As Russia’s war with Ukraine enters a devastating second yr, the Republican Party must resolve what its foreign policy shall be. Actually, the Republican Party’s support for Ukraine can’t be obvious from the responses of some presidential candidates or potential candidates to a questionnaire published by Tucker Carlson of Fox News. Asked by Carlson or “opposing Russia in Ukraine [is] vital American national strategic interest,” declared former President Donald Trump. “No, but for Europe.” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis agreed that Ukraine’s defense is just not essential to the US. DeSantis said the Russian war was a “territorial dispute”.
Although DeSantis later withdrew from that position, such rhetoric threatens to cede the lofty reason behind liberty to President Biden. While he could do more, Biden is true to support and arm Ukraine. This is just not meant to absolve the president of his countless political failures. History won’t justify Biden’s disastrous, aggressive withdrawal from Afghanistan, his calmness and weakness towards Russia within the run-up to the invasion of Ukraine, and his insufficient support for Kiev within the early stages of the war. For the sake of America and the world, Republicans should work to defeat Biden in 2024.
![Concerns about continued Republican support for Ukraine arose when Florida governor - and possibly presidential candidate - Ron DeSantis suggested that Ukraine's defense was not](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/03/NYPICHPDPICT000008387517-3.jpg?w=1024)
Nonetheless, so as to establish the suitable policy towards Ukraine, the GOP cannot simply defy the president. As an alternative, it must learn the suitable lessons from history, including the Trump administration’s foreign policy successes.
One narrative, accepted by some right-wingers, is that China is a so-called true threat, while Russia’s war with Ukraine, nonetheless unlucky, does not likely affect US interests. According to this pondering, the war in Ukraine is a “distraction” from China, and the US should turn its attention from Europe to the Pacific.
![former president Trump echoed DeSantis' initial sentiment when he said earlier this month that defending Ukraine was in Europe's best interests, not America's.](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/03/NYPICHPDPICT000008379746-1.jpg?w=1024)
Arguments of this sort are logically fallacious. A Russian success in Ukraine would give China what it wants: a failure of democracy, a failure of international law, and a failure of American leadership on the planet. Should Ukraine lose its sovereignty, China is probably going to conclude that it might take over Taiwan. The world will turn into more dangerous.
![Even with Ukraine's ongoing devastation, some US politicians are already calling for a time limit for continued US involvement.](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/03/NYPICHPDPICT000008445440.jpg?w=1024)
Together with the misguided idea of a “turn to China,” come calls for an announcement of time and resource constraints on America’s involvement in Ukraine. This will likely sound like a reasonable, conservative position. But conservatives should see that such self-imposed restrictions would encourage Russia and China to survive the US in a struggle for power and values. Where our will and commitment are weak, their will shall be strong; and so they are ready for a war of attrition.
Consider the likely consequence if Ronald Reagan, confronting the Soviet Union, had predetermined the boundaries of America’s final determination throughout the Cold War. The USSR would patiently wait for the inevitable American give up. Thousands and thousands would still live under Soviet oppression. There can be no independent, democratic Ukraine to defend.
![All signs - such as these military exercises in the South China Seas - indicate that China is considering an invasion of Taiwan. A Russian victory in Ukraine could signal to Beijing that democracies around the world are in danger of failing.](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/03/NYPICHPDPICT000008242675-1.jpg?w=1024)
At first glance, Republican distancing from Ukraine could seem consistent with Trump’s foreign policy. But Trump’s political heirs – and Trump himself as a candidate – should remember to distinguish between the previous president’s rhetoric and his actions in office. As a negotiator, Trump has consistently used rhetoric to achieve his goals, searching for one of the best “deal” for the American people from adversaries, allies, and even his own military.
Nonetheless, as well as to talks and deal-making, Trump pursued a foreign power policy. For instance, he criticized former President George W. Bush’s war in Iraq but decimated ISIS’s territorial caliphate. He questioned the importance of NATO, but after successfully persuading member states to increase their contributions to its budget, he strengthened the organization.
![The current GOP should follow the example of the old GOP; from the Cold War era, Ronald Reagan strongly supported the Eastern Bloc - never pinning the United States' hopes of a final transition to democracy on time.](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/03/NYPICHPDPICT000008617115.jpg?w=1024)
He wanted to withdraw all American troops from Afghanistan, but he kept what remained of the forces on the bottom and the country’s fragile democracy intact. And while Trump talked about higher relations with Moscow, he was also selling Ukraine arms – something the Obama and Biden administrations never did, even after Vladimir Putin invaded in 2014 and annexed Crimea.
In today’s foreign policy debate, the Republican Party should listen to Reagan and the history – if not at all times the rhetoric – of Trump. The excesses of the neocons and the false guarantees of the globalists are worthy of criticism. But isolationism, the policy of self-reliance announced upfront to America’s enemies, will only lead to a more dangerous world. There isn’t any turning back for the one democratic superpower on the planet.
Augustus Howard is a national and foreign policy columnist.