Republicans in Washington and on the campaign trail find themselves riven with divisions over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, exposing the power of a newly emboldened isolationist strain within the GOP.
The Republican establishment is vocally advocating for muscular U.S. sanctions against Moscow after Russia invaded two breakaway areas in Ukraine controlled by separatist militants, bashing the first tranche from the Biden administration as too weak. But populist GOP lawmakers and candidates are downplaying Ukraine’s significance to the U.S and advocating for a lighter touch, marking a reversal from the party’s orthodoxy, which historically favored heavy U.S. involvement abroad.
“I think Republicans have mixed feelings about it,” said Brian Darling, a GOP strategist and former Senate aide.
“Many Republicans are concerned about getting too engaged in this faraway conflict because it’s not something that’s immediate,” he added. “But there’s also the tension with Republicans who’ve been around for a while, remember the Cold War, remember the fight for freedom for when the Soviet Union broke up and all the breakaway republics moving towards democracy.”
That intraparty dispute is playing out in real time in Washington and across the U.S. as Russian troops and equipment roll into Ukrainian land controlled by Moscow-backed rebels that Russian President Vladimir Putin this week recognized as independent. Russia launched a more sprawling invasion Thursday morning local time, with explosions heard in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv.
Veteran GOP senators have voiced support for a strong response to Moscow’s aggression, pushing President Biden to enact stricter sanctions and backing the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops to European allies to deter Russian advancement beyond Ukraine.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) praised Biden’s deployment of troops but this week pressed for the “toughest possible sanctions.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a longtime Russia hawk, said Biden’s early sanctions on Russian banks, prominent individuals and the country’s sovereign debt did not go far enough and pressed for more forceful U.S. involvement on Ukraine’s behalf.
“You said a couple of years ago that Putin does not want you to win because you’re the only person that can go toe-to-toe with him,” he said of Biden at a press conference. “Well right now, Mr. President, you’re playing footsy with Putin and you’re losing. He’s walking all over you and our allies.”
And on the campaign trail, Ohio Senate GOP candidate Jane Timken said “the U.S. must respond with strength and stand with Ukraine.”
Those statements fall largely within a historical GOP tenet that a foreign policy guided by robust involvement overseas best keeps America safe. But in the halls of Congress and elsewhere, a growing wing of Republicans pushing for fewer foreign entanglements also made its voice heard.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) earlier this month pressed Biden to refrain from deploying more troops to Europe and said that Ukraine should not join NATO.
Meanwhile, popular Fox News host Tucker Carlson has taken that view a step further, asking on air, “Why is it disloyal to side with Russia but loyal to side with Ukraine?”
“Hillbilly Elegy” author J.D. Vance, another Republican running for Senate in Ohio, has been arguably the most outspoken on the campaign trail against involvement, saying on Stephen Bannon’s podcast last week that he doesn’t “really care what happens to Ukraine” and pushing for more focus on the U.S. southern border.
When critics rebuked the statement, he doubled down, saying “we all pray for peace for the innocent Ukrainians caught up in this” but that “the Russia-Ukraine border dispute has nothing to do with our national security.”
Those comments have caused alarm for some Republicans more aligned with the establishment flank of the GOP who believe in a strong foreign policy — particularly when it comes to Russia.
“There are some who are taking a more pro-Russian posture. As somebody who grew up at a time and came of age politically at a time when we defined ourselves in part in opposition to the Soviet Union, it’s a troubling way to move forward,” said Doug Heye, a former House leadership aide.
“One can be critical of decisions that Biden makes or decisions he doesn’t make without taking the step of essentially suggesting that whatever Putin wants to do is fine.”
Not helping Republicans’ overall messaging efforts is former President Trump, who called Putin’s invasion “genius” Tuesday before saying that an invasion “never would have happened” had he been in office.
It’s unclear if those attitudes will change now that a more significant Russian offensive against Ukraine is underway, but the divisions mark a culmination of a years-long internal dispute. Opinions favoring more isolationist policies bubbled among some Republicans after lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before exploding during Trump’s administration, when he advocated for an “America First” foreign policy to limit foreign imbroglios.
In a Quinnipiac poll released last week, 47 percent of Republicans opposed sending troops to Europe, while just 43 percent backed it. And while part of that is likely a partisan response to the fact that the deployments were ordered by Biden, it still stands in stark contrast to the legacy of a party that has previously not shied away from leaning on the U.S. military.
“Obviously, the more vigorous wing of the party was in charge during the George W. Bush years, and the more restrained view prevailed during the Trump years. And I think that’s always going to be a debate within the party,” said Darling, who used to serve as an aide to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a vocal proponent of a more restricted foreign policy.
“You’ve seen a big split in the party, and it’s clear that the more restrained view is a dominant view in the Republican Party today.”
That trend could continue, given Republicans’ fierce loyalty to Trump. Even if Republicans don’t believe that a more isolationist foreign policy is beneficial, candidates may lean into it to appeal to the former president’s fervent supporters.
Trump upended Republican policies on issues across the board, but he made a large mark on foreign policy, instigating fights with European allies over trade while seeking warmer relations with autocracies like Russia and North Korea.
“It’s no surprise that as Trump has, to some extent, receded from the front pages of politics that other people are going to take up that mantle and take it either in the direction that Trump was going in or veer it slightly,” Heye said.
“As long as we operate in a space of politics being performance art, that’s going to continue to go in very different places than where Republicans have traditionally been.”
It’s still unclear if the disagreement will make a difference on the midterm election map.
Republicans are bullish about their chances to retake both the House and Senate this year, given Biden’s low approval ratings and grumbling over inflation and mask and vaccine mandates. On top of that, foreign policy has historically not significantly moved the needle in election years, and while Republicans are divided on what the U.S. should do regarding Ukraine, they almost universally bash Biden’s early response.
“The contrast between those two ideas and Democrats who have failed in the last two major foreign policy tests could not be starker,” one GOP strategist working on Senate races said, also noting last year’s bloody withdrawal from Afghanistan. “That’s the contrast that voters are looking at.”
But still, the midterms will offer valuable tea leaves over where the GOP is heading — and how a future Republican president could view America’s position in the world.
“We’re going to have to find out,” Heye said when asked which GOP school of thought will prevail. “That’s where primaries will play a role. That’s where obviously general elections will play a role.”