Eight candidates responded, but the most attention focused on six paragraphs from Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). “Ron DeSantis Says Protecting Ukraine Is Not a Key U.S. Interest,” read a New York Times headline, reporting that DeSantis had “sharply broken with Republicans who are determined to defend Ukraine against Russia’s invasion” and had moved “in line with the front-runner for the GOP nomination, former President Donald J. Trump.”

Some critics quickly linked DeSantis not just to Trump but to Russian leader Vladimir Putin, “Trump and DeSantis have both apparently decided they value Putin’s assistance with their election in 2024 more than they value America’s national security, international law, our allies, or fundamental human decency,” tweeted Daily Beast columnist David Rothkopf. “On Ukraine, DeSantis Sides With Putin Over the West,” wrote Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg. “Ron DeSantis Thrills Tucker Carlson by Taking Pro-Russian Stance,” wrote New York Magazine. There were lots of tweets echoing those themes.

But read what DeSantis wrote. Are his positions somehow out of line with national security? Do they conflict with fundamental human decency? Do they side with Putin over the West? The answer to each question is no. In fact, DeSantis’s answers to the Carlson questions fall into the broad middle of American views on U.S. support for Ukraine. They are…reasonable. What follows is a look at what DeSantis wrote — his paragraphs did not necessarily correspond exactly with the questions — and what his positions mean.

Paragraph 1: On U.S. national interest in the Ukraine war

While the U.S. has many vital national interests — securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness within our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural, and military power of the Chinese Communist Party — becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them. The Biden administration’s virtual “blank check” funding of this conflict for “as long as it takes,” without any defined objectives or accountability, distracts from our country’s most pressing challenges.

The national interests DeSantis lists as vital — borders, military readiness, etc. — are unquestionably vital. There are others DeSantis does not list — his statement is not presented as conclusive. But DeSantis says that becoming “further” involved in the Ukraine war is not on the list of U.S. vital national interests. The use of “further” is the first of several indications that DeSantis does not oppose U.S. military aid to Ukraine — he just wants well-defined limits on that support. Some will see his use of the phrase “territorial dispute” as belittling the Ukraine conflict. But Russia and Ukraine had been fighting over disputed territory for quite a while before Russia’s 2022 invasion. Supporters of greater U.S. aid might want to describe the war in more dramatic terms, but DeSantis is not wrong. Finally, DeSantis’s opposition to what he calls President Joe Biden’s “blank check” policy and the president’s “as long as it takes” commitment is another way of stressing the position, common among Republicans, that U.S. aid to Ukraine should be subject to limits. Perhaps those limits might extend to a significant amount of military aid, but in the end, there are limits.

Paragraph 2: On the U.S. objective in Ukraine

Without question, peace should be the objective. The U.S. should not provide assistance that could require the deployment of American troops or enable Ukraine to engage in offensive operations beyond its borders. F-16s and long-range missiles should therefore be off the table. These moves would risk explicitly drawing the United States into the conflict and drawing us closer to a hot war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. That risk is unacceptable.

By stating that peace should be the objective, DeSantis is indicating that, as president, he would pressure Ukraine and Russia to hold negotiations. By earlier characterizing the war as a “territorial dispute,” the reader can also assume that in those negotiations, a President DeSantis would want Ukraine to make some territorial concessions. As far as U.S. military aid is concerned, this paragraph has another indication that DeSantis does not oppose aid to Ukraine. He specifically points out weapons systems that would involve U.S. troops or weapons that could be used beyond Ukraine’s borders, such as F-16 aircraft and long-range missiles, as aid that the U.S. should not provide to Ukraine. But DeSantis remains silent about the vast majority of U.S. aid — artillery, ammunition, anti-tank missiles, etc. — that do not fit his description of aid that should not be given. It is reasonable to assume that he supports at least some of that aid.

Paragraph 3: On ‘regime change’

A policy of “regime change” in Russia (no doubt popular among the DC foreign policy interventionists) would greatly increase the stakes of the conflict, making the use of nuclear weapons more likely. Such a policy would neither stop the death and destruction of the war, nor produce a pro-American Madisonian constitutionalists in the Kremlin. History indicates that Putin’s successor, in this hypothetical, would likely be even more ruthless. The costs to achieve such a dubious outcome could become astronomical.

This is an entirely mainstream position, one that is consistent with the Biden administration’s position that the U.S. is not pursuing regime change in Russia.

Paragraph 4: On Russia’s economy

The Biden administration’s policies have driven Russia into a de facto alliance with China. Because China has not and will not abide by the embargo, Russia has increased its foreign revenues while China benefits from cheaper fuel. Coupled with his intentional depletion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and support for the Left’s Green New Deal, Biden has further empowered Russia’s energy-dominated economy and Putin’s war machine at Americans’ expense.

DeSantis’s statement that the level of U.S. aid to Ukraine has driven Russia into a de facto alliance with China seems plainly true. The second part of the paragraph, about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Green New Deal, is as much a statement about U.S. domestic politics as foreign policy.

Paragraph 5: On transparency

Our citizens are also entitled to know how the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being utilized in Ukraine.

This is self-evident and supported by lawmakers of both parties on Capitol Hill.

Paragraph 6: On U.S. priorities

We cannot prioritize intervention in an escalating foreign war over the defense of our own homeland, especially as tens of thousands of Americans are dying every year from narcotics smuggled across our open border and our weapons arsenals critical for our own security are rapidly being depleted.

Like parts of Paragraph 4, this is a statement about U.S. domestic politics. Dealing with border security and military readiness, especially in the form of depleted weapons arsenals, are among the vital national interests DeSantis identified at the beginning of his statement. This is the sort of position that would have widespread Republican support, and some Democratic support, too, on Capitol Hill.

And that is it. What to make of DeSantis’s answers? Has he taken Putin’s side against America? Has he moved to the extremes, the crazy fringes, of the Ukraine debate? No, he hasn’t. There is a range of opinion on what the U.S. should do in the Ukraine matter, and DeSantis occupies an entirely legitimate position, no matter what his more excitable critics might say.

Byron York is chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner and a Fox News contributor. He has covered the Bush, Obama, and now Trump administrations, as well as Congress and each presidential campaign since 2000. He is the author of The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, an account of liberal activism in the 2004 election. Formerly White House correspondent for National Review, his work has been published in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Atlantic Monthly, Foreign Affairs, and the New Republic.