According to a survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, only 41% of Americans support the idea of U.S. troops defending Israel, even if its neighbors attacked it. This is a decrease from 53% in 2021 and represents the lowest level of support since the the council started tracking the question in 2010.
According to the survey, 55% of Americans overall are against the idea of sending troops to defend Israel. These numbers show a decrease in support from Republicans, typically Israel’s biggest supporters, from 72% in 2021 to 55% today. Democrats went from 42% in favor of defending Israel with U.S. troops in 2021 to 35% today.
The poll was conducted online from June 21 through July 1.
Americans still believe in a peacekeeping mission, however, with 54 percent of Americans supporting sending peacekeeping troops if a deal between Israel and the Palestinians is arranged and kept, according to the survey.
The polling results come as the region is on tenderhooks over whether it will blow up into broader conflict. The United States, a stalwart partner to Israel, is at the ready if Israel is attacked by Hezbollah or Iranian allies in retaliation for high profile assassinations over the last two weeks. On the other hand, it is not clear how far Washington will go to intervene if Israel is the one to start a major conflict with Hezbollah or Iran.
But the Chicago Council’s polling shows that Americans are still unwilling to send U.S. troops into another warzone, no matter the relationship. Perhaps the political will amongst Americans is shifting towards some semblance of international realism after generations of never-ending war. Nevertheless, this should be a signal to Israel that it can only take it’s own escalations so far, that there are real limits to American support and that includes American skin in the game.
Aaron is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft and a contributor to the Mises Institute. He received both his undergraduate and masters degrees in international relations from Liberty University.
Boston, Massachusetts USA - October 09, 2023: Solidarity For Israel Rally (Arthur Mansavagw/Shutterstock)
As President-elect Trump prepares to take office for a second time, he faces a world that has changed profoundly since 2020. While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may be the most visible shift, two deeper changes in the international order demand America’s attention: the rise of multipolarity and the trend toward “multi-alignment.”
These realities provide an opportunity for the United States to rethink its approach to global affairs, adopting a grand strategy of “restraint.” This isn’t a call to retreat from the world. Instead, it’s an approach that prioritizes prudent balancing and selective blunting — moving beyond the ideal of maintaining U.S. hegemony by enforcing a so-called “rules-based order” and focusing instead on adapting to today’s geopolitical complexity.
Indeed, several regional powers hold significant influence, and their interests do not align neatly with those of Washington. China, India, Brazil, and Turkey have become increasingly assertive players, not just in their regions but on the global stage. These countries navigate their own complex priorities and pursue strategies that often reflect the needs of their citizens over the preferences of foreign powers. In this environment, the U.S. should not view itself as the world’s dominant force but as one player among many, working to balance power while managing relationships with rising and established nations alike.
A multipolar world doesn’t call for the U.S. to abandon its leadership entirely, but it does mean embracing a restrained approach that focuses on critical areas of interest, where American involvement can make a meaningful impact. The United States is no longer in a position to unilaterally set the global agenda or expect other countries to follow it without question. In this environment, the goal of American foreign policy should be to engage selectively in regions where its core interests are directly affected. In other words, it’s time to prioritize, not to police.
One of the greatest challenges will be managing the diffusion of power and influence to other great powers without falling victim to overreach or being drawn into unnecessary conflicts. America can meet this challenge by adopting a balancing strategy that empowers other regional actors to contribute to stability. For example, in the Indo-Pacific, countries like Japan, South Korea, and India have strong reasons to check China’s expansion. Rather than carrying the burden alone, Washington can support these countries’ efforts, providing economic, technological, and defense support that enables them to maintain a stable balance of power in the region. This approach allows the U.S. to pursue its interests without attempting to control the situation directly, a strategy that is both more realistic and more sustainable.
If multipolarity demands a recalibrated approach, the growing trend of “multi-alignment” both amplifies that demand and complicates it. Many countries are increasingly reluctant to commit exclusively to either the U.S. or its competitors. Instead, they pursue flexible partnerships with multiple powers, driven by pragmatic self-interest. Countries like India, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, for instance, are balancing their relationships with both the U.S. and China. They’re not playing both sides for the sake of confusion; they’re doing so to maximize their options and pursue a foreign policy that best serves their own needs.
Multi-alignment reflects a shift in global expectations about geopolitical relationships. In today’s world, few countries want to be tied down by the obligations of a rigid bloc. For the U.S., this means adapting to a reality where allies and partners may not always act as Washington would like. Yet multi-alignment also offers a valuable opportunity: it allows Washington to engage with countries on specific issues without requiring them to “choose sides” or abandon their own interests. Instead of pushing for full alignment, the U.S. can pursue issue-specific partnerships, where countries come together around shared goals without rigidly defined alliances.
