America’s Moral Clarity and the Indo-Pacific

When and how the Russian invasion of Ukraine might end remains to be seen. But more than a month since Vladimir Putin ordered his forces into Ukrainian territory, the unity between the United States and its partners – not only in Europe, but also including key Asian nations – has been nothing short of remarkable. For the United States, the conflict has been a game-changer for bolstering its moral confidence, uniting a nation that has become increasingly fractured on almost every conceivable issue, from how to deal with the pandemic to investing in its economic future.

The plight of Ukraine, however, has led to a rare showing of unity within Congress and among foreign policy analysts, who share deep alarm over Putin’s aggressions and his fixed intent on absorbing Russia’s neighbor. More than that, the war has also led to a groundswell of support from those not necessarily interested in foreign policy otherwise. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s demonstration of courage to confront Moscow and commitment to remain in the country despite having the means to evacuate has inspired the world over, with the United States being no exception. While Americans continue to be largely divided on a slew of issues big and small, from the necessity of vaccines to investing in infrastructure to social justice concerns, the imperative to demonstrate support for Ukraine has been overwhelmingly strong across the board.

The invasion of Ukraine is the biggest inter-European conflict since the end of World War II. It is also a conflict where the moral compass for the United States is clear-cut, unlike most other wars Washington has entered since 1945. For U.S. policymakers and the public alike, the Russian attack on Ukraine clearly puts Putin in the wrong and Zelenskyy in the right. Such moral clarity was sorely lacking most recently in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even when it comes to strategic competition with China, where Democrats now acknowledge that President Donald Trump had set Washington on the right course to confront Beijing’s aggressions, there are vast shades of gray that keep the U.S. public in particular from being entirely united on China policy. 

The moral clarity among Americans about Ukraine has in turn given greater confidence for the United States to lead again on the international stage. In waging a de facto economic war against Russia, the majority of industrialized nations – including those in Europe as well as Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and Singapore – have joined Washington in pushing for debilitating sanctions, export restrictions, travel bans, and other measures, all in an effort to cripple the Russian economy in order to stop Moscow’s aggressions.

Unsolicited efforts by the private sector to stop doing business in Russia have been noticeable too. Private companies – among them Asian firms like Uniqlo, LG Electronics, Sony, and Hitachi as well as U.S. multinationals, including tech giants and hotel groups – have suspended operations in Russia amid pressure from consumers. 

The question is whether or not Washington can actually further its global leadership role in light of U.S. unity in supporting efforts to fight Moscow. For the Biden administration, which continues to push for values-based diplomacy, solidarity with and support for Zelenskyy has been as much a struggle for freedom and democratic values as it has been about preventing Russia’s overreach. Moreover, the international community has also looked to the White House to spearhead global efforts to protect Ukraine. In short, it is a role that resonates well with Washington’s own views of itself, and industrialized nations are comfortable with the leadership role that the United States is currently playing.

That comfort in U.S. leadership and Washington’s view of itself could, however, shift in the future. The conflict could persist far longer than expected, and the possibility of a drawn-out, multi-year war could dampen public support for Ukrainians. The longer the conflict, the bigger the spillover effect on the global economy, with a significant rise in costs for commodities including energy and food, as well as increasing inflationary pressure. The downside pressure is already apparent in food and energy prices, with import-dependent Asian nations being no exception. A prolonged confrontation would therefore hurt the pursestrings as well as the current moral commitment to support Zelenskyy’s government, at least proactively. 

Then there is the possibility of armed conflict expanding beyond Russia and Ukraine. Currently, the war effort on the part of the United States and like-minded nations is primarily an economic one, through sanctions and other measures, with no military combat as of yet. Should the situation escalate and require direct military engagement by NATO and beyond, support for Ukraine and U.S. leadership efforts could be hard hit. Should East Asian nations also be called upon to intervene or at least support military efforts in Ukraine, public support for Zelenskyy’s government could unravel quickly, as would support for U.S. leadership. 

For now, though, Washington has the moral clarity both within and outside its borders to lead efforts to support Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. With it, support for U.S. values of democracy and sovereignty too is on the rise. The challenge ahead for the Biden administration will be to rise to the occasion, and ensure that global efforts to protect the rule of law and fight back against authoritarian rule actually succeed.