Nearly 60 percent of Americans would support the United States engaging in diplomatic efforts "as soon as possible" to end the war in Ukraine, even if that means Ukraine having to make concessions to Russia, according to a new poll.
The survey, conducted by Data for Progress on behalf of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, also found that a plurality (49 percent) said the Biden administration and Congress have not done enough diplomatically to help end the war (37 percent said they had).
The poll’s release comes after Vladimir Putin doubled down on Russia’s war in Ukraine by mobilizing reserves and issuing threats to use nuclear weapons after recent gains by the Ukrainian military near the country’s eastern border with Russia.
Moscow has also recently orchestrated referendums in some Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine on whether citizens there want to secede and become part of the Russian Federation, leading experts to believe that regardless of the outcome, Putin plans to illegally annex parts of Ukraine.
The survey also found that 47 percent said they support the continuation of U.S. military aid to Ukraine only if Washington is involved in ongoing diplomacy to end the war, while 41 percent said they would support aid regardless of whether the United States is engaged in negotiations.
Just six percent said Russia’s war in Ukraine is among the top three most important issues facing the United States today, with the top three being inflation (46 percent), jobs and the economy (31 percent), and gun violence (26 percent).
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in Reykjavik, Iceland, on May 19, 2021. [State Department photo by Ron Przysucha]
Top Photo: In this image from United States Senate television, this is the scene in the US Senate Chamber during debate concerning an amendment to US Senate Resolution 483, during the impeachment trial of US President Donald J. Trump in the US Senate in the US Capitol in Washington, DC on Tuesday, January 21, 2020. Mandatory Credit: US Senate Television via CNP
The Senate voted Tuesday against advancing H.R. 23, which would impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), to the Senate floor. This follows the successful passage of the same bill in the House — by a 243 to 140 vote — earlier this month.
The legislation is primarily a rebuke of the court for warrants issued in November for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for their alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against Palestinians in Gaza.
But it turns out the Republican sponsors could not rally the 60 votes to advance the bill to the Senate floor. Only one Democrat, Pennsylvania's John Fetterman, voted with them, resulting in a final tally of 54-45.
Some Democrats have expressed support for legislation sanctioning the ICC but believe the current bill is too broad or, as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer indicated, “poorly crafted and deeply problematic."
New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen, top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, spearheaded negotiations with Republicans over some of the bill’s broad language and provisions. She and other Democrats were worried that the legislation, as written, could harm American tech contractors and companies that do business with the ICC and that the Senate should amend the legislation to protect these actors.
Humanitarian agencies have also expressed concern over the bill's potentially broad implications. Over 130 organizations sent a letter to Congress and the incoming administration urging “other governments, Members of Congress, and advocates for victims everywhere to raise their voices to oppose attacks on the independence and autonomy of international judicial institutions like the ICC.”
The letter points out that dismissing the ICC authority would undermine attempts to curb crimes against humanity in other countries where the United States has sided with the court, such as in cases against Putin in Russia and Sudan.
“(ICC) Sanctions send a signal that could embolden authoritarian regimes and others with reason to fear accountability who seek to evade justice,” claim the letter’s signatories."
Experts have also warned that sanctions could inhibit current investigations into other governments allied with the United States. In the Philippines, for example, the ICC is investigating extrajudicial killings that took place under former President Rodrigo Duterte and are allegedly occurring to this day as a consequence of Duterte’s harsh war on drugs.
“In the Philippines, reported extrajudicial drug war killings still number about one per day, and threats to the lives of people working to bring the perpetrators to justice are very real,” says David Borden, Executive Director at Stop the War on Drugs. “Sanctions have the potential to make the ICC unable to operate any of its programs, including those which provide protection to witnesses, and at a minimum would make things much more difficult.”
It is unclear if Republicans and Democrats in the Senate will work to amend the language of the ICC sanctions bill or if Republicans will opt to drop the issue for now.
keep readingShow less
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard arrives for a service at St. John's Church on Inauguration Day of Donald Trump's second presidential term in Washington, U.S. January 20, 2025. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon
The confirmation prospects for Tulsi Gabbard, President Donald Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence, look slightly better after this weekend.
