(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Exploring the Ukraine Conflict Through the American Revolutionary Lens [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2025-03-13
Analyzing France's Support During the American Revolution and the Trump Administration's Approach to Ukraine's Sovereignty
The United States is approaching its 250th birthday in 2026, marking a quarter-millennium since the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. This milestone, known as the Semiquincentennial, will be celebrated nationwide to honor the nation's founding. It is set to be one of the most significant national anniversaries since the Bicentennial in 1976.
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine bears striking resemblances to the American Revolution, offering insights into the complexities of geopolitics and the impact of leadership ideologies on foreign policy outcomes. The Trump administration’s demands on Ukraine as it tries to maintain its sovereignty have overlooked a critical historical reality—America did not secure its independence alone. France, our oldest ally, played a crucial role in the Revolution, providing military and financial support that was instrumental in defeating Britain. Without French assistance, it is highly unlikely that the U.S. could have defeated Britain alone. The American colonies lacked sufficient military resources, naval power, and funding to sustain a long war against Britain, the world's most powerful empire at the time. France formalized its alliance through the 1778 Treaty of Alliance, ensuring sustained military/financial backing until victory. The formal partnership in 1778 gave the American cause political legitimacy in Europe's eyes, boosting the Continental Army's confidence. France provided:
Military Aid —France sent the Continental Army weapons, ammunition, uniforms, and other vital supplies. Estimates suggest that up to 90% of the arms used by American forces in the Saratoga campaign were supplied by France, significantly enhancing the Continental Army's fighting capacity. Financial Support – France loaned the U.S. large sums of money to keep the war effort going. Naval Power —Under Admiral de Grasse, the French navy played a decisive role, especially at the Battle of Yorktown (1781), blocking British reinforcements. This decisive victory in Yorktown (1781) forced the British surrender. Troops —Over 12,000 French soldiers led by General Rochambeau coordinated directly with General George Washington’s army. French military advisors and volunteers, such as General Lafayette, brought valuable expertise and training to the Continental Army, improving both skills and morale. Also, the Chasseurs-Volontaires de Saint-Domingue fought alongside American troops as part of the French expeditionary force. It was a regiment composed mainly of free Black and mixed-race soldiers from the French colony of Saint-Domingue, now Haiti. Allied Support – Spain and the Netherlands, influenced by France, weakened and isolated Britain. France spent an estimated 1.3 billion livres, equivalent to over $2.3 billion today. The financial aid from France profoundly impacted the morale and capabilities of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War. The French financial aid was truly transformative for the Continental Army. It provided the material means to continue the fight and the psychological boost needed to persevere against a formidable opponent. This support was instrumental in enabling General Washington's war of attrition strategy, ultimately leading to American independence. This spending included:
Direct loans and grants to the U.S.
Funded and equipped the Continental Army. The open-ended credit from France allowed the Continental Army to remain in the field and continue fighting despite the British naval blockade.
Naval and military operations against Britain. French funds helped America's economy weather the crippling effects of the British blockade, indirectly supporting the war effort by maintaining the country's economic base.
France did not play a "Let’s make a deal" game with the American Patriots. It did not demand everlasting gratitude from the Founding Fathers—though its support has been acknowledged for over 260 years. Unlike a transactional alliance, France did not seek land, natural resources, or direct repayment from the U.S. Instead, it invested heavily in the war effort, pouring vast sums into the fight for American independence.
France’s involvement was strategic yet self-sacrificial—the financial strain contributed to its economic crisis and, ultimately, the French Revolution (1789). While France had geopolitical interests, it did not impose conditions on the Americans. Its primary motivations were:
Weaken Britain – France's main goal was to weaken its long-time rival, Britain. By supporting the American colonies, France hoped to diminish British global power. Territorial Gains – France sought to regain territories it had lost to Britain in the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763), particularly in the Caribbean and India. Trade and Economic Benefits— France expected increased trade with the newly independent United States, hoping to establish a strong economic relationship that would benefit French merchants. Prestige and Influence – Supporting the American Revolution was also a way for France to enhance its international prestige and spread anti-monarchical ideals that could challenge British dominance.
The war would have been much longer and harder without France, and the U.S. might not have won. Their financial, military, and naval support turned the tide against Britain, making them America's most important ally during the Revolution. France did not demand land or direct repayment from the U.S. Instead, they spent a vast amount of money on the war, which contributed to their financial crisis and eventually led to the French Revolution in 1789.
French involvement was partly driven by Enlightenment principles, viewing America as a republican experiment. The Trump administration echoed Russian narratives, dismissing Ukraine’s sovereignty claims and falsely accusing Ukraine of provoking the invasion. The Trump administration’s approach to Ukraine is inconsistent and politically entangled, marked by:
Military Aid Delays – While the U.S. provided lethal aid (e.g., Javelin anti-tank missiles), Trump temporarily withheld nearly $400 million in military assistance in 2019. In March 2025, Trump paused military aid and intelligence information to Ukraine following an argument with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office Political Pressure – Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch investigations into Joe Biden and his son Hunter in exchange for releasing the aid, leading to Trump’s first impeachment (2019). Weakened Diplomatic Support – Unlike France’s unwavering backing of the U.S. in the 18th century, Trump's policy toward Ukraine was transactional rather than strategic. The Trump administration halted $61B aid package negotiations in 2024 and pressured Ukraine to withdraw a European-backed U.N. resolution demanding immediate Russian withdrawal from Ukraine. Mixed Signals to Russia – Trump repeatedly downplayed Russia’s aggression, casting doubt on Ukraine’s sovereignty, including his soft stance on Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014—risking legitimizing territorial conquest. NATO Skepticism —While France built alliances to counter Britain, Trump frequently criticized NATO, an alliance crucial to Ukraine’s defense against Russia. The Trump administration's actions isolated the US and eroded the postwar international order. Military Collaboration weakened Ukraine’s negotiating position and emboldened Russian aggression. Trump administration excluded Ukraine from U.S.-Russia ceasefire talks and dismissed Zelensky’s legitimacy. The Trump administration has largely sidelined European allies in negotiations regarding Ukraine's future. In February 2025, the U.S. held talks with Russia in Saudi Arabia, excluding Ukrainian and European officials. The Paris Peace Talks that ended the American Revolution involved negotiations between four main countries: The United States, Britain, France, and Spain. The Treaty of Paris (1783) formally ended the war, recognizing American independence and granting the U.S. significant territorial gains.
Looking at the current Ukraine war through the lens of the American Revolution shows how geopolitical contexts and leadership ideologies shape foreign policy outcomes. France’s partnership enabled independence, while Trump’s approach threatens Ukrainian sovereignty and undermines international norms. France’s role in America’s independence was a commitment to a cause—they sacrificed resources and lives without demanding political favors. By contrast, Trump’s approach to Ukraine was conditional and politically motivated, making it clear that U.S. support under his administration was not guaranteed unless it served his interests. While France’s assistance secured American freedom, Trump’s withholding of aid weakened Ukraine at a crucial moment, making his actions the opposite of what France did for the United States during the Revolution.
The influence of leadership ideologies, exemplified by Trump's "America First" policy, demonstrates how foreign policy approaches can shape conflict outcomes. As the situation unfolds, the international community watches closely to see how these historical echoes and contemporary policies will ultimately determine the fate of Ukraine and the broader global order.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/3/13/2310005/-Exploring-the-Ukraine-Conflict-Through-the-American-Revolutionary-Lens?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
