Previous post
Next post
Last September, National Review writer Jay Nordlinger reflected about the conservative movement and the issue of Ukraine. In an article called “Ukraine and the Right,” Nordlinger wrote:
In times past, Ukraine would have been a great cause of American conservatives. What about now?
He further deliberated:
So, here is a classic case of a free and independent country being invaded and brutalized by an expansionist dictatorship that seeks to redraw international boundaries by force. As of old. Also a case of a national David against an imperial Goliath.
This would have been a natural cause of conservatives … Is it? Hardly.
Ukraine would’ve been a cause that the late great president Ronald Reagan would have championed. He knew an evil empire when he saw one, and he made minced no words about it. Remember the demands for Gorbachev to “tear down this wall?” Reagan also inspired the National Endowment for Democracy, which began in 1983 during his presidency.
Most importantly, there’s the Reagan Doctrine, which the president declared in his 1985 State of the Union:
We must stand by all our democratic allies. And we must not break faith with those who are risking their lives—on every continent, from Afghanistan to Nicaragua—to defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth.
But now? When it comes to supporting Ukrainian president Zelensky or former Soviet KGB strongman Putin, Nordlinger wondered:
Who would receive the warmer greeting at CPAC? The Russian strongman, Vladimir Putin, or the Ukrainian president, Zelensky? Are you sure of the answer? Unsure?
Considering that CPAC — the Conservative Political Action Committee — has gone full MAGA, I think we know the answer.
Among the current crop of Republicans running for president, most of them are traditionalists, giving their support to Ukraine. These include former vice president Mike Pence, who has spoken in favor of sending military equipment and weapons, although he draws the line at troops.
Pence recently became the first Republican presidential candidate to visit Ukraine late in June. Upon his return, he told ABC News Jonathan Karl:
We’re there because it’s in our national interest to give the Ukrainian military the ability to rebut and defeat Russian aggression. Because if Russia overran Ukraine, I have no doubt, John, that it wouldn’t be too long before they crossed a border where American servicemen and women would be required to go and fight.
Pence also told Tucker Carlson in March in a questionnaire that Carlson issued:
When the United States supports Ukraine in their fight against Putin, we follow the Reagan doctrine, and we support those who fight our enemies on their shores, so we will not have to fight them ourselves. There is no room for Putin apologists in the Republican Party. This is not America’s war, but if Putin is not stopped and the sovereign nation of Ukraine is not restored quickly, he will continue to move toward our NATO allies, and America would then be called upon to send our own.
That’s not a farfetched idea, either. In February, Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian president, now chairman of Russia’s Security Council, floated the idea of pushing back on Poland’s borders:
That is why it is so important to achieve all the goals of the special military operation. To push back the borders that threaten our country as far as possible, even if they are the borders of Poland.
Remember that Poland has been a member of NATO since 1999.
Another conservative voice is former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who visited Ukraine in April. He supports sending F-16 fighter jets and long-range missiles, along with “the training and the software and all the things needed to actually protect and defend your own land,” as he put it.
Most Republican candidates represent the Reaganite wing of the party.
Unfortunately for Ukraine, the lion’s share of GOP support goes to the non-interventionists, including FL Gov. Ron DeSantis, who called the Ukraine war a “territorial dispute.” However, DeSantis later backtracked, saying that he had been “mischaracterized” (of course! *eyeroll*), and instead has endorsed a cease-fire. He also added that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was wrong. Clearly DeSantis was throwing a sop to the Trump supporters but it didn’t quite go as he planned.
Then there’s the leader of the MAGA wing: former president Donald Trump, who has claimed he could end the Ukraine war “within 24 hours.” He didn’t give specifics, except that “this can be easily done if conducted by the right President” (meaning him, one assumes), as he told Tucker Carlson.
Nor does he specify what sort of funding or materiel he would give to Ukraine, either. That would depend upon how his 24-hour intervention would go, as he told Carlson in this Trumpian word salad:
That would strongly depend on my meeting with President Putin and Russia. Russia would have never attacked Ukraine if I were President, not even a small chance. Would have never happened if I were President, but it has. I would have to see what the direction in which Russia is headed. I want them to stop, and they will, depending on the one that delivers that message. But with everything said, Europe must pay. The United States has spent much more than Europe, and that is not fair, just, or equitable. If I were President, that horrible war would end in 24 hours, or less. It can be done, and it must be done– now!