In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” this past Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) revealed that former Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) will introduce Gabbard at her hearing on Thursday. Burr, a former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is highly regarded by incumbent Senate Republicans and has some credibility across the aisle as well (he was one of seven Republican senators who voted to convict Trump during his second impeachment trial).
His assistance will be critical for Gabbard, who must first win the support of the Senate Intelligence Committee before advancing to a full senate vote. Committee members Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Todd Young (R-Ind.) are reportedly undecided on whether they will support her. Losing support from either would put Gabbard’s nomination in serious peril.
Gabbard received additional support on Sunday from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), one of the party’s most pro-war voices, who is also chairman of the Intelligence Committee. “It’s fine for people to have policy differences and ask questions about those differences. But I hope no one would impugn Ms. Gabbard’s patriotism or her integrity,” Cotton said Sunday, referencing Gabbard’s military service background.
“You know, Hillary Clinton has basically called her a traitor in the past,” he added. “This is a woman who served more than 20 years in our nation’s army.”
Gabbard has also alienated the national security establishment with less publicized views, including her openness to a more cooperative relationship with China and her caution against going to war with Iran.
Regardless of how Gabbard explains this record, most if not all Democrats will vote against her, making Republicans key to her survival. The Intelligence Committee is 9-8 in favor of the GOP. If she loses one Republican, her nomination may not advance to the Senate floor. That is why some Trump-aligned members are now imploring Chairman Cotton to make it an open roll call vote, to pressure the Republicans who may be on the fence, according to Politico this morning.
Supporters say the opposition from the Washington foreign policy and intelligence community reflects her threat to the status quo, and that she is one of the few voices of reform and restraint that Trump has nominated to top positions in his new administration.
“Sadly, if Gabbard is voted down,” wrote Jacobin correspondent Branko Marcetic, recently for RS, “her most likely replacement would not be someone with more consistent anti-war views than her — it would be someone with much more hawkish bonefides and much less likely to buck the system.”
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: CAMP LEMONNIER, Djibouti (Feb. 9, 2023) Senior military leaders met with Djiboutian Sous-Préfet de Damerjog, Abdi-Chaib Nour Youssouf, and his distinguished guests for a ceremony at Camp Lemonnier’s Islamic cemetery (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Maria A. Olvera Tristán).
Project 2025, the alleged blueprint for President Trump, focuses only one African country: Djibouti. Smaller than West Virginia, Djibouti has a population of one million people and few natural resources. Nevertheless, Project 2025’s authors fret about “the U.S.’s deteriorating position in Djibouti.” Likewise, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has stressed the need to work on “countering Chinese influence in Djibouti.”
Djibouti is critical because of its location. Situated near the Gulf of Aden, around one third of ship traffic passes by on its way to the Suez Canal. To protect these ships, Djibouti hosts military bases from China, France, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the United States. Until recently, Djibouti-American relations were good. But when Djibouti refused to let the United States attack the Houthis from their territory, the foreign policy establishment lost its temper and blamed Chinese influence.
Djibouti’s refusal is not a pivot to China, but part of its balanced foreign policy: neutrality with states and aggression with non-state actors. By maintaining neutrality, Djibouti can host military bases from multiple countries, some of which are each other’s foes. As long as these bases are used against non-state pariahs like pirates and terrorists like al-Qaida, there is no issue. But any force against states or quasi-state actors like the Houthis is strictly prohibited.
Rather than create unnecessary tensions with China, the United States should focus on its shared interest of protecting maritime traffic. Doing so will enhance security and diffuse tensions between these great powers.
Why Djibouti matters
As the Somali civil war dragged on, chaos reigned and poverty increased. To secure their livelihood, many Somalis resorted to piracy starting in 2000. The capture of American ships and the September 11 attacks led the United States to step up military operations in the Horn of Africa.
In 2002 the United States purchased Camp Lemonnier from Djibouti’s former colonizer France, establishing America’s first and only permanent military base in Africa. They were soon joined by others: Germany established a military presence at the French base in 2008, Japan established its only foreign military base in 2009 and Italy opened its first foreign military base in 2013. There were no issues with any of these military bases, until Chinaopened its first foreign military base in 2017.
