So-called New Right Republicans betray the Reagan legacy that defeated the Soviets and won the Cold War.
In the 1980s, as Russian leaders rattled their nuclear saber and warned of the risk of nuclear war, President Ronald Reagan acted to strengthen and solidify the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Reagan gave material aid and rhetorical comfort to the anti-Communist Polish trade union movement, Solidarity; and he deployed Pershing II and cruise missiles to Europe to counter the Soviet threat.
Reagan also spoke truth to Russian power, declaring that
the only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat… [in order to] advance the cause of socialism.
The Soviet Union collapsed and fell apart, thanks in large part to Reagan’s policy of peace through strength and his refusal to be cowed and intimidated by Russian threats.
Russia’s War on Ukraine. Today, unfortunately, Russia is ruled by a man, Vladimir Putin, who laments the demise of the Soviet Union, and who is determined to resurrect the Russian empire. And NATO again is on the frontlines of the fight for freedom, as a neighboring, non-member state, Ukraine, fights to free itself of attempted Russian conquest and subjugation.
Ukraine, understandably, seeks membership in NATO. No country under NATO’s umbrella, after all, has been invaded or subjugated by Russia. By contrast, countries outside of NATO’s umbrella—i.e., Ukraine, Georgia, and Belarus—have been invaded and subjugated by Russia.
Ukraine does not expect NATO membership today, but would like today a pledge of NATO membership at the conclusion of its war with Russia. Ukrainians believe that would be the surest way to deter future Russian aggression and ensure the peace.
The ‘New Right’. Yet in the face of the Russian threat, the only thing some so-called conservative Republicans can offer up is the antithesis of Reagan. These faux conservatives push not for a real and lasting peace through strength. Instead, they advocate for a false and temporary peace through fear and appeasement.
Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, for instance, calls NATO membership for Ukraine “sheer lunacy” that will increase “the risk of nuclear war with Russia itself.”
Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) goes even further: “If Ukraine were a NATO ally,” he writes, “we’d have to go to war with Russia under Article V of the NATO Treaty… We don’t want war with Russia.”
“Absolutely not,” agrees Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky). “This [NATO membership for Ukraine] is exactly wrong—as usual… [A] war with Russia [is] something no one should want.”
As when Reagan was president, no one, of course, wants the United States to be immersed in a direct war with Russia. The question, then as now, is how to avert and avoid war, while protecting ourselves, our interests, and our allies worldwide.
Deterrence. Reagan believed in deterrence; and deterrence, in turn, required a credible American and allied military threat.
That’s why Reagan deployed the Pershing II and cruise missiles to Europe: to strengthen the NATO alliance. And that’s why he armed the Afghan mujahideen: to bleed and weaken the Soviet Union and to stop what was then widely perceived to be Russia’s quest for a warm water port.
For this same reason, deterrence, it is in the American national interest to arm Ukraine and to admit Ukraine into NATO.
Putin’s Russia is an enemy of the United States, which works assiduously to undermine American interests worldwide. Ukraine, by contrast, seeks to be part of the West and a part of the liberal order through which the West has grown and prospered mightily since at least the end of the Second World War.
NATO. Concerns by right-wing isolationists (or non-interventionists), such as Ramaswamy, Lee and Paul, that admitting Ukraine into NATO would force the United States into a direct shooting war with Russia are utterly fallacious.
As Randy Scheunemann and Evelyn Farkas point out, NATO’s Article 5—which holds “that an attack against one ally is considered an attack against all allies”—does “not mandate a specific response by member states.”
The United States and other NATO countries retain the right to decide how to support Ukraine, irrespective of whether Ukraine is a member of NATO.
For this reason, the United States and NATO, in planned coordination with Ukraine, could decide that by doing what they are now doing, arming Ukraine, they are fulfilling their Article 5 obligations.
Winning. What, then, is the value of NATO membership if it doesn’t change what is happening in Ukraine now?
Simple: it sends an unmistakable message of (long-term) support to Ukraine; it strengthens Ukrainian resolve; and it tells the Russians that, insofar as NATO is concerned, Ukraine will forever be a free, sovereign, and independent state.
In other words: there will be no negotiated settlement that rewards Russian aggression with the surrender of Ukrainian territory and people.
Equally important, after this war ends and a ceasefire is declared, NATO membership for Ukraine will deter renewed Russian aggression and prevent future wars.
This is something that President Reagan would have understood. It’s beyond disappointing that so-called “new right” Republicans just don’t get it.
Feature photo credit: Three leading isolationists or non-interventionists: Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), courtesy of Shutterstock/Rolling Stone; GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, courtesy of Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/NPR; and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), courtesy of Tom Brenner/New York Times.