A senior Biden administration official recently admitted that prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States made no effort to address one of Vladimir Putin’s most often stated top security concerns — the possibility of Ukraine’s membership into NATO.
When asked on a podcast published on Wednesday by War on the Rocks — a U.S. foreign and defense policy analysis website — whether NATO expansion into Ukraine “was not on the table in terms of negotiations” before the invasion, Derek Chollet, counselor to Secretary of State Antony Blinken replied that “it wasn’t.”
Chollet’s remarks confirm suspicions by many critics who believe the Biden administration wasn’tdoing enough — including offering to deny or delay Ukraine’s NATO membership — to prevent Russia from launching a war against Ukraine.
“We made clear to the Russians that we were willing to talk to them on issues that we thought were genuine concerns they have that were legitimate in some way, I mean arms control type things of that nature,” Chollet said, adding that the administration didn’t think that “the future of Ukraine” was one of those issues and that its potential NATO membership was a “non-issue.”
“This was not about NATO,” said Chollet, who contradicted himself moments later, saying, "In perpetrating this totally unjustified and unprovoked war, [Putin’s] goal was to try to divide the U.S. from Europe and weaken NATO."
Of course Putin himself stated publicly many times before the invasion that indeed, Ukraine’s potential NATO membership was a key security concern for Russia.
Weeks before Russia launched its war against Ukraine, Putin claimed that Russia’s concerns about NATO enlargement were being ignored. “We need to resolve this question now … [and] we hope very much our concern will be heard by our partners and taken seriously,” he later said.
War on the Rocks’ Ryan Evans told Chollet that he takes Putin’s claims about NATO “seriously,” adding, “I’m a little struck by the refusal to even talk about the issue of NATO expansion.”
“We talked about NATO in saying that NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO is not a threat to Russia,” Chollet said.
Before the Russian invasion, Quincy Institute senior research fellow on Russia and Europe Anatol Lieven wrote that as part of a broader package to stave off war, the United States should propose “the declaration of a moratorium on Ukrainian membership of NATO for a period of 20 years, allowing time for negotiations on a new security architecture for Europe as a whole, including Russia.”
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in Reykjavik, Iceland, on May 19, 2021. [State Department photo by Ron Przysucha]
The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.
The USS Diego Garcia
It’s not every day the U.S. military concentrates one of its most powerful weapons on a tiny island far from nowhere. After all, their vulnerability renders them a tempting target for troublemakers. But that’s just what the Pentagon has done, dispatching at least six B-2 bombers to desolate Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean. That speck of land, 1,000 miles from anywhere, is basically an aircraft carrier that can’t move. Given that the radar-eluding B-2 has a readiness rate of just over 50%, sending six of the 19 in the Air Force’s inventory represents about half of the operational B-2 fleet’s firepower on an island smaller than Manhattan.
The $2 billion (each!) B-2s have been attacking Houthi rebels in Yemen, which is about as gross an example of “overmatch” as you can get. But the Houthis are aligned with Iran, and the U.S. is far more interested in sending Tehran a message than pulverizing second-rate Houthi military assets.
“If diplomacy fails, the next stage is likely war,” Axios reported April 8. “Bombs vs. diplomacy on Iran is a live debate within the Trump administration and the wider MAGA world.”
There’s lots of reasons this won’t happen. There are robust U.S. defenses protecting Diego Garcia, plus any such move by Iran runs the risk of a wider war. Then again, so did Trump’s decision to kill Qasem Soleimani, a senior Iranian general and terror boss, in 2020. But Trump was willing to take that risk, and, after minor-league retaliation by Tehran, the two sides resumed their tense, uneasy relationship. Best to keep those trigger-fingers crossed.
The world turned upside down
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly will be MIA when 50 nations gather in Brussels April 11 to coordinate military aid to Ukraine. It will mark the first time the group meets without the U.S. secretary of defense since the creation of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group after Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago.
The group has given Ukraine more than $126 billion(PDF) in military aid, half of which has come from the U.S. (although there is no new U.S. aid planned). The reinforcements have helped Ukraine keep its capital of Kyiv and 80% of its territory. Russian leader Vladimir Putin had hoped to conquer the country within weeks.