China in Djibouti
Just like every other country in Djibouti, China’s main interest is to protect shipping. In fact, before opening its base, the United States lobbied China to provide more assistance in the region. Djibouti is also important for China’s Belt and Road Initiative as a key maritime stop and a new railway line to Ethiopia’s capital Addis Ababa that connects the countries. China is the largest investor in Djibouti, with a total of $14.4 billion in infrastructure being built, a huge sum for an economy that is only worth $4.67 billion.
But for the American foreign policy establishment, China is not just a rival, but an existential threat. “If the Chinese took over that port [in Djibouti], then the consequences could be significant,” said Marine General Thomas Waldhauser in 2018. China’s military base will become a “platform to project power across the continent and its waters,” General Stephen Townsend told the House Armed Services Committee in 2021. Both generals said China wouldbuild more military bases in Africa, a prediction that has not yet come to fruition.
With the outbreak of Israel’s onslaught of Gaza, Yemen’s Houthis began a blockade against ships heading to or affiliated with Israel. After Djibouti denied the U.S. request the use force against the Houthis (Djibouti permitted U.S. strikes on al-Qaida in Yemen), the U.S. foreign policy establishment believed China was responsible. “China [is] interfering with U.S. operations at its base in Djibouti,” said Michael Rubin, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Guleb Ahmed of the Middle East Institute insisted that it is because of China that “the Djibouti government has refused to condemn the Houthi attacks on maritime traffic.”
Djibouti’s neutrality
While much has changed in the Horn of Africa, Djibouti has consistently remained neutral. This lets it attract foreign military bases from countries that have adversarial relationships with one another. Ironically, this neutrality permits states to use military force against non-state pariahs like pirates and al-Qaida.
For the United States, the Houthis are terrorists and should be treated the same as al-Qaida. But the Houthis in many ways operate as a state. They control most of Yemen’s populated areas, including its capital, host diplomatic missions and have economic relations with dozens of states. Rather than oppose the Houthis, Djibouti drew a line, prohibiting the United States from carrying out operations from its territory.
But according to the U.S. foreign policy establishment, inaction means Djibouti is pro-Houthi. They point out that Djibouti helped resupply Iranian vessels that assist the Houthis. Yet, the same thing was also done for American vessels that attack the Houthis, as long as these attacks are done outside Djibouti’s territory. No pro-Houthi government would allow such a policy.
A dangerous game
Rather than accept Djibouti’s position, foreign policy experts have sought to escalate tensions, blaming Djibouti for being pro-Houthi and pro-China. Hoping to find a more reliable partner, many propose that the United States recognize and work with Somaliland instead. Somaliland is an unrecognized state that asserted its independence from Somalia in 1991. Close to Yemen and next Somalia, it seems Somaliland offers everything Djibouti has with no strings attached. Project 2025 recommends “the recognition of Somaliland statehood as a hedge against the U.S.’s deteriorating position in Djibouti.”
But recognizing Somaliland would not provide the security America hopes for. The Horn of Africa has a delicate balance of power, with tensions between Ethiopia and Somalia only recently resolved. American recognition of Somaliland would threaten this delicate peace. In addition, while Somaliland is far more stable than Somalia, clan warfare has been ongoing in its Eastern region for the last two years. Finally, relations in the region are often fluid. While China supports Somali unity, this might change if Somaliland was recognized by more countries. With China as the largest investor in Africa, Somaliland might want to work with China. In the end, all America could be left with is a more unstable Horn of Africa.
Cooperate and de-escalate
Djibouti represents a rare opportunity for the United States. It is the only country that hosts both American and Chinese military bases mere kilometers apart. While the two countries are largely adversaries, their primary purpose in Djibouti is the same: securing maritime traffic.
Recall, it was the United States that first asked for Chinese assistance to combat piracy in the Horn of Africa. When China opened a base, it was considered a move too far, with worries it would lead to more bases in Africa, which has not happened to date. Meanwhile the United States has around 40 bases on the continent.
Rather than create tensions, the United States should focus on cooperating with China. Doing so will require respecting Djibouti’s neutrality, which prohibits America from attacking the Houthis from its territory. While there is much the United States and China disagree on, ensuring that trade continues to flow uninterrupted is a shared priority of both countries.
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.