History is meant to work as an educational tool for those generations to follow. It is meant to provide direction for establishing priorities that will guide the deliberations of leaders. Blunders of the past have often resulted from national grievances that have been propagandized to a feverish level by authoritarian regimes with self-serving agendas. When war has been the result, the outcome has often led to catastrophic defeat for the aggressor and a protracted national shame but not without the inevitability of widespread grief shared by the many nations forced to confront the aggressor.
Equally to blame have been those outside actors who chose to remain blind to the unfolding of this ruinous story for the sake of shortsighted political gain. As the current problem with Vladimir Putin and Russia unfolds, these people must also be held to account for their actions, not just by history but by the nation they have themselves misled. On that matter, we must look to ourselves and to those we consider to be our allies to judge whether we all hold true to the principals that have secured our existence for so long as freely interactive and rules-based societies in defense against those who have sought to take them away.
United States
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the atrocities it has perpetrated in the course of the past two years has been in clear violation of its commitment to the United Nations (UN) charter. Much effort has been exerted by the United States (U.S.), a number of institutions of the European Union (EU) and a great number of countries within the global community providing aid to Ukraine, both military and humanitarian. Now, at a critical stage of the conflict in which a serious shortage of munitions threatens the outcome of the war, the foreign policy decision-making process of the U.S. government has been held up by a minority congressional Republican (GOP) faction that is least equipped to measure the impact of their action not only upon the effect of Russian aggression in Europe but upon the entire U.S.-led, rules-based international order. This order has been the means by which international cooperation, particularly among liberal democracies worldwide, has functioned over the past 80 years. It has done so through the creation of multilateral institutions binding nations together through the promotion of human rights, collective security, free trade, and regulated monetary policy, all of which hangs in the balance while we witness Russia’s belligerence go unchallenged.
The evolution of this international order has been thwarted on several occasions in the past by authoritarian regimes, racial and ethnic rivalries and religious extremism that have remained largely external to it. Yet this order has continued to thrive and has remained intact throughout despite the crises that have confronted it. A new menace has now appeared, among all places, the U.S. Congress, a so-called bastion of democracy, where GOP congressional members have chosen to abandon support for Ukraine and give way to the actions of Putin, an indicted international criminal who is disdainful of the U.S. and the West and who has the support of those other regimes that seek to undermine not only the U.S. but the international order leaving us to wonder just what will replace it.
After a clumsy legislative mishandling of the U.S. border crisis which succeeded in derailing much needed funding for Ukraine’s war effort in addition to humanitarian aid for Gaza with no further justification, other than fealty to Donald Trump, this congressional faction has accordingly been labeled the “Putin wing of the GOP” by former GOP Congresswoman Liz Cheney. Despite being given a substantive and historically unparalleled bipartisan compromise proposal for a border solution by the U.S. Senate, the GOP-led House of Representatives has continued to flail away at promoting an extremist version for a border solution only to protract the problem further; all this in the face of denying critical funding to avert a destabilization of the international order. To add to the irony, a majority of the American people continue to support Ukraine against its Russian aggressor and humanitarian aid for the plight of the Palestinians of Gaza.
There is little doubt that a bill supporting U.S. aid to Ukraine would pass the House if it was presented to the floor after a Senate 70-29 vote in its favor. With the sort of intransigence demonstrated by House Speaker Michael Johnson (R-La) in evidence, a discharge petition for Ukraine aid may be what is needed to force a vote. Otherwise, a Ukraine – U.S. border package has been proposed by Representative Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa) that may bring about the breakthrough that is now well overdue.
To worsen the GOP outlook for electoral success in the upcoming presidential election, Trump’s campaign rhetoric once more places him at odds with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as he was known to be during his administration, once calling it “obsolete” and implying it to be unworthy of U.S. support. Now, he threatens individual NATO countries with abandonment should they be confronted by Russia. Trump’s perception of a world order was made evident early in his presidency when he deferred to Putin over his own intelligence community with regard to Russia’s now well-known 2015-16 U.S. election interference. This was the sort of self-serving behavior that we have come to expect from someone who models himself after authoritarian figures. Former Australian prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull (2015 – 2018), having shared the same period of time as leader, looks back upon Trump’s affections toward Putin as “really creepy,” labeling Trump simply a “bully” with an attraction toward dictators.