By acknowledging and respecting the autonomy of multi-aligned countries, the U.S. can embrace restraint as a way to foster pragmatic, cooperative relationships. For example, India’s interests in balancing China align well with those of the United States, even as New Delhi maintains its defense ties with Russia. Rather than forcing a binary choice on India, the U.S. can work with Indian leaders where it matters most, supporting them in the Indo-Pacific without demanding that they abandon their relationships with other major players. Such an approach reflects a mature, realistic form of partnership that recognizes the complex interests driving many countries’ strategies today.
Restraint is not just a practical response to multipolarity and multi-alignment — it’s also a more sustainable way for America to engage in the world. The cost of maintaining extensive alliances and security guarantees has become increasingly difficult to justify, especially as other countries are willing and able to take on greater roles in their regions. By shifting from global intervention to prudent balancing, the U.S. can reduce its military footprint while still playing a constructive role where it counts. This means focusing on regions directly affecting American security, such as the North Atlantic and the Western Hemisphere, and allowing allies to assume greater responsibility elsewhere.
Under a restrained approach, America would prioritize diplomatic and economic levers over military tools, recognizing that influence can come from trade, technology partnerships, and cultural ties as much as from force. This strategy is more suited to a world where countries often seek flexible relationships rather than binding commitments. Instead of expecting nations to embrace an American-led order, the U.S. can work with them on mutually beneficial projects that respect both their interests and autonomy. In a world where influence flows from more than just military might and ideological dominance, the U.S. must work to secure its position through flexible collaboration and nuanced engagement.
Encouraging self-reliance among allies is another crucial aspect of restraint. Countries such as Japan, Australia, and Germany are more capable than ever of defending themselves and taking active roles in their regions. For too long, the U.S. has acted as the primary guarantor of their security, often at the cost of its own resources. By shifting to a supporting role and encouraging allies to bolster their defenses, the U.S. can foster stronger, more resilient partnerships. This approach doesn’t abandon allies — it acknowledges their growing capabilities and allows them to lead in their respective regions, ultimately creating a more balanced, multilateral world.
This strategy may strike some as a step back from global leadership, but in reality, it’s a strategic adaptation to the world as it is, not as it was – or was imagined to be – during the so-called unipolar moment. A restrained approach to foreign policy is not a call for isolationism or retreat; it’s a recognition that the U.S. must adapt to new geopolitical realities and pursue its interests accordingly. Trying to enforce a global order that no longer reflects the world’s power dynamics is neither feasible nor desirable – indeed, it is dangerous. Instead, America should focus on fostering global stability through strategic partnerships, blunting the efforts of other great powers to achieve regional or global hegemony, while avoiding overreach.
In a multipolar, multi-aligned world, restraint is not a loss of influence but a means of securing it more sustainably. The U.S. can lead by example, demonstrating that adapting to complexity requires flexibility and prudence, not dominance or hegemony. President-elect Trump’s new administration has a unique opportunity to embrace this restrained approach, enabling America to thrive in a world that no longer revolves around any single power. Through prudent balancing and selective blunting, the United States can continue to protect its interests and promote global stability without succumbing to the siren song of American global hegemony.
keep readingShow less
Diplomacy Watch:
Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine and Europe brace for Trump presidency
After a more than two-month pause, Russia has begun striking deep into Ukraine once again, sending a reported 96 missiles and drones toward civilian infrastructure in the capital this week.
Following the U.S. presidential election, Vladimir Putin has stepped up Russia’s military campaigns. In addition to resuming strikes on Kyiv, Moscow has increased its drone strikes across Ukraine by 44%. Ivan Stupak, a former Ukrainian security officer, says, “In the next few months up to Jan. 20, we are expecting a significantly increasing number of launches towards Ukraine.”
“Launches” from Russia have indeed been steadily increasing. According to Stupak, there were 818 launches in August, 1,410 in September, and 2,072 in October. Ground attacks have intensified as well, especially in the border area of Kursk, which saw a partial Ukrainian occupation in August of this year.
Russia reportedly built up around 50,000 troops in Kursk to participate in a counter-offensive, with around 10,000 North Korean troops present to assist their Russian allies. Following this build-up, the fighting in Kursk this week has yielded high casualties for Russia. In addition to the 2,000 Russians killed or injured on Tuesday alone, Moscow has also lost at least 88 armored vehicles on the roads to Kursk, as counted by a Ukrainian drone operator.
