Supporters of the traditional U.S. foreign policy are often missing the deeper reasons behind the growing dissent regarding American involvement in Ukraine. A recent article by Douglas Murray in the Spectator argues that the populist right in America is wrong to oppose support for Ukraine, suggesting that their stance is driven more by culture wars than by legitimate concerns. However, this view overlooks significant historical and personal experiences that shape the beliefs of many on the right.
Murray’s article criticizes the populist right for its opposition to Ukraine, claiming it is an unprincipled reaction against liberal opponents. While it’s true that some resistance may stem from cultural issues and partisanship, many on the right have deeper reasons for their discontent. They have lived through the consequences of the Global War on Terror, which has left a lasting impact on their views about foreign intervention.
The populist right has a unique perspective shaped by their experiences as enforcers of the liberal international order. Many of them served in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they faced disillusionment due to the realities of war and the disconnect between military personnel and political leaders. This has led to a growing skepticism about foreign policy, particularly regarding Ukraine, as they view the situation through the lens of their own past.
Murray, who supported the Iraq War, seems to forget that many of these populists fought in those wars and came back questioning the motivations behind them. The anger over the wars has fueled a broader populist sentiment, which was evident in Donald Trump’s political rise. In the 2016 election, Trump capitalized on anti-war sentiments, especially in the Midwest, and this trend appears to be continuing into the 2024 election cycle.
The current war in Ukraine is viewed by many on the right as part of a larger pattern of U.S. foreign policy that they have come to distrust. The populist right’s skepticism is heightened by the political climate at home, where they feel mocked and dismissed by the elite class for their views on Ukraine. Murray labels them as merely reactionary, but this perspective fails to recognize the historical context and the genuine concerns that inform their opinions.
Moreover, pro-Ukraine voices have not been without their own controversies. Some have labeled dissenting views as "Putin talking points" and have even created lists targeting American citizens who oppose the war. Such actions can understandably push people toward a more reactionary stance.
Murray acknowledges that the perception of Ukraine as corrupt has taken root among populists, but he downplays the validity of these concerns. Ukraine has struggled with corruption and has far-right elements within its military. These realities provide ammunition for those who argue against U.S. support.
Murray’s argument presents a false choice: he suggests that one must either support Ukraine or side with Russia. However, many on the populist right believe that it is possible to critique both sides without having to choose one over the other. This nuanced view reflects a broader skepticism about U.S. foreign policy that has evolved from their own experiences and observations.
In summary, the debate over U.S. involvement in Ukraine is not merely a cultural battle. It is deeply rooted in the experiences and disillusionments of those who have served in previous conflicts. Understanding this context is crucial for a more comprehensive discussion about America’s role in the world today.