Safer, Stronger and More Prosperous

In his first official message to the Department of State’s (DoS) workforce, Secretary of State Marco Rubio made it clear that all the employees will focus on three questions when assessing U.S. foreign policy decisions - How does the action proposed by the employee make the United States “stronger, safer or more prosperous.”  For many, this practical approach to handling foreign relations is a welcome shift from what appeared, for the last four years, to be the DoS’ emphasis on everything but America’s interests.

Unfortunately, the previous Administration was never able to effectively articulate how U.S. support met Secretary Rubio’s test for validity. In my own experience, speaking about the issue of support for Ukraine to audiences across the U.S., many Americans expressed sympathy for the Ukrainians in their fight to protect their independence and sovereignty, but asked how giving financial assistance and supplying weapons to Kyiv benefited the U.S., which is a fair question given that it is the American people who have been funding aid to Ukraine with their tax dollars.  Thus, those advocating for continued support for must answer the Secretary’s very practical questions. 

Prior to Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin was working hard to challenge and undermine U.S. influence and interests worldwide.  In Georgia (2008), Ukraine (2014), and Syria (2015), Putin demonstrated his willingness to use military force to extend Moscow’s reach.  Private Military Companies (PMC) and Russian trolls actively threatened U.S. interests and the Russian Armed Forces frequently tried to intimidate and embarrass their U.S. counterparts, at times coming dangerously close to provoking a direct conflict between Washington and Moscow.  Americans should remember that if the Russians had successfully occupied all of Ukraine in 2022, Russian forces would be face-to-face with U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces in Europe.  To date, the Ukrainians have been able to stop the Russians from seizing their country and have kept the Russians away from NATO’s borders.  And, thanks to U.S. assistance, the Russian Armed Forces have suffered significant losses in manpower, equipment and reputation. The Ukrainians war against the Kremlin’s aggression has also provided U.S. military planners with an excellent opportunity to study Russian military tactics and develop countermeasures against Russian weapon systems. Ukraine’s resistance against Moscow has also played a key role in weakening Russia’s influence in other regions of the world. For example, with Russian forces depleted on the battlefields of Ukraine, Moscow was unable to provide military assistance to its ally, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, when Syrian opposition forces launched a major offensive against his regime in late 2024, resulting in the collapse of Assad’s regime and a serious blow to Russia’s influence and prestige in the Middle East. In short, the Russian “bear” has been weakened, making America safer

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 also exposed an ugly truth about the state of the U.S. Defense Industrial Base, which had been allowed to atrophy after the end of the Cold War. After the Ukrainians demonstrated their ability to stop Russia’s offensive against the Ukrainian capital in 2022 and the U.S. and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) partners increased lethal assistance to Ukraine, the U.S. witnessed a much-needed renewal in investment in U.S. defense production. A large portion of the defense assistance provided to Ukraine since 2022 has involved the purchase of U.S. made equipment and products and a significant increase in U.S. defense sales not only for Ukraine, but for other countries who recognize that Vladimir Putin is a real threat to their sovereignty and security. In short, U.S. support for Ukraine has increased investment in the U.S. economy, created jobs across the U.S. and is making America more prosperous.

Putin’s expanded invasion of Ukraine finally forced Washington’s European allies to recognize how dangerously dependent they had become on Russian energy supplies and motivated the Europeans to take steps to find alternatives to Russian oil and gas. Kyiv’s ability to continue fighting against the Russians has led to a reduction in demand for Russian energy and increase in the demand for U.S. supplies. Given President Trump’s plans to increase energy production in the U.S. and expand exports to foreign markets to replace Russian products, it is very likely that the U.S. economy will grow and America will become more prosperous as a result of increased oil and gas revenues.

Ukraine itself is a country rich in agricultural goods and precious minerals. Helping protect Ukrainian territory from Russia’s land grab will keep sizable deposits of natural resources out of Moscow’s control and available to U.S. businesses and manufactures. If, on the other hand, Ukraine loses more territory to the Russians, these valuable natural resources will no longer be available to the U.S. and, instead, will become easier for the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to control given Beijing’s close relationship with Moscow and increasing influence in the Russian market.

It is also important to consider how an end in U.S. support will make the U.S. less safe. For anyone who has followed Ukraine’s fight against Moscow, it is obvious that the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Intelligence and Security Services are both very capable and motivated. Ukrainian technical experts, engineers and designers have proven themselves to be extremely innovative, especially in designing and deploying effective weapons systems. If Ukraine falls back under Moscow’s control, there is a risk that many of the capabilities and skilled workers will stop

Further, if America’s other allies and potential future allies see the U.S. waiver in its support for Ukraine today, will they be willing to partner with the U.S. in the future to tackle Counterterrorism, Transnational Crime and Counter Proliferation? All are areas where the U.S. relies on partnerships to tackle transnational threats.

Asking the question about what the U.S. will lose by ending support for Ukraine is extremely important today given the growing level of instability in the world and the long-term impact Putin’s war against Ukraine will have on Ukrainian and Russian society. Once the fighting in Ukraine ends, who will police the large number of weapons and ammunition deployed by both countries? Will Russia and Ukraine be able to handle the very real challenges associated with re-absorbing large numbers of combat veterans and civilians directly impacted by the savage war fought on Ukraine’s soil. If both countries cannot, will the U.S. be able to count on other allies and partners to contain the fallout? What will the consequences be for U.S. National Security if Washington is viewed as lacking the commitment and ability to back allies during critical moments? Where will allies and potential partners turn if they cannot trust the U.S.? Who is waiting in the wings to try to build alliances at America’s expense? Can we afford to strengthen the hand of Beijing, Moscow or Tehran by pushing allies into their arms? And, which potential allies will align with Washington if we continue to demonstrate our resolve and commitment towards helping Ukraine.

President Trump is correct in demanding to know how the continued investment of any U.S. resources will make the U.S. safer, stronger and more prosperous. The Ukrainians have not asked the U.S. to shed any blood as they themselves fight for their independence. They have, and continue, to request material and financial support, but the investment by the U.S. directly makes America safer, stronger and more prosperous today and in the future.

Glenn Corn is a 34-year veteran of the U.S. Intelligence and Foreign Affairs communities. He served for over 20 years abroad, including tours in Russia, Turkey, Central Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East. Glenn is a Professor of Intelligence at the Institute of World Politics.