In reaction to the United States’ shameful behavior today at the U.N., Noah Rothman asked a fair and rather plaintive question: Do we have to lie on Russia’s behalf? I agree with the moral spirit of his argument in all its particulars: We do not have to accede to Putin’s propagandistic “reading” of recent European history or indulge in outright falsehoods in order to bring the Ukrainian war to a conclusion, nor should we.

But unfortunately the point seems moot; it sure looks like that’s what America’s going to do regardless of whether we like it or not. Notice that I write “America,” and not “Trump.” If the United States’ recent seeming attempts to posture itself toward an alliance with Russian interests in Ukraine is a product solely of Trump’s private obsessions, its repercussions are not limited to him. This is an act of Trump’s caprice, yes, but for every other nation in the world it transcends Trump’s ephemeral personality; this is an act of United States policy.

That is why I have to wonder what the diplomatic consequences of this sort of rhetoric will be, not just while Trump holds office but long after he is gone. I’m not qualified to answer this question myself — which is why this is a brief late-night Corner musing and not one of my typically lengthy essays — but I certainly am qualified to ask it, given that the last 75 years of American foreign policy orientation threatens to flip its polarity without warning in the first month of Donald Trump’s second presidency.