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.

(more…)