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.
The Ramaswamy Doctrine
Excellent piece at The American Conservative by Vivek Ramaswamy that I want to bring to your attention and invite feedback: “A Viable Realism and Revival Doctrine.”
I know a lot of people see him as merely a stalking horse for Donald Trump. I don’t know about that, but I like what I hear from him. So even if it’s true, what he has to say still merits a listen.
In his inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson famously summarized the thought of George Washington in what is now known as the Washington Doctrine: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” The last of the Founders to serve as president, James Monroe, formulated the Monroe Doctrine, in which he declared to the European powers that the Western Hemisphere would henceforth be the unique sphere of influence of the United States. Over a century later, with the United States having ascended to superpower status, Richard Nixon expanded the corpus of American foreign policy strategy with his own doctrine, which called for our allies to bear their own security burdens and provide the primary manpower for their own defense, with America serving as defender of last resort.
In the years since Nixon formulated his doctrine, our country has moved from being one of two superpowers to ascendancy as the world’s sole superpower after the fall of the USSR. We squandered our post-Cold War opportunity to preserve that position through a bipartisan embrace of “democratic capitalism” with Communist China, on the false premise that we could spread democracy through capitalism by creating mutual economic codependence with China. Our mistaken posture towards Communist China led us over the last three decades to a new uncomfortable equilibrium, where the United States tenuously remains the world’s great superpower but our two great power rivals—China and Russia—are now working together in a way that threatens us. We must admit our mistakes, recognize our time, and adopt a revised strategic vision for our day aligned with reality rather than wistfully wishing the immediate post-Cold War order back into existence.
The Washington Doctrine provides apt inspiration of where to begin. I will lead our nation from the bloody follies of neoconservatism and liberal internationalism abroad towards a strategy that affirmatively defends our homeland. We will be Uncle Sucker no more. Rather than spending billions projecting power into global vacuums where our allies will not spend to maintain it themselves, we will put America First again—as George Washington urged—as we recalibrate and consider our true interests.
As to the following, I don’t know how he intends to pull it off, but it’s a great aspiration:
As U.S. president, I will respect and revive Nixon’s legacy by rejecting the bloodthirsty blather of the useful idiots who preach a no-win war in Ukraine that forces our two great power foes ever closer. The longer the war in Ukraine goes on, it becomes ever clearer that there is only one winner: China. I will lead America from moralism to realism by executing the inverse of what Nixon did in 1972: I will go to Moscow in 2025. I will deliver peace in Ukraine under the only terms that should matter to us—terms that put American interests first. The Biden administration has foolishly tried to get Xi to dump Putin. In reality, we should get Putin to dump Xi.
A good deal requires all parties to get something out of it. To that end, I will accept Russian control of the occupied territories and pledge to block Ukraine’s candidacy for NATO in exchange for Russia exiting its military alliance with China. I will end sanctions and bring Russia back into the world market. In this way, I will elevate Russia as a strategic check on China’s designs in East Asia.
Thoughts?
Published in Foreign Policy
Seems like Russia has a lot of work to do before any “elevation” should be considered.
I like Ramaswamy’s ideas on this issue quite a bit. Just a day or two ago, I listened to his speech on the issue at the Nixon library. The linked article appears to be based on the speech. For those who would rather listen, here it is:
This is a fairly long one, almost an hour. I think that it’s worthwhile.
I do think that Ramaswamy is overly optimistic about the prospects of his proposed settlement with Russia, which would essentially allow the Russians to retain the Ukrainian territory conquered thus far, in return for Russia exiting its military alliance with China. He also plans to end the sanctions against Russia, and to promise that the surviving Ukraine would not become a NATO member.
I think that these are good ideas, in theory, but I’m not optimistic about a favorable Russian response. Why would the Russians trust us at this point?
Maybe Ramaswamy could pull it off.
Politically, I think that it is a very bold move by Ramaswamy. It would be nice to break the hold of the Neocons over our foreign policy. He sure seems to have been listening to John Mearsheimer, even using the terminology about the “bloody follies of neoconservatism and liberal internationalism abroad.” Good for him.
