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]
U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth welcomes Elon Musk as a visitor to the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, U.S. March 21, 2025. DOD/U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Madelyn Keech/Handout via REUTERS
President Trump is out with a new executive order that could, if faithfully implemented, mark a sharp shift in what weapons the Pentagon buys and how such purchases are regulated.
The order, entitled “Modernizing Defense Acquisitions and Spurring Innovation in the Defense Industrial Base,” closely tracks the arguments that have been made by emerging military tech firms in Silicon Valley. It calls for reforms that will provide “the speed and flexibility our Armed Forces need to have decisive advantages in the future” by delivering “state‐of‐the‐art capabilities at speed and scale through a comprehensive overhaul” of the Pentagon’s process for developing and buying new weapons systems.
For example, the new order tracks the approach proposed in a manifesto published by the emerging military tech firm Anduril, entitled “Rebooting the Arsenal of Democracy.” Anduril is an up and coming military tech firm that has received contracts for unmanned underwater vehicles, anti-drone systems, and surveillance towers at the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as competing to build drones that would serve as “wingmen” for the new F-47 combat aircraft.
Anduril’s document calls for the U.S. government to nurture “a new breed of defense technology companies” by helping to ‘'recapture [the] spirit of innovation and bring cutting-edge technology to our armed forces.”
Not coincidentally, the Anduril memo suggests that this “new breed” of company should be modeled on firms like SpaceX, Anduril and Palantir that specialize in integrating advanced software and artificial intelligence into next generation weapons systems. And it is quick to point out that old guard firms like Lockheed Martin are not up to the task because they “do not have the software expertise or business model” to build “tomorrow’s weapons – autonomous systems, cyberweapons and defenses, networked systems, and more.”
The document further notes that traditional arms firms “work slowly, while the best engineers work at speed,” and that “the software engineering talent who can build faster than our adversaries resides in the commercial sector, not at large defense firms.”
In theory, the president’s executive order, reinforced by the continuing influence of Elon Musk, could augur a shift away from the big platforms that feed the bottom lines of the nation’s largest arms firms towards more unpiloted systems, robotic weapons, and AI-driven surveillance and targeting systems.
The executive order also states that any program 15 percent over budget, 15 percent behind schedule, or that is “unable to meet any key performance parameters,” will be considered for potential cancellation. If actually implemented, that would put many of the most lucrative programs carried out by big weapons firms in jeopardy. After all, according to a Government Accountability Office review from June 2024, the average time it takes a major defense program “to deliver even an initial capability to the warfighter is 10 years — a time frame incompatible with maintaining military advantage in an environment shaped by the need for technological advantage.”
Major systems like Lockheed Martin’s F-35 combat aircraft and Northrop Grumman’s Sentinel ICBM have been plagued by cost overruns and performance delays of the kind targeted by the new executive order.
The Sentinel has experienced a whopping 81% cost growth in its first few years of development. And Elon Musk has called the F-35 “the worst military value for money” in the history of Pentagon procurement, suggesting that it should be replaced by swarms of unpiloted drones.
Unfortunately, a Pentagon review of the Sentinel similar to the kind proposed in the new executive order ended with the Pentagon deciding to stay the course on the program, even though outside experts like former Defense Secretary William Perry have called ICBMs “some of the most dangerous weapons we have” because a president would have only a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch them on warning of an attack, thereby increasing the risk of an accidental nuclear war prompted by a false alarm.
Furthermore, specialists in nuclear deterrence at the Union of Concerned Scientists have noted that the United States has enough nuclear warheads on bombers and submarines to dissuade any nation from attacking the United States, rendering the new ICBM redundant.
Other systems ripe for review include new aircraft carriers, which can cost up to $13 billion each and are vulnerable to attack by modern high speed missiles; heavy tanks, which have been of little use in the war in Ukraine and are unlikely to serve a useful purpose in the most likely wars of the future.
