By Robbie Gramer, a staff writer at Foreign Policy from 2016-2024, and Jack Detsch, a Pentagon and national security reporter at Foreign Policy.
Welcome back to Foreign Policy’s SitRep. It’s officially Day One of the NATO summit, which means if you want to spend time in downtown Washington—don’t. If you have to, like us, you’re better off on foot or on a bike. The security perimeter extends around the White House and the Convention Center and has even roped off two Metro stations.
Welcome back to Foreign Policy’s SitRep. It’s officially Day One of the NATO summit, which means if you want to spend time in downtown Washington—don’t. If you have to, like us, you’re better off on foot or on a bike. The security perimeter extends around the White House and the Convention Center and has even roped off two Metro stations.
Alright, here’s what’s on tap for the day: The Republican Party is fighting over its future on NATO, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky prepares for a major address, and Canada gets a bad rap as a free-rider.
When it comes to the Grand Old Party and NATO, it’s a love-hate relationship.
Traditional Republican standard-bearers, such as House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, think the United States has the capacity to walk and chew gum at the same time, to use a government term of art. That means backing Ukraine full tilt while also beefing up defenses in the Indo-Pacific.
Members of Congress who roll their eyes about NATO expansion and continuing to aid Ukraine “don’t remember the Cold War like I do,” McCaul told Foreign Policy, adding that his first presidential vote was for Ronald Reagan amid the U.S.-Soviet tensions of the 1980s.
But such traditional standard-bearers are finding themselves increasingly crowded out of their own tent by politicians aligned with former U.S. President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. So where exactly does the Republican Party, let alone Trump himself, stand on NATO and Ukraine?
In short, it’s complicated.
Creative differences. Nowhere are the differences between the MAGA wing and the more traditional wing of the Republican Party more evident than on Ukraine. A small but loud isolationist faction of the MAGA wing wants to abandon Ukraine—full stop—and some even spout false pro-Russia talking points.
Another faction, personified by Sens. Josh Hawley and J.D. Vance, isn’t cheering for Ukraine to lose but argues the United States needs to wind down in Europe and go all-in on military investments in Asia to counter China.
There’s a much larger faction that aligns with McCaul—wanting to back Ukraine while also pivoting to China—but it’s unclear whether they can hold the line after the 2024 elections.
And what about The Donald? Trump, the man who matters most in this debate, is a frustratingly vexing wild card for European allies. His first administration was a tale of two Trumps: There was the Trump who downplayed Russian election interference, cozied up to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and withheld aid to Ukraine to try to coerce Zelensky into digging up dirt on Joe Biden, leading to his first impeachment scandal.
Then there was the Trump who increased U.S. defense spending in Europe, withdrew from arms agreements with Russia that the Kremlin was violating, booted out Russian diplomats, and ramped up sanctions on Russia (albeit only after significant congressional cajoling).
Which of these two Trumps would occupy the White House if he won a second term is anyone’s guess, but there are some clues. Trump has claimed he would end the Russia-Ukraine war if reelected, and his top campaign aides have drafted a plan that would pressure both sides to come to the negotiating table. If Ukraine didn’t, then under this plan, it would lose access to U.S. weapons. If Russia didn’t, Washington would flood Ukraine with arms.
Many former Trump administration officials and people close to his campaign say Trump understands the stakes of the war in Ukraine and the importance of Europe’s security. But European allies are still unnerved by the prospect of Trump pushing plans to abandon NATO, and by extension Ukraine, in a second term.
Meet in the middle? There’s a genuine effort among Republicans from various wings of the party to forge a middle path between all the factions that keeps Ukraine and NATO in the fold. One of the key figures in this effort is House Speaker Mike Johnson, who gave his first-ever major public address on national security issues at the Hudson Institute on Monday. (SitRep joined the event, hoping he would answer a few questions of ours, but he took no questions from the audience.)
Johnson characterized the China and Russia threats as two sides of the same coin, an argument that could bring more Euroskeptic “China firsters” in the Republican Party over to Ukraine’s side.
“They are increasingly using their collective military, technological, and financial resources to empower one another,” Johnson said. “China and Russia have made their big pact now. … It’s a China-led axis, and I think we do great damage to our cause if we underestimate them.”
Johnson also said he believes the party’s base is still supportive of Ukraine, following the passing of a major national security funding bill, including resources for Ukraine, by the Republican-led House after months of delay. In events Johnson has spoken at around the country, “people all say the same thing: We’re so glad that that was done,” Johnson said of the funding bill.
“They understand that we do have a role to play in the world,” Johnson said of voters. “People understand that [Putin] would not stop if he took Kyiv. He’s a ruthless dictator in my view.”
Johnson’s comments were significant, and so was their timing. They came during the major NATO summit in Washington this week and a week before the Republican National Convention, at a time when Johnson’s voice carries outsized political importance in his raucous party.
It may not be the end of the world for Europeans and Ukrainians if Republicans take the White House in November, but many European officials who welcomed Johnson’s comments with open arms have told us that the “what ifs” of a second Trump presidency are still too big for them to sleep comfortably at night.
What should be high on your radar, if it isn’t already.