Putin’s Russia is poised again to undertake a robust disinformation campaign ahead of the 2024 election to win back the executive office for his “useful idiot.” Trump, for his part, will abandon Ukraine, counter to the principals of American foreign policy, and set the U.S. on a path toward a quasi-isolationism, no longer the acknowledged global leader of democracy nor a dependable partner on the world stage but one preferably aligned with authoritarian regimes globally. With another Trump term in office, the concern would turn to the threat of instability brought about by a lack of adequate policy and situational decision-making on the part of a loyalist cabinet. Global security and trade would now be at stake wherein the U.S. abandons its former role as a stabilizing partner among its longtime allies, leaving the nations of Europe, in particular, to reconfigure their individual relations with other major international players such as China. Likewise, Asian nations would look to their own security, arming themselves, possibly developing nuclear preparedness, and seeking new alliances in the face of an increasingly territorial China, with the inevitable trade relations that follow, away from the U.S.; a new world order, indeed.
It is enough to look to Trump’s several derelictions during his presidential term of office (2016-2020), to understand why he was handed the opprobrium of being named the worst of the 46 presidents in U.S. history. This decision was rendered by a tally of 154 presidential specialists, all members of the American Political Science Association. Given the chance to resume the role of president, there is little doubt that Trump would pave the way for Putin’s agenda, providing him the necessary support he would require to continue acting on his delusions of Russian imperialism as some form of national destiny. The opportunity to overtake Ukraine in its entirety and move on to Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova and the Baltic nations before addressing Poland and the remainder of the former Warsaw Pact nations would now appear to Putin to be a viable plan of action.
So, what are Putin’s odds in the matter of the U.S. elections with regards to his chances of succeeding in Ukraine? Trump, the candidate, has proceeded through the primaries, not unexpectedly, with a series of wins to carry him forward to the GOP nomination. Nikki Haley, until recently, Trump’s sole remaining Republican opponent, succeeded in capturing roughly 30% to 40% of the vote in many of the contests, attracting never-Trumper Republicans and right-leaning independents to her banner before announcing her withdrawal from the competition. For Trump, conspicuous problems have been identified in key constituencies in which he has already adversely and unmistakably declared himself in a bad light. His uneducated views on matters regarding women’s health, trade, undocumented immigrants, and NATO; his speeches dominated by hateful rhetoric and his endless complaints of victimhood do not paint a pleasing image for a presidential candidate in a general election. Whether he can attract the majority of voters who supported Haley is doubtful after proclaiming them unwanted among his own. It’s best to recall Maya Angelou’s admonition as it may pertain to the political arena and specifically to Trump, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”
When it comes to his judgment in foreign relations, Trump’s deference toward Putin puts him at odds with 64% of the American public who have a favorable opinion toward Ukraine in its current struggle against the Russian invader. This rises to about 70% in the 65-year-and-older age group, who have a greater sense of the history of the previous century and understand what Russia and leaders like Putin have wrought upon the world. Moreover, a Gallup poll from a year ago revealed a favorability rating by the American public for Russia falling from 15% in 2022 to 9%, with 56% believing that Russia’s war in Ukraine is a critical threat to the U.S.
The several legal proceedings against Trump, all with merit, have verdicts to date in civil court relating to sexual violence and business fraud, resulting in substantial financial penalties that currently amount to over $500,000,000. These, along with his ongoing legal fees and court proceedings, continue to deplete his campaign fund and exhaust Republican donors even before completion of the primaries. Trump’s 91 criminal charges in four cases involve accusations of election interference, attempts to overturn the results of an election, falsifying business records and mishandling classified, some top-secret, government records. His tampering with the results of the 2020 presidential election led a number of states to question even his legitimacy to be a candidate in the current election with the matter only recently resolved by the Supreme Court in Trump’s favor although not without controversy over concerns about how to deal with “oath-breaking insurrectionists” as it pertains to political candidates at the federal level.
As regards Trump’s professed desire to be a dictator for one day; to be clear, it is inconceivable for Trump not to continue as a dictator for the remainder of his presidency, particularly when 74% of Republicans appear already comfortable with the notion of the veiled “one-day rule” scenario. Trump’s intense dislike of court rulings opposed to his views extends to his dislike of an independent judiciary capable of challenging his will. A new administration under Trump would see the rule of law itself threatened as he proceeds to subvert justice with the help of like-minded sycophants and cronies within the executive branch and Congress. In similar fashion, an independent media capable of scrutinizing Trump’s transgressions, is also a targeted entity for him as it has long been known.
Trump’s increasingly authoritarian rhetoric aligns with the sort of worldview espoused by Putin who has shown less regard for domestic affairs, except when it is necessary to boost his populist credentials, choosing rather to advance a personal agenda promoted by state-controlled propaganda. A similar plan for Trump would appear on the horizon with the weakening of the judiciary and independent media similar to what has been established in Putin’s Russia and Viktor Orbán’s Hungary.