Other Ukraine War News This Week:
American military contractors will be deployed to Ukraine for the first time since the conflict started. CNN reports that the Biden administration has lifted its ban on the practice, allowing the Department of Defense to contract with private citizens to perform maintenance on vehicles in Ukraine. According to a DOD official, “these contractors will be located far from the front lines and they will not be fighting Russian forces. They will help Ukrainian Armed Forces rapidly repair and maintain US-provided equipment as needed so it can be quickly returned to the front lines.”
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in Brussels. Al Jazeera reports that Blinken pledged to increase support for Ukraine before the end of Biden’s administration, saying, “President Biden fully intends to drive through the tape and use every day to continue to do what we have done these last four years, which is strengthen this alliance.” Blinken also indicated that the United States would send a “firm response” to the use of North Korean troops in Russia’s Kursk campaign.
Ukrainian officials are beginning to value security guarantees at least as much as territorial integrity in a future peace deal. According to the New York Times, future talks would not focus as much on geographic boundaries, but on assurances around a cease-fire. A Ukrainian official speaking anonymously said, “the territorial question is extremely important, but it’s still the second question, the first question is security guarantees.” The Times report says that this comes as President-elect Trump has shown an eagerness to bring a swift end to the conflict.
Deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel confirmed that the 10,000 North Korean soldiers were sent to Kursk to assist Moscow in its attempt to take the territory back from Ukrainian forces. Patel said that “Russia’s battlefield success using these DPRK troops will in large part be dictated by how well the Russians can integrate them into their military.”
When asked about the recently formalized military treaty, and the potential of joint Russian-North Korean training drills, the spokesperson said, “the United States is consulting closely with our allies and partners and other countries in the region on the implications of this, on these developments.”
keep readingShow less
Serhii Lahovskyi, 26, hugs Ludmyla Verginska, 51, as they mourn their common friend Ihor Lytvynenko, who according to residents was killed by Russian Soldiers, after they found him beside a building's basement, following his burial at the garden of a residential building, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in Bucha, Ukraine April 5, 2022. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra
Serhii Lahovskyi, 26, hugs Ludmyla Verginska, 51, as they mourn their common friend Ihor Lytvynenko, who according to residents was killed by Russian Soldiers, after they found him beside a building's basement, following his burial at the garden of a residential building, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in Bucha, Ukraine April 5, 2022. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra
The deeper Ukraine’s demographic crisis grows as a result of its ongoing war with Russia, the more its long-term viability as a state teeters.
This sentiment is common among Ukrainian expats in Europe, according to several who spoke to me during three visits to Poland in recent years. Most had begun the war with patriotic zeal, with many believing in the possibility of a total Ukrainian victory.
By the summer of 2024, almost all of them had trimmed their expectations as they wrestled with the fear that the United States and its allies had traded hopes of a total Ukrainian victory and for the more practical goal of weakening Russia. The most cynical believe that the United States adopted a mentality reminiscent of the Vietnam War’s Battle of Bến Tre, when an American commander quipped, "it became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”
My earlier visits reflected a more agitated mood, since many refugees and political pundits worried that Russia would continue to advance into Ukraine. By 2023, the Russian campaign had ground to a halt and devolved into brutal trench warfare, so the mood shifted to reflect the widely-held hope that Ukraine would hold on to its territories and perhaps begin to incrementally regain Russian-occupied territory.
Today, most Poles and Ukrainians feel confident that Ukraine will succeed in containing the Russian advance, although they fear the re-election of Donald Trump will result in less support and perhaps even pressure to negotiate a peace deal that would result in the surrender of Russian-occupied territories.
In Ukraine’s case, the demographic figures speak for themselves. According to a report by the Ukrainian Institute for the Future, the overall population had declined to 29 million people in 2023 — compared to 48.5 million in 2001.
Today, the exact figure remains difficult to establish, due to state capacity to conduct surveys throughout the country and the fact that several eastern EU countries have opened their border checkpoints to traveling Ukrainians. The most recent official figure comes from an October UN report, which estimates the population at an optimistic 35 million.
Moreover, the country's demographic pyramid has inverted due to aging, low birth rates, and emigration, such that there are roughly 9.5 million employed people whose taxes provide for 23 million pensioners, children, and unemployed people. However, in many cases, it is unclear whether those receiving government transfers currently reside in Ukraine or collect their benefits abroad. Furthermore, Ukraine depends not only on tax revenues but also on budget support from its allies to pay the salaries of public sector employees.
