Why is MAGA Melting Down Over Zelensky?
One of the more interesting and curious recurring themes of modern American politics is how Russia and Ukraine keep popping up. Since Mitt Romney’s prescient statement in 2012 that Russia was “without question our number one geopolitical foe,” our old Cold War adversary has been cropping up like a bad penny.
Shortly after Romney’s remark, Russia invaded Crimea and launched a proxy war in Ukraine’s eastern provinces of Donbas and Luhansk. The invasion was a response to the Maidan Revolution in November 2013 in which Ukrainians deposed Putin-backed Viktor Yanukovych and incidentally ended future Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s job working with the former dictator.
At about the same time, Hunter Biden took a job working with a Ukrainian gas company. It was Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump’s efforts to find evidence of criminal activity by Hunter that inspired Trump to withhold military aid to Ukraine, which was already fighting Russian-backed separatists, leading to his first impeachment.
Ukraine popped up again in 2016 as Donald Trump secured the Republican nomination. The GOP platform was mysteriously amended to water down language calling for lethal aid to Ukraine, which the Obama Administration had opposed and Republicans had supported. The Mueller report did not trace the change to Trump himself, but it may have originated with his campaign’s national security advisor.
Of course, the Russian interference in the election that year is well-documented even if its effects are debated. A host of Trump Administration intelligence officials and a bipartisan Senate report confirmed the extent of Putin’s meddling in internal American politics.
Ukraine resurfaced in 2020 as the Trump campaign alleged that Joe Biden had intervened with the Ukrainian government on behalf of Hunter when he was vice president. The truth here was that Biden was following US and European policy in pushing to oust a corrupt prosecutor, an action that could have endangered Hunter if was involved in criminal activity.
The threads of the Ukraine-Russia story converged in Washington, DC yesterday when Ukrainian President Zelensky visited the White House and addressed a joint session of Congress. The speech was hailed by most.
Interestingly, the most vocal critics of Zelensky’s speech were MAGA Republicans. A viral picture of Lauren Boebert (R-Col.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) showed the pair sitting and looking at their phones while most members of Congress welcomed Zelensky with a standing ovation. When Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk live-blogged the speech on Twitter, criticizing the fact that Zelensky did not wear a suit, Patrick Chovanec pointed out that Winston Churchill wore military fatigues to the White House during a WWII visit in response.
MAGA’s clown princes were also on hand with far-out takes. Jack Posobiec speculated that Zelensky might really be in Washington to smuggle Sam Bankman-Fried (or as I like to call, “Sam Bank-Fraud”) out of the country while Tucker Carlson took the airwaves to accuse the Ukrainian president of waging war on Christianity.
Donald Trump, Jr. called Zelenskey an “ungrateful international welfare queen.”
I’m old enough to remember last February when Putin’s army invaded Ukraine. At that point, the reaction from MAGA world was that it was tragic, but that there was nothing we could do. If Donald Trump was still president, they opined, the invasion would never have happened but with Biden in office, Ukraine was pretty much doomed from the start.
Fast-forward to present day. Support for Ukraine has easily been one of Biden’s most popular and successful policy moves. The president helped to rally the free world to oppose the invasion with both sanctions on Russia and lethal aid for Ukraine. The lifeline of high-tech weapons paired with Ukrainian courage and resolve turned the tide of the war and now Russia is in retreat.
As Russian fortunes in the war shifted, so did the MAGA outlook. Where there was sympathy for Ukraine in the past, now there is criticism of the spending that has saved Ukraine. From Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) to Lauren Boebert to Josh Hammer to Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), MAGA politicians and pundits seem to determined to restrict or halt US aid to Ukraine.
There are several likely reasons for that. Some on the MAGA right are openly pro-Putin. For example, days before the invasion, Tucker Carlson was on television asking why anyone should hate Vladimir Putin. Since then, Carlson has openly admitted that doesn’t “really care one way or the other” what Putin does in Ukraine and, at one point, suggested, “The Italians, in other words, are in a better position to take over the world than Vladimir Putin.”
This isn’t a new phenomenon. There are factions on the right that have been fanboying Vladimir Putin for at least a decade. The Russian dictator is sometimes perceived as a defender of Christianity (see Tucker’s broadcast in the ninth paragraph), resister of homosexual rights, and a manly man.
The Russian propagandists and sympathizers are going to do their thing. That’s part of our tradition of free speech, no matter how disgusting and inane their views are.
Others are probably still butthurt over Donald Trump’s failed attempt to dig up dirt on the Bidens. MAGA became convinced that Zelensky and Ukraine were corrupt because they didn’t play ball with Trump’s blackmail. The Ukraine scandal led to Trump’s first impeachment and played a role in costing him re-election as well. There is definitely some lingering resentment there.
Finally, I think there is also some Biden Derangement Syndrome at play. To some extent, MAGA opposes helping Ukraine because Biden favors it and Ukraine’s successes have made the president look good.
