Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has raised alarms about President Donald Trump’s unabashed support for Russian President Vladimir Putin, suggesting it reflects Trump’s deeper authoritarian tendencies amid a precarious political situation.

In a recent column, Krugman highlighted how Trump’s diminishing political leverage has emboldened him to express his long-standing affinity for Putin, despite the geopolitical ramifications involved. He described Trump’s remarks as indicative of a political “bankruptcy,” allowing the president to indulge in his worst instincts.

This comes as Trump attempts to reshape the narrative around Russia’s actions in Ukraine. In conversations with reporters prior to a campaign rally, he asserted, “Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine,” shrugging off the impact of Russia’s invasion.

Trump further complained that the U.S. has given “a lot” to Ukraine while suggesting that the Ukrainians have not reciprocated. His statements quickly drew criticism, particularly from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who responded with a poignant image of a child who died due to Russian violence.

Krugman was particularly struck by Trump’s unusual overture toward a leader who is reportedly aiding Iran—the United States’ adversary—by supplying weapons and intelligence. This assistance has been confirmed by U.S. military officials, including Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“What makes Trump’s support for Putin even more remarkable is that Russia has been actively aiding Iran against America in the war Trump started,” Krugman pointed out. He posed a rhetorical question regarding how Republicans would respond if a Democratic president were to behave similarly.

Despite narratives suggesting a new stance on Trump’s part, Krugman dismissed these ideas, arguing that Trump never fundamentally altered his position towards Russia. Instead, the narrative offers a clearer view of his reluctance to support Ukraine when he initially took office.

The economist suggested that Trump’s affinity for authoritarian leaders stems from a personal resentment towards those who exhibit courage, particularly in comparison to him. This dynamic plays into Trump’s political narrative as he navigates a challenging reelection campaign.

As Trump’s grip on the Republican base loosens, he may feel liberated to take even bolder stances. “He can betray everything America stands for, and he’s doing it as we speak,” Krugman noted, highlighting a troubling trend in presidential behavior that could set a dangerous precedent.

This open endorsement of Putin could also amplify divisions within the Republican Party, as many members grapple with their own stances on Russia. The party has long been associated with strong anti-Russian sentiments dating back to the Cold War era, making Trump’s position appear increasingly out of step.

Krugman expressed concern that without the imminent pressures of an electoral race, Trump may delve deeper into his reckless tendencies, possibly undermining global alliances that have long supported U.S. national interests.

With midterm elections approaching, Trump’s behavior raises a significant question: will the electorate support a president who seemingly prioritizes personal loyalties over national interests? Krugman fears that if left unchecked, Trump’s alliances could destabilize existing international relationships.

As the political landscape evolves, the implications of Trump’s rhetoric towards authoritarian figures like Putin remain significant. Should this trend continue, the fabric of U.S. foreign policy could shift dramatically.

The economist’s analysis serves as a warning, emphasizing the need for a resurgence of principled leadership that prioritizes democratic values over authoritarian alliances. The stakes have never been higher, both domestically and globally.

As Trump continues to navigate this precarious environment, his decisions could have lasting ramifications. Observers across the political spectrum are keenly watching to see how this saga unfolds.

As the country faces these challenges, one question looms larger than the rest: how will American voters respond to a leader who seemingly embraces the very principles they have historically opposed?