An interesting take on the Jones Act

America first is a real necessity, but what about protectionism?  Here's Peter Zeihan's take on the Jones Act:

I need to spend some more time on the subject because it's complex.  Unfortunately, today is not the day for that.

Why America needs to help the Ukraine

I realize that this might be an unpopular opinion among many "America first" conservatives but I think it's worth discussing: it's in America's best interest to see the Russian invasion of Ukraine fail. Russia is a belligerent geopolitical actor so long as it remains an authoritarian country (communist, fascist, ologarchy or Putin personal feifdom) because leadership can do much to insulate itself from the hardships it causes for its people as a result of imperial wars of terrirorial acquisition or other criminal behaviors (hacking, supporting terror, international sabotage, etc.). 

The Russian invasion of Ukraine specifically, impacts international trade in oil, wheat, fertilizers, and other goods.  It also denies sovereignty of a sovereign nation which is criminal by it's very nature.  If there is a global rule of law, as minimal and as weirdly dystopic as it is, violating it is criminal and only encourages other nations to do the same if it is not somehow dealt with.

That's all well and good but why is it in the U.S. best interest to see Russia fail in its invasion? Not only would Russian success set a bad precedent (think China's ambitions towards Hong Kong), it would help foil what is potentially their last chance (demographically) at any sort of hegemonic expansion, and they appear to be failing at it:

Keep in mind, Russia is one of only two geopolitical adversaries of America at the moment, the other being China.  Russia's possible failure and future likelihood of being a non-factor in global affairs for decades to come also spells bad news for China:

In this light, it's to America's best interest ("America First") to help the Ukraine.  That does not necessarily mean ,ilitary intervention.  Supplying weapons, applying sanctions, providing intel are all among the option short of boots on the ground.  Boots on the ground risk nuclear retaliation from a seemingly less and less stable Putin.  But there's a lot of other things that can be done.  Yes it costs money at a time America is economcally not at its strongest, but crippling Russia's ability to wage war effectively beyond its own borders is in America's best interest and will provide benefits for decades to come.

I get the non-interventionist mindset and rationale.  I agree with America first too, I just think that America first is not mutually exclusive with helping Ukraine fight off a delusional madman.  In fact there are benefits to America for doing so.  If you are worried about unsustainable costs to American taxpayers, start with laying off 87,000 new IRS agents that add zero value to America's well being. How about starting there instead?   America is good at weaponry, it's not good, clearly, at running a massive beaurocracy, so why not keep doing  what you are good at and stopping doing what is actually hurting America?