Following the Israel-Gaza stand-off over the past few weeks, Israel is expected to mount into a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip. One can observe that Israel faces a similar problem as Ukraine – it relies on American domestic support. And while Ukraine has only been a close US ally for a relatively short amount of time, Israel has been supported by the US since its establishment in 1948. Nevertheless, times have changed, and even military and material support for Israel, has not found unanimous support among Americans.
For Democrats, polls show low support for Israel, while the same issue persists for Republican voters regarding Ukraine. Both Israel and Ukraine find themselves opposed to bigger adversaries with foreign military aid. And even if Israel is more self-sustainable, the question of foreign military aid is not a settled one. Can the US afford two wars, is the question often asked.
“We’re the United States of America for God’s sake. The most powerful nation in the history of the world”, replied President Biden on CBS when asked whether the wars in Israel and Ukraine were more than the United States could take on at once.
While supporting Ukraine and Israel in their respective victories could cost a fraction of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan (close to $3 trillion), the perception of the war in Ukraine and Israel has been completely different. Through Russian mouthpieces like Matt Gaetz and Candace Owens, the Russian government was able to penetrate the American information sphere to create an illusion that the cost of supporting Ukraine would send American citizens into poverty. In reality, though, the cost of defeating Russia quickly would have ultimately been the lowest one.
Therefore, the biggest vulnerability of democracies in the 21st century is the extreme intolerance to higher costs and higher risks. There’ll always be a populist figure who will promise to end all wars immediately and return to cheaper gas. Authoritarian regimes, namely, China, Russia, and Iran do not have to overcome this hurdle. The mere chance of such a populist becoming president already diminishes military support. Ultimately, voters get tired of raising prices and turbulent markets and may choose to replace their government with those whose promises are the sweetest. This limits democracies, such as North America and Europe, in their ability to defend themselves. Even a minor economic crisis may lead to a swift change of government.
Hence, in order to be re-elected, western governments would naturally choose to concede as much as possible when being bullied by China, Iran, or Russia, in order to avoid costly consequences. The missed potential here is appalling – Russia, whose GDP is lower than Italy’s, is far more coercive than Italy simply because it is willing to incur more costs. Why is it willing to incur more costs? The answer is simple – whatever unpleasant cost they may have to take, be it through a catastrophic war, they will always be in power. Had the United States waged a war as catastrophic for its military as Russia did in 2022, the government would have been voted out in a landslide.
One can only imagine what a threat hundreds of thousands of potential jihadis, seeking martyrdom, could do to destabilize Europe. A hypothetical direct confrontation between a religious or ideologically extremist state and a modern liberal democracy would likely end in disaster. The latter, of course, would be at a strategic disadvantage from the beginning. It is likely that voters would vouch for endless concessions as long as possible. In the short term, prolonging a comfortable, carefree, and luxurious life will always seem a better option. The same goes for authoritarian regimes, who coincidentally are also religious or ideologically extremists (Iran – religious extremism, Russia – fascism), whose governments have endless resources to lengthen the conflict and not for the betterment of their voters (as there are none). Therefore, such regimes will always be able to attack democracies freely unless opposed by the democracies themselves.
With such an unequal political power of will to fight, how can Western democracies defend attacks on themselves in the future? Neville Chamberlain, once popular for his peaceful initiatives with Nazi Germany comes to mind. His lenient tone regarding Germany was widely regarded as a diplomatic success in the late 1930s. Churchill was the neocon warmonger, of course. Chamberlain’s subsequent surrender of Czechoslovakia to Hitler is a perfect example of democracies being constrained to their underdog role in a conflict build-up. This was the exact underdog situation that would encourage future bullying of democratic states. The willingness to resist would only surpass the willingness to appease only after an extreme, boiling point, so to speak.
What would constitute this boiling point at this time is unclear. The only thing clear here is that the boiling point has not arrived yet and many in the West seem to think that partially rewarding Putin for Europe’s bloodiest war since World War Two, as well as avoiding failure of re-election, is less costly than providing enough for Ukraine to win swiftly. Perhaps, some even hope that if Ukraine wins slowly (with more casualties), the risk of nuclear war will diminish – a foolish assumption to say the least. And while dictatorships disrupt domestic affairs in Europe and North America with ease, as we’ve already seen with Russia’s attempts, the willingness of the West to respond at least symmetrically is non-existent, despite the vast resources available. Therefore, it must be said that currently, democracies are unable to provide the necessary response to Russia, Iran, and North Korea, thus endangering other democracies around the world. Henceforth, a new type of immunity is needed in order to protect democracy from its own weakness.
