The US political landscape is increasingly divided over Russia, a schism with potentially severe global repercussions, including the potential for Ukraine’s defeat following President Vladimir Putin’s invasion. The reluctance of pro-Donald Trump Republicans in Congress to extend military aid to Ukraine, coupled with Trump’s renewed criticism of NATO allies in a manner that aligns with Putin’s objectives, indicates a shift in geopolitical realities even before a potential Trump return to the White House.
This situation has sparked concerns about Trump’s intentions if he secures a second term, including the possibility of him withdrawing from NATO, thereby dismantling the post-World War II trans-Atlantic security arrangements that have maintained peace in Europe for 80 years. The readiness of some GOP lawmakers to abandon Ukraine and justify Trump’s criticism of allies reflects changing political dynamics in the US, influenced in part by Trump’s “America first” nationalism and public sentiment shaped by a challenging start to the 21st Century, marked by foreign wars and financial and domestic crises.
President Joe Biden has responded to Trump’s recent rhetoric with disdain, framing it as a violation of America’s historic leadership role. He has also blamed GOP lawmakers for recent setbacks on the Ukrainian battlefield. The White House stated on Saturday, following Biden’s call with President Volodymyr Zelensky, that “Ukraine’s military was forced to withdraw from Avdiivka after Ukrainian soldiers had to ration ammunition due to dwindling supplies as a result of congressional inaction, resulting in Russia’s first notable gains in months.” Biden also reassured Zelensky of ongoing US support ahead of the invasion’s second anniversary. However, with GOP sentiment hardening against further aid, including Speaker Mike Johnson’s refusal to bring a Senate-passed aid package to a vote, this assurance appears increasingly precarious.
More broadly, if only one of America’s two governing parties fully opposes Russian expansionism and supports NATO security guarantees that have endured for decades, the US risks forfeiting its role as a Western security stronghold, alarming its allies and providing multiple opportunities for adversaries in the Kremlin.
A Republican Transformation
The GOP’s transformation, a party that once prided itself on defeating the Soviet Union, has been underscored by Trump’s failure to join the global outrage at the death of opposition hero Alexey Navalny. On Monday, Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, drew a questionable comparison between Putin’s brutal autocracy and America, seemingly likening his own legal troubles to the persecution faced by the brave Russian dissident. Trump has also not retracted his recent comment that he would invite Russia to invade NATO nations that fail to meet non-binding defense spending targets. He even proudly announced an endorsement from Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Putin’s closest ally in the European Union and an anti-democratic strongman, on Monday.
Trump’s peculiar deference to Putin is not new – it was a recurring theme during his presidency. However, it is even more pronounced now, given Putin’s status as an accused war criminal who initiated an unprovoked invasion of a democratic neighbor. After supporting Ukraine for two years with billions of dollars in aid and ammunition, a US decision to abandon Ukraine and leave it to Putin would represent a dramatic policy shift.
Beyond the enigmatic influence Putin seems to have over Trump, the former president’s animosity towards Ukraine is easily understandable. After all, Zelensky rejected his requests to initiate a criminal investigation against Biden before the 2020 election, a coercion campaign that was central to Trump’s first impeachment. Opposition to aid for Ukraine is also a near-perfect issue for the former president and his GOP allies in the primary. His opposition to arms and ammunition transfers, as well as his criticism of NATO allies over their defense budgets, feeds into his core claim – dating back to his 2016 campaign – that other countries are exploiting the United States.
Johnson is resisting White House demands to allow a vote on a bill that passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis, arguing that America cannot resolve another nation’s borders before addressing its own. This argument resonates strongly with Republican voters, many of whom question why billions more dollars should be sent to Ukraine while they grapple with high grocery prices and interest rates and wonder why America isn’t prioritizing its own needs first.
