Why DeSantis’s Ukraine statement matters

Ron DeSantis’s statement on Ukraine issued Monday night, an answer to Fox host Tucker Carlson’s policy questionnaire for possible presidential candidates, is proving to be one of the most significant moments yet in the still nascent 2024 campaign.

The closer DeSantis gets to formally announcing his bid, the less he can stick to the policy ambiguity which being a state executive, rather than a Washington lawmaker, affords you. The Florida governor took Tucker’s invitation to expound on Ukraine and ran with it, issuing a statement that outlined a far less hawkish position…

Why DeSantis’s Ukraine statement matters

Ron DeSantis’s statement on Ukraine issued Monday night, an answer to Fox host Tucker Carlson’s policy questionnaire for possible presidential candidates, is proving to be one of the most significant moments yet in the still nascent 2024 campaign.

The closer DeSantis gets to formally announcing his bid, the less he can stick to the policy ambiguity which being a state executive, rather than a Washington lawmaker, affords you. The Florida governor took Tucker’s invitation to expound on Ukraine and ran with it, issuing a statement that outlined a far less hawkish position than many had expected him to adopt. The war in Ukraine was not a “vital national interest,” DeSantis said, calling the invasion a “territorial dispute” (an odd choice of words to describe Putin’s attempt at full conquest), blaming Biden’s policies for driving Russia into China’s arms and maintaining that support for Ukraine is being prioritized over “the defense of our homeland.”

Substantively, DeSantis actually committed to relatively little. Aside from the egregious “territorial dispute” language, he said a lot of things that few would disagree with: “peace should be the objective;” the US should not provide assistance that could require the deployment of American troops; America should not write Ukraine a “blank check”; a policy of regime change in Moscow is reckless and mistaken; China is a bigger national security priority than Russia. Those first two points are Biden administration policy. The others are perfectly mainstream.

Language and tone matter, of course, and so the statement cannot be discounted just because it is light on details. Hence the pushback from many in the Republican Party. Senator Lindsey Graham yesterday said he “could not disagree more” with DeSantis’s statement. “The Neville Chamberlain approach to aggression never ends well,” he said. “This is an attempt by Putin to rewrite the map of Europe by force of arms.” His Senate colleague Marco Rubio said of the DeSantis statement: “I don’t know what he’s trying to do or what the goal is.”

Well, the goal, of course, is to become the next president of the United States. And, whatever the substantive objections one might have to DeSantis’s statement, its tone reveals what DeSantis thinks the mood is among his party’s voters — not the same as the mood among Republicans in the Senate, clearly.

But whether DeSantis is right or wrong on that, his Ukraine statement demonstrates the challenge he faces as he gears up for his run against Donald Trump. DeSantis’s statement is, in spite of its loose language in parts, carefully triangulated and hedged. If it reads like something engineered to appeal to the right voters so he can occupy the winning lane next year, that’s because that’s exactly what it is. And if it is hard to square with the more hawkish statements of DeSantis the Congressman, that’s because it is.

Not for the first time, DeSantis finds himself looking like a politician blowing with the wind while Trump looks like his freewheeling, independent-minded self. On Ukraine, the former president is comfortable making broad, crystal-clear statements. “I would never allowed this to have happened,” being a particularly common refrain.

DeSantis’s statement may be a clear sign of the Republican party’s fundamental transformation on foreign policy. But it is also a reminder of how much the most hyped 2024 contender still has to prove.

On our radar

Inflation numbers add to Powell’s headache

Spare a thought for Fed Chair Jay Powell. Already stuck in a tricky fight to wrestle inflation back under control, he now has the consequences of the bank run to worry about too. But yesterday’s inflation numbers were a reminder, not that one were needed, of how much work is still to be done on that first task. Core CPI, economists’ preferred measure of inflation, rose by 0.5 percent month on month, the largest increase in five months and a bigger rise than most expected.

Roy backs DeSantis

Can you endorse someone for president even if he hasn’t announced that he’s running? According to Chip Roy, the answer is yes. The Texas congressman today sent out a statement backing DeSantis, whom he called a “vibrant and energetic leader.”

Guo Wengui arrested

Mysterious billionaire Chinese exile Guo Wengui, who also goes by Miles Guo, has been arrested in New York and stands accused of a $1 billion fraud. Guo became a reasonably prominent figure on the right in recent years and is an associate of Steve Bannon.

*** Sign up to receive the DC Diary in your inbox here ***

There is no excuse for Russia’s downing of a US drone

An MQ-9 Reaper drone’s propeller was hit by a Russian Su-27 fighter jet over the Black Sea on Tuesday, causing the drone to lose control and crash. Before the fighter made contact with the drone, it and its wingman released fuel in what was likely an attempt to impair the American aircraft. The drone was in international airspace — which Russia seems to acknowledge — leaving no justification under international law for Moscow’s aggressive actions.

Whether or not the physical contact was premeditated remains unknown. The Kremlin claims the drone’s “sharp maneuvers” caused it to crash and that its jet did not hit it.

The US condemned the episode, with the Defense Department calling Russia’s moves “unsafe and unprofessional” and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin stating that “Russian aircraft again engaged in dangerous, reckless, and unprofessional practices.” Austin continued, “So make no mistake, the United States will continue to fly and operate wherever international law allows, and it is incumbent upon Russia to operate its military aircraft in a safe and professional manner.”

For now, the US government seems to be trying to keep tensions at a simmer rather than bringing them to a boil.

It is not clear if the drone, which is now likely on the bottom of the Black Sea, will be retrieved by the United States, with US officials suggesting it may not be. Russia could attempt to capture it, which would risk the technology onboard falling into Moscow’s hands. National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby said that measures were taken to limit what the Russians could gain.

Unsafe interceptions by Russian and Chinese aircraft are not out of the ordinary. In December, for example, Chinese aircraft conducted a reckless interception of a US reconnaissance plane, coming as close as twenty feet to the aircraft. These actions, which also took place in international airspace, indicate the willingness of both countries to confront the US and challenge the American-led global system.

– John Pietro

Biden suddenly remembers his gay rights epiphany

In an interview on the Daily Show with former Obama staffer and Harold and Kumar star Kal Penn, Biden explained that he could “remember exactly where [his] epiphany was” on the question of marriage equality. He was a high-school senior, he explained. “I remember about to get out of the car and I look to my right and two well-dressed men in suits kissed each other,” said Biden. “And I’ll never forget it, I turned and looked at my dad and he said, ‘Joey, it’s simple. They love each other.’” The president continued: “It’s just that simple, it doesn’t matter whether it’s same-sex or a heterosexual couple, you should be able to be married. So what is the problem?”

Great question, Joe! If you saw “no problem” in 1960, what happened in the intervening years? Why the 1996 vote as a senator in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman? And why, in 1994, the support for a measure that cut federal funding to any school that taught gay acceptance? And why, way back in 1974, when that beautiful kiss on the streets of Wilmington was a less distant memory, did you wonder out loud whether homosexuals in the military posed a threat to national security?

–Cockburn

From the site

John Steele Gordon: SVB was more interested in virtue-signaling than sound banking
Ben Domenech: We need a new word for ‘wokeness’
Batya Ungar-Sargon: Why Biden will never let Silicon Valley fail

Poll watch

President Biden job approval
Approve 44.4 percent | Disapprove 51.3 percent | Net Approval -6.9
(RCP Average)

Americans’ views on post-pandemic normalcy
Life is completely back to normal: 33 percent | Not back to normal but eventually will be: 20 percent | Not back to normal, will not return: 47 percent (Gallup)