GOP senators split on Trump’s attacks on Zelensky, reversals on Ukraine

US President Trump

Republican senators have expressed differing opinions over President Donald Trump’s recent comments regarding Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his stance on the war in Ukraine. Trump’s attacks on Zelensky, along with his shift in policy on the war, have highlighted the evolving dynamics within the GOP regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to The Washington Post.

GOP response to Trump’s remarks on Zelensky

Trump’s remark on February 18 that Zelensky is a “dictator without elections” has sparked division among Republican lawmakers. While some, such as Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), supported Trump’s statement, arguing that Zelensky should hold elections even under martial law, others distanced themselves from the comments. Hawley insisted that the Ukrainian president should hold an election, citing the fact that the country has not had a presidential election in six years due to the ongoing Russian invasion. However, it should be noted that under martial law, elections are typically postponed, and Ukraine’s president would have completed his term in May 2024 under normal circumstances.

On the other hand, some GOP senators rejected Trump’s view, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) calling Russia the primary aggressor in the conflict. Graham continued to praise Trump, describing him as “Ukraine’s best hope to end this war honourably and justly.” However, Graham did not align with Trump’s criticism of Zelensky, and instead, focused on a path for Ukraine to join NATO.

Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) also pushed back on Trump’s claim that Ukraine is responsible for the war. Thune emphasized, “Russia is the aggressor here, there’s no question about that.” However, when questioned about Trump’s labelling of Zelensky as a “dictator,” Thune remarked, “the president speaks for himself,” steering clear of further confrontation. Thune's focus was on finding a peaceful resolution to the war rather than directly addressing the contentious remarks made by Trump.

Trump’s stance and the pushback from Republicans

Trump has repeatedly suggested that Ukraine could have avoided the war with Russia through negotiation. The former president maintains that Zelensky’s actions and the refusal to negotiate with Russia earlier in the conflict were key factors in the escalation of violence. His comments, including claims that Ukraine “should have never started” the war, have drawn criticism from both Ukrainian officials and members of his own party. Despite the backlash, some Republican lawmakers, such as Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), speculated that Trump’s statements were part of a broader negotiation strategy aimed at positioning himself for an “America First” solution to the conflict. Cramer suggested that Trump was setting the stage for a peace deal that aligns with his longstanding goal of withdrawing the US from overseas conflicts.

Trump’s remarks about Zelensky also ignited debates within the GOP about the US's role in Ukraine’s defence. While some Republicans continue to support robust assistance to Ukraine, others are questioning whether the US should continue to fund the war. The ideological divide within the party underscores the challenges Republicans face as they navigate foreign policy issues ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

Democratic reaction and broader implications

Democrats were quick to condemn Trump’s comments, with many accusing him of echoing Russian propaganda. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) described Trump’s statements as “embarrassing” and “shameful,” while Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) said that Trump was once again “trying to cozy up to Vladimir Putin.” Kaine urged his Republican colleagues to “speak out” in defence of Zelensky, emphasizing that the war was started by Russia, not Ukraine.

The contrasting reactions within the GOP reflect broader divisions within the party on foreign policy. As the war in Ukraine continues to unfold, Republicans are grappling with whether to support continued US involvement or to embrace Trump’s “America First” approach, which calls for a reduced role in foreign conflicts.