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."


Senator Rand Paul at the 'Up from Chaos' conference in D.C., March 31, 2022. (courtesy of American Moment/Twitter)
Analysis | Europe
Nato Summit Trump
Top photo credit: NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, President Donald Trump, at the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague (NATO/Flickr)

Did Trump just dump the Ukraine War into the Europeans' lap?

Europe

The aerial war between Israel and Iran over the past two weeks sucked most of the world’s attention away from the war in Ukraine.

The Hague NATO Summit confirms that President Donald Trump now sees paying for the war as Europe’s problem. It’s less clear that he will have the patience to keep pushing for peace.

keep readingShow less
Antonio Guterres and Ursula von der Leyen
Top image credit: Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock.com

UN Charter turns 80: Why do Europeans mock it so?

Europe

Eighty years ago, on June 26, 1945, the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco. But you wouldn’t know it if you listened to European governments today.

After two devastating global military conflicts, the Charter explicitly aimed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” And it did so by famously outlawing the use of force in Article 2(4). The only exceptions were to be actions taken in self-defense against an actual or imminent attack and missions authorized by the U.N. Security Council to restore collective security.

keep readingShow less
IRGC
Top image credit: Tehran Iran - November 4, 2022, a line of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps troops crossing the street (saeediex / Shutterstock.com)

If Iranian regime collapses or is toppled, 'what's next?'

Middle East

In a startling turn of events in the Israel-Iran war, six hours after Iran attacked the Al Udeid Air Base— the largest U.S. combat airfield outside of the U.S., and home of the CENTCOM Forward Headquarters — President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire in the 12-day war, quickly taking effect over the subsequent 18 hours. Defying predictions that the Iranian response to the U.S. attack on three nuclear facilities could start an escalatory cycle, the ceasefire appears to be holding. For now.

While the bombing may have ceased, calls for regime change have not. President Trump has backtracked on his comments, but other influential voices have not. John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, said Tuesday that regime change must still happen, “…because this is about the regime itself… Until the regime itself is gone, there is no foundation for peace and security in the Middle East.” These sentiments are echoed by many others to include, as expected, Reza Pahlavi, exiled son of the deposed shah.

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.