Isn’t it ironic that pacifism can lead to war? But if you look back at the events leading up to World War I, that’s exactly what happened. America was indifferent when war broke out in Europe. Instead of acting boldly and swiftly to tame an aggressive Germany, America sat back until Britain and France were on the verge of defeat. 

The parallels to Ukraine today are unmistakable. Apart from (largely ineffective) Russian sanctions and a slow trickle of military support, America has sat back to the point where a stalemate might be the best-case scenario for Ukraine. The far (MAGA) right in America has pounded the drumbeats of “America First” as justification for withholding any further Ukrainian support. 

On the eve of America entering WWI, after unrestricted German submarine warfare had taken far too many innocent civilian lives, President Woodrow Wilson reversed course. He had made countless assurances as war raged in Europe, much as it does in Ukraine today, that European wars were a matter of indifference to Americans. 

By 1917, almost two years after a German U-Boat sank the Lusitania passenger liner, President Wilson finally recognized that the world was on fire with tinder everywhere. He argued that Americans deluded themselves if they imagined that the United States could remain untouched by that fire’s sparks and embers.

It did not have to reach that point. There had been plenty of opportunities to be forceful – without the use of violence – with an aggressive Germany. The American public, however, was indifferent. American pacifism had taken hold, much in the way MAGA today has forced a pacifist and isolationist foreign policy on America by not even bringing support for Ukraine up for a vote (despite the U.S. House likely having enough votes to pass it).

History cautions against the dangers of American pacifism, and the potential consequences it may have for global security and democracy.  

How American Pacifism Led to World War I

Before WWI, the United States adhered to a largely isolationist foreign policy, with widespread public sentiment for neutrality. America actively sought to avoid entanglement in European conflicts. 

Neutrality was so obvious for America that President Wilson drafted a proclamation of neutrality the moment WWI was declared. This stance was driven, in part, by the country’s diverse population, with significant German, Irish, and other ethnic groups harboring different allegiances and sympathies. 

There were significant economic implications for America too. Europe was a large buyer of American products, such as cotton. As Robert Kagan describes in his book, The Ghost at the Feast, the Kansas farmers’ motto was “I don’t care a dern what happens so long as it doesn’t happen to me.” 

Outside the big East Coast cities of America, few cared who was to blame for the war in Europe. Many Americans simply wanted no part of it. 

This neutral and pacifist approach ultimately backfired in two big ways. The first was moral and ideological. It became clear to many over time that the Germany of 1914 rejected liberalism and individualism in favor of duty, order, and justice, which is eerily similar to the rise of autocracy around much of the world in 2024. 

The second was physical and economic. The sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 killed over 1,000 passengers, including American citizens. This changed the nature of the relationship between the United States and Germany. It’s similar to how revelations of the inhumane massacre in Bucha by Russian troops changed the nature of any peace negotiations. 

Even after the horrific Lusitania tragedy, however, many Americans still feared that President Wilson would rush the nation into war. 

President Wilson’s goal was to keep the United States out of the war while avoiding “national dishonor and personal humiliation.” These efforts were undermined by the increasingly aggressive actions of Germany, which culminated in the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917. 

More ships were sunk by German U-boats. American civilian lives were lost. Trade was disrupted. The flagrant and indiscriminate actions by Germany led to America’s entry into the conflict, setting the stage for the horrors of World War I.  

All of it begged the question: what if America had lost its pacifist stance sooner?

How American Pacifism is Leading America into World War III 

The parallels between the pre-World War I period and the current geopolitics related to Ukraine are striking. Just as the German Kaiser viewed the United States as “impotent” and incapable of decisive action in 1917, Putin views the United States today as a declining great power incapable of steering its divided Democratic ship and unwilling to take decisive military action.

Putin, like the German Kaiser, attacks on weakness, not strength. This perception of American weakness and indecision has emboldened Putin, much like the German Kaiser’s assessment of the United States led to his increasingly aggressive submarine warfare.

Consider what will happen if America pulls back and leaves Ukraine to fend for itself. Putin will have his way, not only in Ukraine but across his entire expanding sphere of influence. To assume he will not act even more emboldened by threatening a NATO country is not the bet any rational, sane person should be willing to make.  

