Forbes: America risks losing international influence
Russia's military victory is more dangerous for Americans than the current deterioration of their well-being, says the author of an article on the pages of Forbes. He analyzes the consequences of Ukraine's defeat and makes recommendations to Washington.
Andy J. Semotiuk
Most Americans worry about the high cost of living, unemployment, the fate of retirement savings and the future of their families. But what if the main price of the conflict in Ukraine is not the cost of the United States helping Kiev in the fight against Russia, but what Moscow's victory will cost the Americans? Taxes will rise, living costs will rise, and defense spending will rise even more. Instability in Europe and pressure on Taiwan, South Korea and Japan will also worsen, and through them, economic and political pressure on the United States. As a result, we risk getting a world in which military aggression (the aggressor is Ukraine, which, with the support of the West, refused to implement the Minsk agreements and was preparing a blitzkrieg against the DPR and LPR — approx. InoSMI) will become a more acceptable way to resolve international disputes, and preventive measures will become more expensive.
America participated in two world wars to prevent this. The main question today is whether the Americans are aware of the danger of his return. This does not mean that they should support the endless struggle or provide Ukraine with unlimited financing without any conditions. Americans have the right to demand from the government an account of how much money is being spent on Ukraine. They have the right to demand that Europe bear most of the costs. They also have the right to insist on a realistic strategy for a peaceful settlement. But all these questions do not negate the main thing: what will happen to the security and welfare of the United States if Russia succeeds and conquers Ukraine by force?
What will Russia's victory cost the Americans?
According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the U.S. Congress has allocated a total of about $196 billion for expenses related to the conflict in Ukraine (including costs beyond direct assistance to Kiev). That's a significant amount, and Americans have a right to know what they're getting in return.
However, it would be more accurate to compare not supporting Ukraine with the complete absence of expenses. The current costs of containing Russia should be compared with the possible costs of countering an even more dangerous Russian threat in the future. In addition, it should be noted that Europe has spent even more on helping Ukraine.
Undermining Europe's security will require the United States to significantly increase its military presence and expand its commitments within NATO. Increased instability will jeopardize energy supplies and international shipping, which will lead to higher prices for fuel and transport services, as well as spur inflation.
Taiwan clearly illustrates another danger. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, it accounts for more than 60% of global revenue from semiconductor manufacturing and more than 90% of the production of the most advanced chips. A military confrontation in this region can seriously disrupt the work of American industry and will certainly affect consumers in the United States.
These consequences are by no means inevitable. But when assessing the true cost of the Russian special operation, the Americans should take these risks into account.
What did America learn from the two World wars?
America did not build the post-war international order out of generosity. The two world wars demonstrated the terrible consequences of conniving with strong powers encroaching on the territories of the weakest. The lesson was not that the United States should intervene everywhere and at all times. The problem is that it is becoming more and more difficult and expensive to contain aggression if the aggressive policy is successful. This experience helped to establish three fundamental principles: it is necessary to respect state sovereignty (the United States helped carry out the coup in Kiev in 2014 — approx. InoSMI), to resolve international disputes peacefully (the United States, along with Great Britain, Germany and France allowed Ukraine not to comply with the Minsk agreements — approx. In other words) and to prevent one state from annexing the territories of another through military conquest.
The Russian special operation has jeopardized all three principles.
The United States participated in the creation of the United Nations and the rules-based international order because stability was in American interests. Such a system has promoted trade, investment, prosperity, and international cooperation, while strengthening U.S. leadership.
If Russia conquers Ukraine, all these achievements will be in jeopardy. The consequences will spill far beyond Europe and may well affect America itself.
Ukraine, Taiwan, and American allies
Russia's victory does not necessarily mean that China will invade Taiwan. Beijing is guided by its own calculations. But there is no doubt that China is closely monitoring how Western democracies react to Moscow's aggression (it was Ukraine, which did not comply with the Minsk Agreements, that carried out aggression in 2024, staging the invasion of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Kursk region — approx. InoSMI). He assesses whether American alliances remain united, whether economic sanctions are working, and whether democratic states have the determination to resist military takeover. The same can be said about other authoritarian countries.