Whether the reviews mandated by the new order actually lead to cancellation of any existing weapons programs remains to be seen. The order makes clear that even if a program breaches all of the cost, schedule, and performance requirements it will only "be considered for potential cancellation." Nothing about that is binding on the Pentagon, and Congress, as always, is free to provide the Pentagon funding weapons it doesn’t ask for, as it does nearly every year.
But if some of those systems are put on the shelf, current plans call for any savings to be plowed into other Pentagon programs and the department’s budget will continue its relentless growth, as indicated by the president’s recent suggestion that his administration’s Pentagon budget proposal for next year could reach $1 trillion, the highest figure since World War II.
There are other challenges to be considered if a shift from old to new tech is actually pursued. First, company claims about the future performance of high tech weapons — that these systems are the key to restoring U.S. global military dominance and sustaining the capability to win a war with China — are unproven. And the reductions in vetting new projects suggested by the new executive order could make it harder to evaluate whether proposed autonomous systems will work as advertised.
Last but not least, technology is only one measure of military strength, and not necessarily the most important one. Well-trained, well-motivated personnel are the foundation of any effective military force. And all the technology in the world will not win ill-considered conflicts like the U.S. war in Iraq. In that war, the U.S was outmaneuvered by highly motivated local forces with a better understanding of the conflict terrain and were able to develop relatively cheap countermeasures like improvised explosive devices. A similar dynamic prevailed in Afghanistan as a war that U.S. national security leaders viewed as essentially unwinnable was allowed to drag on for 20 years.
In addition, in the event that the new, better systems can be produced more cheaply than current big ticket weapons, why is the administration proposing a record Pentagon budget? What will the excess funds be spent on? And will a new approach to weapons acquisition tackle issues like excessive executive pay at companies that subsist largely on our tax dollars, or their penchant for buying back their own stock to boost share prices rather than spending those funds on building capable defense systems?
These larger questions will have more to do with whether the United States can develop an affordable, effective defense system than will shifting funds from one kind of weapon to another within a rising Pentagon budget.
The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.
The USS Diego Garcia
It’s not every day the U.S. military concentrates one of its most powerful weapons on a tiny island far from nowhere. After all, their vulnerability renders them a tempting target for troublemakers. But that’s just what the Pentagon has done, dispatching at least six B-2 bombers to desolate Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean. That speck of land, 1,000 miles from anywhere, is basically an aircraft carrier that can’t move. Given that the radar-eluding B-2 has a readiness rate of just over 50%, sending six of the 19 in the Air Force’s inventory represents about half of the operational B-2 fleet’s firepower on an island smaller than Manhattan.
The $2 billion (each!) B-2s have been attacking Houthi rebels in Yemen, which is about as gross an example of “overmatch” as you can get. But the Houthis are aligned with Iran, and the U.S. is far more interested in sending Tehran a message than pulverizing second-rate Houthi military assets.
“If diplomacy fails, the next stage is likely war,” Axios reported April 8. “Bombs vs. diplomacy on Iran is a live debate within the Trump administration and the wider MAGA world.”
There’s lots of reasons this won’t happen. There are robust U.S. defenses protecting Diego Garcia, plus any such move by Iran runs the risk of a wider war. Then again, so did Trump’s decision to kill Qasem Soleimani, a senior Iranian general and terror boss, in 2020. But Trump was willing to take that risk, and, after minor-league retaliation by Tehran, the two sides resumed their tense, uneasy relationship. Best to keep those trigger-fingers crossed.
The world turned upside down
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly will be MIA when 50 nations gather in Brussels April 11 to coordinate military aid to Ukraine. It will mark the first time the group meets without the U.S. secretary of defense since the creation of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group after Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago.
The group has given Ukraine more than $126 billion(PDF) in military aid, half of which has come from the U.S. (although there is no new U.S. aid planned). The reinforcements have helped Ukraine keep its capital of Kyiv and 80% of its territory. Russian leader Vladimir Putin had hoped to conquer the country within weeks.
