The Pro-Trump Right’s Acquiescence To Putin
The indifferent— and even favorable — attitude of Trump and his Republican supporters toward the Russian tyrant
Most of my writings on Medium have addressed the excesses of left-wing social activism in America today. That should not be mistaken as me harboring any enthusiasm for the pro-Trump movement, however much I may share their opposition to those excesses. Indeed, two of my past articles (1,2) explain how despite the fact that I voted for Trump in 2020 — an action based much more on a feeling of necessity than admiration — I have found him to be very problematic for our nation’s well-being. Should Trump secure a second term as president, as he almost certainly will, there may in fact be a grave consequence that extends well beyond our own borders.
I have observed that among Republicans in Congress and elsewhere, there’s this relative unwillingness to challenge the Russian president/dictator Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine. Less frequently, I’ve even noticed a tendency to support him.
In particular, Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has seemed to almost unabashedly stand behind Putin. Greene has often displayed the same sort of lack of rationality that Trump possesses. But arguably her stance on the war in Ukraine is the most dangerous one. Piers Morgan notes the following points that Greene recently argued when speaking with Steve Bannon:
…(Greene) appeared on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast and parroted Putin’s nonsense that Ukraine was waging a “war against Christianity” and Russia is “protecting the religion.” She even falsely claimed the Ukrainian government was executing priests. In fact, it’s Russia that’s been torturing, kidnapping and killing scores of Ukrainian religious leaders.
Putin has certainly made ample use of Christianity to justify his ambitions in Ukraine. His self-projected image as a defender of Christian values may partly explain his appeal to some American conservatives.
Greene also tried to downplay Putin’s threat to Europe by implying that we should take him at his word when he says that he is not considering any attack on the NATO countries. This of course is the same Putin who said that he did not plan to further invade Ukraine after conquering the Crimean peninsula.
Besides Greene, other Republicans have shown a favorable — or at the very least passive — edge towards Putin. Despite calling the Russian invasion of Ukraine “catastrophic,” the Trump-backed Washington congressional candidate Joe Kent stated that Putin’s demand to take control of the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk was “very reasonable” and essentially argued that appeasing the Russian dictator is in our best interest. Former Trump appointee Col. Douglas Macgregor excused Putin’s invasion by saying that the Russians wanted a “neutral Ukraine” and that they were “not seizing territory,” which they did only months later by annexing the easternmost provinces of Ukraine into Russia. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson was heaping defense on Putin not two days before he launched his invasion:
“Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him? Has he shipped every middle-class job in my town to Russia?” …“Did he manufacture a worldwide pandemic that wrecked my business and kept me indoors for two years? Is he teaching my children to embrace racial discrimination? Is he making fentanyl? Is he trying to snuff out Christianity?”
All four of these Republican figures have been and, as far as I know, continue to be Trump supporters.
In Congress, the recent House vote on a bill to provide aid to Ukraine against Russia’s invasion saw every Democrat vote in favor and more than half of Republicans vote against it. The opposition among Republicans was prompted by a desire to tie funding for Ukraine to increased security along the Mexican border, in line with Trump’s push to have the Republican party adopt a more isolationist platform. This, in my view, betrays a saddening indifference within the Republican party to the gravity of Ukraine’s struggle against Putin.
As for Trump himself, there is little reason to think that he would not bow to Putin’s desire to have captured Ukrainian land recognized as Russian territory. Aside from the misplaced praise that he has cast upon the dictator, and the fact that he failed to hold Putin’s regime accountable for Alexei Navalny’s death, the available information about a potential Trump peace plan strongly points to territorial cessions to Russia being a part of negotiations (1,2). There is also speculation that Trump might look to retaliate against Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy for refusing to investigate President Biden’s son Hunter for corruption related to his employment on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.
To the Republicans who voted against providing aid to Ukraine, I would ask them to think about what the world might look like today had we held onto our isolationist stance in World War II and not intervened to end the rule of the Axis powers. As much as I acknowledge the detrimental effects of illegal immigration, I find myself far more concerned about the ramifications of allowing Putin to win in Ukraine. I am much more troubled by the prospect of emboldening autocrats around the world like China’s Xi Jinping to violate the sovereignty of democratic nations like Taiwan. Ukraine may not be a shining example of democracy — indeed, its problems with corruption have been well documented — but it is still more democratic by far than Russia.
Former Bush administration official David J. Kramer reminds us why Putin’s Russia is a threat to the democratic international community:
The human-rights situation inside Russia is the worst it has been in decades, by far. It is reasonable these days to describe Russia as a totalitarian state, given the elimination of the last vestiges of independent media… the tightening grip on the internet, the arrests of anyone who speaks out of line — most recently, courageous activist Vladimir Kara-Murza — and prosecutions of anyone who describes what Russia is doing in Ukraine as a “war” or “invasion” or disparages Russia’s military performance.
He further lays out the stakes of the war in Ukraine for the world:
Reducing Putin’s ability to threaten democracies in neighboring states as well as in his own country also serves U.S national-security interests. It sends a strong signal to other authoritarian regimes, especially the one in Beijing, that the democratic community of nations will not back down in defense of freedom and the concepts of sovereignty and territorial integrity.
I fear that a second presidential term for Trump will endanger the prospects of a Ukrainian victory and, by extension, the integrity of freedom and democracy worldwide. However much Trump may try to present himself as standing up to Putin, as he barely did during his recent debate with Biden, his overall history suggests otherwise. Even during his presidency, when he enacted sanctions on Russia for the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal, he only seemed to do so under pressure from Congress.
Given that I see neither Trump nor Biden as fit to be president, I can only try to keep faith that whoever my fellow Americans elect this year, our republic will remain as resilient as it has for a quarter of a millennium. In order to help ensure that, we as Americans should continue to stand resolutely with the Ukrainian people and support them in their fight against Putin for however long it takes.