The transcript of the speech and answers to a few questions is here. The total length is 11 single-spaced pages, 7,000 words, about 45 minutes. Unfortunately, the substance of the speech is only a few sentences.

• “I will end affirmative action in America.” [Would love to know if he thinks affirmative action set asides in military and other government contracts would also end. Would he also eliminate small-business incentive programs?]
• “That is why we’ll use our own military… to secure our own southern border.”
• “Eight year term limits for the bureaucracy over civil service protection.” [Would he also lead an effort to reform the Senate and House and change the constitution to have term limits? Would he ask Mitch McConnel to resign now? Would he aggressively move to impose term limits on the Supreme Court, including the current justices?]
• “If there are government agencies that should not exist or which have become so corrupt that they have abandoned their original purpose, from the FBI to the IRS, to the ATF, to the CDC, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to the U.S. Department of Education, we will not just reform them, we will get in there and shut it down.” [Doesn’t the Office of Inspector General already investigate corruption? Would he aggressively increase funding for the OIG and GAO and IRS (no more tax evasion and fraud!)]
• “The first accomplishment that I hope to deliver in my foreign policy agenda as U.S. President will therefore be to end the Ukraine war on terms that advance American interests.” “I will end the Ukraine War on terms that require Vladimir Putin to exit his military alliance with China…” “…what we really need to be doing is getting Vladimir Putin to drop Xi Jinping…”
• On Taiwan…. [TBH I find his lengthy discussion here incoherent, from a foreign policy of national interest perspective… he seems to not understand that foreign policy statements, rather than actions, have to be based on stated values (promoting democracy, freedoms, development, and human rights, etc.) because if they are based on national interests there is nothing to say (because he has little ability to evaluate what is national interest in a complex multidimensional policy realm). Is it in the national interest to support (or not) Burkina Faso, or Jamaica, or both, or neither? There is no answer to that question. It is a nonsensical question. Yet Ramaswamy speaks (and writes) as if this were something coherent.
• [I will get from India] “Hard commitments to close the Andaman Sea and block the Malacca Strait if required, in the position of potential conflict arising around Taiwan. India would happily do that if we gave them a trade deal that looked similar to what we have already with Chile or Australia”
• “I’m a big believer in the Second Amendment here at home. Let’s turn our Second Amendment into an export. That’s what American exceptionalism is about. Leave it to Taiwan to adopt a Second Amendment of its own. Put a gun in every Taiwanese household. Train them how to use it.”
• “I will lead us, I hope by the end of my first term, to semiconductor independence in this country…And thereafter, we will be very clear that after the U.S. achieves semiconductor independence, our commitments to send our sons and daughters to put them in harm’s way will change after we’ve achieved semiconductor independence. “

Virtually all of the speech is glib rhetoric that is just vibe stuff that aligns himself with Trump and Reagan. The major substance is a poorly structured “deal” that he would strike with Russia to break their alliance with China (apparently according to Ramaswamy if they don’t re-sign a treaty then the alliance will end and Russia will take “our” side because that is better for them). And then a truly strange perspective on Taiwan that appears to be something like, “The U.S. should only care about the western hemisphere [because, you know, sailing ships] or an island that makes a lot of semi-conductors and if we can gradually replace Taiwan as a source of semi-conductors then why should we (U.S.) care if Taiwan is invaded?” This is truly checkers-level foreign policy strategy, with apologies to checkers players.