Follow us on social

Shutterstock_2100123910-scaled

What Zelensky will say to Congress and how the US should respond

Don't repeat the shameful history of Georgia in 2008, where Washington made quasi-promises of military aid it had no intention of fulfilling.

Analysis | Europe

All eyes are on Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zalensky as he is scheduled to address a joint session of Congress Wednesday via video link at the U.S. Capitol. 

It is expected that he will make a broad and strident call for more assistance in fending off further Russian incursions in his country. Among the requests, Zelensky is expected to repeat his call for NATO to impose a no-fly zone. This  must be resisted. It would mean U.S. planes going into action against Russia — in effect, standing in as the Ukrainian air force. They would be shot down by Russian anti-aircraft missile batteries stationed on Russian soil, which have the range to cover much of Ukraine. 

Furthermore, if the U.S. responded by attacking those batteries, Russia would most probably fire missiles at American air bases in Poland and other NATO members. Do we really want the two largest nuclear powers, with the ability to wipe out humanity, to start firing missiles at each other?

Zelensky’s demands to supply fighter jets should also be rejected. Given Russian air superiority, they would be quickly shot down without doing much good. The present Western supplies of shoulder-fired anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles are in fact exactly what the Ukrainian forces need for urban warfare, are doing great damage to the Russian forces, and should be continued. There is no need for escalation.

As argued in two op-eds in the Washington Post today, sooner or later this war will end in a compromise peace in which Moscow will have to give up its maximal aims but Ukraine will also have to make certain concessions. Complete Russian victory or complete Russian defeat are both equally unlikely. The Biden administration therefore needs to talk intensively with President Zelensky about the possible terms of such a peace agreement.

As I have written before, U.S. and Western sanctions should be used to support the peace process and compel Russia to end its aggression and reach an agreement, not to bring about regime change in Russia. Otherwise the war in Ukraine and the resulting global economic crisis will go on for many years, with terrible damage and unpredictable consequences.

The Biden administration and all responsible members of Congress should tell Zelensky honestly that he cannot expect Washington to go to war with Russia. There is a shameful history going back to Georgia in 2008 of Americans making quasi-promises of military aid that they had no real intention of ever fulfilling, thereby encouraging countries to take disastrously uncompromising positions.


Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky in Dec. 2021. (Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock)
Analysis | Europe
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: White House April 7, 2025

Polls: Americans don't support Trump's war on Iran

Military Industrial Complex

While there are serious doubts about the accuracy of President Donald Trump’s claims about the effectiveness of his attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, the U.S./Israeli war on Iran has provided fresh and abundant evidence of widespread opposition to war in the United States.

With a tenuous ceasefire currently holding, several nationwide surveys suggest Trump’s attack, which plunged the country into yet another offensive war in the Middle East, has been broadly unpopular across the country.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.