Donald Trump expressed his excessive “hatred” for the Ukrainian president on Friday afternoon and expressed inadequate gratitude to the United States.
This extraordinary dust-up came at the end of a press conference featuring President Trump, Ukrainian President Voldy Mie Zelensky and Vice President J.D. Vance. Zelensky came to the White House hoping to hone his relationship with the United States by establishing an agreement that gives them financial interests. Instead, Ukrainian leaders were barely secured from his American counterparts beyond public ridiculous laughs.
Tensions began to burn as Trump defended his resistance to publicly criticizing Putin, saying Zelensky's “hatred” towards the Russian leader is a barrier to peace. Vance supported Trump's position by claiming that Joe Biden's “strict” story about Putin was done nothing to prevent Russian aggression, claiming that the path to peace is through “engaging in diplomacy.”
Zelenskyy then expressed reservations on Vance's reasoning. The Ukrainian president noted that his country signed a ceasefire with Russia after the invasion of Crimea in 2014, but this did not ensure lasting peace. Therefore, he was not inclined to attack another peace agreement. This lacked security assurances that prevented Russia from reinvesting to acquire more Ukrainian territory in the future. For these reasons, Zelenskyy asked Vance, “What diplomacy, JD, are you talking?”
The Vice President took an exception to the question, accusing Zelensky of disrespecting the United States of “trying to sue this in front of the American media.” He then told Zelenskky, “We should thank the president for trying to end this conflict.”
Trump told the Ukrainian president that he “gambles with millions of people” and that he “didn't have the card he is now,” and Vance repeatedly demanded that the Ukrainian president say “thank you.”
The actions of liberals, some Republican foreign policy Hawks, and most European leaders, Trump and Vance, constituted a historic dishonor. The US president is to publicly laugh at US allies fighting invasion, thereby undermining its position in (hypothetical) diplomatic negotiations with oppressors.
But for Trump worshippers on the right, his Zelensky dressdown was a source of catharsis and pride. American conservative magazines have welcomed dust up as a “great clear moment.” There, the US president finally confronted the “Blobs” of Washington's warm foreigners. Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon praised the administration's performance as a “master class in coping entitled Punk.” Similar sentiments have been issued from other conservative influencers, social media users and politicians.
Zelenskyy's enthusiasm for the right to humiliation comes in two different sources.
First, among America's most radical social conservatives, Putin's Russia has long ordered praise as a model of traditional sexual morality in an increasingly decadent (i.e., LGBTQ-friendly) world.
Second, a broader cohort of paradoxical commentators, isolationist intellectuals, and nationalist voters believe that the benefits of supporting Ukraine are small and the risk of tails is devastating. This perspective takes many different forms. But in its most extreme rendering, Zelensky is understood as a villain. He is a “dictator” who is trying to seduce the United States in World War II, but is leading the masses who endured the war to Meat Grinders.
Both of these perspectives mourn. But embarrassingly, Proputin's rights are undoubtedly clearer than their openly “anti-war” joint party.
Why did the right fall in love with Putin?
When Vladimir Putin rehearsed the Russian presidency in 2012, he confronted slowing the economy and boiling public frustration. To strengthen his support, Putin recasts himself as a crusade of traditional values in the Russian state. The highlight of Putin's hard right turn was the so-called anti-propaganda law that banned positive portrayal of LGBTQ people in the media available to minors.
In the dictator's framing, this crackdown on civil liberties not only restored divinity to Russian society, but also established his country as a great defender of Christianity on the world stage. “Many Euro-Atlantic countries are separated from their roots, including Christian values,” Putin said in December 2013. This is the path to deterioration. ”
When American social conservatives felt that they had lost the culture war in general, and in the fight against gay equality in particular – Putin's words and actions were inspiration. In a 2014 column, former Nixon speechwriter Pat Buchanan suggested that God was on the Russian side in the “New Ideological Cold War.” Three years later, Christopher Caldwell, a scholar at the Claremont Institute, declared, “If we use traditional measures to understand leaders that involve border defense and the prosperity of our people, Putin will count as the outstanding politician of our time.”
The burgeoning bond between American Christian rights and the Kremlin was not mere ideology, but institutional. Russian oligarchs have funded the World Conference of American Family that promotes discrimination against LGBTQ people, abortion bans and other reactionary causes.
