Usually, I focus this column on European affairs. But the alarming spread of Kremlin-aligned talking points following the Trump-Zelensky showdown demands attention. It represents a genuine threat to our democratic conversation.
The scene in the Oval Office on 28 February needs little recounting. President Trump’s public humiliation of Ukrainian President Zelensky shocked allies and delighted Moscow.
European leaders reacted with horror, while Russian officials barely contained their glee. One person, and one alone, emerged strengthened from this diplomatic disaster: Vladimir Putin.
Yet, remarkably, a chorus of voices – including several commentators in New Zealand – rushed to defend Trump’s behaviour.
Scan the comments sections of mainstream news sites, political blogs, or social media platforms discussing the incident, and you will find a remarkably consistent set of responses.
Some claim Zelensky employed “manipulation tactics” in the Oval Office. Others assert the entire Ukraine conflict is merely a “money laundering exercise” for Western elites. Some dismiss Zelensky as an “egotistical politician” unconcerned with his people’s suffering. Many accuse NATO of being the true aggressor.
This rhetoric reflects a concerning pattern. Critiques of Trump often receive a predictable response, regardless of the source. Critics are promptly diagnosed with “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS), a supposedly clinical condition that renders them incapable of rational thought when it comes to the 45th and 47th president.
This diagnosis has become so standardised that Trump’s defenders simply use the acronym TDS as if referencing an established medical condition rather than engaging with substantive arguments. It functions as a convenient dismissal mechanism, allowing complex geopolitical concerns to be waved away as mere emotional reaction.
However, the diagnosis is more aptly applied to Trump’s defenders than his detractors. It is they who exhibit the defining symptoms of derangement: abandonment of previously held principles, immunity to factual evidence and willingness to excuse behaviour they would condemn in any other context.
The moral compass of these devotees has been so thoroughly corrupted that it no longer points to true north but swivels toward whatever position Trump adopts, no matter how contradictory or problematic.
It must be exhausting to maintain this level of devotion. They champion tariffs when he proposes them, then pivot to supporting their cancellation when he changes his mind. They criticise endless wars until Trump threatens to start new ones. The only consistent principle is unwavering loyalty to Trump himself.
When policy experts express concerns about Trump’s approach to geopolitics, the conspiratorial thinking deepens. Any critique, no matter how carefully reasoned, is immediately framed as evidence of some shadowy globalist agenda. Social media responses routinely paint critics as operatives of various global conspiracies – from the World Economic Forum to vaguely defined “elite cabals” supposedly controlling governments from the shadows.
Equally concerning are the comments appearing across New Zealand’s online discourse whenever Trump’s treatment of Ukraine is discussed. The responses mirror Kremlin talking points with remarkable fidelity. Critics of Trump’s position are dismissed as ‘emotional’ or ‘stuck in Cold War thinking.
The most extreme comments directly echo Moscow’s framing that Western elites are the real aggressors against Russia.
These positions reflect a remarkable inversion of values among many of these self-described “conservatives.” Voices that once championed NATO as the bulwark of Western security now applaud Trump’s undermining of the alliance that has preserved peace in Europe for over seven decades.
They find themselves, perhaps unwittingly, aligned with Kremlin propagandists who openly celebrated Trump’s public humiliation of Zelensky.
As documented extensively by disinformation researchers, Russian influence operations have targeted Western audiences with specific themes: portraying Zelensky as ungrateful and corrupt (and Jewish), framing Ukraine as a puppet of Western elites, depicting NATO as provocative rather than defensive, and presenting Trump as the lone voice of reason in a hysterical establishment.
Most of those parroting these narratives would not see themselves as disseminators of Russian propaganda. They genuinely believe they have reached their conclusions independently.
In reality, though, they have become precisely what Soviet intelligence once called “useful idiots” – unwitting amplifiers of foreign propaganda. They serve Putin’s strategic interests while believing themselves to be free thinkers.
These are not coincidental overlaps. The Kremlin has identified right-wing populism as fertile ground for its messaging, correctly assessing that cultural grievances about ‘wokeness’ could be leveraged to undermine Western unity.
It has worked remarkably well. Many conservative commentators now unthinkingly regurgitate talking points that originated in Russian disinformation factories, not because they are Russian agents but because these narratives conveniently align with their cultural hostility toward progressive politics.
