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
Trump steve Bannon
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump (White House/Flickr) and Steve Bannon (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Don't read the funeral rites for MAGA restraint yet

Washington Politics

On the same night President Donald Trump ordered U.S. airstrikes against Iran, POLITICO reported, “MAGA largely falls in line on Trump’s Iran strikes.”

The report cited “Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and critic of GOP war hawks,” who posted on X, “Iran gave President Trump no choice.” It noted that former Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, a longtime Trump supporter, “said on X that the president’s strike didn’t necessarily portend a larger conflict.” Gaetz said. “Trump the Peacemaker!”

keep readingShow less
Antonio Guterres and Ursula von der Leyen
Top image credit: Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock.com

UN Charter turns 80: Why do Europeans mock it so?

Europe

Eighty years ago, on June 26, 1945, the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco. But you wouldn’t know it if you listened to European governments today.

After two devastating global military conflicts, the Charter explicitly aimed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” And it did so by famously outlawing the use of force in Article 2(4). The only exceptions were to be actions taken in self-defense against an actual or imminent attack and missions authorized by the U.N. Security Council to restore collective security.

keep readingShow less
IRGC
Top image credit: Tehran Iran - November 4, 2022, a line of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps troops crossing the street (saeediex / Shutterstock.com)

If Iranian regime collapses or is toppled, 'what's next?'

Middle East

In a startling turn of events in the Israel-Iran war, six hours after Iran attacked the Al Udeid Air Base— the largest U.S. combat airfield outside of the U.S., and home of the CENTCOM Forward Headquarters — President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire in the 12-day war, quickly taking effect over the subsequent 18 hours. Defying predictions that the Iranian response to the U.S. attack on three nuclear facilities could start an escalatory cycle, the ceasefire appears to be holding. For now.

While the bombing may have ceased, calls for regime change have not. President Trump has backtracked on his comments, but other influential voices have not. John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, said Tuesday that regime change must still happen, “…because this is about the regime itself… Until the regime itself is gone, there is no foundation for peace and security in the Middle East.” These sentiments are echoed by many others to include, as expected, Reza Pahlavi, exiled son of the deposed shah.

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.