Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has expressed a firm stance on withdrawing the United States from NATO, marking the furthest any contender for the Oval Office has gone on this idea. Ramaswamy, who has also suggested the U.S. exit the United Nations, has privately communicated his belief that it’s time to remove the U.S. from NATO, according to sources familiar with his comments.
While Ramaswamy had previously stated that the idea of the U.S. leaving NATO was “reasonable” last October, he has now reportedly conveyed a more definitive stance to various groups of experts and supporters. Such a move would have profound implications for the longstanding alliance, potentially undermining NATO’s deterrent force against Russia and causing a significant transatlantic crisis.
Campaign spokesperson Tricia Mclaughlin acknowledged Ramaswamy’s serious concerns about NATO allies failing to meet military investment commitments and emphasized his belief that post-Cold War NATO expansionism has increased the risk of major conflict with Russia.
Lawmakers from both parties have taken steps to prevent unilateral withdrawal from NATO, passing legislation that requires congressional approval for such a decision. Despite Ramaswamy’s expressed views, his current standing in national polls suggests he is unlikely to secure the presidency. However, he remains aligned with former President Donald Trump, who also discussed withdrawing the U.S. from NATO during his administration.
Ramaswamy, known for positions appealing to the MAGA base, has advocated for actions like making deals with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, cutting economic ties with China, and ending American military engagements abroad. While he may not be seeking complete isolationism, his proposals reflect a recalibration of U.S. foreign policy.
It’s worth noting that Ramaswamy’s chances of ordering a withdrawal from NATO are currently slim, given his position in the polls. However, his alignment with Trump and his influence within the Republican sphere could shape future discussions on U.S. foreign policy.
COMMENTS