Following President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, a schism has opened up in US politics over Russia, which threatens to have far-reaching global consequences.
In the months leading up to his potential return to the White House, Trump is already altering the geopolitical landscape by attacking NATO allies in a manner that aligns with Putin’s objectives and by refusing to extend a military lifeline for Ukraine, both of which are supported by Republicans in Congress who are close to Trump.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, who is still relatively new to the role, is under intense pressure to quickly approve a package that would provide billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine, despite strong opposition from the powerful Trump faction of the Republican Party. The bill has already received Senate approval. The small and divided Republican majority could crumble under Johnson’s leadership if he makes such a move.
On a broader scale, however, the conflict over Ukraine is reflecting a shift in Republican foreign policy, which is raising concerns about Trump’s plans for his second term beyond the country’s relationship with Ukraine. These include the prospect that he may try to withdraw from NATO, so destroying the transatlantic security accords that ended the Cold War and brought 80 years of peace to Europe after WWII.
Partially influenced by the “America first” nationalism of the past president, the readiness of certain Republican senators to withdraw from the Ukrainian conflict and justify Trump’s belittling of allies reflects evolving political dynamics in the United States. But the first two decades of this century, marked by draining wars overseas and multiple financial and home crises, have also shaped public opinion.
President Joe Biden has condemned Trump’s recent statements as an affront to America’s traditional leadership position and has accused Republican lawmakers of being to blame for the recent setbacks in the Ukrainian conflict.
On Saturday, following Biden’s phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky, the White House announced that “Russia’s first notable gains in months” were the consequence of “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.”
As the United States approaches the two-year anniversary of the invasion, Biden reassured Zelensky that backing will remain constant. That guarantee, however, appears to be in jeopardy in light of the fact that Republican sentiment is hardening against additional aid, and Johnson has refused to put a package of aid that the Senate has approved up for a vote.
More generally, the United States will lose its role as a Western security bulwark, which will worry its allies and give adversaries in the Kremlin several opportunities, if just one of the two major political parties in Washington fully opposes Russian expansionism and supports the decades-old security guarantees offered by NATO.
Changing Republican attitudes
The fact that Trump did not express the same level of indignation as the rest of the world after the death of opposition hero Alexey Navalny exemplifies the metamorphosis of the Republican Party, which originally took pride in beating the Soviet Union. The Republican front-runner for president, Donald Trump, made a statement on Monday in which he appeared to draw a parallel between his own legal troubles and the persecution endured by the brave Russian dissident, comparing Putin’s ruthless dictatorship to America.
As for Trump’s recent remark about inviting Russia to invade NATO states who failed to meet non-binding defence spending benchmarks, he has not reneged on the statement. On Monday, he went so far as to boast about the support of Viktor Orban of Hungary, Putin’s staunchest EU friend and a staunch opponent of democracy.
Trump’s strange genuflecting was a recurring motif throughout his administration, so it’s not new. The fact that the Russian leader is a war criminal who invaded a democratic neighbour without provocation makes it even more shocking today. The United States has been providing billions of dollars in aid and munitions to Ukraine for the past two years, so a sudden shift in policy to abandon the country and allow Putin to handle it would be unprecedented.
The former president’s animosity for Ukraine is readily explicable, in contrast to the enigmatic grip that Putin seems to have over Trump. Ultimately, Zelensky turned down his requests to investigate Biden for possible wrongdoing before to the 2020 election. The first impeachment of Trump revolved around the coercive campaign.
Another nearly ideal subject for the former president and his GOP primary supporters is opposing assistance to Ukraine. Starting with his 2016 campaign, he has maintained the central allegation that other countries are taking advantage of the United States. This claim is reinforced by his resistance to arms and ammunition transfers and criticism of NATO partners over their defence budgets.
The White House has demanded that the Senate vote on a bill that garnered bipartisan support, but Johnson is standing firm, saying that the United States cannot mend the boundaries of another country until it fixes its own. For some reason, this line of reasoning really hits home with Republican voters. Many people are wondering why the United States isn’t taking care of its own citizens before sending billions more dollars to Ukraine, especially when they are already struggling with high interest rates and food prices.
With the tide of battle turning in favour of Russia, Ukraine is in dire need of weaponry and ammunition. A speaker who was almost unknown when appointed as a last-ditch option after Kevin McCarthy’s dismissal last year is likely to be subject to much greater scrutiny as a result of this. The House’s two-week break coincides with bullet rationing for Ukrainian front-line soldiers, which hasn’t helped Johnson’s reputation.
The long-term prospects for US funding of Ukraine’s war appear bleak, regardless of Johnson’s ability to resolve the short-term impasse over this bill and the package passes. This is because the United States is experiencing a contentious election year and the Republican Party is becoming more isolationist and nationalist. No matter who wins the presidency, the country and Congress will remain deeply divided.
