Has the Republican Party’s isolationism caused American allies to doubt Washington’s commitment to safeguarding the global order that it put in place after the second world war?

Have former President Trump’s comments about not protecting certain Nato member states, along with Congressional Republicans’ delay in approving Ukraine aid damaged trust in America’s willingness to defend liberty and democracy?

Increasingly, the evidence points to ‘yes’ on all counts.

Ukraine’s efforts to protect itself as an independent, democratic nation are suffering setbacks due to a lack of ammunition from America. This stems from former President Trump pressuring Republican lawmakers to oppose legislation that combines immigration reform laws and aid for Ukraine and Israel.

According to Mr Trump, the proposed law lacks the necessary mechanisms to tighten security on the American southern border.

While the need to address the humanitarian and security crises at the border is real and urgent, America’s allies are wondering if entrusting their security to Uncle Sam is wise amid this ongoing political dysfunction in Washington.

All this, while Mr Trump and his supporters in Congress argue that American foreign aid should be restructured as loans, protecting Ukraine is not in America’s interests, and that Nato protection should only be afforded to those member states who pay 2 per cent of their GDP on defence.

Perhaps former President Trump’s comments on Nato protection were just a negotiating tactic to get European countries to spend more on their own defence. Yet, how far does this reasoning go and what does Mr Trump believe America’s role is on the world stage in 2024?

Hopefully, voters will learn more soon, as some reporting suggests the former President is open to withdrawing America from world history’s most successful military alliance (Nato) as well as removing American troops from South Korea and Japan if they do not contribute more to the costs of stationing troops in their countries.

In some ways, Mr Trump’s stances are nothing new for his party. The GOP has long had an isolationist wing that opposed foreign entanglements. As Hitler and Imperial Japan became stronger in the years leading to the second world war, many Republicans voted for the Neutrality Acts of the 1930s and opposed the Lend-Lease Act that sent vital aid to allied nations.

Just as abandoning world commitments in the years leading up to the second world war did not work (i.e., the attack on Pearl Harbour), the GOP’s latest game of footsie with isolationism is also dangerous and ill-suited for our time amid a deteriorating security environment on the world stage.

Understandably, there is frustration in the American electorate about two decades of wars in the Middle East that resulted in disappointing outcomes. The Biden administration’s incompetent withdrawal from Afghanistan left many veterans and families of the Fallen believing that their valour was squandered, and many former service members tragically continue to receive inadequate medical care and counselling.

While many mistakes were made in American foreign policy since the 9-11 attacks, it does not change the nature of actors on the world stage who continue to threaten American interests. Simply abandoning Washington’s important role of providing deterrence and keeping a lid on things in strategic areas of the world is a recipe for dragging America into future costly wars.

There will be consequences for the security of America and its partners if this latest chapter of isolationism is left unchecked.

Republican critics of the current $60 billion Ukraine aid bill before Congress assert that such a package would deplete American weapons stockpiles and that American assistance should not be rendered in the absence of a strategy. Yet, most of the money appropriated by Congress to arm Ukraine is used in America to build new weapons for American use – creating American jobs in the process – while the older existing supplies are sent to Kyiv.

Concerning strategy for Ukraine, it is a multi-year commitment to provide Kyiv with the weapons (not American troops) that it needs to survive as a free country, defend the territory it currently holds, and mount a counteroffensive to regain lost land over time.

This will require giving Kyiv replenished missile and air defence systems in addition to F-16 fighter aircraft. Ukraine also needs longer-range weapons such as the American Army’s Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) to target Russian supply lines and forces in eastern Ukraine, western Russia and Crimea.

Efforts also need to be made to increase Ukrainian domestic defence production and to admit Kyiv to the European Union.

After a cessation of hostilities, Ukraine should be brought into the Nato alliance or enter into security agreements with the US, Poland, France, and the United Kingdom.

Put short, abandoning Ukraine and not living up to Nato commitments would communicate to Moscow that Europe is not in America’s interest to protect. Similar conclusions would be drawn by Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang concerning Taiwan, Israel, and South Korea, respectively.

As the world’s threat environment changes, Washington must rebuild its industrial base and increase its military size and capabilities. This needs to include a long-term commitment to allocating larger annual military budgets north of US$1 trillion and expanding the US Navy and US Air Force.

Additionally, American involvement on the world stage is vital for securing the free flow of commerce on the seas and protecting the principle adopted by the world community following the second world war: there shall be no changing of international borders by force.

Withdrawing from these commitments would contribute to an unravelling of the world’s security architecture and allow for larger states to swallow smaller states with impunity.

Isolationism would not have salvaged the southern half of the Korean Peninsula from the communist onslaught during the Korean War. Nor would it have brought victory in the first world war, second world war, or the Cold War, much less success with degrading Al Qaeda and ISIS in recent decades.

Furthermore, it strains credulity to think that isolationism would provide protection today against aggression coming from Putin, Xi, Khamenei, and Kim.

Autocracy’s increasing challenges to democracy and freedom point to the pivotal time we are in – a moment that requires leadership which America is uniquely positioned to provide. The security of Ukraine, Taiwan, America and other states will depend upon leaders in Washington renouncing isolationism, re-engaging the world, and working ever closer with their allies and partners.

Ted Gover, Ph.D. (@tedgover), is Associate Clinical Professor and Director of the Tribal Administration Program at Claremont Graduate University.