US divisions on Putin’s Russia present serious global implications

(CNN) — American politics is now divided by a fracture over Russia that could have far more serious global implications than President Vladimir Putin’s condemnation of defeating Ukraine after its invasion.

The refusal of pro-Donald Trump Republicans in Congress to extend a military lifeline to Ukraine, and the former president’s return to attacking NATO allies in alignment with Putin’s goals, show that Trump is reshaping geopolitical realities months ahead of his potential return. The White House.

The result is growing alarm about Trump’s intentions in any second term, including whether he would try to leave the alliance and thus dismantle the post-World War II transatlantic security pacts that won the Cold War and led to 80 years of peace in Europe.

The willingness of some Republican lawmakers to distance themselves from Ukraine and excuse Trump’s rebuke of his colleagues reflects a shift in political forces in the United States, partly dictated by Trump’s “America First” nationalism. But public sentiment has also been shaped by the dire times of the first two decades of the 21st century, marked by bloody wars abroad and several financial and domestic crises.

President Joe Biden has reacted with disdain to Trump’s recent rhetoric, calling it a violation of America’s historic leadership role and blaming Republican lawmakers for the latest setback on the Ukrainian battlefield.

The White House said Saturday after calling President Volodymyr Zelensky that “Congressional inaction forced the Ukrainian Army to withdraw from Avdivka after Ukrainian troops had to ration ammunition due to a lack of supplies, resulting in Russia’s first significant advance in months.”

Biden also assured Zelensky of continued US support ahead of the second anniversary of the invasion. But given the hardening of Republican sentiment against more aid, including House Speaker Mike Johnson’s refusal to bring the Senate-passed relief package to a vote, that guarantee looks increasingly shaky.

And more broadly, if only one of America’s two governing parties fully opposes Russian expansionism and upholds decades-old NATO security commitments, the United States will lose its status as a bedrock of Western security. Will worry his teammates and offer plenty of opportunities for opponents. Kremlin.

Republic change

The transformation of the Republican Party – which once boasted of defeating the Soviet Union – has been highlighted by Trump’s failure to tap into the global outcry over the death of opposition hero Alexei Navalny. In a statement on Monday, Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, compared Putin’s brutal autocracy to that of the United States, drawing apparent parallels between its own legal problems and the persecution of a brave Russian dissident.

Trump also did not retract his recent comments that he would invite Russia to invade NATO nations that have not met non-binding defense spending targets. This Monday he also trumpeted his support for Hungarian Viktor Orbán, Putin’s closest ally in the European Union and an anti-democratic strongman. Trump’s strange reverence for Putin is not new: his race relations have been a recurring theme during his presidency. But now it is even more surprising, given the Russian leader’s status as a war criminal accused of launching an unprovoked invasion of a democratic neighbor. After two years of propping up Ukraine with billions of dollars in aid and ammunition, the US decision to pull back and leave it to Putin would of course represent a stunning reversal.

Aside from the mysterious control Putin exerts over Trump, the former president’s hostility toward Ukraine is easily explained. Finally, Zelensky rejected his pleas to open a criminal investigation against Biden before the 2020 election. The coercion campaign was at the center of Trump’s first impeachment trial.

Opposing aid to Ukraine is also a near-perfect issue for the former president and his colleagues in the GOP primaries. His opposition to arms and ammunition transfers, as well as criticism of NATO allies over their defense budgets, dovetails with his central claim – in his 2016 campaign – that other countries are taking advantage of the United States. Joined it.

Johnson is resisting White House demands to allow a vote on a bill passed by the Senate on a bipartisan basis, arguing that the United States cannot fix another nation’s borders before deciding its own. It’s an argument that resonates strongly with Republican voters. Many wonder why billions more dollars should be sent to Ukraine as it struggles with high food prices and interest rates, and wonder why the United States doesn’t take care of itself first.

A republican message seen as a sign of appeasement in Munich

Some Republicans brought their unwanted message to the Munich Security Council over the weekend.