This brings us to perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Trump-defenders’ derangement: their willingness to sacrifice core security principles on the altar of anti-wokeness.
Many have convinced themselves that opposing “liberal elites” justifies any means, including aligning with an authoritarian leader who openly admires dictators.
They have bizarrely cast Zelensky as a symbol of the progressive values they despise rather than seeing him for what he is: a wartime president fighting for his nation’s survival. And so, they cheer when Trump humiliates him, not considering the strategic implications for Western security or the moral message it sends.
There is a certain irony to all this. These self-proclaimed guardians of conservatism have abandoned virtually every principle traditionally associated with that philosophy: strong national defence, support for one’s allies, moral clarity regarding authoritarian regimes and the importance of character in leadership.
Instead, they have embraced a vapid cult of personality, where the only consistent value is loyalty to Trump himself.
I ask myself what it would take for Trump’s defenders to reconsider their unwavering support. What line must he cross before they reconsider? Perhaps abandoning NATO Article 5 commitments? Would selling out Taiwan to China suffice? Or maybe praising Xi Jinping the way he praises Putin?
The reality is that Trump has already crossed countless lines that would have been unimaginable for any previous American president.
He has openly sided with Putin over his own intelligence agencies. He has threatened political opponents with imprisonment. America voted with Russia, China, North Korea and Iran against a UN resolution supporting Ukraine. He has praised dictators while insulting democratic allies. He has called the free press “the enemy of the people.” And now he has publicly humiliated a wartime leader fighting for his nation’s survival.
Yet still, his defenders insist that those of us pointing out these alarming developments are the deranged ones.
For a small nation like New Zealand, this is particularly dangerous. Our prosperity and security depend entirely on what remains of a rules-based international order, much of which Trump has already unravelled.
If powerful nations can bully smaller ones with impunity, and if security guarantees can be withdrawn on a presidential whim, our position becomes precarious.
Trump’s approach to Ukraine signals that he views international relations as purely transactional, with no room for values or principles. In such a world, New Zealand’s interests might be breezily sacrificed by major powers focused exclusively on their own agendas.
Kiwi commentators cheering Trump’s behaviour applaud the dismantling of the system that protects us.
History will not look kindly on those who enabled the unravelling of the liberal international order, particularly those who did so while pretending to uphold conservative values. Just as appeasers of the 1930s are remembered with scorn, today’s apologists for authoritarianism will eventually face a harsh judgment.
The cure for the real Trump Derangement Syndrome is straightforward: a return to moral clarity and intellectual honesty.
It requires acknowledging that principles matter more than personalities, that facts should outweigh partisan loyalty, and that democracy is worth defending even when its messengers are imperfect.
Most importantly, it demands recognising that when you find yourself on the same side as the Kremlin in matters of international security, it might be time to reconsider your position.
For those still defending Trump’s assault on Ukraine and the Western alliance, that moment of reckoning cannot come soon enough.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE
European leaders reacted with horror, while Russian officials barely contained their glee. One person, and one alone, emerged strengthened from this diplomatic disaster: Vladimir Putin.
Yet, remarkably, a chorus of voices – including several commentators in New Zealand – rushed to defend Trump’s behaviour.
Scan the comments sections of mainstream news sites, political blogs, or social media platforms discussing the incident, and you will find a remarkably consistent set of responses.
Some claim Zelensky employed “manipulation tactics” in the Oval Office. Others assert the entire Ukraine conflict is merely a “money laundering exercise” for Western elites. Some dismiss Zelensky as an “egotistical politician” unconcerned with his people’s suffering. Many accuse NATO of being the true aggressor.
This rhetoric reflects a concerning pattern. Critiques of Trump often receive a predictable response, regardless of the source. Critics are promptly diagnosed with “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS), a supposedly clinical condition that renders them incapable of rational thought when it comes to the 45th and 47th president.
This diagnosis has become so standardised that Trump’s defenders simply use the acronym TDS as if referencing an established medical condition rather than engaging with substantive arguments. It functions as a convenient dismissal mechanism, allowing complex geopolitical concerns to be waved away as mere emotional reaction.
