The short-sightedness of isolationism

Let me start by saying that, while this post focuses on isolationism, I agree with the argument made in this essay, which persuasively argues that Trump is less of an isolationist and more of a “pro-dictator.” That said, he has significant support from isolationists and has advanced numerous isolationist proposals. The definition of “isolationism” is a “national policy of avoiding political or economic entanglements with other countries.” Proponents typically argue that isolationism benefits the country implementing it. The goal of today’s post is to explore whether such policies actually serve the best interests of the United States.

Isolationists often operate under the implicit assumption that problems beyond our borders can be deferred until they pose a direct and obvious threat to the country. However, this mindset is dangerously short-sighted in today’s interconnected world. By the time a threat becomes direct and obvious, it may be too late or at least much more difficult to address it—like ignoring a cancerous growth until it starts causing symptoms. A strict isolationist approach not only invites unnecessary risks but also creates opportunities for adversaries to exploit. Any half-decent enemy facing an isolationist country can mask their intentions and bide their time, gaining strength until their actions become far harder and costlier to counteract.

An event that’s happening far away—like Russia’s war on Ukraine—may appear irrelevant to isolationists, but this is clearly misguided. The easy example is infectious diseases like COVID, which can easily and quickly transcend boundaries. But there are many others. Corrupt and/or inept rulers, out-of-control gangs, and widespread poverty create waves of desperate migrants, straining neighboring countries and potentially destabilizing entire regions. Conflicts or mismanagement in key resource-producing countries can disrupt supply chains and drive up global commodities prices, affecting everything from food to energy costs. By contrast, improvements in education in low-income countries can lead to more innovation—like inventions of new medical treatments or breakthroughs in agricultural productivity—that can benefit all of humanity.

China’s strategic investments in African countries is a great real-world example of pursuing one’s own long-term self-interest while appearing to focus on helping others. Through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, China has invested heavily in infrastructure projects across Africa, including railways, ports, and energy facilities. While these projects often boost local economies by improving connectivity and creating jobs, they also secure China access to critical resources such as oil, minerals, and agricultural goods needed to fuel its own economy. Additionally, these investments help China cultivate political alliances, expand its global influence, and open new markets for Chinese goods and services. By financing development in Africa, China strengthens its own economic and geopolitical position, illustrating how support for another region can simultaneously advance a country’s strategic goals.

Another reason isolationism is short-sighted is the increasingly interconnected nature of the virtual world, which often transcends physical borders even more seamlessly than traditional geopolitics. In the digital age, a malicious country like Russia doesn’t need to send expensive undercover agents or deploy physical forces to disrupt or influence another nation—it can achieve these goals through disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks, or election interference launched from thousands of miles away. Malicious actors can exploit social media platforms to spread propaganda, sow division, and undermine trust in democratic institutions, all at minimal cost and with plausible deniability. Similarly, ransomware attacks and intellectual property theft can cripple industries and economies without any boots on the ground. Addressing these threats requires international cooperation and proactive engagement, as no country can fully insulate itself from the ripple effects of a hyper-connected digital landscape.

Thus, those who care only about their own nation’s welfare need look beyond the immediate impacts of a policy and consider its long-term consequences. By this measure, U.S. aid to Ukraine to counteract Russia is an exceptional investment. Supporting Ukraine allows the U.S. to push back against a kleptocratic, imperialist regime aiming to expand its influence—without committing American boots on the ground. By contrast, the price of losing Ukraine is high. Preventing the rise of a larger, more emboldened Russia five, ten, or twenty years from now is a strategic move that every U.S. citizen should recognize as being firmly in the nation’s best interest.