According to USAID, since 2022, the American government has provided $26.8 billion dollars in direct budgetary support to Ukraine’s government, in addition to billions more in military assistance and in-kind transfers of weapons. A 2023 press release from the U.S. State Department highlighted how American aid funded transfers to Ukrainian public sector employees, government officials, and pensioners. Without the support of the U.S. and its European allies, Ukraine would not only struggle to equip its troops, but also to maintain basic government services.
Thus, Ukraine, fresh off a deal to restructure its international debt, lacks the resources to attract military recruits with competitive salaries. Consequently, it has turned to conscription to shore up its forces, strengthening its military but weakening the economy. A report by the Financial Times from March 2024 found that of the 11.1 million Ukrainian men aged 25 to 60, 7.4 million were either already mobilized or were unavailable for reasons ranging from disability to employment in critical sectors.
Another 900,000 men of military age are not registered in any government systems and thus cannot be conscripted. Of the 3.4 million military-age men in the workforce, 600,000 are considered critical workers and thus unlikely to face conscription. The remaining cohort of potential conscripts therefore numbers just 2.8 million — roughly equal to the number of those who have fled or are disabled.
Consequently, Ukraine faces a 1-for-1 tradeoff between conscripting men into the armed forces or leaving them in the workforce, where they can support the government by paying taxes and otherwise keeping the economy afloat. A few Ukrainian insiders who spoke to me off the record insisted that the Ukrainian economy remains resilient, but admitted that it relies on funding from allies.
The decision to conscript more men will reverberate for generations due to its impact on the fertility rate. If Ukraine conscripts older men, it risks creating more widows and orphans who will likely depend on the state for survival. If it conscripts younger men, it risks further damaging the fertility rate and preventing more Ukrainians from being born at all.
Since Ukraine gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, emigration depleted the population while the fertility rate fell to 1.4 births per woman, according to BNE Intellinews. In 2023, Ukraine — including its Russian-occupied territories — saw only 187,000 live births, the lowest rate in 300 years.
In April, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy split the difference by lowering the draft age from 27 to 25. But such actions have led many potential conscripts to take desperate measures. For example, the Wall Street Journal reported in July on the growing number of attempted crossings of the Tysa River on the border with Romania, and frequent drownings that have occurred as a result.
In recent months, several other efforts to boost recruitment have failed, and their failure has intensified political divisions within Ukraine.
In May, Zelenskyy announced that his government would suspend consular services for military-age men living abroad. At the time, I was living in Przemyśl, Poland, just 10 kilometers from the Ukrainian border. My Ukrainian interlocutors all expressed some combination of suspicion, anger, and fear.
Corruption and self-interest also play a role. Numerous expats bemoaned the conscription exemptions granted to government officials, as was reported in the Polish newspaper Do Rzeczy. One petition submitted to Zelenskyy’s office calls for conscription of customs officers, who are seen as especially corrupt.
Furthermore, a report from the Kharkiv Anti-Corruption Center found that numerous American-funded contracts for the fortification of Kharkiv were awarded to firms with dubious experience in building such defenses and to businesspeople of questionable repute.
In effect, then, a significant amount of money may have disappeared into the pockets of local power brokers and did not advance the security of Kharkiv, a major industrial center and a key goal of Russia’s campaign.
As Artem, a Ukrainian expat working as a chef in Vienna, told me, “Why would I entrust my future to some corrupt Soviet guy who doesn’t know anything about war? I can better provide for myself and my girlfriend and our kids by living abroad and saving up. Maybe one day we can go back, but not until corrupt leaders stop profiting off of their people’s desperation.”
In July, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk hosted Zelenskyy in Warsaw, where the two announced an agreement including plans to recruit, train, and equip Ukrainians living in Poland to return to Ukraine to fight.
However, despite initial enthusiasm, Poland’s defense minister, Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, noted in an interview that the numbers of volunteers are simply too small.
Revitalized American support might mean more money or better arms for Ukraine’s military but it cannot produce more Ukrainians to carry them into battle. As the Ukrainian government steps up efforts to replenish its troops from a dwindling supply of eligible military-age men, every soldier recruited to the front means one less worker and potentially one less father.
Today, Ukraine needs those men to fill the ranks of its armed forces. Tomorrow, it will need those men to return home, rebuild their lives, rebuild their families, and, ultimately, rebuild their country.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.