The family of Samuel Newey say he died fighting alongside Ukrainian forces on Wednesday.

Vivek Ramaswamy, the 38-year-old entrepreneur running for the Republican presidential nomination, has initiated a war against what he views as an outdated, establishment foreign policy. He is deeply skeptical of NATO. He wants to swiftly end the war in Ukraine, detach Russia from China, and compel Taiwan to defend itself without America. He also proposed reducing American financial aid to Israel, a stance long considered politically impossible on the right, before saying he would do so only with Israel’s approval. This week, Ramaswamy attempted to justify such stands with an essay in The American Conservative called “A Viable Realism and Revival Doctrine.”

Invoking Presidents George Washington, James Monroe, and Richard Nixon—whom Ramaswamy has called “the most underappreciated president of our modern history in this country, probably in all of American history”—the article appears to be an effort to lend coherence and gravitas to Ramaswamy’s worldview. It also seems to be an attempt to counter the attack by former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley that he has “no foreign policy experience, and it shows.” In the article, Ramaswamy promises to restore American national pride and identity after decades of feckless liberal internationalist and neoconservative policies. “We will be Uncle Sucker no more,” he writes.

[David A. Graham: Ramaswamy and the rest]

It would be foolish to underestimate Ramaswamy, who has vaulted past many of his detractors to become a breakout star in the GOP primary. And at a moment when Republican support for the war in Ukraine is plummeting, his call for retrenchment, much like Donald Trump’s denunciation of the Iraq War in 2016, is perfectly pitched to appeal to the party’s nationalist wing. But just how realistic and viable is his vision?

The truth is that Ramaswamy is slapping the realist brand onto a hodgepodge of policy proposals that are divorced from reality. Realism is about a number of things—the balance of power, national interests, spheres of influence—but one thing it is not about is wishful thinking. Yet that is what Ramaswamy is peddling. His vision is no less dogmatic than the neoconservatism he professes to despise, substituting the belief that America should intervene everywhere with the conviction that it shouldn’t intervene anywhere. And his proposals almost seem calculated to injure, not promote, American interests.

Like more than a few Republicans these days, Ramaswamy is obsessed with China, which he depicts as the locus of evil in the world, and cavalier about Russia, which stands accused of perpetrating war crimes in the heart of Europe. He does not explain how China’s current troubles—a faltering economy, an aging population, grave environmental problems—can be reconciled with his portrait of a totalitarian power about to turn a new generation of Americans, as he averred in a speech at the Nixon library, into “a bunch of Chinese serfs.”

[Read: Vivek Ramaswamy’s truth]

Ramaswamy’s demagoguery about China is reminiscent of the apprehensions voiced by American conservatives after World War II, when the GOP contained an “Asia First” wing, led by Senator Robert A. Taft and others who disparaged American aid to Europe and claimed, improbably, that American military supplies to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek would allow him to easily topple the communist dictatorship on the mainland. Ramaswamy seems to want to avert a conflict with Beijing, but his truculent calls for confronting China would render a fresh world war more, not less, probable.

In his American Conservative essay, Ramaswamy lauds Nixon as the president whose foreign policy he most admires. “He got us out of Vietnam,” Ramaswamy writes. Not exactly. As president, Nixon embarked upon the policy of “Vietnamization” to reduce American troops, but he needlessly expanded the war with a secret bombing campaign against Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge, led by the genocidal Pol Pot, ended up coming to power in 1975. No less addled is Ramaswamy’s grasp of the history of Nixon’s opening to China. He announces that, as president, he would carry out a new version of what Nixon accomplished in 1972 by traveling to China—visiting Moscow in 2025 to create peace with Russia and then “elevate [it] as a strategic check on China’s designs in East Asia.” But Nixon never sought to isolate the Soviet Union; he sought to create a stable equilibrium among the three countries, pursuing what he and Henry Kissinger called “triangular diplomacy.” In addition, Nixon and Kissinger hoped that a web of economic ties between America and the Soviet Union would constrain its propensity to expand abroad—the very approach that Ramaswamy now condemns when it comes to long-standing American policy toward China.

Declaring that “Putin is the new Mao,” Ramaswamy claims that he will be able to woo the Russian leader away from China. He proposes to bow to Russian suzerainty over the territories it controls in eastern Ukraine and oppose Ukrainian membership in NATO “in exchange for Russia exiting its military alliance with China.” But as others have noted, those two countries do not have a military alliance. In any case, Putin has repeatedly displayed no interest in serious peace negotiations over Ukraine, a country that he remains wholly intent on reducing to the status of an imperial Russian colony.

