Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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.” 


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Sen. Mike Lee
google cta
Washington Politics
Gaza tent city
Top photo credit: Palestinian Mohammed Abu Halima, 43, sits in front of his tent with his children in a camp for displaced Palestinians in Gaza City, Gaza, on December 11, 2025. Matrix Images / Mohammed Qita

Four major dynamics in Gaza War that will impact 2026

Middle East

Just ahead of the New Year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to visit President Donald Trump in Florida today, no doubt with a wish list for 2026. Already there have been reports that he will ask Trump to help attack Iran’s nuclear program, again.

Meanwhile, despite the media narrative, the war in Gaza is not over, and more specifically, it has not ended in a clear victory for Netanyahu’s IDF forces. Nor has the New Year brought solace to the Palestinians — at least 71,000 have been killed since October 2023. But there have been a number of important dynamics and developments in 2025 that will affect not only Netanyahu’s “asks” but the future of security in Israel and the region.

keep readingShow less
Sokoto Nigeria
Top photo credit: Map of Nigeria (Shutterstock/Juan Alejandro Bernal)

Trump's Christmas Day strikes on Nigeria beg question: Why Sokoto?

Africa

For the first time since President Trump publicly excoriated Nigeria’s government for allegedly condoning a Christian genocide, Washington made good on its threat of military action on Christmas Day when U.S. forces conducted airstrikes against two alleged major positions of the Islamic State (IS-Sahel) in northwestern Sokoto state.

According to several sources familiar with the operation, the airstrike involved at least 16 GPS-guided munitions launched from the Navy destroyer, USS Paul Ignatius, stationed in the Gulf of Guinea. Debris from unexpended munition consistent with Tomahawk cruise missile components have been recovered in the village of Jabo, Sokoto state, as well nearly 600 miles away in Offa in Kwara state.

keep readingShow less
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.