Allow me to begin this article by stating that I have the utmost respect for James (@GravitysRa1nbow) on Twitter for his thoughts on liberalism, foreign affairs, and defense policy. I have in fact been using his reading list since the beginning of 2023, and am currently going through Samuel Huntington’s The Soldier and the State. It is an rather odd book, with certain historical inaccuracies as a product of being written in the 1950s. But it contains insights which are still relevant to the modern day and most of the books James has recommended have been very interesting and useful.

But on his Substack, James penned an essay a few weeks ago arguing against the idea that Americans should argue in favor of helping the Ukrainians win their war primarily in terms of the national interest. James argues that such an argument is the equivalent of a day trader and “is beneath who we are as Americans.” Furthermore, such arguments fail to inspire Americans to help the Ukrainians and causes mistrust among our allies, who fear that we will cut bait from them if they are useless.

It is true that helping the Ukrainians defend themselves against Russian tyranny and aggression is just, and moral arguments have their place in the political sphere. It is also true that Americans will be more willing to support a just crusade than mere squabbling among imperialists. While I have not finished Huntington’s book, he observes that the American populace seems to lurch from a crusading mood to a sort of pacifism, and then back again.

But there is a difference between what is politically viable, and what is true. These things are not contradictory nor at odds with one another. But while selling the American public on the moral grounds may be the most politically viable option, America is involved in the Ukraine for its own benefit. It is important not to forget that nor think that it is something to be sheepishly and shamefully admitted to.

Why We Fight: Politics and Geopolitics

James uses the Second World War as his example of how the US sold a righteous war as a crusade. As he says: “We did not tell the men and women at home how WWII was the international relations equivalent of Amazon Prime Day—because nobody would rally around that cause.”

But while the US government did not tell the men and women at home such things, that does not mean such things are not true.

Why does the ordinary modern American, who cannot identify any of the countries of Europe on a map, think that we entered World War II? If you ask him, he will say something along the lines that it was us or them. That if we failed to destroy Hitler, he and the Japanese would destroy us. Alternate history media such as Wolfenstein or The Man in the High Castle helps to perpetuate this idea that a Nazi victory would have ended with the swastika flying over the White House.

The American people in the 1940s seemed to believe this as well, no thanks to government and media propaganda. The famous Why We Fight series by Frank Capra is a perfect example of this. The short movie series mixes the positive hopes of the better future that will come after the defeat of Nazism with the fear of what shall happen if they won. To quote from the very end of the first movie:

“It’s us or them. The chips are down. Two worlds stand against each other. One must die. One must live.”

There are two things to note about this argument. First, it focuses on the American people and how the war benefits them. Hitler did bad things. But it’s not just because he did bad things to Europeans and Jews that we need to fight him. If we don’t fight him, then he’ll become powerful and do bad things to you Americans as well!

Second, the reality is that this argument is nonsense. Even if Hitler had accomplished his entire mad dream, pushed his army to the Urals, and sucnk the Royal Navy and entered London, there is no way he ever could launched an invasion of the United States. Planes may have been able to cross the Atlantic in hours as Capra observed, but one cannot launch an invasion with just planes. The Nazis would have sat on a chaotic, tottering empire. And after the war, the Communists and Stalin showed that Capra was wrong. There could be two worlds of freedom and slavery, and the two worlds existed side by side with various degrees of tension for decades.

Now does this mean that the United States was wrong to enter World War II? Of course not. A Nazi Europe never could have conquered the United States. But that does not mean that it would have been good for American on the geopolitical level, anymore than a Communist takeover of Western Europe would have been. A united, hostile Europe is a threat, even if the threat does not rise to the level of “Capable and determined to end the United States.”

The United States did not enter World War II because the Nazis persecuted Jews, or because of moralistic reasons, or because the Nazis were going to conquer America. The United States entered World War II for geopolitical reasons which are just as valid as moralistic reasons. Just because the United States did not sell the entry into the World War that way does not mean that it is true.

Ukraine and Geopolitics

So how does this tie back into Ukraine and the modern day?

James argues that it is important to sell the moral aspect of Ukraine in a way similar to World War II. But using the comparison carries two problems.

First, the American government did emphasize how the Nazi conquests could negatively and directly affect Americans themselves. This is more difficult in terms of Ukraine. The idea that Hitler could invade the US, while ludicrous, is and was more plausible than the idea that Putin can invade Western Europe, let alone the United States. Ironically, Ukraine’s heroic defense means that there are those who think “Well, if Putin can’t even invade Ukraine, then we don’t need to worry about him going for more.” This line of thinking is incorrect especially when one factors in nuclear weapons, but it is appealing.

How does the average American directly benefit from supporting the Ukrainian war? Without discussing the national interest, this question is always going to be tricky to answer. Focusing on the moral aspect has its uses, but it is not going to be good enough.

Second, there is a difference in how the US government should see the war and what is actually true. The moral aspects of Ukraine, particularly Russian atrocities, can be useful in selling the value of supporting the war to the public. This is especially so among the more liberal classes who would be less willing to support the war purely on national interest ground.

But that is a marketing matter. James criticizes the conservatives who make the national security argument. But conservatives are supposed to be the ones who are pragmatic and realistic (let us set aside how true that is today). The pragmatic, realistic, conservative case for Ukraine rests on national security grounds, and so internationalist conservatives should continue to emphasize that line.

Trumpeting such arguments too much to the public is not the best thing. But what matters is what is true, not what is appealing.