Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
DC Freaks Out Over DeSantis’s Ukraine Comments; Voters Shrug
Several right-of-center politicians and commentators are outraged over Gov. Ron DeSantis’s latest statement on the war in Ukraine. The hawks accuse the Florida governor of showing American weakness. Trump accuses him of being too vague. Both claim his short statement threatens his electoral chances — a prediction which reveals a severe case of Beltway Brain.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson asked various potential presidential candidates for their positions on America’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This was DeSantis’s response:
While the U.S. has many vital national interests — securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness within our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural, and military power of the Chinese Communist Party — becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them.
Previously, the governor stuck to the vague assertion that we shouldn’t send Ukraine “a blank check.” His latest statement adds slightly more detail, with a strong emphasis on “slightly.”
Neither locks him into any firm position, which is an asset since no one knows the outcome of the expected spring offensives or what American voters will think of the issue in November 2024. Yes, it’s vague, as well it should be. Our leaders should constantly follow the facts on the ground and shift accordingly. The right strategy today probably won’t be the right strategy two years from now.
DeSantis is wrong to dismiss the full-blown invasion as a mere “territorial dispute”; outside of that, there’s little to criticize, let alone be outraged about. Either way, a vague foreign policy statement made 19 months before Election Day will have zero effect on said election.
Campaigns almost never win or lose on foreign policy; post-Cold War, a slight advantage accrues to the dovish. The rest of the country is not nearly as invested in Ukraine as DC tastemakers insist they be. In general, Americans sympathize with Ukrainians, but they’re more likely to rant about the price of eggs than developments across the Transdnieper.
This upsets foreign policy wonks since voters should care more about the latter than the former. In fact, it’s a moral failing that they don’t!
Meh. The kids want eggs for breakfast, but they’re getting a Lucky Charms knockoff instead. Voters are busy with everyday life, not geopolitical strategy on the other side of the world.
I think voters should care more about the $31.5 trillion federal debt, but here we are.
In contrast, President Biden promised to back Ukraine for “as long it takes.” Sorry, Joe, forever is a very long time. The US made similar promises to our Afghan allies before chaotically abandoning the country in Biden’s first year.
While the current president’s support seems earnest, he can’t promise anything beyond his administration. Especially if the American people turn against it. Which they are.
According to the Associated Press, in May 2022, 60% of Americans supported arming Ukraine. As of January, that has dropped to 48%. This still makes up a plurality but is trending the wrong way for the forever caucus. Who knows what it will be in a year and a half?
The US has already sent $112 billion to Ukraine with little debate and less oversight. For comparison, Ukraine’s entire GDP in 2020 was about $200 billion. On his recent visit, Biden casually announced a half a billion more, along with “artillery ammunition, anti-armor systems, and air surveillance radars to help protect the Ukrainian people from aerial bombardments.”
Rah-rah, Slava Ukraini, and all that, but there’s a limit to American largesse. And people get miffed when Biden jets to Kyiv with a suitcase full of money but avoids East Palestine, Ohio.
Politicians in both parties must understand that their first responsibility is to their own nation; allies come second. Forget this, and the people will toss them on their tin ears. DeSantis makes his priority clear: the United States of America.
Reagan-era Secretary of State George Shultz asked every new US ambassador a simple question. “I’m going to spin the globe and I want you to put your hand on your country.”
When they pointed to the nation assigned to them, Shultz corrected them. “Your country is the United States.”
DeSantis has passed this test. Biden has not.
Published in Elections, Foreign Policy, Politics
It does not. How? If you read the early comments, I was prodded to provide national interests. I felt it was a waste of my time. Did I change your mind?
Yes it does. You first call people a name, putting them into a category, then you imply they are closed minded. That is not a good faith argument, that is a set up. I don’t agree with you, I am being closeminded.
So, since you insited on opening with “Not one single isolationist is going to change his mind.” I did not bother to read. I am, in no way, an isolationist, but I have been called pro Putin by the likes of you, so I know how this ends.
I think your side is 100% wrong on almost every bit other than Ukraine got invaded by Russia. That part I can agree with.
That is already happening. There’s no unscrambling that egg. Include Saudi Arabia which is attempting to normalize relations with arch-enemy Iran. And ironically, China is interested in brokering a peace in this war, which will also bring Ukraine into its orbit.
Which makes our involvement in this conflict a rather dramatic waste.
LOL
And we pushed them into it with this adventure.
Although given the Biden Crime Family’s connections in Russia, Ukraine, and China, I’m sure the Big Guy stands to make a cozy profit even if China manages to get the two sides to a peace.
Conveniently, this will allow you to go on claiming that nobody has ever answered your question. Well done!
OK, we disagree. Peace.
Much of the reasoning – or so called reasoning – involves Putin’s dastardly plans to first take over the Ukraine, followed by all of the rest of Europe.
Those not making that dubious argument tend to fall into the camps of supporting two or three different arguments based on circular reasoning.