MAGA dominates the Republican party at this juncture. Devotees of Trump also include GA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who claimed that it’s Ukraine’s fault that Russia invaded — “they just kept poking the bear.” Or OH Sen. JD Vance, who bluntly said, “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.”
In case you never heard of the term “vatnik,” here’s a definition:
Vatnik or vatnyk (Russian: ватник) is a pejorative, used in Russia and other post-Soviet states based on an Internet meme … which denotes a steadfast jingoistic follower of propaganda from the Russian Government.
Unfortunately, the MAGA wing of “Conservative, Inc.” contains a lot of vatniks.
Like Dinesh D’Souza, who tweeted prior to the 2016 election:
What @realDonaldTrump admires about Putin is the way Putin–unlike someone else we know–LOVES his country & FIGHTS for its interests
There’s also former Trump advisor Peter Navarro, who said of Ukraine “the country itself is not really a country …” As Nordlinger noted, “That is straight Kremlin propaganda.”
But the King of the Vatniks is Tucker Carlson.
Carlson has made no bones about his hatred for Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, but has never said anything negative about Vladimir Putin. He’s also promoted lies, the most recent being that Zelensky cancelled Ukrainian elections.
Except Zelensky didn’t. The country is under martial law, and according to the Ukrainian constitution, there are no elections in such a circumstance. Moreover, Ukraine adopted its martial law status before Zelensky became president.
As Libertarian Kevin Gaughen tweeted:
https://twitter.com/gaughen/status/1677126954850320386?s=20
Yeah, tell us about those “free” elections in Russia, Mr. Carlson.
Screenshot: @David4Liberty/Twitter.
It’s no wonder that after Fox News sacked Tucker Carlson, Russian state TV sources offered him jobs.
Despite the noise coming from that MAGA wing and its assorted vatniks, American support for Ukraine is rising, according to Defense One.
They cite a recent poll from Reuters/IPSOS, which finds that 56% of Republicans, and 57% of independents support sending weapons to Ukraine. A new poll from the Reagan Institute echoes that number, with a total of 59% of Americans supporting the country, including 50% of Republicans.
It all depends on the context, wrote Sam Skove of Defense One:
Americans’ opinions about sending weapons to Ukraine often changed when provided additional information about the aid, potentially suggesting the U.S. government could do a better job communicating the aid’s value…
When told that the aid given was just three percent of the Defense Department’s budget, that Ukraine remained in control of much of its territory, and that the war had severely degraded Russian combat capabilities, the number of respondents who approved of the aid jumped to 64 percent.
Gains were largest with Republicans, with 59 percent thinking money on military aid was well spent after being given additional information.
What’s that saying? The more you know…
The press release from the Reagan Institute on its poll reads:
There exists a reservoir of support among the American people across party lines for assisting the Ukrainians. Leaders can tap into that reservoir by educating their fellow Americans.
Nordlinger wrote in his piece:
Another reason that Republicans, some of them, are uncharacteristically quiet about Ukraine is that a Democrat is president — so American support of Ukraine looks Democratic.
That also explains a lot. If MAGA Republicans focus on Biden, Biden, Biden, and Hunter’s Ukrainian grift during the Obama years — before Zelensky became president — they will not see the importance of the battle over Ukraine. This is “a battle in a wider war, between freedom and dictatorship, independence and empire, the rule of law and the rule of raw strength, or aggression,” in the words of Jay Nordlinger.
Featured image: Garry Knight/flickr/cropped/public domain.
Absolutely dead on post, Kim! Nice job!
I will also submit that I stop at troops as well. We have no real authority to send troops, unless Russia attacks a NATO member (which is why many of the former CIS clamored to join the alliance). Vatniks have already been applauding some Russians’ squealing that Russia should hit Warsaw for good measure. That’s when Article 5 comes into play and we send in the big boys.
And really, sending weapons and sharing intel with Ukraine is cheaper than sending troops and losing US lives.
IMHO
Hate_me says: Foreign policy should never be a popularity contest (the same could be said of politics, in general), so I don’t give a damn what the majority of people, Republican or Democrat, support.
To not support donating materiel to Ukraine is not the same as supporting Russia. If you truly want to stop the Russian invasion (and Russia has her reasons, however justified and whether you choose to recognize them or not), then stop with all the piecemeal bullshit and actually commit to it – including troops. This quagmire of materiel support only encourages more corruption in the most corrupt region of Europe. I get why Foggy Bottom supports that but, adding even more reason to not care what the popular opinion is, the average American benefits nothing from prolonging this.