The first order of business, however, requires that Trump gain the presidency in order to avoid criminal prosecution and, for that, he has ironically recruited the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court in order to delay the course of justice. In doing so, the Court has been made to appear complicit in denying adjudication of someone unwilling, or frankly unable, to prove his innocence in a system that provides the right for a defendant to a “speedy trial.” Is it possible that the Court could be so politicized as to be willful in its intent to secure Trump’s path to the general election and possibly to the presidency?
The imagined scenario in which criminal charges in Federal Court are sufficiently delayed beyond the election and then ostensibly dismissed by a future Trump-appointed attorney general has serious negative implications for the would-be president in a general election. An open-faced subversion of justice of this magnitude presents a distinctly un-American image for one who purports to make America great again while attempting to cheat his way to the presidency. A January 2024 CNN-SSRS poll saw 64% of the public wanting a verdict cast in the federal 2020 election subversion case before the November 2024 election, while only 11% desired postponement until afterward. When analyzed by political affiliation, the poll revealed 72% of Democrats, 52% of independents and 38% of Republicans preferred such an approach to justice. A month later, another poll of more than 40,000 participants showed 88% in favor of having the Department of Justice try Trump in the fall of 2024, if necessary.
Trump will not win in November because of what he represents – a danger to democracy, to America and its Constitution and to the international order. It is necessary to recall and debunk at least some of Trump’s exaggerated self-aggrandizements. He showed no extraordinary skill in managing the U.S. economy either before or, in particular, during the COVID pandemic which itself was worsened by his inaction in the early days of the mounting crisis to bring about such a shamefully high mortality. His long history of racism spans over 50 years and was no less evident during his presidency, emboldening right-wing extremists to declare themselves in a manner that has alarmed the nation by their mindless violence. During the final year of his administration, according to his former national security adviser, H. R. McMaster, Trump weakened the U.S. position in Afghanistan with the signing of a de facto “surrender agreement with the Taliban,” enabling the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners while simultaneously insisting on a premature U.S. troop withdrawal. In so doing, the problem of departing Afghanistan was forced upon the Biden administration in a manner that ultimately proved to be a debacle; yet, Trump has attempted to deny his part in the story.
European Union and NATO
The past two years have seen a number of developments go badly for Putin. Rather than weakening NATO cooperation, he has succeeded only in strengthening its resolve and cohesion and, to make matters worse, enlarging it with the addition of two rather formidable nations, Finland and Sweden. NATO’s individual members have increased military spending and their munitions industries with accelerated production schedules. Greater investment in new technologies by NATO and by individual countries are contributing to the modernization of warfare as NATO learns more of the gains made in Ukraine by the innovations taking place there in real-time on the battlefield, the sea, and in the air.
For all the anticipated schadenfreude that Russia had stored up when it retaliated against Western sanctions by cutting the supply of natural gas to Europe, there was, in fact, little of any consequence that came about. Unseasonably mild winters, the stockpiling of energy supplies, stricter measures upon consumption, improved efficiencies, greater reliance on renewable energy sources and increased liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the U.S. all contributed to the positive outcome for Europe. These measures are only increasing in their efficacy, leaving those nations, like Hungary and Slovakia, who chose to remain dependent on Russian beneficence, and therefore remain vulnerable to its idiosyncratic geopolitical inclinations. Imports into the EU of Russian gas fell from 39% in prewar 2021 to 12% by late 2023. Russia’s oil and gas revenue, which amounted to almost 50% of its federal budget in 2021, fell 45% year-over-year by the first quarter of 2023 while Europe saw solar energy generation alone rise 25% in 2022, the first year of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Robert Fico, the Prime Minister of Slovakia since 2023, and Viktor Orbán, the Prime Minister of Hungary since 2010, have both declared their preferences for Putin and are critical of the EU’s support of Ukraine. Slovakia’s dependence upon Russian energy amounts to 60% of its natural gas, 70% of its oil and 100% of its nuclear fuel. It recently asked the European Commission for a one-year extension of an exemption to the EU’s ban on Russian oil, exposing Slovakia’s precarious geopolitical position. Its Slovnaft refinery, which happens to be owned by the Hungarian Oil and Gas Public Limited Company (MOL), a multinational oil and gas company centered in Budapest, receives Russian crude for processing. By requirement of the EU, the facility must now invest over $380 million dollars to adapt itself to refining crude from elsewhere while Slovakia’s entire energy infrastructure remains, at present, effectively under the control of Hungary but also under the influence of Russia. Whether Slovakia is intent on making this transition in the end may be more a question of national and regional politics than economics.