Ohio Sen. JD Vance, a big Trump fan, argued that the current $60 billion US aid proposal for Ukraine “will not fundamentally change the reality on the battlefield.” He said the United States does not have the production capacity to produce enough ammunition for Ukraine or its own needs. He called for a negotiated peace with Russia to end the war and complained that there was no clear end to American policy. And while he is not in favor of withdrawing from NATO, he said Europe must do more to defend itself as the United States looks to China.

“I don’t think Vladimir Putin is an existential threat to Europe, and to the extent that he is, it suggests that Europe needs to take a more aggressive role in its own security,” Vance said.

The Ohio senator’s arguments parallel those of many American presidents who have long complained that Europe should do more.

While NATO defense spending is on the rise, only 18 of the alliance’s 31 members are expected to reach their 2% of GDP target this year. who also face questions about their readiness and ability. And it’s not unreasonable for Vance to imply that the West won’t be able to raise the uncertain money needed to prop up Ukraine. In 2016, two years after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, then-President Barack Obama told “The Atlantic” that Ukraine “remains vulnerable to Russian military dominance no matter what we do.”

Still, Vance’s claim that Putin would not pose an existential threat to Europe is debatable, especially if the Russian leader’s aggression is reciprocated in Ukraine. And there may be no end to the war, as Putin appears determined to stay engaged as long as necessary, and Ukraine is unlikely to accept Russian guarantees under a negotiated peace deal.

Moreover, when it comes to China, the Republican position that the United States needs to make a deal with Russia in order to focus on East Asia seems naïve. Increasingly, ties between Beijing, Moscow, Iran and North Korea mean that the new geopolitical game is global. And there is no reason to think that Putin has any interest in stabilizing Europe so that the United States turns to another enemy.

Who will defend NATO in the future?

But Vance is part of a new generation of Republicans who represent a more nationalist, pragmatic brand of foreign policy, which is unlikely to change even if Trump is no longer the dominant figure in his party. For example, former US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley has been calling for a return to the tough foreign policy that has dominated the Republican Party for decades. This Monday, for example, he accused Trump of “bending the knee” to Russia. But Haley has trailed Trump in the GOP primaries and often appears to be running for leadership of a party that no longer exists.

A new report from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs highlighted evolving foreign policy sentiments among Republican voters, finding that a majority of Republicans believe that standing on the sidelines would be better for America’s future than active participation in the world. Matters Pro-Trump Republicans were more negative about the global role of the United States.

These pressures weigh on Republican lawmakers as they vote increasingly tough on aid to Ukraine.

This dilemma is summed up by Sen. It is offered by Pete Ricketts, a Republican who supports more aid for Ukraine but voted against the package last week, arguing that the United States needs to do more to stem the flow of undocumented migrants crossing the border. Ricketts was also in Munich over the weekend to try to reassure skeptical Europeans that Congress would finally act on aid to Ukraine. He also pointed out what could be at stake if Trump decides to neutralize the Western alliance.

“I was talking to a mom at the state fair and she said, ‘Senator, I don’t want my 18-year-old fighting in Europe,'” Ricketts said. “I said, ‘That’s why we’re arming Ukraine. So that doesn’t happen because if Ukraine loses and Putin invades one of our NATO allies, your 18-year-old son will be fighting in Europe.’

The Nebraska senator’s anecdote suggests that more than 30 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, Biden’s warnings about the importance of NATO are not paying off.

It is not surprising. Anyone with an adult memory of NATO’s importance in the tense years of the Cold War is now at least 50 years old. The great generation that fought in World War II, which led to the current transatlantic security framework, is almost dead.

There is a clear need in the United States and Europe for leaders who are younger than Biden and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, 82, who helped deliver aid to Ukraine through the chamber to defend NATO’s role in peacekeeping.

If they don’t, opportunists like Trump will continue to take advantage.