It’s becoming increasingly challenging to identify positive attributes in rightwing discourse today. Acknowledging something commendable about Donald Trump is a daunting task. He has made claims suggesting that Kyiv instigated the Ukraine conflict and labels its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a “dictator.” However, how about JD Vance? The US vice-president asserts that the “internal threat” in Europe, which is pushing “free speech … into retreat,” surpasses any dangers posed by Russia or China. These assertions are quite irrational. What more is left to discuss?
The truth is there’s a significant amount to unpack. John Stuart Mill cautioned that “he who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.” We must attempt to comprehend their arguments, regardless of whether we share their views.
Certainly, these individuals display a level of deceit and hypocrisy. Trump alleges that Zelenskyy “refuses to hold elections” and is “very low in the polls,” despite recent surveys indicating that he maintains majority support among Ukrainians. Concerning the supposed threat to free speech “from within,” the Associated Press found itself barred from White House briefings for not rebranding the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America,” while Trump’s acquaintance, Elon Musk, believes CBS’s “deceitful” journalists “deserve long prison sentences.”
Trump and Vance have cut through decades of consensus rhetoric regarding the US’s divine duty to guide the world toward goodness and liberty. Whether the issues at hand concern war, immigration, or tariffs, their stance is to pursue America’s self-interest above all. Why should Americans contribute billions annually to defend a Europe that cannot defend itself? Why arm far-off nations to battle their neighbors, or funnel staggering amounts of aid to Africa’s troubled regions?
If the rest of the world has faltered while the US has maintained its freedom and wealth for the past two and a half centuries, then that is a global challenge. Americans have expended a fortune over the last fifty years attempting to enhance global well-being, and frankly, it has been largely unsuccessful. To hell with diplomatic niceties.
Regarding Ukraine, it’s time for a reassessment. Putin is unlikely to invade the United States and has no intention of threatening Western Europe. If Europe wishes to operate under a different narrative, support Putin’s adversaries, impose sanctions, and provoke him, it can certainly do so without US assistance.
NATO was originally a construct rooted in the dynamics of Hitler and Stalin. It served merely as a mechanism for the US to shoulder the burden of Europe’s defense. That is no longer the case. According to the US Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, “the US is no longer the primary guarantor of security in Europe.” Thus, the rationale for maintaining plausible nuclear deterrence crumbles.
JD Vance and Volodymyr Zelenskyy have ‘good conversation’ about Ukraine war – video
In reality, these arguments aren’t entirely new, though they have not been articulated with such bluntness by prior administrations. Variations of these sentiments have been lurking beneath the surface of American isolationism for over a century. In a bid to win election, Woodrow Wilson asserted that the first world war was “one with which we have nothing to do, whose causes cannot touch us.” Franklin Roosevelt made similar claims about the second world war, assuring American mothers “again and again, your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” Neither followed through on his promises.
The sentiments of the American public can be quite patriotic during war, as seen in Vietnam. However, outside of those contexts, there has been a consistent anti-interventionist sentiment. Kennedy might have implored for global sacrifice and urged, “ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.” Yet, those were largely hollow words intended for foreign audiences.
The message Trump and Vance are conveying to Western Europe is to take things seriously. The cold war has ended. Russia shows no inclination to occupy Western Europe; the perceived threat is an illusion created by what the astute President Dwight Eisenhower referred to as the military-industrial complex, adept at profiting from fear. If Keir Starmer truly desires “to prioritize defense,” he can opt to reduce health and welfare budgets to fund it. But is he genuinely that threatened, or does it merely sound appealing?
Joe Biden was careful about the extent of support he offered to Kyiv. We are now at the unavoidable crossroads of withdrawal, which will necessitate a challenging ceasefire beforehand. Without substantial assurances from Washington, Kyiv faces the bleak prospect of defeat. Ukraine may parallel the US experience in South Vietnam.
Without much subtlety, Trump and Vance have chosen to reveal the blend of platitudes, bluffs, and profit-seeking that underscored much of the cold war. NATO’s triumph in 1989 indicated the necessity for a transition to a more nuanced multipolar world, a concept that was never effectively articulated.
Trump and Vance are correct that a realignment is critically overdue. However, they have selected the least opportune moment and the most ineffective manner to express it. While we can be as disparaging as we choose, they possess the backing of US democracy.
