Update your settings

There was a time when American foreign policy had clear fault lines—supporting allies, opposing adversaries, and reinforcing democratic values. But in recent years, those lines have blurred. The sharp words once reserved for the Kremlin now seem directed at Kyiv instead. The latest statements from the U.S. President paint an astonishing picture: Volodymyr Zelensky, the wartime leader of Ukraine, has been branded a “dictator without elections.” At the same time, the man in Moscow—whose tanks rolled into Ukraine in 2022—receives no such condemnation. 

This shift in rhetoric, combined with quiet diplomacy with Russian officials, has left many Republicans and foreign policy experts aghast. Figures who once stood proudly under the banner of Ronald Reagan’s Cold War triumph now watch in disbelief. Ken Adelman, a former U.N. ambassador who attended Reagan’s meetings with Mikhail Gorbachev, laments that the era of "Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev" has morphed into "Do what you want, Mr. Putin." Former national security adviser John Bolton warns that the U.S. President has already "capitulated" in backdoor peace talks. 

The numbers at play are staggering. Since Russia’s invasion, Ukraine has received over $350 billion in aid from the U.S. and its allies. This financial and military lifeline has kept the war from tilting completely in Moscow’s favor. Now, accusations are flying—claims that half of those funds have disappeared, that Ukraine reneged on a deal regarding rare earth minerals, and that U.S. support should come with financial strings attached. While there are always questions about oversight in wartime spending, the sheer reversal in tone—from steadfast backing to open hostility—raises more significant questions about where American priorities lie. 

Some argue that the strategic landscape has changed, that after two years of war, the U.S. must rethink its approach to Ukraine. Others see something more troubling: a realignment of American influence away from traditional allies and toward a more transactional view of global power. Liz Cheney warns that turning away from Ukraine is not just a shift in policy but a betrayal of what Reagan and past Republican leaders once stood for. Bill Kristol, another Reagan-era official, puts it bluntly: NATO and U.S. leadership have ensured European stability for 80 years—why gamble that away to “get along with Putin?” 

Even within the Republican ranks, frustration is growing. But will it boil over into action? That remains uncertain. The question isn’t just about one leader’s admiration for a strongman in Moscow—it’s about whether the Republican Party, and the country, will hold the line in an increasingly unpredictable geopolitical storm.