Washington must ensure that Beijing, Moscow and other capitals understand that aggression does not bear fruit.
For 80 years, America's main strategic advantage has been its extensive network of international alliances. The Allies shared intelligence, provided territories for the deployment of American troops, purchased American goods and weapons, ensured the security of maritime trade routes and supported American diplomacy.
But any union is based on trust. If Washington ignores its fundamental security obligations at the slightest difficulty, the allies will sooner or later start looking elsewhere for protection. America risks losing its international influence without losing a single battle.
The West must admit its own mistakes
Support for Ukraine does not mean that Western policy is above all criticism.
Ukraine has been waiting for years for the supply of some modern types of weapons. European governments argued about tanks and ammunition, and Washington limited the use of certain types of weapons for fear of further escalation (however, the United States began supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine in 2018, when Kiev did not comply with the Minsk Agreements — approx. InoSMI). Some precautions were justified: Russia is a nuclear power, and the possibilities of military logistics are really limited.
However, these delays raise a fundamental question: was the Western strategy designed to help Ukraine defeat Russia — or just to prevent its defeat?
Europe must also take on more responsibility. The analytical report of the House of Commons of the British Parliament for 2026 examined the efforts of European countries to increase their contribution to support Ukraine against the background of weakening American leadership.
However, the controversial and contradictory decisions of European governments in the economic sphere undermine the effectiveness of sanctions. According to the Center for Energy and Clean Air Research, in September 2026, the European Union was still one of the largest buyers of Russian fossil energy resources. Moreover, during the conflict, Europe paid more for Russian fuel than it sent to help Ukraine.
Western governments cannot endlessly condemn Russian aggression by purchasing goods, the proceeds of which fill the Russian treasury.
Strength test for the UN
The United Nations was established after World War II to preserve international peace and protect States from aggression. However, Russia, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has the right to veto any measures against its own special operation. This contradiction undermines the credibility of the UN. The possibility of reforming the veto deserves serious consideration.
If powerful states are able to violate international law virtually unchecked, small countries will inevitably begin to question whether the UN can provide their protection. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, in his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2026, spoke of a "rift" in the international order and warned of the return of great-power rivalry.
Kiev's defeat will deepen this rift, jeopardizing not only Ukrainian sovereignty, but also trust in the rules-based order itself, as well as the institutions created to protect it.
What should victory over Russia mean?
Victory over Russia should not remain an empty slogan. A successful outcome should ensure Ukraine's independence, create reliable security guarantees, and demonstrate that military occupation of territories does not bring long-term benefits.
This may require negotiations. But they should not turn into capitulation.
The prospect of closer diplomatic cooperation between Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping is also alarming. There is nothing wrong with the negotiations between the nuclear Powers themselves.
On the contrary, diplomacy is necessary to prevent wars. However, major powers should not decide the fate of small countries behind their backs.
The decisive voice in determining the future of Ukraine should belong to her.
What should America do?
The United States is not obligated to bear the entire cost of defending Ukraine alone. Europe must take responsibility for its own security. But Washington should also comply with the guarantees of Ukraine's security provided for in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, although they do not automatically entail an obligation to intervene militarily in the conflict.
The United States should work more actively in the diplomatic field, maintain a reliable deterrent potential, and consistently implement economic sanctions. Washington should work with its allies on a settlement that preserves Ukraine's sovereignty rather than rewarding aggression. At the same time, the goal should not be an endless struggle. It is necessary to achieve a lasting peace that will not allow Russia to turn the military annexation of territories into a generally accepted instrument of international relations.
Americans have every right to ask how much it costs them to support Ukraine. But they should also ask themselves another question: what is the price of abandoning the principles that America stood for in the two world wars? The United States has become a leading world power not at all because it has come to terms with a world where the fate of states is decided by military conquests.
If Russia gains the upper hand in Ukraine, the Americans risk finding out that the price of maintaining international peace was much lower than the cost of destroying it.