America ultimately concluded as much after its prolonged pacifism finally led it into WWI. President Wilson realized that a powerful and emboldened Germany that dominated the heart of Europe was not a world that promoted safety and stability. 

The same is true for a Russia-dominated Ukraine. So many of the Americans calling for peace at all costs today are willing to sell out Ukraine for an immediate ceasefire in the short term while inviting the fox into the hen house for the long term. 

Republicans in Congress no longer want to support Ukraine allegedly for “America First” principles, despite it being the cheapest and least costly way (in terms of American lives) to destroy Putin’s military. A military, by the way, that has started the biggest land war in Europe since WWII. 

The political divisions amongst Republicans themselves mirror the mixed population with different allegiances that contributed to the isolationist sentiment before World War I. Different factions couldn’t agree, so Americans remained indifferent. Pacifist. Neutral. 

The German Kaiser did not interpret this as his cue to deescalate. In fact, he did the opposite. He ramped up U-boat attacks. He bombed civilian populations in areas like Belgium. 

Similarly, there’s no reason to think Putin will interpret American pacifism any differently. I know what he’s said about not wanting to attack NATO countries, but that has never stopped him from killing dissidents of his regime on NATO soil. Or from engaging in information warfare across NATO lines.

Pacifism has not deterred his increasingly escalating actions starting in Chechnya, moving to Georgia, and finally now in Ukraine since 2014. Pacifism also doesn’t recognize that Putin’s Russia is designed for ongoing war, much as Germany was in the early 20th century. Russia also has a huge population advantage.

Pacifism has never worked with Putin. Most of the evidence suggests it has only emboldened him further.  

Avoiding World War III 

Putin only responds to force. Aggression. 

It may seem counterintuitive that more aggression could bring more peace, but when you’re dealing with a bully or mafioso, there’s no ability to reason. Terms will be broken, just as Russia’s assurances to Ukraine were after Ukraine gave up all of its nuclear weapons. 

Bullies and mafia state leaders like Putin only respect great powers that use force to get what they want. The second they smell weakness and are given an inch, they take the mile. 

America’s indecisiveness in supporting Ukraine reeks of weakness. It’s akin to the powder keg that Europe had become ahead of WWI, where all it took was one lit match in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand to send the world up in flames. 

Now imagine if American pacifism wins the day and Putin has his way with Ukraine. Think how China will interpret it. How any other American ally will interpret it? How any other American adversary will interpret it. 

Everyone will see that America is weak. That America can be outlasted. That its beautiful system of democracy actually has an ugly onion core that can be manipulated, much in the way Putin has masterfully manipulated it already.  

Democracy is painfully indecisive. 

If America walks away or abandons Ukraine, it will usher in a new world order. America will be cast aside. Autocracy will have won the day for the first time since arguably 1933 when Adolf Hitler was elected. 

The lessons of history from WWI are often focused on its aftermath. The Treaty of Versailles. The punishment of Germany. The conditions that created the rise of Hitler. 

What we should instead be focused on today are the lessons of history before WWI. What led to it? How could it have been prevented? 

Deterring Germany from exerting its will on the European continent. Not letting the tensions rise to powder keg levels with everyone armed to the teeth.  

In a world of great powers like America, peace is best kept by force, not goodwill. To be clear, force does not often mean violence. It can be any form of pressure, including supplying an ally with the means to adequately defend herself. 

It can also mean preventing an aggressor like Russia from exerting its will on its smaller neighbor, Ukraine. The amazing thing is that America can largely accomplish this without any American boots on the ground. 

The alternative is a Putin-run Ukraine that will destabilize the region. It will incentivize NATO and its members to start a new arms race. Russia will grow closer to allies like Iran and China. The entire world will be destabilized and on the verge of a WWI beginning: a seemingly random event that sparks the match. 

If America refuses or finds itself incapable of being a stabilizing and supportive force in Ukraine, American pacifism will have paved the way for an even greater conflict. 

World War III.