Mike Johnson’s Shockingly Pro-Ukraine Speech Really Sticks It to MAGA

The House speaker’s comments wrecked one of the far right’s most ridiculous, reprehensible tropes.

It was a remarkable moment: After introducing a package of bills that includes military aid to Ukraine, Mike Johnson flatly told reporters on Wednesday that enabling Ukraine to defend itself is in the best interests of America and the world. This surprised a lot of people who had wrongly assumed the House speaker was effectively functioning as a stooge for Vladimir Putin—and Donald Trump—and would thus slow-walk Ukraine aid to death before ever allowing a vote on it.

Johnson’s new stance has attracted a good deal of positive attention. But I want to highlight an aspect of it that’s been overlooked because it’s an important tell about the true state of MAGA ideology and what it’s demanding of Republicans these days.

“I really do believe the intel and the briefings that we’ve gotten,” Johnson said, in a moment that became a mini-speech. “I think that Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if he were allowed. I think he might go to the Balkans next. I think he might have a showdown with Poland, or one of our NATO allies.” If so, he added, we might find ourselves sending troops to defend allies from Putin later.

Did we really hear the speaker say that he believes what our intelligence services have told him about the long-term consequences of cutting off aid to Ukraine?

This is a direct challenge to the MAGA worldview in multiple ways. Johnson is treating Putin as the aggressor in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and acknowledging his broader imperialist designs, which is heresy to some MAGA Republicans. But he’s also flatly declaring that on these matters, the deep state is very much to be believed.

A big MAGA conceit is the idea that a nefarious deep-state network of senior federal bureaucrats, nongovernmental experts, and technocratic and managerial elites lurks behind the push to fund Ukraine—and that it’s making up lies about Russia’s war to create a pretext to fulfill a broader set of sinister globalist aims. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene recently tweeted this:

If our Republican majority in Congress funds Joe Biden’s war against Russia on behalf of Ukraine (because he’s a puppet on strings) then Republicans are tools of the foreign war loving deep state.

This is probably MAGA’s most elaborate exercise in up-is-down totalitarian-style propaganda of all: Biden is being manipulated by a deep-state “scam”—i.e., the idea that Ukraine is worth defending—to carry out a war against Russia, which has been magically transformed from aggressor to victim.

The horrible atrocities against Ukraine the world has witnessed, Putin’s declarations that the sovereign democracy of Ukraine isn’t a real country and shouldn’t exist, the consequent effort to erase it with murderous conquest—all of that disappears in this fog of MAGA propaganda. This sort of thing is why even some senior Republicans suggest that a number of House GOP lawmakers are operating under the influence of Russia.

Johnson’s affirmation that he believes our intelligence services on these matters is a direct rebuke to those MAGA tendencies.

The bills that GOP leaders have introduced—which are scheduled for votes on Saturday—are also surprisingly faithful to the intel agencies’ apparent understanding of this geopolitical moment. They include $61 billion in aid to Ukraine, $26 billion for Israel, funding for Taiwan, and humanitarian assistance, including for victims in Gaza, which is essential to winning the support of Democrats who will be needed when right-wing Republicans oppose the package.

Greene had threatened to hold a motion-to-vacate vote to oust Johnson if he moved forward with Ukraine aid. If so, there are signs that Democrats will vote to save Johnson if Ukraine aid passes. Either way, Johnson appears prepared to brave MAGA’s fury—and the word of U.S intelligence services is a key reason for it.

To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with healthy skepticism of what our intelligence services are saying. That’s reasonable. After all, they contributed to whipping up the ultimately false assertions about weapons of mass destruction that helped justify the Iraq War.

But reasoned skepticism is not what MAGA Republicans are offering. Instead, they’re pushing carefully choreographed propaganda that seeks to entirely erase Russian agency from the story of the conflict and to transform Ukraine’s allies into the true warmongers here.

Greene’s effort at this is obvious. Then you have Donald Trump Jr., who tweeted that the aid bills will “hurt my father’s ability to negotiate an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine” if he’s reelected president, whereas “globalist” Republicans who support the package want indefinite war.

But that’s absurd. As international relations professor Nicholas Grossman shows, the idea behind rhetoric like this—a ruse that other MAGA Republicans regularly employ—is to recast our choice as one between “peace” (which we’d attain by refraining from aiding Ukraine) and “war” (which we’re facilitating with Ukraine aid). In reality, withholding aid is not antiwar at all; it merely makes Russian conquest more likely to continue and succeed (which is perhaps the whole point of this framing).

Even supposedly shrewder MAGA Republicans play a version of this sleazy game. Ohio Senator J.D. Vance recently wrote a New York Times op-ed arguing that Ukraine is losing and our aid won’t give it what it needs in equipment (or soldiers) to prevail. Democrats have effectively rebutted those claims. But Vance also slips into his piece the idea that in providing aid, “we”—meaning the United States—would “prolong a long and bloody war,” and suggests the primary obstacle to peace is President Biden’s unwillingness to negotiate toward it.

But how does Vance himself envision the war ending? Couldn’t it mean Russia gobbles up much or even all of Ukraine? Vance doesn’t say, beyond insisting we should forget about Ukraine regaining all of its stolen territory. Thus he too frames the choice as one between peace (ending aid) and war (continuing it). Presto: Opposing the package suddenly becomes the antiwar position, and being for the package becomes the pro-war one. That’s slippery, dishonest rhetorical trickery that you’d think is below Times standards.

This is the sort of deceitfulness that Johnson has effectively taken on. By affirming what abandoning Ukraine would really mean, and stressing that the deep state is telling lawmakers the truth about it, Johnson has for the time being taken a stance against one of MAGA’s most cherished—and most toxic—propaganda tropes. No wonder Greene is beside herself with rage.

