Geopolitical Cynicism: Americans Against Ukraine

A friend of mine from Ukraine shared an article on the forces in the United States trying to prevent aid during Russia’s invasion.  These Americans who are against Ukraine is a topic of great concern for obvious reasons in Ukraine. This got me thinking about the different segments in America that are way too friendly with Russia, and I’ve noticed a few reasons, some of which overlap.

Some will do it for selfish reasons. Maybe it’s bribery, blackmail, or business interests. Part of it can also be a desire to appear wise. Some Americans against Ukraine made predictions that Ukraine will fall, so it’s better for their reputations if Russia comes out of the crisis it is responsible for ahead.

Other Americans against Ukraine have a very cynical view of world politics. They think that all other countries operate behind the scenes the same way Russia does. Or they may have a view of the world that smaller countries should accept whatever larger neighbors say.

Why are some Americans against Ukraine?

There’s a term I’ve heard “The Axis of Assholes” to describe countries like Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran that do not care for liberal democracy (the idea that we should settle disagreements through elections by informed citizens) or a rules-based international order. And some people think those countries have it figured out. It may fit a worldview that it’s important to abide by authority figures and so-called “strong men.”

Part of it is ignorance. There’s a vile meme I saw online suggesting that the money the United States sends Ukraine could just as easily be used to pay off student loans in the United States, but they don’t realize that the United States is spending a lot less money on Ukraine than paying off people’s college-related debts would take.  In most cases, the United States sends material that was already built, which also lowers costs.

Ukraine critics may also want to use it as a wedge against their political opponents, or they might be influenced by negative polarization- people they hate hate Russia, so therefore Russia must be good. Some Republicans may also feel that their political opponents have used Russia as a cudgel against Trump when Democrats were previously friendlier (Hillary Clinton offered the ‘reset’ button, and Obama told Romney the Cold War is over.)

Some see Ukraine bills as virtue signaling and a distraction from what matters, so they’ll push back against anything to do with Ukraine. A term I’ve heard for this is “vice signaling”- showing that they will never compromise, even if the optics are terrible and it pisses off swing voters.

There is an element of anti-Americanism, where people want the United States to be weaker. They want a stronger Russia as a counterbalance against American hegemony.

Some Americans against Ukraine are just very isolationist. They think the lesson of Iraq, Afghanistan, and NAFTA is that the US should avoid getting involved with other countries as much as possible. The problem is that Russia is willing to get involved in things that hurt the United States, and a significant difference is that Ukraine is a functioning democracy that wants America’s help.

There’s a fear of escalation based on Russia’s strategic ambiguity, and there’s an argument for the rest of Europe having strategic ambiguity about what they’re willing to do.

Another force of Americans against Ukraine is russophilia. Some people like that the Soviet Union is no more and want Russia to be capitalist and politically conservative. Last summer, I went to a seminar by the Victims of Communism Foundation and one of the other attendees was a conservative Catholic Cuban-American.

From his perspective, the restoration of the Russian church after the fall of the Soviet Union was one of the greatest accomplishments in Christendom of the last century, and he didn’t understand why an anti-Communist organization would talk about what was going on in Ukraine. He also was against the use of cluster munitions and believed that it was against American law (That is actually not a position of the United States.)

He had visited Russia multiple times and failed to understand that they still regarded figures in the Soviet Union as great men. Even one of the things Ukraine did to upset Russia was removing statues of Lenin.

A related aspect is people who like what Russia has become. More accurately, they like the image in their head of what Russia has become, thinking it’s a place that’s socially conservative and decent. Tucker Carlson falls in that category with propagandist videos on how nice and clean Russia is, which would surprise anyone familiar with most of the country. Tucker Carlson is certainly one of the Americans against Ukraine.

And for some Americans who want to be friendlier with Russia, it’s more about a hatred of China. They wanted a stronger Russia as a counterbalance against China, just as Nixon played China against the Soviet Union when China was much weaker. A concern is that a weakened Russia will essentially become a vassal state of China. So this connects to a claim that Ukraine can fight because it’s getting money from America and Europe, and that if the funding were cut off, they would be more amenable to a peace deal.

The Problems with Appeasing Russia

This has multiple problems. A peace deal that leaves Russia advantageous encourages similar belligerence in the future. I also don’t think the Ukrainians would tolerate a Russian win, and a likely consequence of any treaty where a Russian puppet government takes over would be organized resistance that makes the Troubles in the United Kingdom look like they’ve got the longevity and strength of a mayfly. From my perspective, it also seems that both Russia and China are working together as part of the Axis of Assholes.

One aspect of the subtext of the argument that the US and Europe should stop supporting Ukraine is to incentivize a peace treaty that is favorable to Russia (I’m not a fan of this approach) is troubling. It’s one thing to say that America (or whatever country) shouldn’t be involved in the affairs of other countries. But if someone believes that Russia should be strong, (either to keep them from dependence on China, because they think Moscow’s cleanliness is a model for the rest of the world, or whatever) doesn’t it suggest that the forces currently told not to get involved might be called on to help Russia deal with Ukrainian revolutionaries in the future?

The Ukrainian government agreeing to a peace treaty doesn’t mean the Ukrainian people will agree, and when they fight back, it will weaken Russia.

