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
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

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.