Donald Trump is susceptible to charm and flattery; he is impulsive; he can change course when the predictable consequences of an earlier decision come to light; he can be shameless in denying previous positions; he has no political principles.
These are not good qualities in a leader, but the best that can be said about his approach to Ukraine is that these flaws may mean that not all hope is lost. It is possible that his hostility to Ukraine will be reversed – and the US’s traditional allies will continue to hope that does happen – but it is unlikely. European leaders should continue to encourage the US president to support Ukraine, but should be realistic in recognising that the real question is likely to be how far the US will go to obstruct the Ukrainians and assist the Russians.
For those of us who grew up in the Cold War, it was a given that the US as a whole – and the US right in particular – stood against Russian expansionism. There was, of course, an ideological element to this in that the Soviet Union was not just a form of Russian imperialism – which it was – but also dedicated to the advance of communism. Nonetheless, Republicans believed that the peoples of eastern Europe were entitled to freedom and democracy. “Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall,” as Ronald Reagan said.
Even in the post-Soviet era, it was the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, who warned in 2012 that Russia was “without question, our number-one geopolitical foe”. Now, a Republican president throws a tantrum if the Russian president is publicly criticised in the Oval Office.
Trump, as ever, is motivated by personal feelings. Even if we dismiss the allegations that the Russians somehow have something on Trump, Vladimir Putin has clearly played him well, manipulating a man with a fragile ego. President Volodymyr Zelensky, in contrast, is seen as disrespectful. These things should not really matter, but that is what happens when you elect a toddler as head of state.
What is equally alarming is that Trump’s pro-Russian sympathies are widely held within his party. One of the right’s leading media stars, Tucker Carlson, travelled to Moscow last year to interview (oh so gently) Putin and enthuse about the wonders of the country. Elon Musk has gone from providing invaluable support for Ukraine through his Starlink satellite network to reproducing Moscow propaganda. And the US vice-president, JD Vance, takes every opportunity to display his hostility to Ukraine.
Vance is something of an isolationist. Isolationism has a long and dishonourable history in the US, even if it was in abeyance after the Second World War. US failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the relatively lean economic times since the 2008 financial crisis, have brought it back.
But there is more to it than that. It is not isolationist to endorse political parties in other countries, as Musk (explicitly) and Vance (implicitly) did with the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Germany. Nor is it isolationist to lecture other countries on their values such as freedom of speech, as Vance did at the Munich Security Conference and again when talking to Keir Starmer in the Oval Office.
[See also: Keir Starmer in Trumpworld]
The isolationism is partial. When it comes to socially conservative Russia, where saying the wrong thing gets you killed, Vance is silent. The liberal values of most European countries – and Ukraine is viewed as a liberal country – are seen as a threat, similar in nature to the values of US Democrats. In the hyper-partisan context of American politics, on the basis that my enemy’s enemy is my friend, Russia becomes an ally. That holding such views shocks liberals makes it all the more satisfying.
The US’s authoritarian right sees Putin as a strongman. He does not have to worry about judges or Congress or criticism on CNN. In reality, Russia has a small and fragile economy with a depleted and (for the most part) incompetent army which is currently making little progress at great cost in Ukraine. But in the eyes of the US right, Putin is the strong leader of a strong country heading for victory. Might is right.
This admiration for Putin is not limited to the US. Populist parties of the right across Europe – such as the AfD and the Austrian Freedom Party – share the pro-Russian sympathies of the Republicans. Nationalism is becoming an international business.
For those who believe in Western values, this is both an opportunity and a threat. The opportunity is that the issue of Russia exposes the weirdness of the populists. The British public, for example, overwhelmingly supports Ukraine. If Trump does make a second state visit, he will be greeted with thousands of Ukrainian flags; Nigel Farage – this country’s principal Trump apologist and a long-standing admirer of Putin – went uncharacteristically quiet after the disgraceful scenes in the Oval Office because he knows he is currently on the wrong side of the argument. To be pro-Putin and pro-Trump today is to be unpatriotic.
But if taxes go up to defend Ukraine, will the British public – or the wider European public – tolerate it? There may soon come a time when we will hear the arguments of Trump, Vance and Musk – dismissive of the smaller countries of eastern Europe, generous to Putin – on this side of the Atlantic. Supporting Ukraine will become contested. It is an argument that believers in liberal democracy cannot afford to lose.
[See also: Europe alone cannot rescue President Zelensky]
Content from our partners
Related
