GOP presidential aspirant Vivek Ramaswamy’s unforeseen rise to prominence on the political scene is notable, not least because of the bewildering nature of his foreign-policy stances. Given his performance thus far, one cannot help but wonder if he’s auditioning for a geopolitical game show instead of the presidency of the United States.
To start, his approach to Russia and Ukraine is deeply troubling. His proposal to hand Putin almost everything he desires in and around Ukraine in exchange for Russia’s ending its alliance with China and rejoining the START nuclear treaty is more reminiscent of a freshman poli-sci student’s wishful thinking than a thoughtful peace plan from a serious presidential contender. Russia and China’s “friendship with no limits” is rhetorical. Putin can swear he won’t partner with Beijing anymore and renege as soon as he gets what he wants. And even if Moscow were inclined to rejoin START in exchange for these generous concessions, the accord would be ineffectual without China’s participation.
Then there’s Taiwan. While Ramaswamy’s advocacy for boosting America’s firepower in the Taiwan Strait initially sounds assertive, it’s clouded by his lack of long-term commitment. His audacious goal of making the U.S. “semiconductor-independent” by 2028 and subsequently withdrawing support for Taiwan showcases a transactional worldview that would leave our allies questioning our reliability.
Perhaps the most baffling is his stance on continued aid to Israel. Historically, support for Israel has been a mainstay of Republican politics. Not for Ramaswamy. He suggests that once the current ten-year, $38 billion nonbinding memorandum of understanding between the United States and Israel expires in 2028, the Jewish state should stand “on its own two feet” financially. But foreign aid to Israel isn’t a mere charity; it’s a strategic investment. By conflating the two, Ramaswamy reveals a disturbing lack of discernment. Israel’s stability, innovative spirit, and geopolitical positioning are invaluable assets for the U.S.
What’s concerning isn’t that Ramaswamy is questioning the status quo; indeed, every policy should be subject to rigorous debate. The problem is the seeming impulsiveness, inconsistency, and naïveté that underscores his position. Our global relationships aren’t based purely on transactional benefits — they are built on shared values, long-term interests, and mutual trust.
The world doesn’t need another leader who swings wildly between aggression and indifference. Being president requires thoughtful, consistent, and principled leadership. Ramaswamy’s foreign policy might be making headlines, but it’s far from making sense. America deserves better.