US Pollster: 'Deep State' Wanted to Ensure Trump's Imprint On Failed Ukraine Policy

Fifty-one percent of Americans disapprove of US lawmakers passing a new Ukraine package, as per the DC-based Democracy Institute's latest survey. Sputnik sat down with the institute's head Patrick Basham to discuss the growing rift between the US establishment and the American people regarding Washington's Ukraine policy.

Most Americans hold a realistic view of the unfolding Ukraine conflict and want their government to prioritize domestic economic and national security interests, according to Patrick Basham, head of Democracy Institute, a politically independent research organization based in Washington and London.

Basham likewise does not rule out that Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has been played by the US "deep state" into supporting the unpopular Ukraine aid package.

Sputnik: US Congress' decision to back Joe Biden's $61 billion aid package for Ukraine to fight its war against Russia has been met with disapproval from US voters on both sides of the political aisle, according to your new poll. Why did Mike Johnson and some of his fellow Republicans in the House decide to snub the GOP's base on Ukraine?

Patrick Basham: Speaker Johnson and many congressional Republicans snubbed their own voters on Ukraine funding for two reasons: ignorance and ideology. These Republican politicians, along with the majority of American congressmen and senators, are abysmally ignorant about the state of the war in Ukraine. They do not realize that Ukraine has been defeated; many of them even believe Ukraine can still win the military contest with Russia.

They are also adherents to a foreign policy ideology that is at odds with the perspective held by the overwhelming majority of conservative and Republican voters in America. The politicians are neoconservatives who divide the world into black and white, good and bad nations. They believe that American and Western military and economic power can and should remove from power foreign governments that America dislikes – and, crucially, that the removal of these governments will be met with approval from those formerly ruled by them. Although these costly interventions consistently fail, they are advertised as projects to advance democracy, freedom, and prosperity.

In striking contrast, most Republican voters (and most Americans) hold a more realistic view of American power. They want Washington to prioritize American interests (especially economic and national security) abroad. As such, they are deeply reluctant to put American soldiers in harm’s way for little, if any, apparent benefit to America, and they are also acutely sensitive to the horrendous economic cost of waging a prolonged overseas war.

Sputnik: Your survey has also indicated that Donald Trump's support for Speaker Mike Johnson failed to sway the American opposition to funding the Ukrainian conflict. Nonetheless, Sen. Lindsey Graham claimed that Trump's support helped ram the Ukraine package through Congress. What's your take on Trump's role in advocating the provision of Ukraine aid in the form of a loan and backing Johnson's Ukraine bill?

Patrick Basham: Trump's support for Johnson helped to make the Ukraine bill more palatable to some Republican congressmen. Trump provided political cover for those Republican politicians afraid of attacks from "America First" critics within their own party.

I presume that Trump’s principal goal was to shore up Johnson’s overall position within the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives so that during the election campaign Republicans would not experience yet another drawn-out, politically painful exercise to choose a new speaker.

Sputnik: Could Trump's apparent support for funding Ukraine hurt his election chances given the growing opposition to supporting Zelensky's war effort?

Patrick Basham: It was an unwise move on Trump’s part to appear to support more Ukraine funding. Further Ukraine funding is not only very unpopular among his voters, but it is also an increasingly important issue for them. Such levels of opposition to Ukraine funding are also found among Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s supporters, many of whom Trump hopes to persuade to vote for him in November.

President Biden and the Democrats seek to band-aid Ukraine together until the election so that they can allege the war is not yet lost, rather than face the voters’ wrath should everyone belatedly appreciate that almost $200 billion of American taxpayer money has been wasted on an always unwinnable war. Trump was probably attempting to ensure that, should the Zelensky government collapse before the election, he is not blamed by the media and Democrats for that outcome.

Given Trump’s explicit opposition to Biden’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine and Russia, and Trump’s insistence that he would end the conflict shortly after regaining the presidency, the vast majority of his supporters will not abandon him on this issue, although many will be underwhelmed by his recent actions.

Sputnik: The Wall Street Journal claimed Johnson convinced Trump to back the Ukraine aid bill by telling him that it would give him an upper hand in future peace talks if he wins the presidency. Johnson also reportedly told Trump that Russia should be defeated and driven away from the territories it joined in order to make Kiev capable of paying back the US. What do you make of the WSJ report? Did the US "deep state" try to compromise Trump?

Patrick Basham: America’s deep state has spent the past nine years attempting to compromise Trump on all policy matters, so it is perfectly logical to assume that they wanted him to support the new Ukraine aid in order to ensure his imprint upon this failed policy, which they would hope would minimize his policy options in the future.

If Trump accepted any of Johnson’s arguments regarding the benefits of supporting new funding then he would have suffered a massive, hopefully temporary, collective case of amnesia and naivete. One would hope that Trump remains far too savvy and realistic about the Ukrainian government specifically, and the course of the military conflict with Russia more generally, to have accepted any of Johnson’s weak arguments and rationales. If he did, then he urgently needs new, better-informed advisers on these issues.

Sputnik: Earlier, Trump said that he would push for a deal providing a speedy resolution to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia if he is reelected as president. Do you think his initial stance remained unchanged?

Patrick Basham: It is highly likely that Trump’s pro-peace deal stance remains unchanged. If elected, he will be in a position to deliver on the promise of a speedy resolution to the conflict. His most recent actions reflect an unwise temporary focus upon the internal battles within the Republican Party leadership in Congress. His decision to support Johnson’s leadership had the unfortunate timing of coinciding with, and thereby being dragged into, the Ukraine funding debate. As a result, Trump has been dragged into an apparent softening of an otherwise clear position that is very strong in both policy and public opinion terms.