For those who are dismissing Trump because he acted like a “Neocon” during his presidency 2017-2021...

Here is one of the reasons I support Trump 100% :
(Supporting Trump policies doesn’t make me a neocon, it makes me a Trumpist.)

Notably, Trump is the one who INITIATED large shipments of high-tech US weaponry to Ukraine so they could better defend themselves against the Russian invaders.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Here are the 40 points the Trump Administration did in support for Ukraine and to resist Russia’s aggressions against Ukraine and America’s interests :

Arming Ukraine: The U.S. provided lethal military aid, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, to support Ukraine in countering Russian-backed separatists.

Rejection of Russia’s Annexation of Crimea: Trump’s administration consistently rejected Russia’s annexation of Crimea and supported Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

Imposition of Sanctions: The Trump administration imposed several rounds of sanctions on Russia for actions like election interference, annexation of Crimea, and human rights abuses.

Expulsion of Russian Diplomats: In response to the Skripal poisoning in the UK, the U.S. expelled 60 Russian diplomats and closed the Russian consulate in Seattle.

Support for European Allies: The Trump administration reaffirmed its commitment to supporting Eastern European countries against potential Russian aggression.

Withdrawal from INF Treaty: The U.S. under Trump officially withdrew from the INF Treaty, citing Russia’s violations.

Increased NATO Military Spending: Trump pressured NATO allies to increase defense spending to enhance the alliance’s capabilities against potential Russian aggression.

Condemnation of Nord Stream 2: Trump criticized the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project between Russia and Germany, expressing concerns over energy dependence and geopolitical leverage.

Accusations of Russian Cyberattacks: Trump’s administration publicly accused Russia of cyberattacks, including election interference and targeting critical infrastructure.

Suspension of INF Treaty Compliance: Before formally withdrawing from the INF Treaty, the U.S. suspended obligations under the treaty in response to Russia’s alleged violations.

Support for the Three Seas Initiative: The Trump administration expressed support for the Three Seas Initiative, promoting cooperation among Central and Eastern European countries to reduce dependence on Russian energy.

Presence in the Black Sea: The U.S. increased its naval presence in the Black Sea region to support allies and counter potential Russian aggression.

Magnitsky Act Enforcement: The Trump administration continued to enforce the Magnitsky Act, imposing sanctions on Russian officials accused of human rights abuses and corruption.

Expansion of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports: Trump aimed to increase U.S. LNG exports to Europe to decrease European reliance on Russian gas.

Sanctions on Russian Oligarchs: The U.S. imposed sanctions on Russian oligarchs with close ties to the Kremlin.

Support for Georgia and Moldova: The Trump administration reaffirmed support for Georgia and Moldova’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

U.S. Cyber Command Actions: The U.S. Cyber Command took actions to disrupt Russian cyber operations.

Energy Diplomacy in Eastern Europe: Trump pursued energy diplomacy to promote energy diversification in Eastern Europe, reducing reliance on Russian gas.

U.S. Troop Deployment to Poland: The U.S. announced the deployment of 1,000 troops to Poland to counter Russian aggression.

Opposition to Russia’s Syria Policy: The U.S. opposed Russia’s military intervention in Syria and supported the opposition to President Bashar al-Assad.

Russian Private Military Companies Sanctions: The U.S. imposed sanctions on Russian private military companies, including Wagner Group.

Support for Belarusian Democracy: The Trump administration supported pro-democracy efforts in Belarus following disputed elections and protests.

Sanctions on Russian Banks: The U.S. imposed sanctions on Russian banks, including Sberbank and VTB Bank, for their roles in supporting Russian actions.

Export Controls on Technology: The U.S. tightened export controls on certain technology items to prevent their use in Russia’s military and intelligence activities.

Increased Military Aid to Eastern European Allies: The U.S. increased military aid and training to Eastern European countries, enhancing their defense capabilities.

Opposition to Russia’s Annexation of South Ossetia: The Trump administration opposed Russia’s recognition of South Ossetia’s independence from Georgia.

Support for Montenegro’s NATO Membership: The Trump administration supported Montenegro’s accession to NATO, despite Russian opposition.

Criticism of Russia’s Nuclear Weapons Development: Trump criticized Russia’s development of new nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Support for Ukraine’s Reforms: The U.S. supported Ukraine’s reform efforts and anti-corruption measures.

Expanding the Black Sea Maritime Security Initiative: The U.S. expanded the initiative to enhance security cooperation among Black Sea countries.

Opposition to Russia’s Actions in Venezuela: The U.S. opposed Russia’s support for Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro during the political crisis.

U.S. Embassy Move in Israel: While not directly related to Russia, Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem drew criticism from Russia and other countries.

Strengthening U.S. Cyber Defenses: The Trump administration worked to improve U.S. cybersecurity to counter potential Russian cyber threats.

U.S. Support for International Organizations: The U.S. supported international organizations that took actions against Russia, such as the UN and OPCW.

Criticism of Russia’s Intervention in Ukraine’s Presidential Elections: The U.S. condemned Russia’s interference in Ukraine’s elections.

Sanctions on Russian Intelligence Officers: The U.S. imposed sanctions on Russian intelligence officers involved in cyberattacks.

Refusal to Recognize Abkhazia’s Independence: The Trump administration did not recognize Abkhazia as an independent state, aligning with Georgia’s position.

Support for Kosovo-Serbia Dialogue: The U.S. supported the dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia, which Russia opposed due to its close ties with Serbia.

Support for Eastern Partnership Countries: The Trump administration supported the Eastern Partnership countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russian pressure.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.