-特朗普的孤立主义给他的竞争对手和共和党带来了危险。
特朗普提前进入共和党初选已经让他的对手们面临一些艰难的选择。其中最重要的是：他们是否与前总统一起组建一个共和党投降核心小组？
特朗普强烈暗示他打算把限制或结束乌克兰战争援助作为他竞选活动的核心。 “这件事必须停止，现在必须停止，”特朗普对电台主持人休·休伊特说： “美国应该在这两个国家之间谈判和平，我认为不应该送太多（援助）。”他发布了一段视频，承诺“清理所有战争贩子和美国最后的全球主义者”，而且他的网站 Truth Social 帖子大肆宣传“第三次世界大战”的风险。
对于一位在任期间的外交政策充其量只是反复无常的前总统来说，这一立场或许不足为奇。越来越民粹主义的特朗普看到了一个机会，可以团结一大批对海外军事承诺持怀疑态度的基本面选民，尤其是一些微信中吵吵嚷嚷的华裔选民，因此他正在做出错误的选择，即是在全球范围内建立一个强大的美国，还是在国内建立一个强大的美国。添加特朗普基于拜登的传递式方程式：如果乔·拜登支持乌克兰而拜登先生不好，那么对乌克兰的支持也不好。或者说，他在寄希望于足够多的共和党选民会这么想。
但不要低估这对品牌及全球秩序的危害。 70年来，共和党一直是强势军备的政党，也是它的选民在觉得被别国威胁时最注意的选项。特朗普和一小群国会共和党人（至少目前）冒着丢掉所有来之不易的这个信誉，及降低该党最大的优势之一的风险，并使美国失去比拜登薄弱的多边主义更有意义的替代方案。
如果共和党中的其他人被迫效仿，这种风险会变得更大。前美国驻联合国大使妮基·黑莉 (Nikki Haley) 似乎正在制定一条截然相反的路线。 “这不是一场关于乌克兰的战争，”她上周表示。 “这是一场关于自由的战争。”其他潜在的初选候选人——迈克·彭斯、蒂姆·斯科特、迈克·蓬佩奥、约翰·博尔顿——也公开支持乌克兰。
但所有的目光都集中在罗恩德桑蒂斯身上，他现在看起来肯定会参选。佛罗里达州州长在福克斯新闻上抨击拜登对乌克兰采取“空头支票”政策，没有“战略目标”，这让他上了新闻。媒体立即将德桑蒂斯划入特朗普的孤立主义阵营。然而，德桑蒂斯的这几条台词很难算作政策。众议院议长凯文麦卡锡也使用了“空白支票”一词，尽管他支持乌克兰援助。他用这个词来描述共和党要求提高对乌克兰开支的透明度要求。 这样说来，DeSantis 还有运行空间。
跟随特朗普进入这个兔子洞可能很有诱惑力。有些人会警告德桑蒂斯，这就是特朗普先生要打击他的地方，把他诬陷为共和党政客，将把国家拖入无休止的战争。一些人会提示给他共和党对乌克兰援助的支持（略微）减弱的数字。德桑蒂斯的顾问会告诉他，他不能被视为与民主党站在同一边。还有一种风险是，拜登继续放慢对乌克兰的援助步伐，让俄罗斯占据上风并进一步削弱美国公众支持。
然而，德桑蒂斯将自己的命运投降给特朗普将是一个错误。在政治上，他将把一个决定性的问题输给前总统。州长有机会将大胆、深思熟虑的外交政策与特朗普不透明的退却主义进行对比。这将使德桑蒂斯无法以其他方式对包括中国在内的世界流氓采取强硬路线。这会给拜登——他已经在向德桑蒂斯了——一条轻松的攻击线。这将使州长与大多数国会共和党人产生分歧，而其中许多人都支持他。
在政策方面，任何总统候选人都需要像他计划获胜一样进行竞选，德桑蒂斯应该要考虑如果弗拉基米尔普京获胜，他将继承什么样的世界。胜利的俄罗斯不会止步于乌克兰。中国会乐见美国从世界舞台上退出，并急于填补这一空白。伊朗将加倍努力研发核武器并在中东施加更大的霸权。通过软弱获得和平永远不会奏效。二战时不会，现在也不会。
通过力量来实现和平才能奏效，而且对于愿意这样做的候选人来说，这是一个巨大的政治机会。批评拜登的软弱外交政策让普京首先大胆入侵，并批评他在获得乌克兰真正的火力方面犹豫不决。描述乌克兰的胜利会是什么样子，并指出如果是由一个更加果断的共和党总统执政的话，乌克兰可能已经宣布获胜。描述一个胜利和团结的欧洲与美国并肩应对日益增长的中国威胁的未来。批评特朗普先生的倒退主义，并提醒美国人民，一个强大的美国（拥有一支重建的军队）是防止全球混乱的最佳保障，也是美国安全的基础。
Ukraine War Is Ron DeSantis’s Security Test
Trump’s isolationist example poses perils for his rivals and the Republican Party.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Feb. 23, 2023
Donald Trump’s early entry into the Republican primaries is already presenting his potential rivals with some tough choices. Among the most consequential: Do they join the former president in forging a GOP surrender caucus?
