In the recent Republican presidential debate, Vivek Ramaswamy boldly articulated several positions that I agree with, such as the nuclear family being the best governing unit in society. I believe he was also correct in asserting that we are in a kind of cultural cold war in America; I think Mike Pence’s response was off the mark (i.e., that we just need government to look like the people). Nevertheless, I think Mr. Ramaswamy is incredibly naïve with respect to Russia and Ukraine. His fundamental position appears to be that we should permit Russia to keep the territories they have already captured in Ukraine,  and prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. In return, we would ask Russia to end their alliance with China. Nikki Haley effectively demolished him on this point, and rightfully so. His naiveté is quite dangerous, for several reasons. Firstly, why would we think that Russia would agree to end their reliance on China after carefully cultivating that relationship? Do they not expect us to continue to put pressure on them in the future as they no doubt intend to do to Ukraine? Secondly, why would we assume that Russia would adhere to any agreement without later reneging if it served their interests? Russia has a long history of abdicating previously made agreements. Ramaswamy’s position is even worse than the old liberal view of detente as the way to peace–just have the Russians sit down and let’s talk to them. If we can get a peace treaty, that will solve all the problems. Fortunately we had clear-headed thinking with Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Pope John Paul II. And is there any chance that Ukraine is not going to keep on fighting? Or that other countries such as Poland (our NATO ally) will not continue supporting when they know that they are the next apple the Russian bear wants a bite out of? Putin has long desired the reconstitution of vassal states such as Poland, Finland, Sweden, and the Baltic states. These nations understand the nature of Russian aggression and have been the most proactive in supporting Ukraine during this conflict.

This naivety is further highlighted by the fact that any pause or ceasefire on Ukraine’s part would simply allow the Russians to rearm and further entrench their positions, ultimately leading to more destruction and loss of life. The conservative response to Biden’s policy  should be to critique him for not fully arming the Ukrainians, a failure that exacerbates the conflict and leads to more loss of life.  Mr Biden has shown an unwillingness to give Ukraine the weapons it needs to defeat the Russians, but only to extend the conflict in his desire not to escalate the conflict. 

From an American perspective, our viewpoint is understandably different as we are not as geographically proximate. However, this does not diminish our responsibility. While I appreciate the calls from some Republican candidates for Europe to do more, and indeed they should, we must consider our own interests. As any student knows from group projects, at the end of the day we can’t afford to take an “F” just because a slug was assigned to our group. Of course we must continue working towards getting other European nations such as Germany to do more, but we have a strategic American objective of seeing Russia’s aggression fail. And as Ms. Haley so ably pointed out, quite a few of the European nations are stepping up, expecially in the help of the incredible humanitarian crisis of war refugees.

During the Cold War and the Soviet Union era, we spent trillions to constrain Russian aggression. While every conflict has two sides, in the last hundred years, Russia has invaded Finland, Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, as well as Ukraine. Even during the czarist empire, Russia sought territory through military conquest. Ramaswamy’s policy is worse than naïve in light of this historical Russian experience, it is dangerous. Vladimir Putin has expressed his intention to effectively recreate the former Soviet Union, even if not in name, as he wants to rebuild this empire. I believe we should take him at his word.

Many critics of the Ukraine war, including Ramaswamy, suggest that we are merely supporting a corrupt country whose needs are not more critical than the many pressing needs we have in America. This argument is a false dichotomy. Aid provided to Ukraine does not impact our willingness or ability to fund other efforts in the United States, such as a more effective Southern border wall. The lack of a strong border is a policy choice of the Biden administration, not a lack of resources. We must remember that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Allowing Russia to succeed in Ukraine would strengthen Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and other authoritarian states. They will conclude that they can outlast the United States and the West, as we won’t have the stomach to carry the conflict to the end.

Conservatives new-found embracement of isolationism is somewhat understandable, we remember George Washington’s admonition not to get involved in the endless Wars in Europe. And we know that nation-building by Democrats or Republicans leads to quagmires. Nevertheless, some things are worth standing up for–some things are, yes, our America First interest. While the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans may have been natural barriers 200 years ago, the last two world wars proved that we are not ultimately separate from the affairs of others nations. We can either believe that history won’t repeat itself, or acknowledge that it is likely to happen and take steps to minimize that likelihood. This perspective aligns with the historical conservative approach of the Reagan doctrine of “peace through strength,” where we are willing to help others fight for their freedom. Their men and women will fight and die, not ours, but we will support them with aid and arms if they are fighting for freedom.

So to Mr. Ramaswamy, although you said many things right, you are so wrong on this one, that Haymond’s for Haley. At least for now.