In 1968, the historian Robert Conquest published The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties, in which he argued that Stalin was responsible for far more deaths than previously believed. His estimates were criticised by some who thought he had overstated the numbers but, after the fall of the Soviet Union, new information confirmed them to be broadly correct. As Conquest prepared to publish a revised version of his account, his friend Kingsley Amis advised him what to call it. “I Told You So, You F***ing Fools”.
It is tempting to make a similar comment to those who are supportive of Ukraine and who nonetheless backed Donald Trump in the presidential election. This was always a minority view, but still vigorously articulated by Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Jacob Rees-Mogg, among others. However much others pointed out that Trump would abandon the Ukrainians, they argued – regardless of his rhetoric – that in the end he would stand by them, that he would not want to be seen as weak, and that it would be the Russians who would be forced to make unpalatable concessions.
To be fair, this is a drama that has not yet reached a conclusion. Russia may overplay its hand and demand too much; Trump makes policy impetuously and may reverse his current approach. But at the moment, it is hard to conclude that Trump is going to be a greater friend to Ukraine than to Russia.
This should not come as a surprise to anyone. Trump has a long record of being more critical of leaders of democracies than of the US’s traditional adversaries. Those who worked with him warned before the election of his approach. His former homeland security secretary and chief of staff, the retired general John Kelly, described Trump as someone who “admires autocrats and murderous dictators”, while one of his national security advisers, John Bolton, warned that Putin views Trump as “an easy mark” and that “Putin would take Trump to the cleaners to Ukraine’s detriment”.
Trump has never truly been supportive of Ukrainian interests. His antipathy towards Volodymyr Zelensky goes back a long way: Trump sought to pressure Zelensky into doing more to investigate the Biden family in advance of the 2020 election and is aggrieved that he did not do so. We know how personally Trump takes such perceived slights.
During the presidential campaign, did not disguise his views. He promised to bring the Ukraine war to a quick end, in the knowledge that the only way that was ever going to be possible was to force the Ukrainians to make huge concessions. To do that required the US threatening to withdraw its support. And if Trump’s policy should not come as a surprise, nor should the dishonesty of his rhetoric in claiming that Ukraine started the war, and that Zelensky is an unpopular dictator motivated by his own financial self-interest.
For Trump’s British supporters, this should be excruciating. Even Nigel Farage (who has never pretended to be an ally of the Ukrainians and has often struggled to conceal his admiration for Vladimir Putin) has felt compelled to call for Ukraine to be allowed to join Nato and has graciously acknowledged that Russia started the war. He has, however, also called for a timetable for elections in Ukraine, implying that there is something a bit fishy about a partially occupied country fighting an existential threat delaying polling day.
The situation is even more uncomfortable for Ukraine hawks, such as Johnson and Truss. Both have publicly stated that Russia started the war and that Zelensky is not a dictator, but have refused to criticise Trump. Johnson, in particular, has tied himself in knots trying to reconcile his support for Ukraine (for which he deserves credit) with his backing of the president. Trump, we are told, should not be taken literally; he is merely trying to put pressure on the Europeans to do more to help the Ukrainians. The real villains, according to Johnson in an unexpected twist, turn out to be… the Belgians.
Truss, meanwhile, appears to be enjoying herself at the Conservative Political Action Conference where various Trumpites have been setting out their case, occasionally with the aid of “Roman” salutes. She has tried not to dwell on the case for Ukraine, but expressed her enthusiasm for the Trump-Musk approach to government in the UK. It is all something of an embarrassment. Both Johnson and Truss must hope that something causes Trump to abandon his pro-Putin position before Ukraine is pressured into accepting Russian vassalage. But that looks unlikely.
What should worry them both is that it is evident that there are people around Trump whose antipathy to Ukraine is not unrelated to their hostility towards liberal democracy. JD Vance, for instance, used his speech at the Munich Security Conference to make it clear that what he considers the gravest threat to Western values is not a dictator invading a democracy but matters like laws constraining religious fanatics from intimidating women seeking an abortion.
When Vance talks about Western values, he means his own brand of social conservatism. From this perspective, western Europe becomes a less sympathetic civilisation than Russia’s. And at one level, he is not an isolationist. He is happy, for example – like Elon Musk – to intervene in the German elections to back Alternative for Germany. (It is striking that the Trumpites enthusiastically repeat Russian talking points about Ukraine, except for the charge that the Ukrainians are Nazis. Perhaps they feel ambivalent about that particular accusation.) Liberal Europe is viewed as a threat, not an ally.
This is the company that Trump’s British backers find themselves in. They were told, the f***ing fools.
[See also: Vladimir Putin’s wildest dreams are coming true]
Content from our partners