It’s interesting, Drew, because I think that we’re in strong agreement about Ramaswamy’s ideas, yet on my post this morning, you’re taking the Neocon position about the supposedly “disastrous” Afghan withdrawal. The story about the Afghan withdrawal being a disaster is the Neocon narrative.
It is tough to break out of the Neocon view of things. I was a Neocon myself, for many years. It was actually President Trump who led me to reconsider my presumptions in this area. I found John Mearsheimer and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Walter Russell Mead to be very helpful in forming a new understanding.
This was one of the things that led me to greater opposition to the “National Review” narrative. I think that the John Burch folks had some good points, and the demonization of their views, largely led by Buckley (as I understand it), was a bad thing.
No, it’s not. It’s the American position. Neocons don’t care about death.
The Afghan withdrawal was a disaster. Only Biden supporters call it a success. And even they know it’s not true but that it’s their duty to prop up a chosen narrative.
But let’s agree not to bring that up and talk about the rest of the piece.
I think looking at the foreign policy approaches of those three presidents, and creating a synthesis is a great model for the future of America.
Oh good, I’m glad you made a post on this.
I’m sure they all have some kind of policy paper on these things, but it strikes me that The Ramaswamy Doctrine (not to mention his 10 Truths) has made it to my eyes and to my brain in a way few have done. First, good for him for finding a way to speak to me that he others aren’t doing – Ramaswamy found me where I usually am and dangled something interesting enough for me to click on and find useful. Second, he has a way of explaining his position clearly, directly, and systemically. This is the high level concept/theory; of course there are details and difficulties, but all that is way worse without an overall compass.
Vivek is naive, which Nixon never was. Russia and China teaming up has been going on for a long time before Ukraine–the name “Shanghai Cooperative Organization” is a bit of a tip-off, no? We aren’t driving Russia into China’s arms. Putin would not make Vivek’s deal–why should he? Vivek would end the war on any terms at all, so Putin pockets the gain and goes on doing what he was already doing.
Vivek says everybody needs to get something out of a deal. What does Ukraine get? What does Europe get? Why would they take the sanctions off?
What’s Vivek’s enforcement mechanism?
Of course, some folks don’t bother with those questions because they’re already convinced that Wall Street and the Pentagon are pulling all the strings, forcing our “puppets” to obey, forming a daisy chain with Zelensky, Fauci, Soros, the LGBTs and the, uh, a stateless cabal of international bankers (Is that the euphemism that’s still in use, or do they not bother with euphemisms anymore?) I can’t reach those people with argument, and those people can’t reach me with what they’ve written so far.
One thing I’m not quite sure of: moving from moralism to realism. I think I understand what he means by that, but there are extremes here and neither are beneficial. Realpolitik can result in us being in bed with some really loathesome immoral people doing immoral and loathesome things. Unavoidable to some degree, i just want to make sure that we always at least keep one foot on the floor while we’re sharing those beds. Moral realism? Realistic moralism?
Wishful thinking and a winsome smile.
I half expect to hear him babbling about “the right side of history” like another not-ready-for-prime-time President.
Ha! I already regret it.
I’m sure Trump can find a cabinet position for him.
No, I’m not going to let this go.
I’m not unAmerican, and I’m not a Biden supporter, though I think that he did a good job in this particular instance. If you’re going to hurl around some accusations, then I’m going to push back. If you want to bury the hatchet, fine — but you don’t get to harangue me while calling a truce, buddy.
I do think that you need to get out from under the grip of the Neocons, and you’re partway there. Keep a-going.
In major military operations, 13 deaths is not a disaster. It’s a pinprick. Sorry, man, but that’s the way that it is. They’re individual tragedies for the families involved, of course, but for crying out loud, we’d regularly lose many times that many guys in a single bomber raid in WWII. We lost, what, almost 40,000 in Korea and almost 60,000 in Vietnam.
Somehow, you seem to think that giving up about 20% of the land territory of Ukraine, as Ramaswamy proposes, and making peace with the supposed war criminal Putin is just fine, but that tiny losses in the Afghan pullout are a disaster. If you can’t handle the rhetoric surrounding one small terrorist attack in Afghanistan, how are you going to handle the firestorm that will come your way if we recommend making peace with the Ruskies?