Yes, committing troops means some will likely die and that the war may escalate…. The war is escalating, regardless, and if that is allowed to continue, it will cost more lives and hurt American interests in the long run. If you want to support Ukraine, then do it right and support them completely. This half-assed, noncommittal bullshit is only making it worse.
GWB says: Politics is always a popularity contest in an elective nation. The key is understanding where to draw the boundaries on that and keeping certain things inviolate from the whims of the masses. (We haven’t done a good job of that the last 130 years.)
I don’t see material support as a quagmire. As long as it remains material support. The concern is it turns into trainers in country, followed by “advisors”, then by surreptitious combat troops, then by half-assed military involvement.
Hate_me says: That’s my point. If we want to be involved, then be fully involved and do it right, as soon as possible. If we don’t want to be involved, then stop involving ourselves. I don’t personally care which plan we adopt, as long as it’s a feasible one.
The current approach is one of money pits and mission creep.
GWB says: to defy Soviet-supported aggression
Yes, Reagan was fighting the Cold War. We no longer are.
We need to be focused on the Communists at home, rather than abroad.
Considering that CPAC — the Conservative Political Action Committee — has gone full MAGA, I think we know the answer.
Are you telegraphing this is an anti-Trump post?
most of them are traditionalists, giving their support to Ukraine
You have a very short timeline for “traditional”. Until the post-WW1 establishment of Progressive Globalism turning nations into moral actors, traditional American policy would have been “Why should I care?” Have you read the Monroe Doctrine? Have you read Jefferson? Have you read Washington’s Farewell Address? I think these are much more traditional than even Reagan. Or the Roosevelts or Wilson or the Bushes.
We’re there because it’s in our national interest
And he justifies it by saying that Russia would just keep going and would try to knock over a NATO country.
Well, honestly, if those NATO countries were a bit more interested in the defense of their nations rather than End-of-History-Welfare handouts and such, Russia probably wouldn’t look their way. I don’t think he would try Poland, since they seem to actually be interested in their own sovereignty, instead of the pseudo-globalism of the EU and the majority of NATO. And I think backing Poland is a grand idea.
we support those who fight our enemies
Oh? We have enemies? Who knew? I don’t see any declared wars. I don’t see us acting as if we’re in a state of war. Or even have one looming. Define on what basis Russia is our enemy. And supporting anyone who defies Russia (or China) is a great way to get entangled in those foreign alliances.
Can no one see how this is the sort of thing that led to WW1? All these alliances that sucked in all of Europe because everyone had a treaty with someone and they all had to go fight or betray their alliance, and eventually EVERYONE in Europe is embroiled in a war that almost none of them gave a damn about fighting. All over some anarchist assassinating a minor noble in a sad little ramshackle country.
There is no room for Putin apologists in the Republican Party.
See, there’s the problem I have with ALL of this. Somehow those of us who would like to follow Washington’s advice are slandered as “Putin apologists.” I could give some credence to the other arguments, but when he says this, I immediately reach for my wallet and my gun to defend myself. Stop this bullcrap. Or lose your argument. Period.
he will continue to move toward our NATO allies
That’s only the case because he believes them weak and defenseless. It has NOTHING to do with Ukraine’s capabilities.
Remember that Poland has been a member of NATO since 1999.
YES! And that makes a BIG, no the ENTIRE difference. We have an actual treaty with them (which they happen to take seriously). And if Poland were invaded I would expect our entire airborne and amphibious force to land there and repel the invasion. And I would expect B2s and B52s to bomb the Kremlin to dust. And if he’s so stupid as to open a single missile silo, I would hope we would finally end them as a nuclear power.
But that’s because we have a treaty with them which requires that very thing.
Most Republican candidates represent the Reaganite wing of the party.
And I think you’re slandering the rest of the party by trying to put that holy aura around a bunch of Progressive Ivy Leaguer Foggy Bottom believers in the Global World Order who want us to go out and pacify the world.
Like Dinesh D’Souza, who tweeted prior to the 2016 election:
Wow, you’re starting to piss me off, now. How is that a vlatnik? Is it against all humanity now to point out how someone whom you do not like is better than your opponent because at least he loves his country and wants it to be strong? Or are you claiming that Hillary does love America?