In the article, Lindsey Graham was mentioned as an American politician who is one of the Americans against Ukraine, although he recently came out in favor of using frozen Russian assets to aid Ukraine. Maybe he read the piece, and realized he doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of history. Janet Yellen, the Secretary of the Treasury, came out in favor of the idea of using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine shortly after, so there may be some behind-the-scenes coordination on this.

JD Vance appears to be an old-fashioned isolationist. That seems to inform his views on this. I do not like him as a politician, which makes it unfortunate that he’s now on a national ticket. Trump’s views seem to be more ambiguous, although there is a MAGA strain that likes Russia and thinks Ukraine doesn’t deserve American resources or attention. Ukraine figured into one of the impeachments against Trump, although this doesn’t figure into conservative arguments in favor of Russia.

Ukraine and the Russian Orthodox Church

I have heard some American commentators who are very upset at Ukraine’s attitude towards members of the Russian Orthodox Church. I wasn’t persuaded by that view because it seems to me that Russia was weaponizing Christianity and that those religious leaders were compromising on important spiritual values for Earthly reasons, which is not something other Christians should ever support. 

However, for people who are uneasy about questioning the faith of others, I can see it as an example of a government going after religious institutions. It is difficult to develop policies about religious institutions acting in bad faith since that can easily be weaponized against legitimate activity. There is a question of the extent to which governments and secular organizations should respect pressure points that affect religious groups. I don’t think the Ukrainian government has any obligation to help the Russian orthodox church respond to outside pressure from Russia or to make their moral compromises easier.

The more I read the article the more insane it is that anyone would view it as a kill list, as some people understood it. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, it seems like a reasonable good-faith analysis.

The article makes one mistake with Turning-Point USA. I don’t think it could be described as a center-right organization since the people involved are not centrists. Charlie Kirk is better described as a Christian nationalist and one of the Americans against Ukraine.

Tucker Carlson on Ukraine

Tucker Carlson seems to have gotten more insane over the last few years, especially after leaving Fox News. He believes that UFO sightings are probably some different malevolent force like demons and this is something military and government officials are aware of. You can hear it for yourself in the first 20 minutes of his interview with Joe Rogan a few months back, and it’s been covered elsewhere. He’s weird.

There’s a difference between “there are things we can’t explain in this world, and I believe some of the answers are in scripture” and “UFOs are demonic forces, and there’s a conspiracy in the government to cover this up.” Come to think of it, I don’t get why the government would cover it up. An announcement that there’s evidence of inter-dimensional beings coming out of the water to observe humanity would be a major justification for all sorts of spending and a rationale for controversial policies.

One additional thing I dislike about Carlson is that he tries to make arguments in Russia’s favor that Putin has never made. So he’ll say that Russia has legitimate reasons to want a buffer against the forces of NATO, but that’s not Putin’s explanation for invading Ukraine. Putin was talking about history and Denazification. He seems to Steelman arguments by Russian propagandists because what they say is so nuts. Matt Johnson of Quilette had a good piece against “progressive realists” making similar arguments.

Ron and Rand Paul

There is a bit more context on Ron Paul, although that discussion shows how someone who was a major figure in some circles when I was in college would be understood differently by an international writer. He was the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President in 1988, but he has been a major figure in the Republican party. He was a Republican congressman from 1976-1984 (with a two-year absence) and returned to Congress as a Republican in the 1996 elections. For most of his career, he was a legislative backbencher, sometimes the one vote against a particular spending measure. He did stronger than expected in the Republican primary in runs for President in 2008 and 2012.

His son Rand Paul has been a Senator since the 2010 elections, and many of his supporters went for Trump in 2016, which is a bit odd because they seem to be very different segments of the party. Ron Paul was against spending and regulations, while Trump was in favor of big government for his supporters, although one interpretation is that both of them were different from politics as usual.

Ron Paul is 88 years old, so it is perhaps too easy for me to dismiss what he has to say, viewing him as an out-of-touch old man who was always weird, as opposed to someone whose followers from 12 years ago still care about what he has to say. I’m feeling a bit old realizing that there are people who follow politics a lot right now who were too young to pay attention to Republican politics in the 2008 and 2012 cycles, so he may be a blind spot for them.

Takeaways

A problem with the discussion is the effort to consider in good faith the views of people who can’t be understood that way. Some of them are insane. Some of them are ignorant. Some people just don’t care about facts and are motivated by other factors. Some of the Americans against Ukraine fall into these categories.

Alex Jones was sued successfully for over a billion dollars for repeatedly saying that a terrible school shooting was faked, and that the parents who lost children were actors. He’s a terrible piece of shit, although he has a following.

I had not heard about some of these groups like Veterans Today. It’ll be interesting to see in a few years whether there were things going on behind the scenes to motivate some of these morons in support of Russia. To what extent were they blackmailed, bribed, or otherwise actively manipulated?

The decisions of people don’t always fall perfectly into a box, which can make labeling a challenge. Not all Americans against Ukraine make the same arguments. Sometimes the things they want are mutually exclusive, so there’s no way all of them can be appeased. Some of them will argue in bad faith. But in some cases, it’s a matter of addressing fixable concerns and correcting misinformation.

What do you think, is the United States not providing ENOUGH support to Ukraine? Or are you one of the Americans against Ukraine? Let us know in the comments below. Also, check out Trump won’t Fail on Ukraine Peace Deal for another interesting perspective