I think that you’re quite wrong. We pushed Russia right into China’s arms, strengthening their ties, and providing cheap Russian oil to the Chinese.
I will try to answer some of these questions, though.
Why should Putin make Ramaswamy’s deal? Well, because it ends the war in Ukraine, gives him international recognition of the Ukrainian territories taken by Russia, and stops NATO expansion. Those are wins for Putin.
What does Ukraine get? The bloodshed ends, and Ukraine survives as a country, albeit a diminished one. Right now, Ukraine is counting on continued, massive support from the US and, to a lesser extent, Western Europe. If we make it clear that we’re not going to write the checks anymore, I think that the Ukrainians will be willing to make a deal, to avoid a worse fate.
What does Europe get? The end of the Ukraine war, the monetary savings of not having to fund it any more, and cheap Russian oil and gas. Not a bad deal. Remember that the sanctions hurt the Western Europeans too, maybe more than they hurt the Russians.
What is Ramaswamy’s enforcement mechanism? I don’t see much of anything that he would need to enforce. Russia would get what it wanted — no NATO membership for Ukraine, recognition of its annexation of Crimea, plus a land bridge to Crimea.
There’s no particular reason for Putin to like the Chinese. They may be a threat to him as well.
I do think, though, that the Russians would be more likely to choose neutrality in the US-China security competition. This would be better than the situation at present.
Maybe you think it’s a success since we got out of Afghanistan, and nothing else matters to you. But that puts you in pretty lonely company.
If things are done sensibly, and you still end up with 13 deaths, that’s one thing. But Biden did not order things to be done sensibly, and just happened to still lose 13 people. Biden made all kinds of stupid decisions, regarding Bagram Air Base and lots more, that led to 13 deaths. That’s the big difference.
Suit yourself.
The actual neocons on Ricochet would beg to differ. They’ve been calling me a Putin stooge for 18 months.
That’s actual war. As noted above, we’d been there for the previous three years without a single loss of life.
Ukraine has lost more than that in just a year and a half. Which is why I oppose the neocon plan to “fight to the last Ukrainian.”
I’ve been calling for peace (and been called a Putin-stooge) for more than a year, guy. I’m already handling the firestorm.
Toldja I regret it.
I don’t know nothin’ ’bout birthin’ no Presidential election victory, Miss Scarlett.
I do have a strong suspicion, though, that any candidate who proposes any foreign policy strategy with sufficient detail to be coherent would immediately turn 90+ % of the voters against him.
Now, please understand: that is not to say that what the great majority of voters are looking for in a candidate’s foreign policy strategy is just a bunch of vague sound bites that appeal to their emotions and childlike desire for simple solutions that make them feel secure.
But that being said, what the great majority of voters are looking for in a foreign policy strategy is just a bunch of vague sound bites that appeal to their emotions and childlike desire for simple solutions that make them feel secure.
Foreign policy didn’t even come up when Trump was debating Biden. They conveniently left that off the table, knowing that Biden was incredibly weak on that front.
I hope foreign policy gets a lot of play in the coming year. Our foreign policy has been one of sowing chaos wherever we go for far too long.
Gary I’ve had discussions with you. You’re not as reachable as you seem to think, and your would-be interlocutors are not as unreachable as you seem to think. You’ve already written off so many of them before we even start, with your comments about naivety and thinly disguised racist euphemisms, as if globalist cabal can only ever mean antisemitism, as if there isn’t some Deep State or some international managerial bureaucracy, unelected and unaccountable, increasingly encroaching on our lives, our mediating institutions having long since been captured and/or corrupted. Oh, who’s being naive Kay?
As to Vivek’s doctrine, it’s just that: a doctrine. It isn’t an instruction manual or a step by step guide. It is a statement of principles and goals. Especially with foreign policy, there is no such thing as a “right answer”; it’s an OODA loop, but you need clear principles to guide things.
Is it unrealistic to wedge Russia and China? If it’s reasonable, is it wise to pick Russia instead of China as the one to get cozier with?