The SECDEF’s vanishing act takes place as Putin keeps pounding Ukraine while thwarting Trump’s efforts for a ceasefire. It is a shameful repudiation of the U.S.’s historical support of freedom over tyranny. It’s also a marked change from Trump’s 2023 rhetoric when he warned the Russian leader to end the war. “I would tell Putin: If you don’t make a deal, we’re going to give them [the Ukrainians] a lot,” he said. “We’re going to give them more than they ever got, if we have to.”
In an eerie echo, on April 2 Trump told Axios that Moscow was missing because existing U.S. sanctions on Russia “preclude any meaningful trade.” Yet the $3.5 billion in U.S.-Russia commerce last year topped total U.S. trade with countries like Brunei and Mauritius that Trump slapped with tariffs.
The Bunker’s not the only one flummoxed by the U.S. government’s recent bizarre actions on the world stage. “Denmark's naval modernization plan reflects threats from Russia, US,” read the head-scratching headline April 2 in Defense One about one of NATO’s founding members. The subhead tried to explain: “Copenhagen aims to buy one vessel to protect undersea cables and six or more that might defend Greenland.”
Duct tape and bailing wire
There is no better example of an overly-complicated military machine than the Pentagon’s V-22, the world’s only production tiltrotor. It’s an aircraft that could have sprung from the fevered mind of inventor Rube Goldberg, renowned for creating machines that solve “a simple problem in the most ridiculously inefficient way possible.”
Yes, it can take off and land like a helicopter, and then fly like a turboprop airplane as its rotors tilt forward. That’s why the Marines stormed Capitol Hill in 1989 to convince Congress to keep it flying despite then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney’s repeated efforts to kill it. The Marines argue they need hundreds of these vertical-lift planes, just like their F-35B, to launch obsolete amphibious assaults from their small-deck warships (the last such assault took place in 1950).
The latest V-22 Band-Aid involves installing four-pound “predictive maintenance capabilities” boxes on some V-22s to see if they can prevent gearbox failures implicated in fatal crashes. Developed by a company called Shift5, the technology lets V-22 crews watch parts degrade in real time, instead of trying to catch such damage during periodic, and maybe too-late, post-flight inspections.
“Given the criticality of solving some of these life-threatening issues that are happening on the V-22, it really is all about providing real-time insights to the crew for situational awareness so they can make better decisions,” Shift5’s Josh Lospinoso told Defense News.
The Air Force has established a new “doomsday” wing to improve control of its nuclear arsenal, Air & Space Forces Magazine said April 1. Seriously.
And serious thanks for dropping by The Bunker this week. Kindly consider forwarding this on to fellow travelers so they can subscribe here.
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) holds up a copy of the U.S. Constitution as she votes yes to the second article of impeachment during a House Judiciary Committee markup of the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, December 13, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. Patrick Semansky/Pool via REUTERS
A group of House Democrats is calling on the Trump administration to halt its unauthorized attacks on Yemen’s Houthis and present a legal justification for recent strikes on the rebel group.
In a letter to the White House, first reported by the Intercept, the group of more than 30 Democrats — led by Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.); and Val Hoyle, (D-Ore.) — argues that presidents must go through Congress for a declaration of war or adjacent authorization to wield military force.
“While we share concerns about maritime security in the Red Sea, we call on your Administration to immediately cease unauthorized use of military force and instead seek specific statutory authorization from Congress before involving the U.S. in an unconstitutional conflict in the Middle East, which risks endangering U.S. military personnel in the region and escalating into a regime-change war,” the letter states.
“Congress must have the opportunity to engage in a robust debate on the rationale for offensive force and vote on its merits before U.S. servicemembers are placed in harm’s way and additional taxpayer dollars are spent on yet another Middle East war,” the letter asserts. “No president has the constitutional authority to bypass Congress on matters of war.”
