Unlock the Publisher’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, editor of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The last time David Cameron, the British foreign secretary, urged Capitol Hill to approve aid to Ukraine, Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of the most vocal pro-Russian republicans, told him to “kiss my ass.” Washington treated the Georgia lawmaker largely as a joke when she was first elected. Now Greene is threatening her party leader Mike Johnson’s presidency if she tries to approve funding for Ukraine. Her threat is not empty. Johnson is as keen to remain speaker as he is lukewarm on Ukraine. His path of least resistance would be to fold.
This is also the advice Republican leaders offer Ukraine despite increasingly urgent calls for opposition from allies. Significantly, Johnson refused to meet Cameron on his latest trip to Washington this week. Donald Trump says Ukraine should cede Donbass and Crimea to Russia in exchange for a ceasefire – an outcome he would impose on day one of his presidency. Some Republicans still want to supply arms to Ukraine. But I’m in the minority. The Republican right treats Ukraine as an enemy and Russia as a friend. Defining this position as isolationist is lazy and wrong. He is actively pro-Russian.
“The Ukrainian government is attacking Christians,” Greene says. “The Ukrainian government is executing priests. Russia is not doing this. They are not attacking Christianity. In fact it seems that they are protecting him.” Michael Whatley, co-chairman of Trump’s Republican National Committee, openly calls Ukraine an enemy. “Joe Biden’s unfailing leadership has shown China, Ukraine, Iran, that they can feel free to be much more aggressive on the world front to the point that they too will try to meddle in our elections here,” he said to Fox.
The pro-Russian interventionism of the Republican right is bidirectional. Like Catherine Belton, author of Putin’s people: How the KGB took over Russia and then attacked the West, reported this week, Russian troll factories are giving Greene’s Republicans their talking points. Ken Buck, one of many Republican lawmakers who have recently abandoned politics out of desperation, calls Greene “Moscow Marjorie.” His fictitious claim that Ukraine is executing priests and struggling to spread a “woke” agenda comes straight from the Kremlin. Historians compare Trump to Charles Lindbergh’s pro-Nazi “America First” movement of the early 1940s. The difference is that Lindbergh didn’t even get close to the White House. Far from isolating America, a Trump presidency would shift American foreign policy in Vladimir Putin’s favor.
All of this leaves Johnson, the accidental speaker, in a dead-end situation. The difference between supporting Ukraine or Russia is as critical to the future of US democracy as it is to European security. It is a battle over whether the West as an idea should be defended or blown up. Like most Republicans, Johnson was initially an admirer of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Churchillian defiance. Johnson voted for the first round of US funding in 2022. At the time, Republican criticism was that Biden was not doing enough for Zelensky. Johnson changed his mind after the last clean vote in September. Suddenly every dollar for Ukraine was a dollar less for US border security.
Johnson’s dramatic change has little to do with his stated reasons. The United States can easily afford to continue financing Ukraine. At $113 billion over the past two years, America’s largesse amounts to less than 1% of federal spending over that period. This too exaggerates it. Most of the money is spent domestically on U.S.-made military equipment, much of which is aging and in need of replacement.
Nor is America subsidizing NATO. Europe spent more on Ukraine than on the United States. Washington can easily pay for increased Mexican border security and arm Ukraine. In fact, the US Senate passed just such a bill earlier this year. He had the support of 22 Republicans, nearly half of the party’s caucus. In the Chamber the situation has come to a standstill.
In the coming days, Johnson will present what is sure to be Congress’ last chance this year to support a faltering Ukraine. In addition to tougher border security measures that some Democrats will see as a poison pill, his package will divert interest from Russia’s seized assets and characterize some of the aid to Ukraine as a loan. Neither gimmick is likely to sway Greene. His goal is to prevent any aid from reaching Ukraine, not to help it in a fiscally responsible way. Johnson’s hope is to supply Ukraine without being labeled a Maga traitor. In reality he is faced with a simple choice; he helps Zelensky or pleases Trump. It is impossible to do both.
edward.luce@ft.com