It’s seems impossible at the moment to become less dependent on China in particular for… well, everything. However, I think we have to get there, and there’s no time like the present. Just one foot in front of the other, one step at a time.
As for enforcement mechanisms: the times they are a changin’. Our enemies aren’t as weak and backward as they once were, and we aren’t as strong and resilient as we once were. This trend tends to eliminate many mechanisms once available to us, leaving fewer good options and plenty of bad ones.
Putin had a “deal” with Prigozhin. Do you really expect Zelensky to negotiate with him?
That was the debate that was cancelled, right? Trump wanted some delay, if I remember and Biden refused to budge. That was missed from the campaign.
Bush talked a good talk during the campaign about not doing nation building but didn’t deliver. Yes, there was the attack on 9/11 but the actions after major combat operations weren’t handled well. The thoughts of Pat Buchannan from twenty years ago was a great find.
I think the point is that Zelensky doesn’t exactly have a choice, and it wouldn’t be Zelensky doing the negotiating. What are the choices anyway? Endless stalemate and annual billions pissed down the corruption hole of Ukraine, the threat of hot world war ever present? Russian conquest of Ukraine completely? Ukraine repelling Russia outside of pre-annexation borders? Ukraine surviving, Russia getting its wins of keeping the warm water port and adding more buffer?
The loudest voices can never be wrong.
“Always wrong, never in doubt.”
I knew I’d regret it because here we are again talking about Ukraine. There’s a lot more about foreign policy than just Ukraine, and I think Ramaswamy has some good things to say about how America should relate to the rest of the world. But alas, here we are.
Personally, I think it’s time to pull up the drawbridge and engage in a little tactical isolationism. In the words of Washington: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”
And what is NATO but an entangling alliance by which we are forced into war on behalf of any member nation, even if it’s not really in our interests to do so.
Here’s the sort of “foreign policy” we currently export:
If that’s what we’re pushing on the rest of the world, I want none of it. Neither should you.
Yeah, I’m probably not as reachable as I think, but I am reachable. I’ve read Jerry’s posts with interest once we all got over that “invincible” 40 mile column that was going to doom Kiev in days. G. Pentelle’s posts are also well written, but I disagree with ’em both, often for different reasons. I’ve been to Russia about a dozen times. I think we treated them badly after the downfall of Communism, but I also think Russians tend, like most people, to blame anyone but themselves for a situation that was largely their fault. Getting past Marxism was never going to be fun or easy. Our war against Russia’s ally Serbia was a mistake that, although pre-dating the Putin era, has been a major factor in his thinking. I thought the 2014 takeover of Crimea was brutal, but given their long history, not unreasonable, largely because most of the Crimeans themselves thought so.
I read Putin’s 2021 essay. There’s a lot of truth about the Russian point of view in it. The problem is, the people in the Baltics and Ukraine don’t agree with a word of it.
I don’t want to be anti-Russian. I’d like to be pro-Russian. But Putin didn’t give me much to work with.
As some have pointed out, Russia already has at least one such port. And if “global warming” is real they might end up with others too. Also why is THAT “buffer” supposed to be so important when there’s ZERO “buffer” between Russia and several other NATO countries?
Ok, throat clearing out of the way. Agreed with much of that. The world is full of bad and worse actors. That’s why disentangling, refocusing, and wedging make sense. Won’t be easy or pleasant, but probably necessary regardless. Lesser of two evils, indeed.
That said, i think we can separate Putin from Russia more than we can distinguish Xi from China.
Why is Vivek running? I wish someone had asked him at the “debate,” after he said that Trump was the greatest President of the 21st century.
If he really believes that, why is he (Vivek) running against Trump?
And–do we really think Trump doesn’t see through his attempts to thread the needle?
He says he wants to be better than Trump. And Vivek has a much clearer vision of how to dismantle the deep state, secure elections, etc.
I think Vivek is wrong on the war (Putin will break any deal), but it won’t matter by the time the election rolls around.
I think the neocon version of afghan disaster is that we shouldn’t have left at all. I don’t think that’s the position of everyone critical of the withdrawal.
I wanted withdrawal, but the way it was handled was a bungled disaster. There were better ways to draw down support without leaving so much in chaos.