[David Frum: The next U.S. president will need to defeat isolationism]

Like Trump before him, Ramaswamy tries to disguise his apparent animus toward democratic countries by scorning what he maintains is Western Europe’s piddling military spending. But Central and Western Europe’s military outlays reached $345 billion last year, almost 30 percent higher than they were a decade ago. The obstacle to real reform, we are told, is an ossified NATO bureaucracy that is pushing liberal internationalist missions whenever and wherever it can. Ramaswamy claims that he would transform NATO into a “strictly defensive military alliance”—as though it were an imperialist power marauding around the world looking for wars to wage.

Ramaswamy’s candidacy has exposed real rifts within the GOP over foreign policy. The Wall Street Journal denounced him for seeking to sell out Ukraine, and National Review asked whether “he’s auditioning for a geopolitical game show instead of the presidency of the United States.” To some extent, his comments can be dismissed as bluster. But he and his fellow self-proclaimed realists—a cluster of activists and thinkers at places such as The American Conservative, the Claremont Institute, and the Heritage Foundation—are responding to a genuine, if dismaying, phenomenon in the American electorate. No one is trying to exploit it more audaciously than Ramaswamy, who continues to offer chimerical promises about restoring America’s national identity. We now know better than to disregard such salesmen.

There are many ways to do it

Ukrainian forces advance south and east to the rear of Russia’s first line of defence during the 79th week of the war.

All the latest developments from the war in Ukraine.

Russian defence ministry says four boats carrying up to 50 Ukrainian special forces members were hit in the attack.

Welcome to Up for Debate. Each week, Conor Friedersdorf rounds up timely conversations and solicits reader responses to one thought-provoking question. Later, he publishes some thoughtful replies. Sign up for the newsletter here.

Last week I asked readers, “If you could pose one earnest question to any of the Republican candidates, what would it be?”

Replies have been edited for length and clarity.

Glen posed one of the most popular questions: “Who was the legitimate winner of the 2020 presidential election?”

JoAnn asked, “Would you still support Donald Trump for president if the January 6 crowd had hung or harmed Mike Pence or Nancy Pelosi?”

Greg offered an amusing variation: “If, as Trump and many of his allies claim, he won in 2020, wouldn’t this mean that he had won the presidency twice and therefore could not run again?”

Dean wrote:

One question I would want to ask the Republican candidates not named Trump is, “How would your administration govern differently from a Trump administration?” That the question even needs to be asked speaks to a failure on the part of these candidates, who shouldn’t need prodding to distinguish themselves from the former president and his governing style. After all, if anyone can beat Trump in the Republican primary, it surely won’t be an empty suit. The question I ask above is distinct from all those questions that would ask for a candidate’s reactive attitudes toward all things Trump, which are backward-looking and demand little more from the candidates than their poll-tested praise or condemnation. What have the candidates learned from the Trump presidency (warts and all)? How do each of them intend to build upon whatever they take to be its successes while avoiding its failures, which have to include losing the presidency after a single term? What will they do differently and why?

Matters of character were a recurring theme.

Katherine asked, “How do you personally define integrity, and how do you think you’ve represented it in both your private and political career?”

Joseph wrote, “You have articulated various ideological, philosophical, and moral principles in your campaign. Are there any good things that your principles prevent you from doing? Are there any policy goals that you believe are good but refuse to implement based on your principles?”

Cynthia asked, “Why do so many evangelicals embrace a man who in no way, shape, or form embodies anything remotely Christian?”

Clifford wondered, “Do you believe that Trump should be returned to the White House despite his obvious criminality? If yes, how does that square with your party’s law-and-order mantra?”

Paul focused on the economy:

Economic globalization has created many winners and many losers. For Americans who’ve found themselves left behind by these economic shifts, what specific, realistic policies or programs will you sponsor to help these Americans to develop the skills and abilities to participate and succeed more fully in the 21st-century workforce? I’m not interested in the blame game but rather in concrete, specific actions you will take that will be helpful.

So did Eric, who wrote, “Despite low unemployment, economic pessimism remains high, stemming from real wages failing to keep up with costs, particularly for the low-income. What would you do to fix that?”

DC asked, “What brings you the most joy in life?”

Many of you evinced concern about how to live together despite our differences.

Carolyn wrote:

Our unique U.S. Constitution was the result of productive debate and compromise conducted under uncomfortably hot and sticky conditions that could have led to short tempers and bickering instead of a democracy. In the now temperature-controlled chambers of government, what procedures and strategies will you promise to use to prioritize compromise for the good of the country instead of nonproductive and/or clearly biased party politics?

