Andreas Kluth: Republicans are (almost) ready for maximum pressure on Russia

The epiphany of common sense came late in an otherwise tedious congressional subcommittee hearing, and from a Democrat, Representative Jim Costa. He gets that Republicans and the administration of Donald Trump take pride in exerting “maximum pressure” on Iran, Costa made clear. But at this “seminal moment in American and world history,” he asked, “what about maximum pressure on Russia?”

What about it indeed? The greatest puzzle (among many) about MAGA foreign policy is why Trump refuses to get tough with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, who shows no interest in good-faith peace negotiations and is cynically stringing Trump along — “playing this president like a fiddle,” in the words of Jeanne Shaheen, the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

There is Trump’s worrisome history of indulging or even admiring Putin, while showing contempt for his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Then there’s his shocking failure to distinguish between aggressor and victim in the conflict, and his bizarre negotiating tactic of giving away the West’s best bargaining chips — security guarantees for Ukraine, a path to its NATO membership — before talks have even begun.

And whenever Putin responds by bombing more Ukrainians, Trump does nothing beyond venting on Truth Social. This is minimum pressure.

The obvious explanation for how Trump has so far gotten away with such weakness is that Republicans control Congress and he controls Republicans. The MAGA faction, which includes neo-isolationists and Putin apologists, has largely succeeded in cowing Republicans in the hawkish mold of Ronald Reagan, a tradition that believes in American exceptionalism and leadership. Too often the effect has been to make the GOP put lipstick on defeatism.

But the MAGA takeover of the GOP is not complete, and Republicans ready to stare down Russia — though their numbers are unclear — are waiting for their moment to change course. That should provide a glimmer of hope not only for Ukrainians but also for America’s allies as they gather in the coming weeks, first in the Group of Seven and then at the NATO summit in The Hague.

Take Don Bacon, a Republican congressman from Nebraska who spent almost half his life in the Air Force and has been a Reagan Republican since he was 16. He is one of the few in the GOP who stands with Ukraine and against Russian aggression whether that stance is in vogue or not. On various occasions he and his wife received profanity-laced threats.

Yet here he still is. “I just see it so clearly that we have a leadership role in the world to help Ukraine prevail, and I’m willing to take someone’s anger over this because I think it’s so right,” he told me. By Bacon’s count, Russia has changed borders by force nine times since 1991, and to him it’s clear that if Putin were allowed to prevail in Ukraine, he’d go on to add a tenth or eleventh, perhaps in Moldova or Georgia.

What he wants from his colleagues and the administration is simple: First, he told me, “I would love to have moral clarity. Who is the bad guy? Who’s the good guy?” Peace talks only make sense once that is clear, because “you got to negotiate with truth.” Even then, he thinks, Trump already sabotaged his and Kyiv’s negotiating position by making concessions in advance. All the more reason to dial up the economic and diplomatic pressure on Russia to the absolute maximum.

A bipartisan bill to that effect is already waiting in the Senate. If it becomes law, it will punish countries, including giants such as India and China, with prohibitive tariffs and other measures if they continue to buy Russian oil, gas or uranium, thus sinking the shadow fleets and ending the gray-market transactions that have sustained the Kremlin’s war effort despite Western sanctions.

The legislation hasn’t gone to the floor yet because Republican senators such as Lindsey Graham, a co-sponsor, want to move forward with rather than against Trump. But a growing group of other legislators is raring to go.

That’s becoming clearer in almost every hearing. In one Senate session this week, Mitch McConnell, the committee chairman (and former majority leader), confronted Trump’s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, with the same moral and strategic clarity that guides Bacon. “Who’s the aggressor and who’s the victim?,” McConnell pressed Hegseth. “Russia is the aggressor,” Hegseth admitted. “Which side do you want to win?,” McConnell pursued. “This president is committed to peace in that conflict,” Hegseth tried to evade.

That caused cringing in the room. “We're in the midst of brokering what appears to be allowing the Russians to define victory,” McConnell harangued; “America’s reputation is on the line. Will we defend democratic allies against authoritarian aggressors?” Twisting a rhetorical knife into the cabinet member of an administration that claims to Make America Great Again, McConnell lectured his Republican witness that “we don’t want a headline at the end of this conflict that says ‘Russia wins and America loses.’”

McConnell is in the dusk of his career and has relatively little to lose from speaking out. For others in Congress, though, it takes courage. Bacon told me that many like-minded Republicans don’t yet dare step out of the closet. One high-profile colleague — whom he won’t name — keeps coming up to him saying “Don, thank you for speaking up on Ukraine, we need more of it.” Bacon chuckles: “I’m like, it’d be helpful if you spoke up.”

As war consumes eastern Europe and so much of the planet, and the administration gropes fecklessly for America’s proper role in this world, it’s easy to despair, especially if you’re Ukrainian.

But the struggle is not yet lost, either within Congress or within the party of Trump, which also remains the party of Reagan. The right texts are drafted, and the voices of courage are audible, if still few. All that remains is for others to heed their conscience, and to pass the test of history by finally letting Putin feel America’s maximum pressure.

_____

This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Andreas Kluth is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering US diplomacy, national security and geopolitics. Previously, he was editor-in-chief of Handelsblatt Global and a writer for the Economist.