However, the diagnosis is more aptly applied to Trump’s defenders than his detractors. It is they who exhibit the defining symptoms of derangement: abandonment of previously held principles, immunity to factual evidence and willingness to excuse behaviour they would condemn in any other context.
The moral compass of these devotees has been so thoroughly corrupted that it no longer points to true north but swivels toward whatever position Trump adopts, no matter how contradictory or problematic.
It must be exhausting to maintain this level of devotion. They champion tariffs when he proposes them, then pivot to supporting their cancellation when he changes his mind. They criticise endless wars until Trump threatens to start new ones. The only consistent principle is unwavering loyalty to Trump himself.
When policy experts express concerns about Trump’s approach to geopolitics, the conspiratorial thinking deepens. Any critique, no matter how carefully reasoned, is immediately framed as evidence of some shadowy globalist agenda. Social media responses routinely paint critics as operatives of various global conspiracies – from the World Economic Forum to vaguely defined “elite cabals” supposedly controlling governments from the shadows.
Equally concerning are the comments appearing across New Zealand’s online discourse whenever Trump’s treatment of Ukraine is discussed. The responses mirror Kremlin talking points with remarkable fidelity. Critics of Trump’s position are dismissed as ‘emotional’ or ‘stuck in Cold War thinking.
The most extreme comments directly echo Moscow’s framing that Western elites are the real aggressors against Russia.
These positions reflect a remarkable inversion of values among many of these self-described “conservatives.” Voices that once championed NATO as the bulwark of Western security now applaud Trump’s undermining of the alliance that has preserved peace in Europe for over seven decades.
They find themselves, perhaps unwittingly, aligned with Kremlin propagandists who openly celebrated Trump’s public humiliation of Zelensky.
As documented extensively by disinformation researchers, Russian influence operations have targeted Western audiences with specific themes: portraying Zelensky as ungrateful and corrupt (and Jewish), framing Ukraine as a puppet of Western elites, depicting NATO as provocative rather than defensive, and presenting Trump as the lone voice of reason in a hysterical establishment.
Most of those parroting these narratives would not see themselves as disseminators of Russian propaganda. They genuinely believe they have reached their conclusions independently.
In reality, though, they have become precisely what Soviet intelligence once called “useful idiots” – unwitting amplifiers of foreign propaganda. They serve Putin’s strategic interests while believing themselves to be free thinkers.
These are not coincidental overlaps. The Kremlin has identified right-wing populism as fertile ground for its messaging, correctly assessing that cultural grievances about ‘wokeness’ could be leveraged to undermine Western unity.
It has worked remarkably well. Many conservative commentators now unthinkingly regurgitate talking points that originated in Russian disinformation factories, not because they are Russian agents but because these narratives conveniently align with their cultural hostility toward progressive politics.
This brings us to perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Trump-defenders’ derangement: their willingness to sacrifice core security principles on the altar of anti-wokeness.
Many have convinced themselves that opposing “liberal elites” justifies any means, including aligning with an authoritarian leader who openly admires dictators.
They have bizarrely cast Zelensky as a symbol of the progressive values they despise rather than seeing him for what he is: a wartime president fighting for his nation’s survival. And so, they cheer when Trump humiliates him, not considering the strategic implications for Western security or the moral message it sends.
There is a certain irony to all this. These self-proclaimed guardians of conservatism have abandoned virtually every principle traditionally associated with that philosophy: strong national defence, support for one’s allies, moral clarity regarding authoritarian regimes and the importance of character in leadership.
Instead, they have embraced a vapid cult of personality, where the only consistent value is loyalty to Trump himself.
I ask myself what it would take for Trump’s defenders to reconsider their unwavering support. What line must he cross before they reconsider? Perhaps abandoning NATO Article 5 commitments? Would selling out Taiwan to China suffice? Or maybe praising Xi Jinping the way he praises Putin?
The reality is that Trump has already crossed countless lines that would have been unimaginable for any previous American president.
He has openly sided with Putin over his own intelligence agencies. He has threatened political opponents with imprisonment. America voted with Russia, China, North Korea and Iran against a UN resolution supporting Ukraine. He has praised dictators while insulting democratic allies. He has called the free press “the enemy of the people.” And now he has publicly humiliated a wartime leader fighting for his nation’s survival.
Yet still, his defenders insist that those of us pointing out these alarming developments are the deranged ones.
