Democracy May Be Putin’s Best Hope in Ukraine
What's decided by the ballot box in November may well be more important than the outcome on the battlefield in Ukraine.
Analysts who purport to understand how wars work appear to be closing in on a consensus that Vladimir Putin isn’t likely to become Russia’s 21st Century Peter the Great. Three hundred years ago, Peter planted the imperial flag on the Baltic Sea, defeating the then powerful Swedes to claim the turf in the two-decade-long Great Northern War. Like his imperial idol, Putin faces his own slog on the battlefield in Ukraine. But Vlad’s results are shaping up at best as a grinding stalemate against fierce Ukrainian resistance rather than his hoped for historic success.
That’s what makes history so important. Not Russian history. Forget about Putin’s imperial ambitions, or what he’s trying to conjure for the cameras with those chandeliered Kremlin halls, infinity-edged tables, and grand presidential entrances flanked by comic opera costumed, door-tending guards. Strut and sermonize about modern Muscovy’s destiny all he wants, the shtick by the KGB apparatchik turned would-be czar isn’t doing the trick, much less ensuring his place in Russia’s royal pantheon.
Rather, when it comes to Russia’s prospects in Ukraine, the histories that should matter most to Putin are American and British. What happens in Washington as well as in London depends on the outcome of upcoming congressional elections and on the prime minister chosen to follow Boris Johnson, respectively. As for the Brits, whoever they choose, the Conservative Party is heir to Johnson’s outspoken support for Ukraine’s resistance. Picking a successor may take weeks, but the war is not likely to be a central issue, suggesting continuity. That’s not the case for President Biden whose post-November political landscape is likely to offer anything but.
Begin with the history of American midterm elections. Its record buttresses the current opinion polls. The Republicans are likely to win big in this year’s congressional races. Whether the GOP takes one or both houses will make a difference, but not all that much. With compromise largely extinct in Washington, a dysfunctional government is baked into the outcome. That’s good news for Putin. President Biden, already hamstrung, is likely to find himself paralyzed as Trump cultists and GOP extremists compete to lead their party into 2024. The fact that Putin will benefit from a divided Washington also is only part of the story.
More crucial is what those deepening divisions will represent. Britain’s history sheds some light. In the 1930s as Adolph Hitler rearmed, remilitarized the Rhineland, anschlussed with Austria, and eviscerated Czechoslovakia, the British focused inward, on the impact of the Great Depression and their economic plight. A series of “national governments”— coalitions of conservatives, liberals and labor—followed. Putin doesn’t need to be a student of that era to see the analogy or, given today’s headlines about inflation, recession and prices at the pump, the benefits of “America First.”
In fact, the Republicans who are poised to deliver what he needs in Ukraine are waiting in the wings. Congress previewed the cast in May: 20 percent of all GOP senators and 27 percent of its House members voted against a $40 billion aid package for Kyiv. To be sure, the majority of the party backed the military assistance, but the numbers who didn’t still are impressive. So are the names. They represent the party’s heartland, including the states that are home to several rising GOP stars. In other words, they aren’t going away. Add aspiring senatorial candidates like Nevada’s Adam Laxalt , J.D. Vance in Ohio, and Eric Greitens in Missouri, to name only a few. Whether Trump is the Republicans presidential candidate or not, their “America First” theme only awaits the call ‘curtain up’ after this Fall’s campaign.
Then there’s the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. Recent history here as well as events across the pond in the 1930s are instructive. In his 2020 presidential debate Trump told his favorite extremists to “stand back and stand by.” They did just that, meanwhile keeping in touch with the likes of Trump insiders such as Mike Flynn and Roger Stone, and an impressive number of state and local Republicans. A study by the Institute for Education and Human Rights released in May suggests as many as one-in-five GOP state legislators have ties to extremist groups.
Federal prosecutors have indicted Proud Boy leaders for their part in the January 6th violence. More indictments may well be in the offing as investigations as well as revelations from the January 6th Committee take their toll. Republican leaders have said nothing about Trump’s “brown shirts,” much less about the extremist menagerie now ensconced under the GOP’s big tent. Given the far right’s connections to the Republicans’ “base” and its prospects for growth, that shouldn’t be surprising. Nor should Russian efforts to exploit their silence as well as extremism in their party in the months ahead. It’s an opportunity for Putin he won’t overlook.
That was the case for Hitler who did all he could for Oswald Mosley’s mission in British politics a century ago. Mosley led Britain’s fascist union in the 1930s. A blue blood enamored of the Third Reich and Mussolini, he would have recognized the GOP’s far right faux populists, such as Vance and Greitens. Like the pair as well as others with gilded resumés, such as faith and flag nationalist Josh Hawley, Mosley was a master transmogrifier who hopscotched from the Conservative to the Labor benches in Parliament before creating his pro-Nazi party, complete with Proud Boy precursors, his street-brawling “black shirts,” who also got out the like-minded vote.
Mosley’s party fortunately didn’t gain political traction as war in Europe loomed or end well. After jailing Mosley as a security risk in 1940, Britain’s security and intelligence services kept close tabs on others of his ilk as well as Nazi efforts to reach out to them. That presumably will be the case with the FBI and Homeland Security after the Proud Boys’ trials take their course and their leaders trade their camo vests for orange prison suits. But Republicans also have given Putin other opportunities to meddle in American politics As divisions widen, it’s hard to imagine he won’t respond.
Once again, history should be a warning as well as a guide. Russia’s security services mounted an impressive political attack in the run-up to 2016 and the presidential campaign. It’s a good bet they have a full roster of names not only among the extremist crowd but also under their address book’s “useful idiots” tab. On that score, they can count on helpmates who aren’t bashful and a Republican Party leadership that can’t quite seem to hear their lunacies when they speak up.
Take Senator Ron Johnson and Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar who have assumed starring roles either as apologists for Putin or featured acts at extremist rallies. From Johnson, Russia’s leading dupe who called its election attacks “overblown,” to Greene and Gosar whose have voted against all military aid to Ukraine, their actions and comments carry Putin’s water. More to the point and Moscow’s benefit, GOP leaders refuse to denounce what Representative Liz Cheney has called as the party’s pro-Putin wing.
The Johnsons, Greenes and Gosars of the GOP aren’t alone. “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” J.D. Vance told a rally in Ohio during his primary campaign this spring. In Washington state in April, Joe Kent, a Trump-backed congressional candidate went beyond Vance’s indifference, calling for negotiations as the Russian invasion ramped up. “Putin laid out what he wants in Ukraine,” Kent said, noting it’s “a decent starting point.”
Young, well-funded, articulate and assertive, the Senate and House candidates are the GOP’s future. If you’re Vladimir Putin, what’s not to like?