The Reckless Foreign Policy of Vivek Ramaswamy
This story was written with the assistance of an AI writing program.
Vivek Ramaswamy is a great candidate for President.
He is intelligent, thoughtful, a good communicator, centered, a good businessman and a man of God.
He presents new ideas in a way that makes sense, quite the opposite of what we’ve been hearing for the last two decades.
His platform deserves attention, thoughtful consideration and, most of all a chance to be heard on the world stage.
Appearing at the Richard Nixon Library, he posited his case for a new foreign policy.
I am impressed that Vivel Ramaswamy chose the Nixon Library to present his foreign policy ideas.
I thought I was the only one who knew how much of a realist and genius Richard Nixon was in terms of foreign policy. Might I even say that Richard Nixon was “crafty.”
As the Vulcan saying goes, “Only Richard Nixon could go to China.”
Why?
Because Richard Nixon was an ardent anti-Communist, one of the most hardlined of his day, if not the hardliner of all his eras hardliners.
He was opposed to any reproachment to Mao Tse Tung’s China and had written numerous articles and had given a multitude of speeches against those who would even consider this.
So Richard Nixon went to China, because only Richard Nixon could do so, and only Richard Nixon with his keen strategic mind could foresee the outcome that could result in rapprochement to Mao’s Red China.
It all worked, for a time, until the bipartisan efforts led by Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s Secretary of State, twisted Nixon’s policy into the monster we have today creating the strategic threat from China that we are currently experiencing.
I have studied war for 50 years as of today.
I have studied what makes wars happen and what makes wars stop.
And I know the following:
I know how to start a war,
I know how to end a war,
I know how to prevent a war,
and I know how to win a war — as my several “Plans of Battle” will attest.
Vivek Ramaswamy’s foreign policy is dangerous and will backfire. Not because it won’t work — it will, to a point. But what happens after that point?
Foreign policy is a chess game.
I’m guessing Mr. Ramaswamy knows how to play chess, being an intelligent guy I suspect he not only knows how to play, but he’s good at it, far better than I, I suspect, who hasn’t played in over 20 years.
But being novel in foreign policy, he hasn’t thought far enough in advance, nor does he know what his opponent seeks.
Vivek Ramaswamy he can end the war in Ukraine by giving Putin what Putin wants. In exchange, he’s willing to give Xi Jinping what Xi Jinping wants.
Mr. Ramaswamy says he will end the war in Ukraine by freezing the current line of control.
He thinks this will decouple Russia from China.
What Vivek doesn’t seem to realize, or perhaps he just doesn’t understand, that China has no strategic advantage with being coupled to Russia due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Xi Jinping and the Central Committee are seeking a means to decouple from Russia while saving face.
They can’t do this easily because of their shortsighted agreement with Russia.
But Vivek can hand them just the apparatus they need to do so, while continuing their strategic goal of dominating the western, then the entire Pacific and of curtailing the U.S. and creating a new Chinese oriented World Order.
The CCP, led by Xi Jinping are adherents of the Thucydides Trap, in which a rising world power will always engage in conflict with the existing world power.
The CCP just wants to dictate when, how and where — as should any nation; they want to be the one that decides the terms of conflict.
The Chinese leadership is willing to wait a few more years before their estimation of military success against the U.S. favors China.
China feels it is currently on a leash with a large, mean and stupid dog it can’t control. This is Russia.
If Vivek cuts the leash, China is free to wreak whatever havoc they choose.
And they will do so.
The war in Ukraine poses a challenge to China because, first it was a wild card they didn’t expect, and two, they are witnessing what may happen to China should China attack Taiwan.
Right now, China can’t afford to confront the west.
It has too much to lose and too little to gain.
If Vivek successfully decouples Russia from China by ending the war in Ukraine and giving Putin what he seeks (on multiple fronts), the calculus changes.
China will understand that the west can be relied upon to appease China, to kowtow to their wishes, to yield to China its ambition and ceding China the world stage as the world’s most dominant power.
Vivek Ramaswamy says he will end the policy of strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan and make clear to Xi Jinping that the U.S. will cede Taiwan and the western Pacific to China when the U.S. has achieved microchip independence.
In China’s eyes, as in Japan’s eyes 80 years ago, the western Pacific begins at Hawaii.
Whether stated or not, when China acquires Taiwan, the “line of control” in the Pacific will pass north to south just west of Hawaii and any U.S. forces venturing beyond that point will be in literal dangerous waters.
As a result, U.S. forces, and the world’s commerce, will traverse the Pacific only with China’s consent.
I agree with most of Vivek Ramaswamy’s policy.
Most of it makes sense, if it is a bit naive.
It is clear he has neither skill nor experience in foreign policy, no depth and no understanding of when someone is sizing you up in order to more efficiently cut your throat.
Now we come to the way to end the war in Ukraine.
It’s very simple.
Give the Ukrainians the tools (equipment, materiel and support) they need to win, untie their hands about striking targets deep inside Russia and continue to bolster NATO.
There is really nothing the U.S. needs to do directly to win, we just need to untie the Ukrainians hands so they can win on their own.
How to we prevent war in the Pacific?
We begin by creating a Pacific “NATO.” And them arming it to deter China from attacking or harassing member states.
How do we prevent a war between the U.S. and China?
By helping to create and then joining the Pacific “NATO.”
We also continue building up forces in the region, constructing alliances with Pacific littoral states and with those who have strategic interests in the Pacific, building, expanding and modernizing the Navy and expanding the other military forces and helping to build alternate manufacturing facilities for world goods in Vietnam, the Philippines, India, Bangladesh and Africa, et al.
What I’ve presented here has, from my review of internal Chinese literature, already been provided to the Chinese military and political leadership — and rejected by them.
The Chinese believe in the Thucydides trap, a zero-sum game and manuvering for the long game — to win, not in 5 or 10 years, but in 30, 40 or 50 years, while dismissing prevailing evidence to the contrary.
These three; the Thucydides Trap, the zero-sum game and the long game are all constants of Chinese policy. They will not be relinquished on a whim. Nor will the Chinese allow them to be negotiated away.
It would do well for Vivek Ramaswamy to understand “politics as foreign policy” and to learn the long game.
***********************************************************************
Perry Jones was a researcher for the Republican National Committee during the Reagan Administration and has worked with the Bush and Clinton Administrations in a military advisory role. He has consulted with the U.S. Naval War College and is one of the authors of a foundation document for “Future Navy.”
Mr. Jones’ “Plan of Battle: Iraq” written in November 1990 was 95% identical to Desert Storm which followed in February of 1991.
Perry submitted his “Plan of Battle: Serbia” early in 1999. This was 100% identical to the U.N intervention which followed later that year.
U.S. war planners consistently lost to China in their defense of Taiwan in wargames conducted over the course of several years. Mr. Jones submitted his “Plan of Battle: Defense of Taiwan” and the U.S. has been winning every wargame since.