For a small nation like New Zealand, this is particularly dangerous. Our prosperity and security depend entirely on what remains of a rules-based international order, much of which Trump has already unravelled.
If powerful nations can bully smaller ones with impunity, and if security guarantees can be withdrawn on a presidential whim, our position becomes precarious.
Trump’s approach to Ukraine signals that he views international relations as purely transactional, with no room for values or principles. In such a world, New Zealand’s interests might be breezily sacrificed by major powers focused exclusively on their own agendas.
Kiwi commentators cheering Trump’s behaviour applaud the dismantling of the system that protects us.
History will not look kindly on those who enabled the unravelling of the liberal international order, particularly those who did so while pretending to uphold conservative values. Just as appeasers of the 1930s are remembered with scorn, today’s apologists for authoritarianism will eventually face a harsh judgment.
The cure for the real Trump Derangement Syndrome is straightforward: a return to moral clarity and intellectual honesty.
It requires acknowledging that principles matter more than personalities, that facts should outweigh partisan loyalty, and that democracy is worth defending even when its messengers are imperfect.
Most importantly, it demands recognising that when you find yourself on the same side as the Kremlin in matters of international security, it might be time to reconsider your position.
For those still defending Trump’s assault on Ukraine and the Western alliance, that moment of reckoning cannot come soon enough.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE
13 comments:
Completely agree. The World has gone mad. Supporting Putin is a disaster waiting to happen.
He cannot be trusted.
When Russia invaded Ukraine they attacked in the North and East, Russia wanted the whole country not just the East.
I see a lot of comments about how smart Donald Trump is, he ain’t that bright. Tarrifs are a case in point, they will hurt his own people.
Continuing the war in Ukraine is madness. Trump is right in his attempts to bring Putin to the negotiating table. And it will cost Ukraine some territory. I shudder to think of the devastation wrought by Joe Biden and how that would have been furthered by the 'cackling hyena'. If that means I have TDS, then so be it.
Here we go again...That vapid threat about "history will not look kindly on those who enabled...insert anti conservative smug liberal ideology here".
Get over it and yourself. Everyone gets out of line sometimes and if the USA deemed it necessary to voice their views on the behavior of a leader of another nation so be it.
It's ridiculous to claim Russian propaganda narratives have now infiltrated western public debate because of a "dressing down".
And any threat to "our democratic conversation" and "apologists for authoritarianism" and "cult of personality" happened under NZs previous administration. All facts that you have conveniently forgotten dear "comrade".
I don't see the word 'peace' anywhere in this comment.
I'm with Dr Hartwich every inch of the way on this. I have no doubt that the great United States will be a decidedly diminish nation by the end of this Trump presidency. More than just the nation he leads, but world peace and prosperity, too, is likely to be imperiled.
And Germany has always been a blessed child without sin Oliver ? Many NZers fought against the HUN and the atrocities Germany committed . Your comments are unreasonable , probably wrong.
I don't agree with the above columnist that those who agree with ending the war in Ukraine are either Trump or Putin supporters. My own views are based on what I observe and read and then I research the credentials of those who appear credible, like 4 star General Jack Keane. He obviously would have knowledge of military matters. As well, I watched both CNN and Fox News for many years, two channels with diametrically opposed views. CNN was unrelenting in its day by day denigration of Donald Trump. Unbelievably so. I had no views about him at that stage. I believe he is a patriotic American and it is (unfortunately for New Zealand), not his role to look after us. That role falls at the feet of our own Prime Minister and politicians. However there are people like Chris Liddell who should be appointed to diplomatic roles to meet with the US president as I believe we need to keep on side.
Completely agree with the author's comments. And Trump does not 'negotiate', he does 'deals' in which he has to have the dominant position. Six bankruptcies, where hundreds of small/medium businesses, contractors, tradesmen and employees have been forced to settle for partial or no payment for services rendered, are testament to the folly of trusting Trump.
A more accurate take would be;
The west has been living in a media illusion on the Ukraine conflict. The illusion is faltering as smashes into inconceivable reality.
Here’s an example, you remember when Russia was running out of ammo? Had not guns, using human leaves? None of that was true.
Russia has won this war, Zelensky and the western backers have lost.