The SECDEF’s vanishing act takes place as Putin keeps pounding Ukraine while thwarting Trump’s efforts for a ceasefire. It is a shameful repudiation of the U.S.’s historical support of freedom over tyranny. It’s also a marked change from Trump’s 2023 rhetoric when he warned the Russian leader to end the war. “I would tell Putin: If you don’t make a deal, we’re going to give them [the Ukrainians] a lot,” he said. “We’re going to give them more than they ever got, if we have to.”
In an eerie echo, on April 2 Trump told Axios that Moscow was missing because existing U.S. sanctions on Russia “preclude any meaningful trade.” Yet the $3.5 billion in U.S.-Russia commerce last year topped total U.S. trade with countries like Brunei and Mauritius that Trump slapped with tariffs.
The Bunker’s not the only one flummoxed by the U.S. government’s recent bizarre actions on the world stage. “Denmark's naval modernization plan reflects threats from Russia, US,” read the head-scratching headline April 2 in Defense One about one of NATO’s founding members. The subhead tried to explain: “Copenhagen aims to buy one vessel to protect undersea cables and six or more that might defend Greenland.”
Duct tape and bailing wire
There is no better example of an overly-complicated military machine than the Pentagon’s V-22, the world’s only production tiltrotor. It’s an aircraft that could have sprung from the fevered mind of inventor Rube Goldberg, renowned for creating machines that solve “a simple problem in the most ridiculously inefficient way possible.”
Yes, it can take off and land like a helicopter, and then fly like a turboprop airplane as its rotors tilt forward. That’s why the Marines stormed Capitol Hill in 1989 to convince Congress to keep it flying despite then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney’s repeated efforts to kill it. The Marines argue they need hundreds of these vertical-lift planes, just like their F-35B, to launch obsolete amphibious assaults from their small-deck warships (the last such assault took place in 1950).
The latest V-22 Band-Aid involves installing four-pound “predictive maintenance capabilities” boxes on some V-22s to see if they can prevent gearbox failures implicated in fatal crashes. Developed by a company called Shift5, the technology lets V-22 crews watch parts degrade in real time, instead of trying to catch such damage during periodic, and maybe too-late, post-flight inspections.
“Given the criticality of solving some of these life-threatening issues that are happening on the V-22, it really is all about providing real-time insights to the crew for situational awareness so they can make better decisions,” Shift5’s Josh Lospinoso told Defense News.
The Air Force has established a new “doomsday” wing to improve control of its nuclear arsenal, Air & Space Forces Magazine said April 1. Seriously.
And serious thanks for dropping by The Bunker this week. Kindly consider forwarding this on to fellow travelers so they can subscribe here.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Alex Ovechkin, the captain of the National Hockey League's Washington Capitals, is seen on a screen in celebration of his 895th career National Hockey League goal, which he scored during a game against the New York Islanders to break the all-time record of Wayne Gretzky, in Moscow, Russia April 7, 2025. REUTERS/Evgenia Novozhenina/File Photo
Last Sunday, 39-year-old Russian ice hockey star Alex Ovechkin playing for the Washington Capitals surpassed Canadian-American Wayne Gretzky’s National Hockey League scoring record, netting his 895th goal.
What elevated this seismic moment in hockey history beyond stats was Gretzky’s response. “The Great One,” as he has been known throughout his career, has been a true class act — publicly cheering Ovechkin on and offering warm praise devoid of ego even as he saw his own record shattered.
Gretzky’s grace is a throwback to a time when hockey transcended the rink, serving both as a proxy for Cold War tensions and fleeting détente. As a kid catching the tail end of Gretzky’s career from behind the wrong side of the Iron Curtain in Riga, Latvia, I saw those echoes firsthand.
In 1972, for the first time, the Soviet team disembarked in North America for pioneering “Summit Series” which pitted the USSR’s best against the NHL stars playing for Canada and the United States. While Canada narrowly clawed past the Soviets on that occasion, in 1981, the “Red Machine,” a veritable juggernaut that the Soviet team has become by then, thrashed Canada 8 to 1 at the legendary final of the Canada Cup, in Montreal, no less.
