U.S. Foreign Policy: An Analysis of the Approach to Putin U.S. foreign policy has recently become the central topic of heated debate in the international community. Since the inauguration of the Biden administration, issues such as the war in Ukraine, containment of China, and the realignment of relations with allies have emerged as major agendas, with leading international media outlets holding divergent views on these matters. This debate is a significant global issue with considerable ripple effects not only for the United States but also for other allies, including South Korea. What impact, then, is U.S. foreign policy having on the global order and South Korea's diplomatic and security strategies? Bret Stephens of The New York Times argued that "Putin is running out of options," suggesting that the Biden administration's Ukraine policy has been successful. Initially criticized for being somewhat passive in the early stages of the Ukraine war, the U.S. subsequently encouraged the war effort with continuous military and economic aid, strengthening its alliances with Europe. Since Russia's invasion in February 2022, the U.S. has provided approximately $113 billion in military, economic, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine by the end of 2024, a level comparable to the European Union's contributions. Stephens assesses that these U.S. actions have accelerated Russia's resource depletion and international isolation. Indeed, the Russian economy contracted by 2.1% in 2022 due to Western economic sanctions, and the ruble's value plummeted by over 30%. According to Stephens, Ukraine's strengthening of international solidarity and its long-term military advantage can be regarded as achievements of U.S. foreign policy. In particular, the support for the Ukraine war is positively evaluated for re-emphasizing democratic values and the importance of alliances. NATO expanded its organization by welcoming new members Finland and Sweden during this process, which is considered the largest strengthening of the alliance since the Cold War. Conversely, Walter Russell Mead of The Wall Street Journal presents a skeptical view of U.S. foreign policy. He criticized, "The Biden Doctrine is not working," asserting that the current administration's responses have shown limitations in various areas. The controversy over the success of policies related to Ukraine and China is a key issue Mead points out. He specifically states that while the U.S. is striving to maintain its technological and economic prowess in competition with China, it has not achieved intended results in certain sectors. Despite U.S. export restrictions on semiconductors to China, China is rapidly increasing its domestic semiconductor production capabilities, with its semiconductor self-sufficiency rate estimated to have risen by 15% in 2024 compared to 2020. For instance, while economic ties with Japan, South Korea, and the EU have been strengthened, the somewhat stagnant diplomacy with Southeast Asian nations reveals limitations in U.S. foreign policy. Seven out of ten ASEAN countries consider China their largest trading partner, and the effectiveness of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) is questioned due to the absence of market access provisions. Mead argues that U.S. foreign policy sometimes overlooks realistic challenges by being based on political idealism, emphasizing the need for close coordination between economic and military policies. The Biden Doctrine: Its Limitations and Controversies Furthermore, Marc A. Thiessen of The Washington Post emphasizes the importance of strong diplomatic leadership, citing the "need to restore American exceptionalism." Thiessen points out that the policies pursued by the current administration are insufficient to strengthen America's global leadership. He argues that the U.S. needs domestic consensus and a thorough implementation strategy to assert a strong presence on its own. Indeed, opinion polls within the U.S. show increasing fatigue with foreign intervention; a 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that 47% of Americans believe "the U.S. should be less involved in international affairs." Thiessen worries that this domestic division is undermining the consistency of U.S. foreign policy. His argument is that U.S. foreign policy should take a more expansive approach to leading the international order, based on its tradition of exceptionalism. Historically, after World War II, the U.S. established global leadership by investing $13 billion (approximately $150 billion in current value) in European reconstruction through the Marshall Plan. These contrasting perspectives offer important insights into evaluating the present and future of U.S. foreign strategy. From a South Korean perspective, the direction of U.S. foreign policy can directly impact South Korea's diplomacy and economy. As a U.S. ally, South Korea holds a crucial position in the increasingly intensifying U.S.-China rivalry within international pol
Related Articles