David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election.
What were they thinking of?
All those British right-of-centre politicians who had wholeheartedly backed the Ukrainians in their brave resistance to Russian aggression, who then declared their support for Donald Trump’s candidacy in the 2024 Presidential election – Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Robert Jenrick and others.
Why did they not see the problem?
There cannot now be any doubts about Trump’s instincts on this matter. As far back as 2016, Hilary Clinton accused him – with some considerable justification – of being a Russian puppet. Since then, he has made no secret of his instincts that large countries are entitled to bully their smaller neighbours, and that this instinct applied as much to Russia as the US. He has always had a soft spot for Putin in particular. One did not have to believe all the claims that the Russians had compromising material over Trump to believe that, as US President once again, he would reduce US assistance to the Ukrainians.
It was inevitable that a Trump victory would be bad news for Ukraine – and the question was only how bad. The suspension of the use of Starlink may have only been temporary (for now) but what is clear is that Trump blames the Ukrainians for the commencement of the war and its continuation. He is willing to put pressure on the Ukrainians, and call for President Zelensky to go, while giving a free pass to Putin and the Russians.
For some, of course, this is a minor issue.
There is no shortage of characters on X – usually with a long list of numbers in their name – keen to articulate the case that the Ukrainians are corrupt, their resistance futile and financial support would be better spent at home. There are isolationists that sincerely think that this conflict is nothing to do with us, or others who argue that peace will require the Ukrainians to make concessions and our backing, therefore, must be conditional and limited.
There are even prominent politicians, such as Nigel Farage, who have, in the past, been quick to blame NATO and the EU for the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. They are, in my view, wrong but it is consistent with support for Trump in 2024. But for true supporters of Ukraine, who encouraged the Ukrainians, funded them, and articulated their case to the wider world, it is surely impossible to reconcile that position with continued support for Trump. As I say, what were they thinking?
It is not because their support for Ukraine was insincere or skin-deep. As long time readers of these columns will know, I was not an enthusiastic supporter of Johnson’s premiership, but he made the right calls on Ukraine. The word in Whitehall was that, when it came to this matter, he cared deeply about the issue, he knew his own mind, and was on top of the detail – all of which was seen as remarkable. Nor has his support for or interest in Ukraine wavered since leaving office.
Truss’s post-premiership life may now be focused on trying to prove that she was brought down by an establishment conspiracy, but as Foreign Secretary she was forceful in her support for Ukraine.
Jenrick was and remains a strong and consistent supporter of the Ukrainians, even providing a home for Ukrainian refugees (which presumably does not play well with all of his Reform UK colleagues), and Rees-Mogg continues to be an articulate advocate for the standing up to Russia, most recently in his courteous demolition of the pro-Russian case by the absurd Tucker Carlson.
Most of them are willing to criticise Trump over his recent approach. Johnson called Trump’s recent actions “disgusting” and “weak”; Jenrick described the US/Russian deal on diesel “a betrayal” and Rees-Mogg has described Trump’s willingness to deal with Russia as a “strategic error. (Truss uncharacteristically appears to be keeping her views on the matter to herself.)
This returns us to the question – given the evident sincerity of their Ukrainian positions- why back Trump in the first place?
There are a range of possibilities, ranging from the cynical to the altruistic. The most cynical explanation is that backing Trump was the only way of benefiting from the lucrative, US Republican speaking circuit. The most altruistic explanation is that the only way of influencing Trump behind the scenes on Ukraine was to support him fulsomely in public, while making the Ukrainian case in private. It might mean you end up looking foolish (as has now indeed happened), but it was the only way to maintain access to a President who can be influenced by those around him. I suspect that this is Johnson’s self-justification – and it is not entirely without merit.
What else might explain support for Trump? Some have argued that Trump is a natural strongman, and that even if he is not sympathetic to Ukraine, Russia would be more cautious with someone as unpredictable as Trump. I think we can now see that argument as being, at best, flimsy.
Others have argued that Trump is right to say that the US cannot be expected to pay for Europe’s defence, and that we should not castigate the US but our own failings. This is particularly attractive if one wants to blame the EU for all that is wrong with the world (even if the logic of this position suggests that Europe should be more united, not less).
The most obvious case is to say, as Rees-Mogg has done, is that Trump was never the perfect candidate but you have to take all his views in the round and it is perfectly possible to support him even if disagreeing with him on a specific issue. The problem here is that there is much of the rest of his agenda, record and personality that proper conservatives should reject (denial of the 2020 election results and his loathing of free trade, for example) and that his attitude to Ukraine specifically and NATO in general is hardly a minor matter, especially from the perspective of British interests. Discounting the damage Trump could do to our national security but deciding to back him because one considers his views sound on, say, trans matters seems an odd priority.
The suspicion must be that many on the UK right backed Trump because they viewed him as basically belonging in the same tribe as them. Yes, he may be a bit uncouth, they told themselves, but he was basically one of us. He was against wokeness and for tax cuts; he upset the liberals; and Kamala Harris would make a useless President. Isn’t that enough?
To which the answer is: no, it is not enough. Being one’s political enemy’s enemy does not make someone a political friend. Trump might be on the broad right but it is not a version of the right that decent people should have anything to do with.
When the great right wing polemicist PJ O’Rourke was asked in 2016 why he was supporting Hilary Clinton, he replied that “she’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters”. Trump does not operate within normal parameters.
Ukraine is just one example, but a powerful one. The pro-Ukraine Trump supporters not just backed a candidate who has proven to be disastrous for Ukraine, they did so because they saw him as part of their tribe. It was a judgement that not only got it wrong from the Ukrainian perspective, but revealed a willingness to allow membership of their tribe to someone who should very clearly have been excluded.
It was a very grave error.