“How can the right be so wrong?” This refreshingly provocative pun serves as the opening salvo in British author Douglas Murray’s broadside against MAGA’s stance on Ukraine. Murray, undeniably gifted with words — if less so with ideas — initially led me to suspect that this was a lazy editor’s bait, cast to hook as many closeted neocons as possible. Sadly, the rest of his piece proved me wrong.
In it, we never learn exactly how MAGA gets it so wrong regarding Ukraine because Murray busies himself chasing fringe conspiracies instead of addressing core arguments head-on.
For starters, he conveniently sidesteps the clear point Trump made directly to Zelenskyy last week in the Oval Office: continuing this path risks World War III and nuclear annihilation, while American taxpayers pour hundreds of billions annually into a bloody stalemate that claims two thousand lives each week — all without any clear resolution.
Instead of addressing the undeniable practical concerns of the present, Murray bases his argument on a perceived MAGA shortsightedness about the past. He contends that Ukraine only entered American consciousness twice in the past decade — through Hunter Biden’s shady dealings and Trump’s impeachment over a phone call with Zelenskyy. In doing so, he implicitly accuses MAGA supporters of behaving as if the war started in 2022. Ironically, by overlooking two critical issues consistently raised by MAGA — the U.S. support for the EU-driven overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russia government in 2014 (the Euromaidan affair) and NATO’s relentless eastward expansion — Murray himself might be guilty of such oversight.
As is often true, the accuser unwittingly exposes more about himself. Murray belittles MAGA as “mainly online,” insinuating that by remaining outside established media narratives, they are susceptible to Russian propaganda. It’s the tired ‘Russian hoax,’ now dressed up in its latest ‘fierce and brave’ op-ed guise.
Murray wastes further paragraphs highlighting absurd fringe theories he claims are central to MAGA beliefs — such as Ukraine not being a “real country” or Ukrainians not being a “real people” — only to undermine legitimate concerns around Ukraine’s deep-seated corruption and the troubling neo-Nazi elements within its army.
He deeply regrets episodes like Hunter Biden’s Burisma scandal and the ousting of the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating him — not for their substance, but because they unfairly, in his view, cast Ukraine as corrupt.
To top it off, he suggests that the online right “became bored” with the conflict. Bored with two thousand deaths a week? Perhaps Murray enjoys watching young men shoot each other from the comfort of his couch — but appalling is hardly appealing to everyone. At least not always.
The price tag for World War II was sixty million lives. Today, the markup with a nuclear power involved would be much higher. Is Murray ready to write that check? Just so we’re clear.
Neoconite in Shining Armour
I’m not quite ready to label Douglas Murray a woke globalist, which is a worrying sign that the neocons aren’t sending us their best — even when they are. Still, he’s bold enough to voice their latest swan song.
He champions what he calls a “Republican principle,” asserting that tanks should not roll unchecked into an “allied country.” Since there’s no formal defense treaty binding the U.S. and Ukraine, he presumably refers to the “U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership,” which explicitly references NATO’s 2008 declaration affirming Ukraine will join NATO.
However, Murray, perhaps blinded by his own briliance, contradicts himself: if he advocates for U.S. intervention based on NATO obligations, he cannot simultaneously deny that NATO expansion—the Holy Grail for neocons—is a fundamental factor driving the conflict, nor can he ignore its influence on MAGA criticism.
He praises the “old guard” Republicans who asserted themselves “pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin,” while decrying the MAGA Republicans “veering in a different direction.” In his eyes, anything short of full support for continued fighting in Ukraine must stem from historical ignorance, vulnerability to Russian propaganda, or — heaven forbid — a rejection of neoconservative dogma.
Here, Murray’s superficial understanding is glaring, as he mistakenly views MAGA as an offshoot of neoconservatism or believes conservatism began when history supposedly ended in the early 1990s.
What else does Murray accuse MAGA of misunderstanding? He mocks the idea that moderation or peace could be effective solutions, reducing the conflict to a beauty pageant between Putin and Zelenskyy — good versus evil, with no middle ground. You either back Ukraine wholeheartedly or you’re just a Russian dupe.
Is MAGA wrong to highlight that Zelenskyy overtly campaigned for Biden, thereby politicizing U.S. support? And what about the $61 billion Ukrainian aid package Congress passed last April, presumably as a stopgap until Trump’s anticipated return to the White House could end the war? Apparently, these are also trivial details.
To bolster his black-and-white narrative, he concedes — though fleetingly — Zelenskyy’s and Ukraine’s flaws, yet insists Russia and Putin are far worse: dictatorship, corruption, hypocrisy regarding Christianity, forced conscription, and fraudulent elections. All true, of course — but irrelevant to MAGA’s plea for peace.
His MAGA critique never transcends a simple matter of picking sides in an imaginary moral quandary. He fails to question the trajectory of the conflict, its true costs, or the potential outcomes. Murray’s fundamental mistake lies in assuming that ‘correctness’ in this conflict is determined by the ‘team’ you’re supposedly cheering for.
