When President Donald Trump dressed down Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for asking for a security agreement and tossed him out of the White House last week, several Republican lawmakers who had demanded more assistance to repel the Russian invasion of Ukraine knew just how bad it looked for our country — but went looking for excuses to take Trump's side on it anyway, a conservative analyst wrote in a scathing column for the National Review on Monday.
For starters, Noah Rothman wrote, they all picked apart every little detail of Zelensky's behavior in search of a way he was the one who instigated the fight — much as Trump falsely contends Ukraine started the Russian invasion and occupation.
"He didn’t forgo the military-style attire he has worn since the outbreak of Russia’s second invasion of Ukraine in the Oval Office. If he didn’t want to imperil his country’s security, perhaps he should have dressed less provocatively," wrote Rothman. "Zelensky is alleged to have rolled his eyes when he was being lectured so sanctimoniously about his selfish refusal to consign his countrymen to persecution and subjugation. He had the temerity to ignite the blowup by asking about the extent to which Russia can be trusted not to violate a cease-fire as it did previous cease-fires (repeatedly and in ways the international community dared not acknowledge for fear of the consequences) in the absence of American security guarantees."
ALSO READ: 'Absolutely unconscionable': Ex-Republican demands Trump removed from office after fight
"It was that question and the lack of any satisfying answer to it that so offended Zelensky’s hosts," Rothman continued. "A scene-chewing display of righteous indignation is what he got in response, not because he deserved it but because the performance has so effectively misdirected observers."
This sort of behavior from Trump is expected — however, Rothman said.
"It has been nothing less than a national embarrassment to watch Republicans fish for a rationale that justifies what they’re talking themselves into. What they’re articulating is nothing short of a monarchical conception of America’s national mission, in which its geostrategic priorities are either set or altered in accordance with the prestige of one man. Even if you believe Zelensky has been insufficiently grateful to the West and America in particular — a subjective and evidentiarily deficient claim — that does not justify the wholesale reappraisal of America’s posture toward its allies and enemies or its grand strategic objectives."
In short, he said, Republicans who know better are "looking for a permission structure" that lets them approve of Trump realigning toward sympathy for Russia and against our allies, "without encountering much cognitive dissonance along the way."
And this will tear apart not just our relationship with Ukraine but with all of America's allies in Europe, who have committed billions to the effort to contain Russian aggression themselves and may now have to go it alone.
"The makings of a transatlantic schism are apparent to all who are willing to honestly survey the geopolitical landscape without fear of the politically inconvenient conclusions that analysis may produce," Rothman concluded furiously. "And for what? To avenge the clearly pretextual slights of which Zelensky is accused, and to salve the egos of the executive branch’s temporary custodians? That’s not how we do things in America. At least, it wasn’t once."
In the hours since Rothman's article was published, Trump announced that the United States is temporarily pausing all military aid to Ukraine, to give him time to review the contracts and possibly to put greater pressure on Zelensky to agree to whatever terms Trump demands to sue for unconditional peace from Russia.
