Follow us on social

Signal-2022-06-15-131044_001

Smith bucks Biden, says Ukraine needs long-range missiles and killer drones

The congressman, who also accused Russia of “genocide,” said anything else would be “buying into Putin’s rhetoric” about potential escalation.

Europe

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) has called for the U.S. to send long-range missiles and armed drones to Ukraine, accusing the Biden Administration of caving to Vladimir Putin’s warning that the West should not send weapons capable of hitting targets in Russia.

“I don't agree with the President on the notion that we shouldn't give them long range strike missiles, because I think he's sort of buying into Putin's rhetoric here,” Smith, who chairs the House Armed Forces Committee, said at the Center for a New American Security’s annual foreign policy conference today. 

“Every single piece of artillery we send them is capable of striking Russia, because Ukraine's like right on the border with Russia,” he continued. “The longer range stuff is not about going into Russia, it's about giving you the ability to have a more standoff capability to hit the Russians who are in Ukraine.”

The remarks suggest a rift between Smith and President Joe Biden on the issue. They also coincided with the announcement of another reported $1 billion weapons sale to Ukraine. The package is expected to include anti-ship missiles, which Kelley Vlahos of Responsible Statecraft warned back in May could increase the “odds of a wider war dragging NATO into the fray, and worse, nuclear conflict.”

Some analysts see Smith’s approach as risky, both for Ukraine and the world. “Sending advanced missile systems with a range long enough to threaten the Russian state could not only prolong the war and cause more suffering for Ukrainians [but also] put Ukraine in a weaker position at the negotiating table,” wrote Ted Snider in a recent column for Responsible Statecraft.

Smith, who said Russia is “engaged in genocide” in parts of Ukraine and seeks to “enslave” the country, also pushed aside concerns that greater U.S. involvement there could lead to nuclear escalation. 

“Putin has drawn like 12 different red lines already that we’ve crossed, and he hasn’t done anything because he knows, if he does anything to bring NATO in, he’s done,” he said. “There’s no way he wins if we come in, so I think we’re giving him too much ability to stare us down when we have a more than adequate deterrent, and we have more that we could be doing.”


Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) speaking at Wednesday's CNAS event. Via screengrab cnas.org
Europe
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

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.