In his book, Conflict, Andrew Roberts outlined the various strategic goals of leadership
According to historian and journalist Andrew Roberts, Baron Roberts of Belgravia, the United States needs to maintain its global focus and efforts to curb the growing cooperation and ambition of an “axis of evil states”. Roberts sits in the British House of Lords.
“When it comes to the Axis of Evil, frankly, it’s never the worst thing in the world to go to war, especially if you don’t fight,” says Roberts, the biographer of several British leaders, including Winston Churchill. US Newzs Digital. “It can be done for a sum that is a really impressive return on investment.”
Read More: Biden administration sanctions Israel’s national security minister ally, weighs expanding to IDF
Roberts, along with retired General David Petraeus, examined the U.S. through the lens of successful strategic leadership. Wrote “Conflict: The Evolution of Warfare from 1945 to Ukraine” assessing foreign conflict involvement. Roberts is currently working on new chapters for the paperback release, which will focus on the war in Gaza and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ambitions for Taiwan.
He argued that the United States, as a world superpower, could “walk and chew gum” so to speak – and that American isolationism would “prove to be a profoundly dangerous force… not just for the world but for America as well.” Well, eventually.”
“If the United States decides to abdicate the responsibility of being the greatest global superpower you’ve been since the Great White Fleet circumnavigated the globe in 1909, a long time ago…it’s understandable that any Titan would get tired,” Roberts said. “However, if you embrace isolationism, the ultimate response will come from a coalition of anti-democratic nations, which we see working closer and closer… and eventually it will backfire terribly on you.”
The U.S. The urge for an “America First” approach has grown stronger as it faces two significant conflicts — first from Russia, now in its third year of its invasion of Ukraine, and from simmering tensions between Iran and Israel.
Some Republicans have opposed continued funding to Ukraine in particular, without a clear plan for how the conflict will end, the U.S. said. The past two decades have raised fears of another “forever war” in the Middle East.
House Republicans have worked to condition aid for Ukraine to exceed $113 billion by March 2024. Freedom Caucus Chairman Bob Good, R-Va., called for any funding for Ukraine to be balanced by spending cuts elsewhere. U.S. Coupled with border policy changes. The House finally passed a $60 billion funding bill for Ukraine on Saturday.
“We cannot continue to borrow and spend money we don’t have on wars abroad while Biden fails to protect Americans from border invasion at home,” Goode told US Newzs Digital earlier this month. “At a minimum, any package for military aid to Ukraine must be fully offset and must include H.R. 2 with performance metrics for securing our border.”
Roberts argues that the U.S., “the great superpower…some might argue the only superpower,” can defend itself and support allies in a conflict that has proven a “very impressive” return on investment.
“More than half of the Russian tank fleet is captured by Ukrainians,” Roberts noted. “Now, at any point in America’s postwar history, if you offered the president that deal, he would have torn it up.”
“You’ve got a defense budget of $825 billion a year to spend, [and] less than a 10th of that, take out your opponent’s tank fleet, essentially — at least, more than half of that — an amazing return on investment,” he added.
“After 20 years of perpetual war in Afghanistan before Biden, in my view, the worst scot from that country, you reduce it to 18 months of no American deaths and the total American cost of this conflict is down to about 20 to 25 billion dollars a year,” he said. “Getting the Taliban out of power is a wonderful thing.”
However, Roberts stressed that there must be limits to US ambitions abroad, dismissing the idea that Washington would seek regime change in Russia as “not our duty, not our job, not our responsibility, and certainly not a very smart thing.”
“The obvious reason is that it will incite anti-Western nationalism in Russia,” he explained. “No, they can do those things themselves, and I think they can do it when Russian aggression proves unsuccessful, as has happened so often in history.”
However, Roberts lamented that Russia has made advances in Ukraine’s eastern territories and could make big gains on the front if “the West doesn’t help Ukraine more.”
Indeed, most analysts and commentators are pessimistic about Ukraine’s potential victories: the BBC, Politico EU, and other outlets have run articles over the past week discussing why and how Ukraine will face defeat this year. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said success would depend on continued funding from allies to keep pace with Russia.
Roberts suggested that such doomsday prophecies would prove premature, insisting that “there is no such thing as an inevitability in history”.
“A lot of times in history, you see one thing happen and the opposite happens,” Roberts points out. “The Russians have made these advances in certain theaters…not big so far, but they’re fighting the shell advantage and that’s because the United States and Europe aren’t providing shells.”
“It is certainly not inevitable that the Ukrainians will win or lose that war, but we will stop giving them the energy they need to continue fighting,” he warned. “It’s in their blood a lot, but just because Russia is a big country doesn’t mean it automatically wins: if that was the case, you would have won in Vietnam.”