Playing both sides in war: Trumpist hypocrisy and opportunism on Ukraine

Eleven years ago — in March 2011 — former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) attacked President Barack Obama’s leadership on the international crisis in Libya. The crisis resulted from a civil war, spurred by the “Arab Spring” anti-government protests sweeping through the Middle East.

Gingrich was weeks away from announcing his run for president. In what appeared to be a no-win political and geopolitical situation, the longtime Republican leader sought to weaken the man he wanted to replace. He demanded that Obama implement a no-fly zone, and he then dared Obama to forcibly remove Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, stating, “If they [the Obama administration] want to, they can get rid of [him].”

The following day, Obama ordered air strikes against Gaddafi, and two days after that, a U.S. led coalition instituted a no-fly zone.

Two days after that, Gingrich blasted Obama again — this time for implementing the very policies Gingrich endorsed, stating — without irony — that “I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qadhafi.”

In presidential politics, “other ways” is code for “Thank god I’m not in charge.” 

Because Gingrich had no responsible plan 11 years ago to solve the Libyan crisis. Neither did any other Republican. Opposition political warfare is as old as warfare itself, and the United States is no exception.

The president’s job is to act in the best interests of our country. Whether she or he is successful is a worthwhile debate. And opposing views are not only encouraged, but necessary.

However, intent is everything, and naked politics becomes grotesque when it conflicts with national interests.

Nearly 11 years after Gingrich tried in vain to attack the U.S. president from two opposing sides, he and his ‘drain-the-swamp’ progeny are engaged in a far more coordinated attack against our current president, on an issue far more threatening to our country and to the globe. The world is watching how the U.S. responds to the Ukrainian crisis and Russia’s deliberate efforts to conquer a free nation. And we are witnessing once again a U.S. president seeking to prevail in a no-win political and geopolitical situation.

Again, political opposition is the normal order of things. But what’s happening today is abnormal and dangerous. Republicans are squeezing President Biden from both sides — not in an attempt to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, but to seize congressional power in January 2023 and to restore former President Trump to the Oval Office in January 2025.

On one side, Trump has maintained his long-running idolization of Russian President Vladimir Putin. We know what happened at Helsinki, when Trump attacked U.S. intelligence while adamantly defending our adversary. In normal times, that would have merited nationwide scorn and calls of treason. But these are not normal times.

During Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Trump called Putin “savvy” and a “genius” while praising the attack.

Again, in normal times, a former (and if the GOP gets its way, future) U.S. president publicly siding with a foreign adversary that’s attacking a U.S. ally would prompt nationwide scorn and calls of treason. But again, these are not normal times.

On the other side of this political squeeze are Gingrich, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and other members of Trump’s MAGA-styled politburo. They insist Putin is dangerous and must be dealt with. Warning of the likelihood of Putin’s sustained imperialism in the region, Gingrich blamed Biden for making Ukraine’s shared border with Russia “wide open” and for “avoiding war.”

Meanwhile, Graham compared Biden to Neville Chamberlain, who notoriously sought to appease Adolph Hitler despite the latter’s seemingly inevitable quest for world domination. Graham also warned Biden that if he doesn’t fight back more forcefully (perhaps American troops on the ground?), then “I will be your worst nightmare.”

This two-pronged approach has one purpose, and it has nothing to do with Ukraine.

If Biden is weakened, Trump is strengthened.

By attacking the president on two diametrically opposed sides — one claiming Putin is heroic, and the other implying war against Russia might be necessary — Biden cannot win politically. Either he commits to prolonged military action that could usher in World War III, or he protects U.S. lives (for now) at the expense of Russian imperialism.

Sure, a third way is possible. Perhaps Russia won’t succeed. Perhaps sanctions and other ratcheted-up efforts will force Putin to retreat.

But like any savvy bettor, Republicans are wagering on the two most likely outcomes. If Putin wins, Biden is weakened, Democrats’ midterm prospects will continue to dim, and Trump will be the 2024 frontrunner. If the GOP forces Biden’s hand and we commit to a drawn-out and bloody war against Russia, Biden is weakened, Democrats’ midterm prospects will continue to dim, and Trump will be the frontrunner in 2024.

As Gingrich learned in 2011, it’s hard for one politician to play both sides — today, Trump’s Republican army has become quite good at it.

B.J. Rudell is a longtime political strategist, former associate director for Duke University’s Center for Politics, and recent North Carolina Democratic Party operative. In a career encompassing stints on Capitol Hill, on presidential campaigns, in a newsroom, in classrooms, and for a consulting firm, he has authored three books and has shared political insights across all media platforms, including for CNN and Fox News.