Russia, Russia, Russia

Today, following the Oval Office debacle on Friday that looked more like a mob extortion racket than a peace process, Donald Trump cut off aid to Ukraine.

History may not repeat, but it certainly rhymes and echoes.

It echoes back to Trump’s first impeachment, which happened because Trump called Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s brand-new president at the time, and said he would release much-needed security aid Congress had voted to send to Ukraine if Zelensky would open an investigation into Joe Biden (even though there was nothing to investigate). Trump was holding up the aid, and the impeachment happened after Alex Vindman, our guest for Five Questions week before last, became a whistleblower, revealing what had happened on the call.

As we have repeatedly discussed in the last few weeks, Congress has the power of the purse. When they vote to send aid to an ally, that should be the end of the matter. But Donald Trump seems intent on upending the Constitution.

Not content with hamstringing Ukraine’s efforts to defend itself, Trump is also considering steps to help Russia fund its war effort by ending sanctions. Monday night, Reuters reported that “The United States is drawing up a plan to potentially give Russia sanctions relief as President Donald Trump seeks to restore ties with Moscow … The White House has asked the State and Treasury departments to draft a list of sanctions that could be eased for U.S. officials to discuss with Russian representatives in the coming days as part of the administration's broad talks with Moscow on improving diplomatic and economic relations, the sources said.”

A little history is illuminating. In 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine, occupying Crimea and other parts of Eastern Ukraine. The invasion that signaled the start of Russia’s current war against Ukraine did not begin until February 24, 2022. But in between the two, in July 2017, Congress voted for sanctions against Russia, based in part on the first invasion. They also imposed sanctions on Russia, along with Iran and North Korea, in the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. The bill passed with little opposition, 98–2 in the Senate and 419–3 in the House. The sanctions “targeted cyberattacks (1) against critical infrastructure, (2) for financial or commercial gain, (3) to significantly disrupt the availability of a computer or network, or (4) to interfere with U.S. election processes and institutions.”

Despite that history from the 2016 election, or perhaps because of it, Trump has never been a fan of sanctions against Russia. As he once said, “Russia, if you’re listening.”

So, Trump was in no hurry to impose the sanctions Congress passed in 2017. He dragged his feet past the early February 2018 extended deadline for getting everything in place, a gracious plenty of time after passage of the sanctions the prior summer. I took to posting about it every day on Twitter.

Finally, in mid-March 2018, following the indictments by Special Counsel Robert Mueller against a Russian troll farm that actively inserted disinformation into the 2016 election, Trump agreed to impose sanctions. “Nobody has been tougher on Russia, but getting along with Russia would be a good thing, not a bad thing,” Trump said at the time. But even that weak tea didn’t hold up. By January 2019, Trump’s Treasury Department was weakening sanctions and lifting them against Putin ally Oleg Deripaska. Even House Republicans joined Democrats in condemning the move.

Friday’s White House charade was entirely predictable. Trump’s track record lays bare that if it comes down to Russia or Ukraine, he’s going to side with Russia. Just like Trump has always made his negative views on NATO clear. A week ago, the New York Times ran a story headlined: “Europe’s New Reality: Trump May Not Quit NATO, but He’s Already Undercutting It.” Although there are laws designed to prevent Trump from formally withdrawing from NATO, it’s not much of a surprise that the press is speculating about the possibility. Fox News is calling it “AmerExit.”

Trump’s pro-Russia foreign policy collides with his anti-rule-of-law attitude in a disturbing fashion. The possibility of far-reaching consequences that will affect Western Europe as well as our own country are clear. JD Vance’s effort to blame Zelensky for the disaster, saying he should have said “thank you,” sounded more like the demands made by an abusive spouse than the foreign diplomacy we expect of a national leader. For those of us who have been paying attention, none of this comes as a surprise. But it is an unpleasant reality that further deepens the crisis our democracy is facing.

We’re in this together,

Joyce