Ukraine “the country itself is not really a country …”
Yes… and NO. But, honestly, how much of the history of Ukraine do you know? Not the propaganda stuff from them, but the actual history over the last 1500 years? And, to your point, yes it was absorbed culturally by the Soviets as part of making everything Soviet. The old Chekov line (Star Trek, not author) of “Of course, the Russians did it first” – so Ukraine became “Russian”, and – like some other people who evidently can’t look at history before WW2 – most of Russia believes that. But, it was not a unified country for much of those 1500 years.
The country is under martial law, and according to the Ukrainian constitution, there are no elections in such a circumstance.
Well, that certainly sounds like he did exactly as claimed. Or do you want to put some evidence out there he didn’t declare martial law? (Because you didn’t put it in your post.)
Libertarian Kevin Gaughen
You’re citing the Libertarian party now to support your assertions of “what conservatives believe”?
Russia simps
Again with the name-calling in lieu of just stating the argument.
It’s no wonder that after Fox News sacked Tucker Carlson, Russian state TV sources offered him jobs.
Wow, that shows an incredible lack of critical thinking on your part.
Despite the noise coming from that MAGA wing and its assorted vatniks,
Guilt by association doesn’t ever work well for me. You really should back off the name-calling.
The More You Know About Ukraine
That’s LAUGHABLE! You think the numbers are going up because people are getting more facts about Ukraine? Because the MSM is handing out unbiased reports left and right?
before Zelensky became president of Ukraine
Which is not as large of a turn-around in Ukraine as you might like to think. Zelensky is part of the whole corrupt system there. They are NOT a “free, democratic” nation. They are a corrupt kleptocracy, as are a lot of former Soviet states. They have issues with their own population.
Having said that, I will admit that most of our fights protecting our rights in our own country have test cases with less than sympathetic actors. Just because one nation doesn’t have clean hands doesn’t then obviate all sympathy for them when faced with what we consider unjust assault.
Having said all that, I will say I do support sending weapons and providing training (outside the actual theater of operations) to Ukraine. It’s a great way to keep the war at arm’s length from us. I do think it should be more Lend-Lease and less “let’s put ribbons on anything we can ship and say it’s a present.” I think tying up Putin and whittling down his forces helps our national interest.
But, damn, you gotta lay off the anti-Trump hate here and stop calling people names for having a more traditional and less expansive view of American foreign policy.
You want a real traditionalist? How about John Quincy Adams?
America… goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
Hate_me says: Well put, though I disagree with the idea of sending weapons and providing training as an effective tool for keeping the war at arm’s length.
There have been plenty of analogies made between the Russian special military operation against Ukraine and WWI…. None so far have pointed to the fact that the Lusitania was carrying ammunition from the US to England.
P.S. I realize you were using ghoulish overkill to accentuate your point, but Franz Ferdinand was far from a “minor noble” and was the heir apparent and greatest champion of peace in the region at the time.
^^^THIS^^^ Everything you said here, and below.
I’m also quite sure that if Trump were for sending even more massive aid to Ukraine – Kim would be one of the most ardent Putinists to be found anywhere. Her hatred is just that strong.
GWB says: BTW, you want to talk true American traditions, how about those who support freedom for Ukraine form some military units and go over there? Like in WW1 and before.
You know why they don’t? Because those same people who thought they could turn the world from war after WW1 outlawed “private” armies. It’s considered against international law to form up private armies to go aid someplace like Ukraine. So, the only way to fight a war like this is to actually get countries involved and threaten world war (which, of course, no one wants, so they will all back down – it’s worked like that for 100 years now, right?). And then we can jaw-jaw and stop all the fighting. Unless, of course, the fight is one the globalists consider righteous (from the Progressive Church’s POV, that is). (Can you say Kosovo?)
If world opinion could rouse 20,000 volunteer troops and buy some tanks and aircraft and get someone to transport them, we could probably end this stupidity in less than a year, one way or another.
But we’re not allowed to do that (and the Progressives have all the money to do it, anyway).
BTW, the people who outlawed that? Yeah, they’re the same ones who outlawed cluster munitions and land mines.
GWB says: BTW, I also remember a LOT of conservatives during the Reagan and post-Reagan years clamoring to NOT be “the world police”. Do you remember that? I sure do.
[…] Transterrestrial Musings: “Just Stop Oil”, Lockdowns, and Racial Classifications Victory Girls: Ukraine: Reaganites vs. MAGA Volokh Conspiracy: Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions Watts Up With That: […]
10 Comments