Vivek Ramaswamy: A critique of attitudes toward Ukraine

Vivek Ramaswamy: A critique of attitudes toward Ukraine

Vivek Ramaswamy is an entrepreneur turned politician, although in recent days his presidential campaign has seemingly been stifled by former President Donald Trump, Ramaswamy’s prospects of landing in a position of power are still rather convincing. Ramaswamy has made a name for himself in US politics through unorthodox right wing policy proposals and catering to the so called ‘anti-woke’ population of the US. The political establishment in the US is something that Ramaswamy has not been shy of criticising, going as far as proposing shutting down the FBI and raising the voting age from 18 to 25. Many see Ramaswamy’s ideas as on the fringe of being dangerous, this is no different to his worrying stance on Ukraine. 

Like every other democracy, bargaining chips are often used to facilitate political gain, these can range from promises to uphold policies proposed in leadership runs all the way to lobbying. The US is no different in that regard. Like in all western nations that have either previously supported Ukraine or are continuing to support Ukraine in its own patriotic war against Russia, the topic of continued support is becoming more and more dubious in countries such as the United States. This move toward cutting funding to Ukraine has been headed by those of the right wing of American politics, candidates such as Ramaswamy propose the idea of completely cutting supplies to Ukraine and barring the nation from its long term goal of joining NATO. Many ill-informed US voters believe that the aid being sent to Ukraine is costing the US taxpayer significantly more money than what was being paid to the state prior to the invasion of Ukraine. Supporting Ukraine has only cost the US taxpayer 4% of what it costs to fund the social security benefits program. It is forecasted that measured consistent support of Ukraine throughout its war with Russia will end up being far cheaper for the US population than halting support would be now.  Although there is some merit to the argument for ceasing support for Ukraine, the notion that it would directly benefit the general population of the United States follows the same logic of ‘trickle down’ economics. 

Ramaswamy is not only ill-informed, or purposefully ignorant of the fiscal factor that has ruled arguments against supporting Ukraine from the Republican side of the political aisle. Ramaswamy is also seemingly ignorant of the realities on the ground in Ukraine, and in particular the eastern regions that have been hit the hardest by the war. The latent presidential candidate has gone as far as to state that “Eastern Ukrainians don’t mind the Russian occupation” This stance could be informed by the pseudo elections that took place in the Eastern and Southern regions of Ukraine in the summer of 2022. These should not be considered with any merit at all given the conditions that the voting population was subject to during the phony-elections hastily sprung up by the Russian Federation as it became clear that Ukrainian forces were well on their way to recapturing much of the territory subject to the elections. Ramaswamy fails to note that a large portion of the eastern regions of Ukraine - Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts have been warzones since  2014 after Russian backed separatists from the two respective regions broke away from Ukraine and began to mount a war against the nation. Two states were formed known as the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR). This conflict created a refugee crisis in the eastern regions of Ukraine, naturally those of the Ukrainian population that did sympathize with the views of the separatists from the DPR, LPR and now the Russian Federation remained in the region, whilst those with pro Ukrainian sympathies fled westward instead. 

This does not discount the clearly significant chunk of the population of Eastern Ukraine that do see themselves as Russian. However, to make such a vast claim at the height of the biggest conflict in Europe since the second world war without any context is a worrying prospect for a potential US presidential candidate, or at the very least an individual that is more than likely going to wield some amount of power in the US government for the foreseeable future. 

There is an evident lack of understanding of both the current and previous situations in Ukraine from Ramaswamy. On top of his statements in regard to Ukrainians not minding the Russian occupation in the east, he also believes that the war in Ukraine is “pointless”. Even one with a limited understanding of the conflict in Ukraine can see that the nation is in a war of survival against the second most powerful military in the world. Despite what pro-Russian voices may claim, Ukraine did nothing to provoke a full-scale war against Russia. There is little evidence of Nazism being prevalent in Ukraine and the residents that chose to remain in the war-torn eastern regions prior to the 2022 invasion would not have been subject to the inevitable collateral damage that war often brings if Russia did not enable the separatists from the DPR and LPR to sustain their efforts to separate themselves from the state of Ukraine. If Ramaswamy believes the war in Ukraine to be pointless then by his own logic, Russia’s defense of its own nation against Nazi Germany in the second world war is equally as pointless. 

This stance from Ramaswamy is nothing short of appeasement, famously this has not worked historically. Despite his criticisms of Putin’s invasion, his apparent desire to justify Russia’s invasion goes against the very values of the nation that he is seeking to head. This can be evidenced by the peace deal proposed by the politician during his presidential campaign. The deal essentially seeks for an agreement to freeze the current lines of control in Ukraine in return from a promise from Putin that Russia will refrain from entering any future military alliances with China. Ramaswamy stated that his peace deal would allow Ukraine to come out of said deal with its sovereignty intact. As his peace deal intends to freeze the current lines of control in Ukraine, if this deal were to materialize, then by international law, the deal would be illegal. 

There are two driving factors that, to Ramaswamy, make the reasoning behind his peace deal logical. The first being his belief that the population of Eastern Ukraine are happier under their ruined cities so long as they are governed by Russia. The second stemming from an apparent lack of resistance to the Russian invasion in the East of the Ukraine in comparison to the Northern regions for example. Yet again his lack of understanding of the situation in Ukraine has marred his attempt at terms for a peace deal. This area of reasoning can be debunked by the clear evidence of armed resistance throughout all of Ukraine in the first days of the 2022 invasion. Naturally this has since waned, this can be attributed to the current situation being considered stable, with an established frontline that is not at present, at threat of collapsing. The Ukrainian government has stated numerous times that armed resistance from civilians is no longer necessary. Ramaswamy seems to insinuate that because armed resistance from civilians worked to help win the Battle for Kyiv for example, that it would also work on an established frontline in the east. As previously mentioned, Ramaswamy failed to address the fact that the Eastern regions of Ukraine had been a warzone eight years before the full-scale Russian invasion. In comparison to other regions of Ukraine, the territorial exchanges in the East have been miniscule. The notion that civilian resistance would have made any difference at all to the current situation in Ukraine is concerning. This demonstrates a clear lack of understanding on Ramaswamy’s part. 

To Ramaswamy, the case of Ukraine is one of political debate, rather than a more tangible issue. He feigns compassion for Ukraine through quizzing political opponents on frankly trivial facts about Ukraine as a means of one-upping his opponent in order to come across as more caring than he actually is about the future of Ukraine and its population. Ramaswamy seemingly is willing to bow to the demands of Putin so long as it facilitates his own political gain. The peace deal proposed by Ramaswamy is another glaring indicator of this fact. Although it is not entirely disagreeable to hold one’s own nation in regard to such a matter as the war in Ukraine, to use the conflict as a means to advance the United States strategic position against China. The complete terms for his proposed peace deal are hazy at best, but it is clear that his interest in the deterrence of Chinese military power is the primary goal behind a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia if it were to be brokered by the US.

Ramaswamy has demonstrated that he has no apparent understanding of the past and current situation in Ukraine, his peace deal outlines just how little he cares for the values that his native country strives to spread globally and so long as the strategic position of the United States can be strengthened going forward, then the suffering of the Ukrainian population is a means to justify the end envisioned by Ramaswamy. His stance on Ukraine is highly concerning, his views should not be taken seriously, and he should certainly face more criticism for his, to be frank, barbaric views on the situation in Ukraine.