The good news is that a lot of Republicans are willing to leave politics at the water’s edge and work with the Biden Administration to stymie Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine (and elsewhere). These courageous Republicans include Mitch McConnell, who recently said, “Providing assistance for Ukrainians to defeat the Russians is the number one priority for the United States right now according to most Republicans.”
Included in that possibly slim majority are Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), and Ben Shapiro.
The bad news is that in a closely divided Congress, it might not take more than a few pro-Russia Republicans to gum up the works. And there are more than a few pro-Russia Republicans these days.
One big question mark is Kevin McCarthy, who might possibly one day garner enough votes to become Speaker of the House. McCarthy seems to be straddling the fence, saying after Zelensky’s speech, “I support Ukraine, but I never support a blank check.”
What that will mean in the upcoming Congress is anyone’s guess. It could refer to checks-and-balances to ensure that aid is not stolen or wasted or it could mean restrictions so onerous that aid is effectively stopped. That was reportedly the case when the Trump Administration sold the Ukrainians Javelin anti-tank missiles but placed restrictions on the weapons that kept them far from the front lines.
No matter how restrictions on aid are justified, the core truth is that without Western and American weapons, Ukraine would fall to Russia no matter how courageous and dedicated its defenders may be. Ukraine is facing an opponent that is out of its weight class and only Western weapons make it a fair fight.
People who argue for ending aid are taking a position that benefits no one except Vladimir Putin. Cutting off aid would not end the war, but it would allow Russia to ultimately win a war of attrition in the conventional conflict. The Ukrainians would almost certainly not give up even then but would go underground to fight a insurgency against the hated Russian “Orcs.” The war would go on indefinitely.
For whatever reason, MAGA seems to be lining up on the side of Vladimir Putin. It’s yet another way that the faction is badly out of step with the rest of America. It is this sort of radicalism that cost Republicans victory in the midterms and shows that MAGA is unfit to govern.
For much of my political life, Republicans have lamented that so many peoples around the world were not willing to fight for their freedom. When given weapons and training by the US, they were all too often ineffective and corrupt. Afghanistan is only the most recent example. In Ukraine, we’ve found a freedom-loving nation that is willing to fight and die for their liberty, but many Republicans seem to have a problem with the fact that the enemy they are defending themselves against is Vladimir Putin.
Republicans need to do a lot of soul-searching, but near the top of the list of topics is how such a large segment of the party could go from being Russia hawks to Putinphiles in such a short time. The shift is one more example of how the GOP is no longer the party it was only a few years ago.
Bless you for trying.Report
Because they get Putin rubles and/or Cleek’s law. Plus they really hate that Biden is actually good at politics. I am not stating he is perfect but he is frequently underestimated.Report
What’s interesting is that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is exactly the Evil Empire scenario invoked by Reagan, and dramatized in Red Dawn.
There really isn’t any way to fit the Pution apologists into a framework that fits American conservatism.
But you can fit them into a framework of Christian Nationalism, or revanchist fascism.Report
I think Zelensky also exposes a lot of their empty rhetoric. Some of the biggest rightists — Tucker in particular — have been going on about masculinity, endorsing things like ball-tanning. Others talk about the courage they show in … getting books banned. Being confronted with actual manly behavior and courage makes them feel exposed. So they lash out.Report
” the Russian interference in the election that year is well-documented even if its effects are debated.” Of course. You think we don’t do the same thing? Remember all those “color” revolutions, and yes, even in Ukraine. We were involved. This is what large powers do. Think the Chinese aren’t doing similar? How many spies have been caught working for them in recent years? This is just background noise if we win the “campaign”, and it’s a “horror to democracy” if we loose. Russian ain’t doing anything we don’t.Report
Do you believe this truth justifies GOP support of Russia in Ukraine?Report
Depends, if the GOP is consistent in it’s foreign policy, then it might. As best I know, they aren’t so it doesn’t matter.
Given how the “administration” of “foreign relations” is handled by administrators who are not as much partisan as “part of the deep state”, I doubt anyone elected is really involved in a lot of this stuff.Report
Why should anyone support an intentional unaggrevated invasion of a democratic country by a dictator mush less by Putin’s Russia? The man and his regime are antithetical to democracy.Report
So?
I wasn’t aware that the US foreign policy is to assure the world has democracy.Report
So to be clear you support Putin’s invasion?Report
“Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’.”
― George OrwellReport
Yes and?Report
It’s always a good line to bring out against anyone who doesn’t believe we should intervene.Report
I neither support nor endorse it. Russia is effectively surrounded by NATO counties or near NATO countries. Bush promised Gorbachev that the US would not “poach” former Warsaw pact countries to NATO and that was walked back over and over. Russia desires a sphere of influence. We have one. I see no reason to get into the middle of something like that AT ALL. I’m more worries about how our support for Ukraine has pushed Russia and China closer together.Report
As the china example makes clear can have a sphere of influence without invading countries. As Russia has done in several nations immediately around it. Russia is not entitled to invade Ukraine simply because it wants to. Just as we would not be entitled to invade Mexico.Report
“Russia is not entitled to invade Ukraine simply because it wants to”
Let’s replace Russia with USA and Ukraine with: Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Panama…….Report
I was and remain against Afghanistan and Iraq – both times. I wasn’t alive until the end of Vietnam but based on the history I’ve read I wouldn’t condone it either. Ditto Panama – though it was probably the only way to get rid of Noriega.
