Great post, with Paul's usual nuance and analytical skills, giving DeSantis his due while recognizing his weak points. I think DeSantis' comments positions himself well on this issue in the coming campaign., allowing him to distance himself from Trump without taking him on. Jim Dueholm
It's absolutely shocking to me (still) how absurdly dishonest both the left wing media and the Trump hating media (because they have become DeSantis hating now) actually is. It's as if they want to lose even more support.
If DeSantis thinks "The U.S. should not provide assistance that would require the deployment of American troops or enable Ukraine to engage in offensive operations beyond its borders. F-16s and long range missiles should therefore be off the table" then he isn't serious about supporting Ukraine. It will be physically impossible for Ukraine to defend itself, even should it retake all of its territory, if Russia is able to lob missiles from bases on the Russian side of the border in perpetuity. Note that at the end of the ground conflict, Ukraine will be a shambles, as many European countries were after WWII, and it will require peace to rebuild. Ukrainian survival therefore requires taking out Russian launch sites on the Russian side of the border.
Before we get to that point, ending the ground conflict will also require knocking out Russian railroads, launch sites, supply depots, and airfields on the Russian side of the border. That is reality. To support Ukrainian independence while ruling Russian territory off limits is not a position but a temper tantrum. There is a binary choice here: Either help Ukraine attack Russia, or let Ukraine be destroyed.
Truman did rule out attacks across the Yalu. But he never ruled out attacks on North Korea. That shows the point: To secure South Korea, we had to attack North Korean territory, which we did. To secure North Korea, we had to attack Chinese territory, which we did not.
There is a larger point. It is not enough that a candidate have the right positions. He must lead. Supporting Ukraine means rallying support by explaining to the American people why its defense matters and is worth risking nuclear war for. Failing to do so will leave the American people unwilling to support Ukraine, regardless of DeSantis's answers to a checklist. Truman and Kennedy risked war with the USSR several times, and while I am not familiar with specific speeches, I assume they did more to explain the stakes than give compromising answers as DeSantis did.
Outside of a few people in DC, does anyone really care what the Bulwark thinks? Should they? Asked and answered! We prefer Ringside at the Reckoning, thank you.
I agree with your analysis, but I don't think DeSantis was playing to an antiwar republican audience with his remark on regime change. I think he was being pretty candid.
"In his answer, DeSantis took a shot at “the DC foreign policy interventionists,” saying that regime change is popular with that crowd. I view this as DeSantis playing to the audience he doesn’t want to alienate with his support for continuing to aid Ukraine."
First off, there IS a crowd in the DC foreign policy establishment whose goal IS regime change and they have influence. Nearly a year ago on March 26 Joe Biden said, "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power." Administration officials walked back the statement, but the remark was celebrated by David Rothkkopf as well as various professors and think tankers, including at Rand and Foriegn Affairs. I think the Foreign Affairs article fantasized that regime change could lead to a "liberalization of Russia." Blush.
After Victoria Nuland and Amb. Wyatt's engineering of the current regime during the Maidan Coup of 2014, suspecting the US of using a poxy war of attrition as a means of forcing regime change in Moscow is entirely reasonable, not posturing.
In a political field where romantics (or cynics) in both parties have declared this war "a war for liberty" (Haley) or a "defense of democracy," I found DeSantis' position refreshingly practical.
Great post, with Paul's usual nuance and analytical skills, giving DeSantis his due while recognizing his weak points. I think DeSantis' comments positions himself well on this issue in the coming campaign., allowing him to distance himself from Trump without taking him on. Jim Dueholm
It's absolutely shocking to me (still) how absurdly dishonest both the left wing media and the Trump hating media (because they have become DeSantis hating now) actually is. It's as if they want to lose even more support.
If DeSantis thinks "The U.S. should not provide assistance that would require the deployment of American troops or enable Ukraine to engage in offensive operations beyond its borders. F-16s and long range missiles should therefore be off the table" then he isn't serious about supporting Ukraine. It will be physically impossible for Ukraine to defend itself, even should it retake all of its territory, if Russia is able to lob missiles from bases on the Russian side of the border in perpetuity. Note that at the end of the ground conflict, Ukraine will be a shambles, as many European countries were after WWII, and it will require peace to rebuild. Ukrainian survival therefore requires taking out Russian launch sites on the Russian side of the border.
Before we get to that point, ending the ground conflict will also require knocking out Russian railroads, launch sites, supply depots, and airfields on the Russian side of the border. That is reality. To support Ukrainian independence while ruling Russian territory off limits is not a position but a temper tantrum. There is a binary choice here: Either help Ukraine attack Russia, or let Ukraine be destroyed.
Truman did rule out attacks across the Yalu. But he never ruled out attacks on North Korea. That shows the point: To secure South Korea, we had to attack North Korean territory, which we did. To secure North Korea, we had to attack Chinese territory, which we did not.
There is a larger point. It is not enough that a candidate have the right positions. He must lead. Supporting Ukraine means rallying support by explaining to the American people why its defense matters and is worth risking nuclear war for. Failing to do so will leave the American people unwilling to support Ukraine, regardless of DeSantis's answers to a checklist. Truman and Kennedy risked war with the USSR several times, and while I am not familiar with specific speeches, I assume they did more to explain the stakes than give compromising answers as DeSantis did.
Outside of a few people in DC, does anyone really care what the Bulwark thinks? Should they? Asked and answered! We prefer Ringside at the Reckoning, thank you.
I agree with your analysis, but I don't think DeSantis was playing to an antiwar republican audience with his remark on regime change. I think he was being pretty candid.
"In his answer, DeSantis took a shot at “the DC foreign policy interventionists,” saying that regime change is popular with that crowd. I view this as DeSantis playing to the audience he doesn’t want to alienate with his support for continuing to aid Ukraine."
First off, there IS a crowd in the DC foreign policy establishment whose goal IS regime change and they have influence. Nearly a year ago on March 26 Joe Biden said, "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power." Administration officials walked back the statement, but the remark was celebrated by David Rothkkopf as well as various professors and think tankers, including at Rand and Foriegn Affairs. I think the Foreign Affairs article fantasized that regime change could lead to a "liberalization of Russia." Blush.
After Victoria Nuland and Amb. Wyatt's engineering of the current regime during the Maidan Coup of 2014, suspecting the US of using a poxy war of attrition as a means of forcing regime change in Moscow is entirely reasonable, not posturing.
In a political field where romantics (or cynics) in both parties have declared this war "a war for liberty" (Haley) or a "defense of democracy," I found DeSantis' position refreshingly practical.