Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2022-03-31-at-2.58.45-pm

Rand Paul: Promoting negotiations over war doesn't make you a Putin sympathizer

The senator told a friendly audience of conservatives that there is no reason to 'throw out our principal beliefs.'

Analysis | Europe

Republican Senator Rand Paul told a friendly audience of conservatives Thursday that he is standing firm on his principles as a constitutional restrainer, and while he thinks Putin's invasion of Ukraine is wrong and unjustified, he does not think that military escalation or regime change policies — or even sanctions with no defined goals — are right.

“If you say you don’t want to get involved in this war … people immediately think you’re on the other side, that you’re sympathetic with the other side," he told the “Up from Chaos” foreign policy conference in Washington. "I have not sympathized with Putin, what he has done is not justified. But that doesn’t mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater and throw out our principle beliefs.” 

We can make it worse for the Ukrainian people with escalation and intervention, he added. “Almost all war ends in negotiation,” he charged. "It doesn’t justify (Putin’s) aggression, but I do think we need to find off ramps and exits even for our enemies.”

Paul also revealed that his brief comments to a reporter a few weeks ago in support of the Iran nuclear deal were hardly a one-off, in fact he has a pretty straightforward view of the situation.

 “Leaving the agreement didn't make anything better,” he said. He needled critics who bemoaned reports that the JCPOA renewal deal may not be as strong as the one that President Trump ripped up in 2018."It’s going to be ‘less for less’ because we rejected ‘more for more,’” he argued. 

He also took a swipe at JCPOA opponents, including his fellow Republicans on the Hill, who have criticized an agreement that has yet to emerge publicly from the tense talks in Vienna. "​​If you are condemning an agreement before you even see it aren't you simply condemning diplomacy?"

Clearly getting out of the deal allowed the Iranians to continue to enrich uranium, he said. Slapping on further “maximum pressure” sanctions and making Iran a pariah in the region didn’t work either,  he said. “There is no evidence that sanctions on Iran did anything.”

This was a rare receptive audience for restraint and non-interventionism in the heart the Washington — even rarer in that it focused on the right, hosting Rep. Thomas Massie, U.S. Senate hopeful J.D. Vance, Rep. Dan Bishop (who said critics complained he “joined the pro-Putin wing of the Republican Party” for questioning “war fever” on the Hill), and Fox News’s Mollie Hemingway. Co-sponsored by American Moment and The American Conservative, topics revolved around the current echo chamber promoting an aggressive posture against Russia, and attempts to silence dissent. 

Paul also said he had a general skepticism for the over-use of sanctions against U.S. adversaries, including Russia. "I don't think we should never use the threat of sanctions ... but...we have hundreds on Russia and China and no one has an idea of how to lift them; they end up having no value at all."

Thanks to our readers and supporters, Responsible Statecraft has had a tremendous year. A complete website overhaul made possible in part by generous contributions to RS, along with amazing writing by staff and outside contributors, has helped to increase our monthly page views by 133%! In continuing to provide independent and sharp analysis on the major conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the tumult of Washington politics, RS has become a go-to for readers looking for alternatives and change in the foreign policy conversation. 

 

We hope you will consider a tax-exempt donation to RS for your end-of-the-year giving, as we plan for new ways to expand our coverage and reach in 2025. Please enjoy your holidays, and here is to a dynamic year ahead!

Senator Rand Paul at the 'Up from Chaos' conference in D.C., March 31, 2022. (courtesy of American Moment/Twitter)
Analysis | Europe
Israel protest university of michigan
Top image credit: Students and other individuals walk throughout campus as they protest to express support for Palestinians in Gaza, amid the Israel-Hamas conflict, in front of the residence of the University of Michigan's president, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S. November 21, 2024. REUTERS/Emily Elconin

Free speech crises loom with crackdown on Israel criticism

Washington Politics

As one administration exits and another takes form, a harsh reality is becoming clear for critics of maintaining U.S. support for the Israeli government: in government bureaucracies and university campuses alike, crackdowns and pressure on free expression and assembly will continue in force.

Precisely how the incoming Trump administration will handle such criticism remains to be seen — but views expressed by his congressional allies and recent cabinet picks suggest a further diversion from upholding freedoms of speech and assembly in the name of maintaining support for Israel's war on Gaza and beyond.

keep reading Show less
Amnesty International calls Israel's actions in Gaza genocide
Top Photo: Palestinians inspect their destroyed homes after an Israeli air strike on a house belonging to the Hassan family, in the Nuseirat camp in the central Gaza Strip, on May 19, 2024. Anas-Mohammed / Shutterstock.com

Amnesty International calls Israel's actions in Gaza genocide

QiOSK

Today, Amnesty International became the first major human rights organization to accuse Israel of carrying out a genocide in Gaza, releasing a detailed report to substantiate this claim.

“Our research reveals that, for months, Israel has persisted in committing genocidal acts, fully aware of the irreparable harm it was inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza,” says Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International. “It continued to do so in defiance of countless warnings about the catastrophic humanitarian situation and of legally binding decisions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordering Israel to take immediate measures to enable the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza.”

keep reading Show less
Bernie Sanders Chris Van Hollen
Top image credit: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during a press conference regarding legislation that would block offensive U.S. weapons sales to Israel, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., November 19, 2024. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz

Will Senate vote signal a wider shift away from Israel?

Middle East

On November 20, the Senate voted on three Joint Resolutions of Disapproval (JRDs) of proposed arms transfers to Israel. The vote was historic, marking the first time there had ever been such a vote against major arms sales to Israel. The resolutions failed, but their success in securing 19 Senate votes reflects that times are changing when it comes to arms transfers to Israel.

The proposed JRDs disapproved of three specific shipments of offensive arms to Israel, with a total value of over $1.6 billion, which have caused massive civilian casualties in Gaza and Lebanon: tank rounds worth $774 million; mortar rounds worth $583 million; and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), which are guidance kits for gravity-guided air-to-ground missiles, worth $262 million.

keep reading Show less

Election 2024

Latest

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.