GOP presidential primary candidate Vivek Ramaswamy says that his foreign policy would center on dislocating Russia from its close partnership with China. Ramaswamy again emphasized his plan in an interview with Fox News on Friday.
"The Russia-China alliance is the greatest threat the United States faces," he continued, "I want to use the Ukraine war as a chance to break that alliance apart. That will be the single greatest advance in U.S. national security interests we've seen in a generation."
Ramaswamy is correct that this partnership poses a major challenge. It sees two major nuclear adversaries working together to undermine U.S. national security. Any successful dislocation of the Moscow-Beijing relationship would thus be good for the U.S. It would, for example, reduce Russian naval and air support for the likely approaching Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Even in terms of Russian military training, this support threatens the U.S. military. Dislocation would also help puncture both Beijing and Moscow's individually thin pretenses in international forums such as the United Nations that their policies have global support.
CHINA'S STUNNING ENVIRONMENTAL HYPOCRISY OVER FUKUSHIMA WATER PLAN
The problem? Ramaswamy's instincts might be OK, but his strategy to "break apart" Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin rests on flawed foundations.
For a start, it would be unconscionable for the U.S. to demand that Ukraine sacrifice its territory just so the U.S. could earn Putin's gratitude. Yes, U.S. foreign policy should center on the hardheaded service of U.S. national interests. Still, the globally understood practice of U.S. moral leadership exists in direct service of U.S. national interests. Put simply, that leadership makes nations want to align themselves alongside the U.S. rather than against it. It fosters beneficial economic, social, military, and scientific cooperation in the U.S. national interest.
Moreover, Ukraine would never agree to Ramaswamy's use of it as a U.S. bargaining chip. Nor could Ramaswamy impose this expectation. While Ukraine's ability to conduct sustained counteroffensives against Russia is significantly dependent on U.S. aid, Kyiv could conduct effective defensive warfare in the absence of U.S. support.
Ramaswamy's Ukraine sacrificial lamb strategy would also greatly weaken America's strategic standing with its European allies and America's moral credibility with allies the world over. Yes, the next U.S. president should approach relations with allies through the prism of their willingness to stand with America on key concerns. This approach should apply even to the very closest U.S. allies such as the U.K. and Israel. That said, were Ramaswamy to win Putin's favor by abandoning Ukraine, Putin would not reciprocate by abandoning Xi.
Unfortunately, Putin's view of the U.S. is shaped indelibly by his former experience as a career KGB officer. He views America as the "main adversary." And when Putin failed to persuade President George W. Bush to cede Europe to Putin's sphere of influence, Putin embraced a policy of growing hostility toward the U.S. Putin's almost theological desire to establish a new Russian imperium in Europe still drives his foreign policy. He openly admits as much.
In turn, to get Putin out of China's orbit and into America's corner, Ramaswamy would have to abandon U.S. treaty allies in the Baltic states and, eventually, Poland. These are America's best allies in Europe, nations whose populations love the United States and whose governments meet or exceed NATO's 2% of GDP defense spending target. These nations have sent troops to fight with the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the case of the Baltic states, they have also incurred massive economic pressure from China in response to their support for Taiwan and the U.S. Top line: these are allies that deserve American support.
Even then, unless Ramaswamy's strategy entails him making the U.S. into a partner for Putin's corruption and his general disdain for international law, Beijing will remain Putin's preferred partner.
From Putin's perspective, China is an irreplaceable economic and political partner. In his relations with Xi, Putin need not fear the short-term changes in political leadership and associated policy that define the U.S. Xi also offers Putin a critically sustainable source for Russian energy exports, the unparalleled crown jewel of Putin's otherwise decrepit economy. Today China accounts for approaching 50% of all Russian imports, reflecting Moscow's desperate need for goods that can no longer be sourced from European nations due to sanctions imposed over the war in Ukraine.
Beijing and Moscow's partnership also serves to provide diplomatic cover for their respective pursuit of varied imperial interests. This is particularly important to Beijing, which is deeply uncomfortable about its declining diplomatic prestige. Where Russia provides support for China in terms of its Taiwan and South China Sea disputes, China provides diplomatic cover for Russia over Ukraine. Beijing and Moscow's partnership reflects their common disdain for the things the U.S. has traditionally cared about: the defense of sovereign democracy and the rule of law.
If Ramaswamy wants to break from that traditional U.S. stance, he might be able to dislocate Putin from Xi. But there is no question that the price tag for his desired dislocation would be far greater than the abandonment of Ukraine.