None of that however means we should let Russia succeed. Ukraine as a sovereign nation deserves to chart its own path and we are obligated to help it no matter what our sins are.Report
So you condemn meddling equally as much as russian meddling? Cause anything else is hypocrisy.Report
Yes – always have. Most of what’s driving people to migrate to our southern border is due to our and the USSRs meddling for five or six decades. Afghanistan’s proves it was unconquerable in the 1980’s but we failed to listen. Most of South Asia is still recovering for the same USA-USSR meddling.
Do not, however mistake this for pacifism or isolationism. If we are to in any way live up to the claims we have for ourselves as a nation we must engage in the world. And sometimes that means sending arms we no longer need ir use to a country fighting for its very life.Report
Convince me what we’re sending to Ukraine is is no longer needed by us or our allies then. And it’s once thing to send obsolete arms, it’s another to take out pipelines and such.Report
“Sphere of influence” is just a lazy way of justifying aggression and imperialism.
Like, why exactly is Russia, China, or the US entitled to some “sphere of influence” ?
Other than, “Well, we’re powerful and can do what we want”.Report
I’m not justifying “sphere of influence”. I’m arguing that condemning one country for doing the same thing our country does is hypocrisy.Report
Another data point in my contention that the contemporary American right is the new counterculture.
In this instance, reciting, authentic 1956 style tankie talking points.Report
Well, when I ask myself when the last time the US invaded a neighbor with the avowed purpose of gaining territory, my answer is 1848 – the Mexican American War. You could argue that the US engaged in similar policies with regard to Native Americans. Since then, the invasions we’ve carried out have been in the context of some aggressive act, and they did not seek to incorporate the conquered territory as part of their own holding. Sometimes the reasons were good: Afghanistan, for instance. Sometimes not so good: Iraq, Vietnam, Grenada. But we never sought to permanently incorporate any of those places as part of the United States.
Meanwhile Putin and many Russians, think Ukraine is supposed to be part of Russia. And Ukranians do not.
This is the “right of self-determination of peoples”. It’s kind of a new thing, and that makes it a bit shaky, I suppose. But I hold this as a foundational piece.Report
I was going to say the Spanish-American war in 1898 when the US acquired Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. But taking those wasn’t the initial intent of the war.Report
I don’t think it makes sense to take such a kind view of our own recent adventures. The fact that they haven’t been straight up wars for territory is cold comfort to those who have died or otherwise had their lives destroyed as a result of our hubris, to say nothing of the damage it’s continued to do to our own standing in the world. Russia’s invasion is of course also totally immoral but we should be clear eyed about all of this. No American policy has been exonerated.Report
No one is – best I can tell – trying to exonerate US foreign policy with support to Ukraine. Nor does prior US misadventure justify GOP support of Russia.Report
I’m not sure how this is responding to or debating my comment.Report
Report
Ok. And did you read Doctor Jay’s comment it was replying to, that included the below?
Sometimes not so good: Iraq, Vietnam, Grenada. But we never sought to permanently incorporate any of those places as part of the United States.
We can think that on balance the right thing to do is help the Ukrainians (which I do) without making excuses for ourselves or acting like we aren’t fully capable of doing something just as dumb and destructive as the Russians are right now. I elaborated in a piece here:
https://ordinary-times.com/2022/05/23/credit-where-it-is-due-lessons-from-the-war-in-ukraine-so-far/Report
Again I don’t see anyone trying to exonerate the US simply be supporting Ukraine. I don’t see anyone here pretending the US doesn’t have baggage.
I do see several commentators all but cheering Putin because he poked the US bear.Report
Then your beef is with people making that argument. My argument is that we should be learning from the mistakes of an adversary. If your take is limited to Vlad is just as evil as we determined in 2016, and his GOP sympathizers are dumb and evil-er, then you aren’t really learning anything at all, and while you may be right on those points it’s in the same way that a broken clock can be. I suggest aiming higher.Report
Doctor Jay was was contesting the claim that “Russia ain’t doing anything we don’t.” Doesn’t strike me as making excuses, just not seeing what Russia is doing as normal in a contemporary sense.Report
An assessment I fully endorse.Report
Maybe but if so I’d find that an even more questionable assertion. My interpretation is that the attempt to annex territory is really a haphazard fall back plan to try and safe face after the attempt at regime change failed. I am not sure we should be patting ourselves on the back for being better at overthrowing governments, at least not in the context of this conversation.Report
Considering the outcomes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam etc
I don’t know that we are better at regime change. We just choose to do it farther away the right next door. I also don’t see anyone in this thread patting ourselves in the back – I do see a lot of people trying really hard to say it’s ok for Russia to invade Ukraine without actually saying it.Report