The arrival of the well-known American right-wing conservative blogger Laura Loomer to the Ukrainian capital was treated by the Ukrainian authorities and covered by our media as if it involved a visit by an official whose decisions affect relations between Ukraine and the United States. Amid Russian ballistic attacks, Volodymyr Zelensky gave an interview to Laura Loomer, and my colleague Marichka Padalka emotionally shared with the MAGA activist about the Ukrainian roots of her Jewish grandfather.
However, there is a certain grain of rationality in such an attitude. Laura Loomer’s words are of interest to Donald Trump himself, although the American president has repeatedly shown how even the most loyal supporters cannot influence his opinion if it contradicts their conclusions. So who listens to whom is still a big question. After all, Laura Loomer continued to advocate in Kyiv for what I perceive as a fundamentally flawed approach by radical conservatives regarding the impossibility of continuing financial aid to Ukraine. And this is the main thing that could effectively change, because, as we know, sympathy and tears cannot be spread on bread.
Thus, Laura Loomer’s mission is not primarily about changing her attitude towards Ukraine. It is about changing her attitude towards Russia.
From this point of view, the visit of the popular blogger and conspiracy theorist can be seen as a kind of backlash for another right-wing conservative commentator, Tucker Carlson’s trip to the Russian capital. Let me remind you that Russian media treated Carlson’s visit with no less, if not more, enthusiasm than Ukrainians did with Loomer’s arrival, and an interview to a well-respected figure in right-wing conservative circles was given by Putin.
Much has changed since then. After the start of the US-Israel operation against Iran, Carlson became an implacable opponent, even an enemy of Trump, leaving the MAGA movement and the Republican Party. Trump himself speaks without enthusiasm about Putin, and his associates are wary of setting terms not only for ending the Russo-Ukrainian war but even for reviving a highly unlikely negotiation process.
The attitude of conservatives towards Russia is also changing, as it is no longer perceived by many as a Christian “city on a hill,” as the last fortress of traditional values. Loomer announced a change in her stance right in the courtyard of the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra — a monastery that just weeks ago became one of the targets of another Russian attack on the Ukrainian capital.
In fact, this is the main point. Ever since Trump returned to the Oval Office, I have continuously emphasized that the occupant of the White House, like his predecessor, does not hold the key to ending the Russo-Ukrainian war in his pocket. Especially now, when Trump is caught in the energy trap of the Strait of Hormuz, from which it is altogether unclear how or if one can escape.
Therefore, if the American president is not ready to help Ukraine, and we understand that such a decision would require him to fundamentally revise the entire philosophy of Trumpism, then at least let him not “help” Russia, let him be tougher towards the Putin regime, let him not harbor illusions about the possibility of agreements with the Russian president, let him and his supporters stop perceiving Russia as a fictional conservative citadel.
If Laura Loomer manages to convince Trump of the appropriateness of this approach, it will already be a significant step forward in the right direction.
