A version of this story appeared in the Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each Wednesday.
It was hard to hear at times over all the shouting and interruptions, but foreign policy and national security permeated the GOP presidential primary debate Wednesday night and cast a bright spotlight on a philosophical divide in the party over the Russia-Ukraine war.
As congressional Republicans grapple over the future of U.S. funding for Ukraine, candidates at the California forum — the second debate of the primary season — differed on whether Washington’s focus should be on best equipping Kyiv to defeat its Russian adversary or to use its considerable leverage to bring about an end to the war.
Candidates also clashed over just how hard a line the U.S. should take in its 21st-century standoff with China, described by some White House hopefuls as a new “Cold War,” and on whether the Pentagon should send Special Operations forces into Mexico to target dangerous drug cartels pushing fentanyl across the southern border.
Former South Carolina Gov. and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley took a strong stand on both fronts, urging a tough American economic stance on China.
She also staked out arguably the most hawkish position of the seven candidates — former President Donald Trump, the front-runner in the polls, declined to participate — on sending the military into America’s southern neighbor.
“What we will do is we will make sure that we send in our special operations and we will take out the cartels. We’ll take out their operations. We’ll take out anything that’s doing it,” she said.
But the Russia-Ukraine war, and the U.S. role in either prolonging or ending it, took center stage. Some candidates seemed much closer to Mr. Trump, who has cast the conflict as far more important to Europe than it is to the U.S. and said he could end the war the day he takes office.
Some of Mr. Trump’s rivals also believe the best thing Washington can do is to help end the fighting as soon as possible.
“It is in our interest to end this war, and that’s what I will do as president,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said. “We are not going to have a blank check. We will not have U.S. troops. We are going to make the Europeans do what they need to do.”
Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who argues the top U.S. interest is in severing the growing economic and military ties between Russia and China, distinguished himself by offering a skeptical take on Ukraine itself.
“Just because [Russian President Vladimir] Putin … is an evil dictator does not mean that Ukraine is good,” he said. “China is the real enemy. And we’re driving Russia further into China’s arms. We need a reasonable peace plan to end this” war in Ukraine.
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, however, said it is directly in America’s interests to fund the Ukrainian side to drain the Russian army.
“I will say, let’s debate the fact that our national vital interest is in degrading the Russian military. By degrading the Russian military, we actually keep our homeland safer, we keep our troops at home” rather than sending them to fight in a future war in Europe, Mr. Scott said.
China in focus
The discussion of the Russia-Ukraine war, like a host of issues Wednesday night ranging from energy to agriculture, eventually circled back to China.
One of the debate’s most notable exchanges came when former Vice President Mike Pence forcefully insisted that any American wobbling on Ukraine would lead to disastrous consequences down the road. He responded directly to Mr. Ramaswamy by insisting that if the U.S. and its allies allow Russia to permanently take an inch of territory from the Ukrainians, other adversaries around the world will take note.
“Vivek, if you let Putin have Ukraine, that’s a green light to China to take Taiwan. Peace comes through strength,” Mr. Pence said, echoing President Reagan’s famous formula in his broader view of America’s role in the world.
“Our party does face a time for choosing … whether we’re going to stand on the foundation of that conservative agenda that Ronald Reagan poured or whether we’re going to follow the siren song of populism unmoored to conservative principles,” the former vice president said.
Indeed, other candidates agreed that the diverse slate of foreign policy challenges confronting the next president share obvious connective tissue.
“The Chinese are paying for the Russian war in Ukraine. The Iranians are supplying more sophisticated weapons, and so are the North Koreans now as well, with the encouragement of the Chinese,” former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said. “And the fact of the matter is, we need to say right now that the Chinese-Russian alliance is something we have to fight against.”
North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum declared that the U.S. is in fact in a “Cold War” with China, even if “the Biden administration won’t admit that.”
But Mr. Burgum also drew direct connections between U.S.-China friction and leading American domestic issues such as the ongoing autoworkers’ strike and the administration’s prioritization of electric vehicles, many of which rely on key components from China.
“The reason why people are striking in Detroit is because of Joe Biden’s interference with capital markets and with free markets,” Mr. Burgum said. “We’re subsidizing the automakers, and we’re subsidizing the cars, and a particular kind of car, not every car. We’re particularly subsidizing electric vehicles. And when you decide that we’re going to take all of your taxpayer monies, take a billion dollars, subsidize a certain type of vehicle, and the batteries come from China?”
• Ben Wolfgang can be reached at bwolfgang@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.