Do you believe the policy of not interfering with european affairs should be followed today? why or why not? cite at least two examples of recent (within the past five years) u. s. action that supports your opinion.

The United States should not interfere with European affairs, as interventionism has more often than not resulted in a worsening situation.

Explanation:

In foreign policy, non-interventionism refers to a policy where states refrain from actively interfering in the internal affairs of other states. The United States held to a policy of non-interfering in European affairs before World War I, and again shortly after it, but starting with World War II, the US declared itself as leader of the "Free World", including much of Western Europe, and sought to play an active role in European affairs.

However, the United States should refrain from interfering with European affairs, as interventionism has more often than not resulted in a worsening situation. Two clear examples of interventionism going wrong are the US intervention in Ukraine, where it provided support to the 2014 Euromaidan protests that overthrew then president Viktor Yanukovich, leading to a situation that threatened the integrity of the Ukrainian state, as a part of the population revolted against what they considered a coup, establishing the de facto autonomous republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine, and Crimea voting to leave Ukraine and join Russia. This is a political conflict that continues to this day. Another example of a recent intervention going wrong is the United States providing military, logistical and intelligence support to the Saudi Arabia forces battling the Yemeni Houthi rebels. The intelligence given by the US to the Saudis was been used by the latter to conduct an aerial and bombing campaign over Houthi controlled areas,  killing many people and worsening the already dire humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

i believe the correct answer is b.