The concept of Christian rights as a fortress of Russian moral probability – trapped in the cold war with the increasingly decadent West – conveyed an understanding of the Russian-Ukraine war. In a July 2022 column for Daily Wire, reactionary self-help commentator Jordan Peterson suggested that Russia's invasion of Ukraine could be an act of self-defense that creeps up Western demons. In Peterson's narration, the conflict between Christianity and progressive values ”is severe enough to increase the likelihood that Russia, for example, could invade and potentially neutralize Ukraine, simply to protect the West from its country.”
From this perspective, Trump's willingness to downplay the Ukrainian president and project a neutral stance on war against the globalist elite constitutes a heroic defense of Christianity.
Zelensky is a dictator who promotes nuclear war against anti-Russia rights
Proputin's rights are the marginal forces of American life. In a 2024 Pew Research Survey, only 8% of US voters said they were confident Putin was “doing the right thing” in global affairs.
However, the fatigue in funding for the Ukrainian War is more widespread. A Pew poll conducted last month found 30% of Americans, including 47% of Republicans, that the US offers “too much” support for defending Ukraine (according to the Pentagon, the US has spent more than $180 billion so far).
There are less and less ideological versions of this sentiment. While non-political voters may not have strong opinions about Volodymyr Zelenskyy, they feel that the government should spend less money abroad and more on supporting their people. From this nationalist standpoint, Trump and Vance's complaints about Zelensky's lack of gratitude for American altruism may resonate.
But the more committed America's first isolationist has the deep responsiveness of the Ukrainian president. In their analysis, Zelensky is a dictator who cancels the election, refuses to accept a ceasefire, thereby condemning his own people for meaningless death in order to serve a meaningless war. Worse, Ukrainian leaders are trying to spark a hot war between the US and Russia, a hot war between World War II, knowing that they can only win with the direct aid of the US military.
There is a scarce and de facto basis for this argument. It is true that Ukraine has not held previously scheduled elections since the start of the war. However, the country's constitution prohibits such elections under conditions of martial law, in which citizens of occupying territories or struggling areas are disenfranchised. And while Ukraine would certainly welcome direct military intervention in the US defense, there is no evidence to consider the outcome even remote.
Nevertheless, this analysis has proven popular with paradoxical podcasters and isolationist intellectuals. Last November, Joe Rogan spurred Zelensky by launching missiles into Russian territory. He also laughed at Zelensky, claiming that Ukraine had terrified Putin.
“Man, man,” Logan said of the Ukrainian president. “You're about to start World War II, fucking people. …This is a cocaine-like behavior. “Putin's fucking scary, man, Putin's fear.” …So, what are you talking about? He has a nuclear missile. You're fucking a monkey. ”
In particular, Logan's suggestion that Zelensky's idea was distorted by the use of cocaine echoed on Friday for the Kremlin. “A fierce dress down in an oval office,” Putin adviser Dmitry Medvedev wrote on Telegram:
For those who believe Zelensky is an autocratic plot surrounded by cola to cause a nuclear war, the ritual humiliation of Trump's leadership was more a victory than a dishonor.
Trump's destruction with Zelensky is likely to advance Russian imperialism rather than peace
Proputin's enthusiasm for Trump's dust-up with Zelensky is well-founded. Ukraine cannot maintain the existing front of war or maintain significant leverage on the negotiation table without US support. And now the Trump administration appears to be indifferent to the fate of Ukraine. Following a press conference on Friday, Trump declared that he did not want Ukraine to have “benefits” in negotiations with Russia.
Similarly, Friday's events could be reasonably a source of encouragement if they are only interested in minimizing the threat of the US-Russian war and the threat of US spending to foreign countries.
However, self-style anti-war rights often claim to be furious at Ukraine's desire for death and peace. As long as such statements are sincere, they should not be so relieved by Trump's Zelensky's accusations.
Conservative isolationists often speak as if Putin had proposed a ceasefire contract. Ukraine stubbornly refused to accept it. Yet, precisely because Russia enjoys natural benefits in long-term conflicts (as sometimes emphasized by isolationists), it does not necessarily tend to lay its arms. And this could be even more true if Russia believes that a suspension of US support for Ukraine is imminent. This is a development that greatly improves the Kremlin's outlook for further territorial gains.
All this is good and good for those who want to see the progress of Russian theocracy and the retreat of Western liberalism. But it must bring almost joy to conservatives who are sincerely committed to peace.