Karen wrote, “American democracy requires negotiation and compromise to work. Can you give something to the opposition in order to get things done, even if it angers your base?”

Gregg asked, “What will you do to unify all people in the U.S.A., not just your party?”

Bob wondered, “As president, what would you do to address the divisive hatred within America and restore civility?”

Francis wrote, “Name three pieces of legislation you would introduce, define, explain, and promote for congressional approval that would benefit ALL U.S. citizens?”

Connie wrote:

In our very divided country, what tactics would you implement to bring the far right and the far left closer together so our country thrives and is more respectful to our differences in beliefs?   

Milton asked, “Do you think the election of Trump has brought this country together or divided it further?”

Vickie had a question for Ron DeSantis: “I live in Florida and I would like DeSantis to explain the definition of ‘woke’ and his plans to fight it.”

Zbig asked:

Why do you think the U.S.-Mexico border should be closed but you don’t criticize those who illegally employ illegal immigrants? What legal consequences do you recommend?

Douglas asked about women’s health care:

Idaho has banned abortions. As a result, OB/GYN physicians have left, leaving no maternity or postnatal care for women and babies in the region. What will your administration do to ensure women’s medical health and safety in states where abortion is banned or severely limited and medical doctors are leaving?

Steve asked about the environment:

The Republican response to the climate crisis is at best a “wait and see” approach, and at worst, denial of the seriousness of the problem, if not contempt for the scientific consensus of how dire the situation is. What is the scientific basis for their refutation of the severity of climate change, or is it nothing more than wishful thinking, delusional belief, and apathy?

Daniel asked, “How hot will the planet have to get before we do something about global warming?”

Peter asked, “How much money have you taken from fossil-fuel companies in the last 10 years?”

Krista wrote:

Recent years have seen an increase in extreme weather conditions, including hottest-ever days and months. If $200 billion had to be spent to try to minimize the damages of these events moving forward, how would you utilize it to best protect us?

June wrote:

There was a time when the Republican Party did not want government to intrude into people’s private lives. That seems to have changed. Why?

Liz has a question for Nikki Haley: “What have you learned about the world’s politics, friendships, and dangers from your years as ambassador to the UN that might not be available to other candidates?”

Andrew wrote:

Mr. Ramaswamy, given your reticence to assist Ukraine in its struggle against Russia, are there any European countries that you think would deserve our military aid should Russia prevail over Ukrainian forces and move on into other former Soviet Bloc nations?

Randall asked, “Suppose you don’t win this election, and then you decide to do something else instead that is really admirable. What would that be?”

Scott wanted to know about priorities. “The United States faces numerous challenges,” he wrote. “If you had to rank them, what would be your top three?”

G. asked, “What limit, if any, do you believe there should be on gifts to members of the Supreme Court?”

Parrish asked, “What is your plan for addressing the high number of immigrants at our southern borders?”

Mark wrote, “In relation to aid to Ukraine, what is the cost of freedom versus the value of freedom?”

Judy asked, “What books have you read and what have you learned about the world and history?”

Jessica wondered, “Do you think of truth as grounded in objective, physical reality or as grounded in the instrumental and spiritual needs of people?”

Linda asked, “If you support Trump and he’s polled much higher than anyone running, why wouldn’t you drop out of the race so he could win?”

JM wrote, “If you could change one provision in the U.S. Constitution, what would it be, and why?”

And Jaleelah wrote:

I obviously wouldn’t ask a question that any reporter has already posed …  Questions for which most candidates have canned responses prepared are also off the table … I would really like to ask two questions. I believe that testing candidates’ commitments to consistency and equality is the only task I am uniquely suited for. If that’s allowed, I would pose this set to each candidate individually:

“Do you support Americans’ right to defend their homes with force in the event that an invader attempts to destroy or steal their property?”

Follow-up question:

“Do you support Palestinians’ right to defend their homes with force in the event that an invader attempts to destroy or steal their property?”

American politicians often dance around the fact that they believe Palestinian people are entitled to fewer rights than others. I would like to hear Republican candidates either upend my assumptions about them or confirm my suspicions to my face.

Euronews did not produce or publish a report falsely claiming Ukrainian refugees attacked a man in Germany after mistaking his Slovenian flag for a Russian one.

An outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease has now killed 11 people in the town of Rzeszow, on the Ukrainian border.

All the latest developments from the war in Ukraine.