Follow us on social

Sen. Coons tries to claw back message about using US troops to 'stop Putin'

Sen. Coons tries to claw back message about using US troops to 'stop Putin'

The media pounced on the possibility that a close ally of Biden wants direct American military involvement in Ukraine.

Analysis | Europe

Senator Chris Coons, friend of the president who now holds the seat that Joe Biden vacated in Delaware, is scrambling today to claw back a number of public comments that seemed to suggest he was in favor of sending U.S. troops into the war in Ukraine.

On Sunday when asked about direct American involvement in Ukraine, Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) said it was up to the United States to “stop” Vladimir Putin. 

 “I deeply worry that what’s going to happen next is that we will see Ukraine turn into Syria,” he told CBS “Face the Nation.” “The American people cannot turn away from this tragedy in Ukraine. I think the history of the 21st century turns on how fiercely we defend freedom in Ukraine and that Putin will only stop when we stop him.”  

A week earlier, during remarks at the University of Michigan, he was more direct about potential U.S. troop involvement.

“We are in a very dangerous moment where it is important that, in a bipartisan and measured way, we in Congress and the administration come to a common position about when we are willing to go the next step and to send not just arms but troops to the aid in defense of Ukraine.” 

Coons, who sits on the powerful Foreign Affairs Committee, is the highest-profile policymaker to explicitly open the door to putting boots on the ground. He is now walking back on those comments. In an interview with France 24 English on Tuesday, Coons claimed that “I am not calling for U.S. troops to be sent into Ukraine, but I am calling for the West to be clear-eyed about how hard and how long this conflict might be.” 

On Monday he tweeted that “The global community that has mobilized against Putin’s ruthless aggression in Ukraine must continue to work closely together to stop and deter him,” however, “I’m not calling for U.S. troops to go into the war in Ukraine." 

Nevertheless, his comments opened Pandora's box to a chorus of media talking heads defending the possibility of sending ground forces to Ukraine: CNN’s Chief National Affairs Analyst Kasie Hunt defended Coons’ comments by saying that “I will just say that I think you heard Senator Coons there talk about the moral outrage that he feels…I do think he was expressing a concern that the U.S. maybe should not be out there in public ruling things out.” 

On MSNBC, Former Defense Department official Evelyn Farkas was even more forthcoming: “I think we need to leave these options on the table, so humanitarian no-fly zones, and even – again, I’m not advocating for U.S. forces to get directly involved, but I don't think we should take it off the table, if the munitions that we get to Ukrainians don’t do the job.” 

The Biden Administration was not as sympathetic, “respectively disagreeing” with Coons’ apparent suggestion on Monday. During the daily press briefing, Press secretary Jen Psaki stated "The president has no plans to send troops to fight a war with Russia. He doesn't think that's in our national security interests.” Neither do the American people. A recent University of Maryland poll found that “Large bipartisan majorities remain opposed to sending U.S. troops to Ukraine, even if the conflict persists.” 

Sending troops to Ukraine would constitute a serious escalation of the war in Ukraine, especially given that the U.S. and Russia possess 90 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads. A conflict with NATO could result in Putin’s use of nuclear weapons, according to Russia’s military doctrine. Given Washington’s recent history of failed humanitarian interventions with “rogue states,” there is little indication that the U.S. would fare any better in a direct war with a nuclear-armed power.


Sen. Chris Coons/CBS Face the Nation|Sen. Chris Coons/CBS Face the Nation
Analysis | Europe
Sudan al-Fashir El Fasher
Top photo credit: The grandmother of Ikram Abdelhameed looks on next to her family while sitting at a camp for displaced people who fled from al-Fashir to Tawila, North Darfur, Sudan, October 27, 2025. REUTERS/Mohammed Jamal

Sudan's bloody war is immune to Trump's art of the deal

Africa

For over 500 days, the world watched as the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) methodically strangled the last major army garrison in Darfur through siege, starvation, and indiscriminate bombardment. Now, with the RSF’s declaration of control over the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) Sixth Infantry Division headquarters in El Fasher, that strategy has reached its grim conclusion.

The capture of the historic city is a significant military victory for the RSF and its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, though it is victory that has left at least 1,500 civilians dead, including 100 patients in one hospital. It is one that formalizes the de facto partition of the country, with the RSF consolidating its control over all of Darfur, and governing from its newly established parallel government in Nyala, South Darfur.

The SAF-led state meanwhile, clings to the riverine center and the east from Port Sudan.

The Trump administration’s own envoy has now publicly voiced this fear, with the president’s senior adviser for Africa Massad Boulos warning against a "de facto situation on the ground similar to what we’ve witnessed in Libya.”

The fall of El Fasher came just a day after meetings of the so‑called “Quad,” a diplomatic forum which has brought together the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates in Washington. As those meetings were underway, indirect talks were convened in the U.S. capital between a Sudanese government delegation led by Sudan’s foreign minister, and an RSF delegation headed by Algoney Dagalo, the sanctioned paramilitary’s procurement chief and younger brother of its leader.

The Quad’s joint statement on September 12, which paved the way for these developments by proposing a three-month truce and a political process, was hailed as a breakthrough. In reality, it was a paper-thin consensus among states actively fueling opposite sides of the conflict; it was dismissed from the outset by Sudan’s army chief.

keep readingShow less
Trump Xi Jinping
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping react as they hold a bilateral meeting at Gimhae International Airport, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, in Busan, South Korea, October 30, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein TPX

Can Trump finally break with Biden's failed China policy?

Asia-Pacific

UPDATE 10/30: President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping emerged from much anticipated meeting in South Korea Thursday with a broad framework for a deal moving forward. Trump said the U.S. would lower tariffs on China, while Beijing would delay new export restrictions on rare earth minerals for one year and crack down on the trade in fentanyl components.


keep readingShow less
Iraq elections 2025
Top photo credit: Supporters attend a ceremony announcing the Reconstruction and Development Coalition election platform ahead of Iraq’s upcoming parliamentary elections in Karbala, Iraq, October 10, 2025. REUTERS/Thaier Al-Sudani

Iraq faces first quiet election in decades. Don't let that fool you.

Middle East

Iraqis head to the polls on November 11 for parliamentary elections, however surveys predict record-low turnout, which may complicate creation of a government.

This election differs from those before: Muqtada al-Sadr has withdrawn from politics; Hadi al-Ameri’s Badr Organization is contesting the vote independently; and Hezbollah — Iran’s ally in Lebanon — is weakened. Though regional unrest persists, Iraq itself is comparatively stable.

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.