International law spells the end of sovereignty

Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s recent meeting at the White House was a disaster. Afterward, every progressive pundit rushed to declare that the rules-based international order was on the verge of collapse. Delusional commentators argued that any peace talks with Ukraine acknowledging Zelenskyy’s stubbornness would spell the end of international law and national sovereignty.

Their assumption is flawed. They seem to believe that international law is a higher power that countries can appeal to and that the United States is obligated to uphold. In reality, international law and the supranational bodies that supposedly enforce it are more likely to threaten national sovereignty than protect it.

Civilizations will continue to clash in a contest of great power politics, leaving smaller nations to go along for the ride — whether they want to or not.

Sovereignty means holding supreme power — the ability to make final decisions without outside approval. Sovereign entities may consider the interests of other nations and the limits of their power beyond their borders. But a truly sovereign nation does not need permission from international bodies to make decisions.

When leaders appeal to outside authorities to validate their nation’s sovereignty, they misunderstand what sovereignty means.

Sovereignty rightly understood

The political philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that a state’s sovereignty depends on its ability to protect its citizens. By his definition, a state that cannot defend its own people or borders is not sovereign. No nation can survive long without protection from hostile forces. If a nation cannot provide for its own defense, another political entity will assume that role and, by extension, its sovereignty.

Carl Schmitt echoed Hobbes’ view when he wrote:

If a people is afraid of the trials and risks implied by existing in the sphere of politics, then another people will appear which will assume these trials by protecting it against foreign enemies and thereby taking over political rule. The protector then decides who the enemy is by virtue of the eternal relation of protection and obedience.

Despite the valiant efforts of many Ukrainian soldiers, Ukraine cannot defend itself without outside help. Western nations have sent hundreds of billions of dollars, along with ammunition and advisers, to support Ukraine’s military. Even so, the Ukrainian forces have struggled to hold their ground.

Russia has not achieved the level of dominance it wants, but the reality is clear: Without backing from the United States and other NATO allies, Ukraine would likely lose the war immediately.

In theory, international law and organizations like NATO exist to protect the sovereignty of nations that cannot stand up to great powers like Russia. NATO was founded to defend Western nations against the Soviet Union’s expansion. Although that threat has vanished, the military alliance endures, claiming to protect the sovereignty of its members. However, despite losing its primary adversary, NATO has continued to expand, moving its borders ever closer to Russia.

In reality, NATO is the United States and the United States is NATO. In 2023, the U.S. contributed $830 billion of NATO’s $1.3 trillion budget. Germany, the second-largest contributor, provided just $61 billion. This funding disparity explains why Donald Trump repeatedly urged European nations to increase their contributions to NATO and to boost their own national defense budgets.

Previous U.S. administrations have encouraged Europe’s demilitarization while pledging to defend the continent with American resources. This arrangement may have played a crucial role in stopping the spread of communism when Europe was recovering from two world wars. But with its original purpose fulfilled, NATO now serves only to distort the true nature of sovereignty.

Ukraine is not sovereign

Officially, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is the president of an independent nation fighting a territorial war against a world power. In reality, the United States and its NATO allies are funding a proxy war with Russia. While Zelenskyy should hold significant authority, it’s clear that the real peace negotiations are happening between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. If the United States continues to provide financial and military aid, the war could drag on for years. If that support ends, the conflict would likely conclude swiftly.

Ukraine’s inability to defend itself independently means it cannot control its own fate. Ukraine is not sovereign, and Zelenskyy does not make the final decision. During his meeting at the White House, Zelenskyy seemed to forget this reality, but Trump did not hesitate to remind him before showing him the door.

The idea that a collection of “international laws” recorded in the charter of a supranational institution can uphold the sovereignty of smaller nations is comforting but false. When a lesser nation appeals to an international body, it is ultimately appealing to the will of the sovereign nations that control that body. The moment a country must rely on another for protection, it surrenders its sovereignty.

This geopolitical reality is unsettling to many because it suggests that very few nations are truly sovereign. While some countries may exercise a degree of internal political autonomy, even that can be quickly undermined. U.S. intelligence agencies wield significant influence over foreign affairs, largely because many nations rely on America for their defense.

Samuel Huntington’s theory that geopolitics is a clash between civilizational blocks led by great powers has proven accurate. Supranational organizations like NATO and the “international law” they enforce are little more than façades for the will of powerful nations shaping global events. Civilizations will continue to clash in a contest of great power politics, leaving smaller nations to go along for the ride — whether they want to or not.