This is the reality that Trump understands and is beating the reluctant Zelensky and Europe over the head with.
Trump is trying to steer the outcome. To do this he is (as he must) acknowledging the reality on the ground.
Russia is destroying what’s left of the forth Ukraine army & trumps turned off the funding and arming of a fifth.
Anyone paying attention can easily see this. This isn’t “Russian disinformation” no matter how many times you call it that, it’s reality.
I think Oliver and Roger Partridge, in his column earlier in the week, are demonstrating thinking that belongs in the Cold War era. They seem to conveniently ignore the history behind the conflict which goes right back to when the Berlin wall was dismantled and the agreements reached with President Gorbachev at the time and then on to what the Minsk Agreements were about etc.
Secretary of State Rubio has said that earlier meetings President Zelenski had resulted in agreement on the minerals deal and the Oval Office meeting was just to have it signed. Did President Zelenski renege on that arrangement himself or was he persuaded to change his mind at the meeting with the Democrat and some Republicans before meeting President Trump ? We will probably never know but if he had changed his mind all he had to do was politely say so and explain why. But he didn't and obviously President Trump and VP Vance would have known what went on in the proceeding meeting with Rubio.
It seems President Trump and his Administration are the only ones who have consistently have said they want a resolution to the issue and to have peace. If I and others support that stance then I guess Oliver can call us anything he likes but I will fervently disagree with him and Roger.
Three years and Rodger wants things to stay the same. It has taken trump and his behaviour to get anyone in Europe to be prepared to even think about ending this war. Perhaps, with the billions of dollars sloshing around being such easy pickings, in reality those making the decisions don't actually want it to end. The death and misery is confined to Ukraine, just keep the money tap turned on
Oliver would have us all believe he's just some guy with an earnest opinion independently expressing it on the interenet. He may well even believe what he says, but the reality is, either way, he is being paid to promulgate it. He hasn't just popped up to give us his thoughts, it's his job to do it, and having a job entails having an employer.
No doubt his employer has an interest in making people believe that they share a set of interests (and no matter how many times a moral pretext is invoked regarding any geopolitical state of affairs, it is always and only ever about conflicting interests).
He'd have us believe that Russia is the only entity engaged in shaping people's opinions in service of a set of interests, when the reality is that everyone does it, be it "them" or "us."
The only criteria when assessing "propaganda" is whether it is true or whether it is false, quite independently of any underlying interest it serves.
In this case, my assessment of the "Russian propaganda" I have been exposed to is that it tends to have greater explanatory power and comports with current and historical reality to a greater degree than Oliver's alternative, no matter how much Oliver thinks I'm a bad person as a consequence.
Hartwich's comment that ""Kiwi commentators cheering Trump’s behaviour applaud the dismantling of the system that protects us" is a very pertinent observation.
Make no mistake. Our turn for the Trump treatment will come just as soon as Trump's new ambassador finds out:
1. We run a trade deficit with the United States; small, but still original sin in Trump dogma.
2. Our exports to the US are largely agricultural and compete well against the products of one of Trump's biggest support groups, the farmers.
3. We impose GST of 15% on all American imports, sufficient reason for the US to impose the reciprocal tariffs Trump authorised a few days ago.
4. We are on record as being historically anti-American by refusing entry to the USS Buchanan all those years ago.
5. Our anti-nuclear policy makes us currently anti-American given that the ship ban still applies to their nuclear propelled vessels.
We depend on the rules-based world order that Trump is intent on destroying. In particular we rely heavily on the WTO which has as a core activity the resolution of international trade disputes. Trump threatened to withdraw the US in his first term and while he didn't follow through, he successfully rendered it dysfunctional by refusing to participate in its judicial procedures. I expect a rapid resumption of that behaviour now Canada has threatened to raise the matter of Trump's new tariffs with the WTO. That would not be good news for New Zealand as it would be an integral part of the unravelling process Hartwich has outined in his article. To put it bluntly, we would be a sitting duck for American predation.
The predictable reaction of the Trump sycophants to Hartwich's article shows they really are not interested in New Zealand's interests. So that begs the question: Why are they encouraging behaviour that can only be detrimental to their own country? In short where do their real loyalties lie? Parroting Moscow's talking points may give us a good clue.
Post a Comment