Fico’s actions thus far show Slovakia destined for an illiberal democracy and an uncertain future, still falling short of Orbán’s authoritarian regime in Hungary but not far behind. Voicing of anti-EU sentiments, as has been Orbán’s habit, threatens the provision of future EU funds that would deny Fico the fulfillment of promises he made to expand Slovakia’s welfare system and bring the national budget under control. He has placed himself in a questionable situation, allied with two self-serving leaders, Orbán and Putin, while attempting to secure sufficient benefit from EU membership to support Slovakia’s well-being.
Orbán’s relations with the EU have been similarly strained over his pro-Russian foreign policy stance. In contrast to this platform, a study published in 2022 showed a large majority of Hungarians favored membership in the EU, reaching a high of 82% among those who were familiar with the workings of the alliance. Similarly, 74% of Slovaks approved of EU membership with 58% favoring NATO membership in a 2017 survey conducted by the nation’s Public Affairs Institute. Despite their criticism of the EU and its support of Ukraine, both Fico and Orbán have difficulty separating themselves from the EU for various reasons. Funding of social programs remains a need for both Slovakia and Hungary, on a continuing basis and something for which Russia would be an unreliable partner.
In Summary
Single events such as the recent assassination of Alexei Navalny, political dissident and Putin critic, in a Siberian prison north of the Arctic Circle put in the context of considerable grievances among Russia’s youth over the lost promise of their future, its wives and mothers coping with the loss of sons and husbands in an unjustifiable and unnecessary war, and its ethnic minorities for the loss of their cultural and territorial rights present challenges that continue to mount over time. Moreover, the underperformance of Russia’s welfare system, particularly in health care delivery, and the inevitable collapse of its economy, are the sort of substrate for crisis that can be triggered with any of the preceding grievances. These are individual nodes of societal criticality in the life of a nation and pose great uncertainty for Putin despite the apparent ubiquity of his security police.
A woman attending Navalny’s funeral in early March, described the plight of Russia by drawing a simple comparison of Navalny and Putin, “One sacrificed himself to save the country, the other one sacrificed the country to save himself.” Others expressed a blunter assessment of the Kremlin leader simply as “a killer” while chanting, “no to war.”
On balance, Putin’s odds for success in Ukraine appear to weigh against him. Losses of military hardware are of a magnitude not sustainable in the present-day because of the greater immediate impact of social media and the overt evidence of the effect upon the population at large. The economy has significant vulnerabilities as it faces inflationary pressures, rising costs and interest rates in the face of yet higher defense spending while remaining highly dependent on fossil fuel export. The latter industry has come under attack with destruction of refineries, shipping ports, and storage depots, and continues to face restrictions imposed by foreign sanctions. There has been a notable labor shortage for nonmilitary production with significant numbers of Russian youth escaping conscription and leaving the country, a diminishing birth rate, an increasing death rate and, overall, a decreasing population growth rate. Ethnic minorities, comprising 20% of the Russian Federation’s population, have protested the war and are organized in a union promoting separation over their dissatisfaction in how they’ve been treated by Putin’s regime. The U.S.-led Western alliance has much better coordination and allegiances than what Russia has mustered among its authoritarian cabal. The funding for Ukraine’s defense effort has begun once more to make progress recently with the 27 nations of the EU pledging $54 billion in a three-year package (2024-2027). Relatively unknown to many in the U.S. and elsewhere have been the continuing contributions of individual nations around the globe to the same effort. Trump’s presidential aspirations for this November along with his campaign finances are diminishing at a time when President Joe Biden’s campaign is proclaiming the several successes of his administration, the remarkable recovery of the U.S. economy from a serious global inflationary challenge that will bring with it relief for the American consumer, a bipartisan solution for the U.S. southern border and a message of the extant greatness of American society to counter the promise of a dystopian Trumpist society.
Putin is emblematic of a rise of authoritarianism globally as certain leaders seek to secure a lasting control of their nation’s governance by eliminating opposition, suppressing independent journalism, subordinating the judiciary, and subverting the constitution. Civil liberties are restricted with the institution of a police authority serving the needs of the regime. Likewise, the military swears primary allegiance to the regime rather than to the nation. En route with such manifest power comes corruption, flawed judgment, abandonment of principal and elimination of the rule of law, all of which has been in evidence in Putin’s Russia, is well underway in Orbán’s Hungary and, ostensibly, is in the planning phase for Trump’s America.
One might hope that, before too long, the history of the 20th century may yet provide us the lessons we, too, soon forget about the catastrophe that could be brought about by our own negligence.
Copyright @Kost Elisevich, MD, PhD 2024. All rights reserved. Any illegal reproduction of this content will result in immediate legal action.
