Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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
google cta
Analysis | Europe
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.