“How does the Administration claim self-defense, deterrence, or response to an imminent attack as a justification for strikes, given the President’s remarks that attacks ‘will get progressively worse,’ until the Houthis are ‘completely annihilated?’” the letter asks. “What steps, if any, are being taken to mitigate further civilian casualties?”
The letter also pushed the Trump administration to justify its response to “Signalgate,” where a government officials’ group chat on messaging app Signal, which outlined plans to strike Yemen, had included Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg.
Today’s letter follows other lawmakers’ pushes for oversight regarding growing U.S. military involvement in Yemen. Previously, Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) teamed up across the political aisle in an April 1 letter, questioning the constitutionality of ongoing U.S. airstrikes in Yemen. Considering tenuous U.S.-Iran relations, they pondered whether such attacks could set the stage for further conflict with Iran.
“Congress should be briefed about the recent strikes against the Houthis and the total cost expected to be incurred by this campaign at the American taxpayer’s expense,” Paul and Merkley wrote. “The Administration must also explain to Congress and the American people its expected path forward given the failure of previous such efforts and statements from the Administration that the military campaign will continue and possibly expand to include military action against Iran.”
To date, recent U.S. military operations in Yemen have cost nearly $1 billion, all with limited impact on Houthi fighting capabilities.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: U.S. Vice President JD Vance tours the U.S. military's Pituffik Space Base in Greenland on March 28, 2025. Jim Watson/Pool via REUTERS
Some of President Donald Trump’s key foreign policy initiatives have not been gaining traction with most Americans, according to the results of a new survey released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.
Majorities of the more than 3,600 respondents who participated in the poll said they opposed Trump’s suggestions that Washington should take over Greenland and Gaza, while pluralities said they disapproved of his closing of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and leaving the Paris Climate Agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
A 52% majority of respondents said they also opposed Washington’s departure from the World Health Organization. Thirty-two percent said they approved of leaving both the WHO and the Paris agreement.
A 43% plurality said Trump was favoring Russia “too much” in his efforts to end the war in Ukraine, while a plurality of nearly a third of respondents (31%) said he was favoring Israel “too much” in its conflict with Palestinians. (In the latter case, 29% said Trump was “striking the right balance,” while 3% said he was favoring Palestinians. Thirty-seven percent said they weren’t sure.)
The survey, which was conducted between March 24-30, preceded the imposition by the Trump administration of across-the-board tariffs on foreign imports and the outbreak of what appears to be an escalating trade war between the United States and China. Most respondents (52%), however, predicted that tariffs on Chinese exports would have a “bad” impact on the U.S., while only 24% said the impact would be “good.”
There were major partisan differences on that question, however, with 44% of Republican or GOP-leaning respondents saying that tariffs would have a “good” impact and 24% “bad.” On the other hand, a whopping 80% of Democrats or Democratic-leaning respondents predicted the tariffs on China would have a “bad” effect on the U.S. economy, while only five percent said they would be “good” for the U.S.
Asked how the tariffs on Chinese goods would affect them personally, however, a plurality of Republicans (30%) said the impact would be “bad,” while only 17% predicted the impact would be “good.” Overall, respondents were about five times as likely to say increased tariffs on China will be bad for them as they were to say they would be beneficial.
The partisan divide also emerged with respect to the other questions raised by the survey. For example, strong majorities of Republican or Republican-leaning respondents said they approved of ending most USAID programs (64%), leaving the Paris agreement (60%), and leaving the WHO (58%). The comparable percentages for Democrats or Democratic-leaning respondents were 9%, 7%, and 8%, respectively.
Similarly, 13% of Republican or Republican-leaning respondents said the Trump administration was favoring Israelis too much, while 50% of Democrats or Democratic-leaning respondents took that position.
And while 28% of Republican or Republican-leaning respondents said they either “strongly oppose” (16%) or “somewhat oppose” the U.S. taking over Greenland, Democrats or Democratic-leaning respondents were far more hostile to the idea — 70% strongly opposed, and another 11% said they “somewhat opposed” the idea.
As for age differences, older respondents were generally more likely to approve of Trump’s early foreign policy actions than younger respondents.
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.