A Republican Message Seen as a Sign of Appeasement in Munich
Several Republicans took their unwelcome message to the Munich Security Conference over the weekend. Ohio Sen. JD Vance, a staunch Trump supporter, argued that the current $60 billion US aid proposal for Ukraine “is not going to fundamentally change the reality on the battlefield.” He said the US lacks the manufacturing capacity to produce sufficient ammunition for Ukraine and its own needs. He advocated for a negotiated peace with Russia to end the war and complained about the lack of a clear endgame for US policy. While he doesn’t favor withdrawing from NATO, he said Europe must do more for its own defense as the US shifts its focus to China.
“I do not think that Vladimir Putin is an existential threat to Europe and to the extent that he is, again, that suggests that Europe has to take a more aggressive role in its own security,” Vance said. The Ohio senator’s arguments echoed those of multiple US presidents who have long complained that Europe should do more. While NATO defense spending has been increasing, only 18 of 31 alliance members are expected to reach a target of 2% of their GDP this year. Even those that do face questions about readiness and capacity. And Vance’s suggestion that the West will never be able to muster the indefinite cash needed to support Ukraine is not outlandish.
In 2016, two years after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, then-President Barack Obama told “The Atlantic” that Ukraine is “going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do.” However, Vance’s assertion that Putin would pose no existential threat to Europe is debatable, especially if the Russian leader’s aggression is rewarded in Ukraine. And there may be no endgame in the war as Putin seems determined to stay engaged as long as it takes, and Ukraine is unlikely to accept any Russian guarantees under a negotiated peace deal.
Furthermore, the Republican position that the US needs to strike a deal with Russia so it can focus on East Asia seems naive. The increasing ties between Beijing, Moscow, Iran, and North Korea indicate that the new geopolitical game is global. And there’s no reason to believe Putin has any interest in fostering stability in Europe so the US can turn to another adversary.
Who Will Make an Argument for NATO in the Future?
But Vance is part of a new generation of Republicans who represent a more nationalist and transactional brand of foreign policy – a trend that is unlikely to change even when Trump is no longer the party’s dominant figure. For instance, former US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley has been advocating for a return to the hawkish foreign policy that dominated the GOP for decades. On Monday, for instance, she accused Trump of going “weak in the knees” over Russia. But Haley lags far behind Trump in the GOP primary race, and she often seems to be vying for the leadership of a party that no longer exists.
Shifting foreign policy sentiments among GOP voters were highlighted in a new report by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that found that a majority of Republicans believe it would be best for the future of the US to stay out of – rather than actively participate in – world affairs. Pro-Trump Republicans were even more negative about the US having a global role. These pressures weigh on Republican lawmakers as they cast increasingly difficult votes on Ukraine aid.
The dilemma is encapsulated by Sen. Pete Ricketts, a Republican who supports more aid for Ukraine but voted against the package last week on the grounds that the US needed to do more to halt the flow of undocumented migrants crossing the border. Ricketts was also in Munich over the weekend and tried to reassure skeptical Europeans that, eventually, Congress would act on aid for Ukraine. He also summarized what could be at risk if Trump decides to weaken the Western alliance.
“I was talking to a mother at my state fair, (and) she said, ‘Senator, I don’t want my 18-year-old fighting in Europe,'” Ricketts recounted. “I said, ‘That’s why we’re giving Ukraine weapons. So that that doesn’t happen because if Ukraine loses, and Putin invades one of our NATO allies, then your 18-year-old will be fighting in Europe.’”
The Nebraska senator’s anecdote suggests Biden’s warnings about the importance of NATO aren’t resonating, more than 30 years after the fall of the Soviet Union. It’s not surprising. Anyone with an adult memory of the importance of NATO during the tense years of the Cold War is now at least in their 50s. The Greatest Generation that fought World War II, which led to the current transatlantic security structures, has largely passed away. There is a pressing need for younger leaders in the US and Europe, younger than Biden and 82-year-old Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who helped steer Ukraine aid through the chamber, to advocate for NATO’s role in maintaining peace. If they don’t, opportunists like Trump will continue to take advantage.