Follow us on social

Mullen-abc-scaled

Former Joint Chiefs chair calls for talks to end Ukraine war

Retired Admiral Mike Mullen said we have to ‘do everything we possibly can to try to get to the table to resolve this thing.’

Reporting | Europe

A former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman said on Sunday that the United States needs to work toward ending the war in Ukraine as soon as possible, amid reports of escalating violence and talk of increased threats of nuclear weapons use. 

Retired Admiral Mike Mullen — the nation’s top military officer during parts of the Bush and Obama administrations — assessed on ABC’s This Week that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a “cornered animal,” a situation that he said “speaks to the need to get to the table” and negotiate. 

Referring to President Biden’s recent warning of a nuclear conflict, Mullen added, “I think we need to back off that a little bit and do everything we possibly can to try to get to the table to resolve this thing.”

Mullen also urged Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other top diplomats to figure out a way to get Putin and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky to talk. “[A]s is typical in any war, it has got to end and usually there are negotiations associated with that,” he said. “The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned.”

The former Joint Chiefs chair also said the possibility of Putin using nuclear weapons is very real. “He has got some very small ones, which theoretically while devastating would localize the damage,” Mullen said. “He could pick a symbolic target. He could pick Zelensky's hometown, for instance, as a target as opposed to having a big impact on the battlefield that would badly hurt the Ukrainian Army, which has fought so well.”

Mullen’s comments came just hours before Russia’s retaliatory strikes after a bridge connecting Crimea with Russia was blown up on Sunday.

Quincy Institute director of grand strategy George Beebe said the series of recent strikes from both sides makes a resolution to the conflict more pressing. “It is time for the United States to supplement its military support for Ukraine with a diplomatic track to manage this crisis before it spirals out of control,” he said


Screen grab via abcnews.go.com
Reporting | 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.