1972 Summit Series between Canada and Soviet Union. Pictured Phil Esposito (Canada) Alexander Ragulin (USSR) (Credit: Frank Lennon. Library and Archives Canada/Flickr)
I watched that game on TV, wide-eyed, as the Soviets’ clinical precision dismantled the star-laden, intimidating Canadian team, captained by Wayne Gretzky. Back in Moscow, Soviet propaganda appropriated their team’s success as evidence of the superiority of the collectivist Soviet ways over Western individualism. It wasn’t just about hockey — it was a superpower bravado on ice.
But hockey didn’t just mirror the era’s rivalries — it softened them too. Between face-offs, involving occasional fistfights on the ice, players from these purported opposing ideological camps shook hands and swapped jerseys. Some even forged enduring friendships, including touring each other’s homelands. It felt like détente in action: competition, yes, but mutual respect beneath the gloves.
Fast forward to 2025. With Donald Trump back in the White House and tentative efforts to melt the ice between the United States and Russia, hockey diplomacy has come back to the fore. In March, amid a phone call about Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin, ever eager to flex hockey for nationalist gain, floated the idea of the hockey matches between NHL stars and Russia-led Continental Hockey League (KHL) talent, with games in both the U.S. and Russia. Trump, ever the dealmaker, backed the idea, perhaps anticipating “huge ratings” as an additional prop.
History knows examples of sporting events fostering détente between the rival nations. Think of ping-pong diplomacy with Communist China in the early 1970s which paved the way for President Richard Nixon’s ground-breaking visit to Beijing in 1972. The term “ping pong diplomacy” stuck because it captured how sport can bridge geopolitical divides.
Another example are the soccer World Cup matches between the U.S. and Iran in 1998 and 2022. Unlike the tennis games in China and hockey matches between the U.S., Canada and Soviet Union in North America, the U.S. – Iran encounters were the results of blind draws, meaning they were not explicitly intended to be diplomatic events. But even so, the human interaction between the peoples of two nations often at geopolitical loggerheads helped to somewhat soften mutual perceptions (Iran won 2 to 1 in 1998, while the U.S. emerged victorious in 2002, 1-0, with the winners graciously showing respect to the losers on the pitch after each game).
Can Trump – Putin hockey diplomacy smooth the way to a more general thaw? Unlike in the 1970s and early 1980s, such games, if they materialize, won’t be referendums on the comparative strengths of different political systems. After all, Ovechkin, born in 1985, growing up in post-Communist Russia and achieved stardom in America, is as much a product of the “capitalist” NHL as is Gretzky. But it can help mend fences in a more traditional sense of managing a great power competition — as was also the case with the original détente in 1970s, in addition to the ideological dimension.
There will be hurdles along the way. Russia has been and remains banned from the International Ice Hockey Federation since 2022 for its invasion of Ukraine, which precludes its participation in international hockey championships. Even if the U.S. were to be ready to use its influence to lift the ban on the Russians, other leading hockey nations could easily balk at the idea for political reasons — think of Sweden, Finland or Czech Republic. The liberal hawks who’d seldom miss an opportunity to disparage diplomacy with adversaries were quick to assail Trump for allegedly giving Putin a soft power gain “for free.” A coalition of Ukrainian-Canadian and Ukrainian-American organizations called on the NHL to unequivocally reject any collaboration with the KHL.
There is also a asymmetry in stakes and expectations: the prospect of the games is seen by the Kremlin as a way to symbolically skate back to the great powers league — a vision cherished by Putin. The White House downplayed that enthusiasm, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt saying that the U.S. “is more interested in securing the peace in Ukraine right now than scheduling hockey games.”
Indeed, the hockey games, in themselves, won’t stop the war in Ukraine. However, they are an approachable way to restart building confidence and improve the overall climate between Moscow and Washington that could be leveraged in efforts to bring about a diplomatic end to the bloodbath and usher into a new era of a more restrained, managed competition.
Gretzky and Ovechkin exemplified graciousness and respect that transcend geopolitical rivalries. Let’s see if Trump and Putin can lace up their diplomatic skates and do the same.
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.