Follow us on social

Mike-lee-tac

Mike Lee: We need less 'peacocking and popping off’ when dealing with Russia

In address on Thursday, Senator makes case for realist foreign policy; says ‘the room of people making these decisions should be bigger.’

Washington Politics

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) laid out his vision for a “realist” foreign policy on Thursday, arguing for an alternative to neoconservatism, liberal internationalism, and isolationism, one that is rooted in the U.S. Constitution, accountable to American voters, and one that decision makers in Washington clearly do not follow, particularly when it comes to the continued role in the war in Ukraine. 

Sen. Lee’s remarks came during The American Conserative’s tenth annual foreign policy conference, in which he argued for Congress to reclaim its warmaking power. “When the same people making decisions about foreign policy are wrong over and over and over, maybe the room of people making these decisions should be bigger,” he said.

Lee also explained why he thinks the ongoing war in Ukraine was illustrative of the shortcomings of decision making in Washington.  

While reasonable minds can disagree on whether and to what extent Washington should support Kyiv’s defense, “debate on this topic is not tolerated,” said Lee. “Anyone raising dissent or questions is immediately labeled a Putin apologist.” Lee argued that stifling such debate ignores three crucial strategic debates that should be a major consideration in all national security discussions.   

First, he said, the decisions over aid to Ukraine are not happening in a vacuum. Funding Ukraine to the extent that the U.S. has comes with trade-offs, and the continued level of support is depleting American weapons stockpiles and distracts from other emerging threats, namely China. 

Lee also lamented that the endgame to the war is rarely discussed and that it’s serving as a proxy for a larger, potentially dangerous, confrontation with Russia. “I don't think it is overstating anything to say that a stand off with a nuclear power requires a considerable amount of prudence and judgment, not peacocking and popping off,” he said. 

Given that Russia has the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and does not appear to be prepared to back down in Ukraine anytime soon, means, he added, that there needs to be a more mindful understanding of what is realistically achievable in this conflict. 

Lee also focused a substantial portion of his address stressing the importance of NATO allies and other European nations playing their part in funding security on their continent. "Our European allies have, for decades, shirked their own defense. For decades they've relied on America for their security," he said. For Lee, Washington’s willingness to pay for such a large portion of this effort means that Europe has no incentive to increase its own level of defense spending, and ensures that they will remain underprepared for the next conflict in the continent. A new poll published on Wednesday by the European Council on Foreign Relations found that almost three-quarters of Europeans agree with Sen. Lee that the continent must boost its own defense capacity, and cannot always rely on the U.S. to provide a security guarantee.  

Lee argued that Washington “should not spend one penny more” on Ukraine’s defense until other NATO members meet their defense commitments. The sentiment was echoed in a later panel by Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), who said “as a condition for our participation in NATO, you have to honor the treaty. You have to fund your defense.” 


Sen. Mike Lee
Washington Politics
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.