoking it."

Was the Ukraine War "Provoked"?

The question of whether Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was "provoked" is complex and depends on how we define "provocation." Russia did invade Ukraine, that much is clear. But the idea of provocation suggests that actions by Ukraine or other entities, like the West, forced Russia into war. Let's break this down.

Russia's Perspective

Russia has pointed to several factors it claims provoked its actions:

NATO Expansion: For years, Russia has opposed the eastward expansion of NATO, a defensive military alliance. While Ukraine is not a NATO member, discussions about its potential membership have been ongoing. Russia has framed this as a threat to its security.

Historical Ties: Some in Russia view Ukraine as part of their cultural or historical sphere of influence, even as an extension of Russia itself. Ukraine's moves toward independence and alignment with the West could be seen by Russia as a challenge to this view.

From Russia's standpoint, these developments might have felt like provocations—reasons to act to protect its interests.

Ukraine's Sovereignty

On the other hand, Ukraine is a sovereign nation. It has the right to determine its own future, including its alliances and political direction. Pursuing closer ties with the West, including NATO, is a legitimate choice for Ukraine, not an act of aggression against Russia. International law supports a country's autonomy in such matters—no nation can dictate another's partnerships.

Does Provocation Justify War?

Even if Russia felt provoked, does that justify launching a full-scale invasion? The answer is no. Feeling threatened or insulted doesn't give a country the right to violate another's borders, causing widespread suffering and destruction. Russia had alternatives—diplomacy, negotiations, or economic pressure—to address its concerns. Instead, it chose war, suggesting the invasion was a deliberate decision, not an inevitable reaction.

A Broader View

The narrative of "provocation" often serves to shift blame from Russia to Ukraine or the West. However, NATO is a defensive alliance, not an offensive threat, and Ukraine's actions were not hostile toward Russia. Many see the invasion as a calculated move by Russian leadership, driven by imperial ambitions and a desire to prevent a democratic, West-aligned Ukraine from thriving on its doorstep. This points to the war being a choice, not a forced outcome.

Conclusion

Russia might claim it was provoked by NATO expansion or Ukraine's independence, but this doesn't hold up as a justification. The invasion of Ukraine was not "provoked" in any meaningful sense that excuses the aggression. It was a decision made by Russia, rooted in its own strategic goals, not an unavoidable response to external actions. Responsibility for the war lies with Russia, not with those it accuses of provoking it.