Keynote. Zelensky is set to deliver a major speech on Tuesday on the sidelines of the NATO summit at the Reagan Institute in Washington, just a day after a deadly Russian missile strike against a children’s hospital in Kyiv. The establishment Republican think tank hosting Zelensky sends a strong signal of support for Ukraine. The Reagan Institute has previously expressed support for NATO, boosting defense budgets, and Taiwan, even hosting then-Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen at the Reagan Library in California last year.
Zelensky’s appearance there is also a savvy public relations move by the Ukrainians, enabling them to tie their cause directly to the legacy of one of the most popular Republican presidents. “It is fitting that when President Zelenskyy delivers an address during the NATO Summit, he does it from a place that bears President Reagan’s name and reflects his principles of peace through strength,” Oksana Markarova, Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States, said in a statement.
Not adding up. Canada’s defense spending currently hovers at just above 1.3 percent of GDP, well below the 2 percent floor that NATO allies have set—and which nearly 70 percent of the alliance is now meeting. NATO members are reportedly losing patience with Canada’s inability to put up more money for defense. Canada is raising spending by 27 percent next year, Defense Minister Bill Blair told FP’s Ravi Agrawal at an event on Monday, but that only takes Ottawa to 1.7 percent.
“NATO’s right. Every country, member of NATO, has to commit to doing more, [and] we’re committed to doing more,” Blair said. “It’s not just a matter of how you spend, but it’s a matter of spending it well.” Blair said Canada is focused on adding submarines, aircraft, and destroyers with the spending boost. But he admitted that the spending buildup “doesn’t get us entirely where we need to go.”
“I have no intention of Canada being a free-rider,” Blair said.
House Speaker Johnson, speaking at the Hudson Institute, wasn’t buying what Canada is selling. “Shamefully, Canada announced in the last few days that they won’t be ponying up, they’re not gonna do their 2 percent,” he said when asked about alliance burden-sharing. “Talk about riding on America’s coattails. … I think that’s shameful.”
Resilience. NATO is asking all 32 members to put in place civil defense plans to help stave off a future Russian attack, Jack reported today. The idea is that allies will pledge to put in place arrangements that bring together civilian and military planning to help out if NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause is triggered. It’s part of an ongoing effort within NATO to prepare for a possible future Russian attack on the alliance that members believe is likely to include long-range missile strikes, disinformation, disruption of ports, and assaults on the energy grid—similar to what the Ukrainians have faced during Russia’s full-scale invasion.
“You have to be capable of being defendable while waiting for Article 5 to come into play,” said Dalia Bankauskaite, a nonresident senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a Washington-based think tank. “You have to be self-sufficient for self-defense within your territory with whatever resources you have.”
Pressure on Pennsylvania Ave. With traditional hard-power Republicans crowding the spin rooms and sideline events at the NATO summit—and most NATO members actually hitting the alliance’s threshold for defense spending—the pressure is on the Biden administration to loosen targeting restrictions that are preventing Ukraine from striking deeper into Russia with U.S. weapons.
Although the Biden administration recently loosened restrictions to allow Ukraine to use the so-called Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System to hit Russian troops over the border from the eastern city of Kharkiv, which has been under attack since April, the Kremlin has now moved its forces back beyond the weapon’s 45-mile targeting range.
McCaul and others want the White House to approve the use of the longer-range Army Tactical Missile System to hit Russian targets, but they say the Biden administration is stalling. “The short-range [Army Tactical Missile System] could certainly hit these glide bombers that are coming out of there, and the longer range could knock out all of it,” McCaul said. “But [White House National Security Advisor] Jake Sullivan just won’t allow it.”
“The American people want to see a victory,” he added.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg throws out the first pitch in a baseball game between the Washington Nationals and the St. Louis Cardinals at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C., on July 8.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg throws out the first pitch in a baseball game between the Washington Nationals and the St. Louis Cardinals at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C., on July 8. Mitchell Layton/Getty Images
Tuesday, July 9: NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg gives the keynote speech at the Defense Industry Forum. NATO holds its 75th Anniversary Celebratory Event at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium in Washington.
Wednesday, July 10: The NATO Public Forum begins on the sidelines of the Washington summit. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin hosts a dinner for the NATO defense ministers at Fort McNair in Washington.
Thursday, July 11: Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is scheduled to give an address at the National Press Club in Washington to offer a solution “to the mounting political crisis,” according to a statement. (Hopefully it’s not another brain worm.)
“I think it’s become clear that he’s not the best person to carry the Democratic message. It hasn’t gotten better since the debate.”
—Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, becomes the highest-ranking Democrat to publicly call on Biden to withdraw his bid for reelection after a shaky debate performance last month.
Robbie Gramer was a staff writer at Foreign Policy from 2016-2024. X: @robbiegramer
Jack Detsch is a Pentagon and national security reporter at Foreign Policy. X: @JackDetsch
Commenting on this and other recent articles is just one benefit of a Foreign Policy subscription.
Already a subscriber? Log In.
Join the conversation on this and other recent Foreign Policy articles when you subscribe now.
Not your account? Log out
Please follow our comment guidelines, stay on topic, and be civil, courteous, and respectful of others’ beliefs.
