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
Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. speaking wit… | Flickr

Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten

Media


Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

keep readingShow less
Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

Peter Thiel attends the annual Allen and Co. Sun Valley Media Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, U.S., July 6, 2022. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

QiOSK

The trouble with doing business with Israel — or any foreign government — is you can't really say anything when they do terrible things with technology that you may or may not have sold to them, or hope to sell to them, or hope to sell in your own country.

Such was the case with Peter Thiel, co-founder of Palantir Technologies, in this recently surfaced video, talking to the Cambridge Union back in May. See him stumble and stutter and buy time when asked what he thought about the use of Artificial Intelligence by the Israeli military in a targeting program called "Lavender" — which we now know has been responsible for the deaths of an untold number of innocent Palestinians since Oct 7. (See investigation here).

keep readingShow less
Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Committee chairman Jack Reed (D-RI), left, looks on as co-chair Roger Wicker (R-MS) shakes hands with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on President Biden's proposed budget request for the Department of Defense on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., April 9, 2024. REUTERS/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Military Industrial Complex

Now that both political parties have seemingly settled upon their respective candidates for the 2024 presidential election, we have an opportune moment to ask a rather fundamental question about our nation’s defense spending: how much is enough?

Back in May, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, penned an op-ed in the New York Times insisting the answer was not enough at all. Wicker claimed that the nation wasn’t prepared for war — or peace, for that matter — that our ships and fighter-jet fleets were “dangerously small” and our military infrastructure “outdated.” So weak our defense establishment and so dangerous the world right now, Wicker pressed, the nation ought to “spend an additional $55 billion on the military in the 2025 fiscal year.”

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

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.