The only important war adversary we have successfully worn down since August 1945 is the tiny island nation of Grenada.
Korean war: a tie
Vietnam war: a loss
Iraq: a loss
For Pete’s sake, we just surrendered to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and managed to lose 13 American service people’s lives in the process.
Iraq was not a loss. Obama almost lost it but Trump got it back.
I don’t think you’ve been playing close attention to what’s been happening in those countries. Or maybe not any attention at all. (Are you sure you aren’t one of those experts we keep hearing about?)
You’re sure of a lot of things that nobody but an expert could believe.
Sure, Grenada. Oh, and a slightly larger nation known as the Soviet Union, an enemy we defeated so thoroughly that you seem to have forgotten it ever existed.
Korea, Vietnam, and Grenada were all fought in the larger context of the Cold War. Viewing them in isolation as defeats makes as much sense as historians who claim George Washington was a lousy general since he lost nearly every battle his ragtag army fought — neglecting the fact that in the process he achieved his larger strategic aim of preserving American independence.
Panama went OK
None of which is remotely like this.
Rich! Manny opens with an insult and tells me up front there is no point in reading it, and I am at fault for stopping there.
You’ll have to remind me, what was the battle where the Soviet Union fell? I must have missed that.
Interestingly, this makes the point. The smart way of winning strategic victories is not on the battlefield but through a combination of tools, with a military component being only one component. The US because of its victory in the Cold War has been so hubristitic to think it can do anything and resort to a single tool, the military. As a result, we are on the verge of bankruptcy. One of the linchpins in defeating the Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia (by crashing oil prices at the right moment), is shifting to the other side. You are backing the terrorist Biden Administration which is doing everything it can to keep energy prices high, funding the Russian war effort. The strategy neocons are following is certain for defeat. The US will follow in the path of the Soviet Union because policy is being determined by blockheads.
What Bush accomplished was to make Iraq a tacit Iranian ally. It still is. Iran has allies from the Gulf to the Mediterranean thanks to American policy. How is this not a loss?
You seem to hear everything as a provocative insult, and it costs you friends (internet friends). It certainly earns you opponents. It is hard to even agree with you when you say what I already believe. You have a skill in turning 90% agreement into implacable hostility.
Each of us is free to accept or reject arguments made by others. It’s another thing to say that nobody has answered your question (or variations) just because you disagree with that answer.
Manny answered your question “in this thread”, and at length. You developed an allergy to the word isolationist and claim to have read no further.
Why would anybody answer any of your damned questions?
I don;t agree with some of your conclusions, but there is much of value in this comment.
I thought this was an interesting perspective on the war from Eddie Scarry at The Federalist.
Again, after using Isolationist as a pejorative, Manny went on to use it again that way and claim that nothing he had to say needed to be read because it was not going to change a mind anyway. Seems strange to castigate me for taking him at his word.
Further, they are not my questions, but questions someone else asked and I made a point about them getting answered then in this thread, before Manny or anyone else said anything in support.
Now then, you do have a point that I am tired of the same arguments for this intervention and there is no reason to bother reading the same things again. But, that is not the point I was making. The point I was making was that a member asked for something in this thread and Manny was insulting and dismissive.
Labeling someone an “isolationist” and citing that as a reason to stop talking to them, which is what Manny did until it was called out, is a way to dismiss someone else as sure as calling them “racist” or “Nazi” or “Putin Lover”. This debate on Ukraine has been full of the pro intervention side comparing those of us who have any questions to people who would stand by and let Hitler take over Europe. There is no way to use the word “isolationist” in this debate without invoking that context.
Many people at Ricochet seem to delight in doing this sort of thing, where they take a loaded word and use it, and then claim they are being unfairly attacked when they are called out on it, It is Internet debate 101. Ans I guess that most people here are just fine with the tactic.
The U.S. could use a little isolationism right now.
I think the rest of the world might be grateful as well, given the sort of people running the State Department.
Long response edited. You and I have been called worse, by worse, here and elsewhere. There’s a difference between being ready for a fight wherever it shows up, and picking fights even with your nominal allies. I’ll shove off about this now.
Until a couple of days ago, I was “Ready for Ron.” Given that DeSantis has joined the surrender gang, I am less than “Ready for Ron.” Damn!
Time to give Nikki Haley and Tim Scott a second look.
Called it!
Not sure how many have read the actual Desantis comments. Byron York read and analyzed the whole statement on this podcast. When taken in context and as a whole, it is quite mainstream and reasonable. He does support our involvement in Ukraine but wants a defined outcome – no open checkbook without a goal. Sensible.
Recommend the listen. It’s thorough. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ron-desantis-in-the-mainstream-on-ukraine/id1449045370?i=1000604377902
I don’t think so. I would still vote for DeSantis over Trump, and for DeSantis over any Democrat in 2024. But DeSantis has opened the door wide for me to take a look at a different Republican as our nominee.
Who called it first! ;)