Mr. Trump is signaling hard he intends to make limiting or ending Ukrainian war aid central to his campaign. “This thing has to stop, and it’s got to stop now,” Mr. Trump told radio host Hugh Hewitt. “The United States should negotiate peace between these two countries, and I don’t think they should be sending very much.” He posted a video pledging to “clean house of all the warmongers and America-Last globalists,” while a Truth Social post hypes the risk of “WORLD WAR III.”
The position is perhaps unsurprising from a former president whose foreign policy in office was mercurial at best. And the ever-more-populist Mr. Trump sees an opening to rally a chunk of the base that is skeptical of military commitments abroad, so he is floating the false choice of a strong America globally or a strong America domestically. Add in Mr. Trump’s transitive Biden equation: If Joe Biden supports Ukraine and Mr. Biden is bad, it follows that support for Ukraine is bad. Or so he’s banking enough Republican voters will think.
But don’t underestimate the harm to the brand, or to the global order. The GOP for more than 70 years has been the party of strong defense, and where voters turn when they feel threatened. Mr. Trump and a small group (at least for now) of congressional Republicans risk throwing all that hard-earned credibility away, neutralizing one of the party’s greatest strengths and leaving the country without a meaningful alternative to Mr. Biden’s weak multilateralism.
That risk becomes even greater if others in the GOP feel compelled to follow. Nikki Haley, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, appears to be charting a refreshingly opposite course. “It’s not a war about Ukraine,” she said last week. “This is about a war on freedom.” Other potential primary entrants—Mike Pence, Tim Scott, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton—are on record backing Ukraine.
But all eyes are on Ron DeSantis, who now looks certain to run. The Florida governor made news when he slammed Mr. Biden on Fox News for having a “blank check” policy toward Ukraine with no “strategic objective.” The press instantly slotted Mr. DeSantis into the Trump isolationist camp. Yet these few DeSantis lines hardly amount to policy. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy also uses the term “blank check,” though he supports Ukraine aid. He uses the phrase to describe Republican demands for greater transparency into Ukraine spending. Mr. DeSantis still has running room.
The temptation might be to follow Mr. Trump down this rabbit hole. Some will warn Mr. DeSantis that this is where Mr. Trump will hit him, framing him as a GOP pol who’ll drag the country into endless wars. Some will note numbers showing Republican support for Ukraine aid (slightly) waning. Mr. DeSantis’s advisers will tell him he can’t be seen to be on the same side as Democrats. There’s also the risk that Mr. Biden continues to slow-walk Ukrainian aid, giving Russia the upper hand and eroding public support further.
Yet it would be a mistake for Mr. DeSantis to cast his lot with Mr. Trump. Politically, he would lose a defining issue to the former president. The governor has an opportunity to contrast a bold, well-thought-out foreign policy with Mr. Trump’s opaque retreatism. It would muddy Mr. DeSantis’s ability to otherwise take a tough line on the world’s rogues, including China. It would give Mr. Biden—who is already gunning for Mr. DeSantis—an easy attack line. And it would put the governor crosswise with most congressional Republicans, many of whom are rooting for him.
Policy-wise, any presidential candidate needs to campaign as if he plans to win, and Mr. DeSantis might consider the world he’d inherit should Vladimir Putin prevail. A victorious Russia wouldn’t stop with Ukraine. China would delight in America’s retreat from the world stage and rush to fill the gap. Iran would double down on a bomb and on exerting greater hegemony over the Middle East. Peace through weakness never works.
Peace through strength does, and there’s a huge political opening for the candidate willing to take it. Criticize Mr. Biden for the foreign-policy weakness that emboldened Mr. Putin to invade in the first place, and for his dawdling on getting Ukraine real firepower. Describe what Ukrainian victory would look like and note that under a more decisive GOP presidency Ukraine would have already claimed it. Project a future in which a victorious and united Europe stands alongside America to face the growing China threat. Criticize Mr. Trump for his retreatism and remind the country that a strong America (with a rebuilt military) is the best guard against global disorder and the basis of U.S. safety.
National security remains a top voter priority; primary-goers want to know presidential aspirants have a coherent foreign-policy vision. Mr. Trump’s position poses the GOP field’s first test. Let’s see who passes.