In a House subcommittee hearing on U.S. national security on Tuesday, a handful of Republican lawmakers voiced support for general restraint and called for cuts to Pentagon spending, citing the debt and deficit. One even quoted John Quincy Adams.
“The United States have no business in making conquests, nor in aspiring to any kind of empire,” said freshman Rep.Congressman Eli Crane (R-Ariz.), directly quoting Adams to a panel of mostly hawkish experts. “The principal object of government is to secure the happiness of society, not to extend the boundaries of an empire.”
Crane added, “Does it concern you guys that we’re $36 trillion in debt, (with an) annual deficit of $2 trillion as we sit here and talk about the United States’ global involvement? Do any of you guys wonder when that tipping point is going to be?”
The subcommittee hearing, titled “Emerging Global Threats: Putting America’s National Security First,” featured a panel of foreign policy experts who primarily focused on why Washington needs to reassure allies of its commitment to security.
“America first does not mean America alone,” said the Heritage Foundation’s Brent Saddler. “And a key lesson of the Ukraine war, many of our Asian allies have noted, is that an ally unable to defend itself or delay adequately, an aggressor is a liability to our collective defense and very likely to suffer defeat.”
Sadler added that “America must heed this lesson as well and tend to its defenses better, to include securing our economy while our allies work with us to bolster our common defense that has been neglected for too long.”
Despite these warnings, the committee members largely focused on spending and how America’s $36 trillion debt could threaten national security.
Freshman Rep. John McGuire (R-Va.) echoed this sentiment: “I've heard people saying we need more money for Taiwan, we need more money for the Middle East. ... Number one, we have got to get our spending under control.”
Lawmakers also brought up the Pentagon at the hearing. “I want to point out that Pentagon spending is on the chopping block,” commented subcommittee chairperson Rep William Timmons (R-S.C.). “It's (discussion around Pentagon spending cuts) not only going to be on the role of foreign aid. It's going to be across the board because we have $36 trillion in debt, and we have a $2 trillion annual deficit.”
Aaron is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft and a contributor to the Mises Institute. He received both his undergraduate and masters degrees in international relations from Liberty University.
Top Photo: U.S. Representative Eli Crane (R-AZ). REUTERS/Piroschka Van De Wouw
It seems that former Blackwater CEO, international war profiteer, and wannabe colonialist Erik Prince is eager to get back into the action, this time on American soil. Politico reported today that a group of military contractors led by Prince delivered a 26-page proposal to President Donald Trump’s team before the inauguration, detailing how the new administration could enlist the private sector to hit its deportation goals.
The plan states that a “600% increase in activity” is needed for the President to deport 12 million people before the 2026 midterms — an increase that Prince and his allies don’t believe government agencies are equipped to make.
Among the ideas laid out in the $25 billion proposal: a private fleet of 100 deportation planes, privately-run processing camps on military bases, expedited mass deportation hearings, and a “bounty program which provides a cash reward for each illegal alien held by a state or local law enforcement officer.”
Former Trump Advisor Steve Bannon (who still has strong ties to key advisors on the President’s team) expressed support for the plan to Politico. “People want this stood up quickly, and understand the government is always very slow to do things,” he said.
The proposal has clear moral, financial, and legal concerns — but that goes without saying when Erik Prince is concerned.
Prince’s Blackwater Security Consulting group carried out a highly publicized massacre of 17 civilians at Nissour Square in Baghdad in 2007, causing the group to lose its security contract with the U.S. government. Four Blackwater employees were convicted by a U.S. federal court for their involvement in the massacre and then pardoned by President Trump in his first term.
Neither the tragedy of the Nissour Square Massacre nor the embarrassment it represented for the military contracting industry dissuaded Prince, who has continued to push for more privatization and less oversight in military operations.
Fortunately, it seems that his latest pet project isn’t gaining much traction.
Bill Matthews, a co-author of the proposal, told Politico, “We have not been contacted by, nor have we had any discussions with, the government since the White Paper that we submitted months ago. There has been zero show of interest or engagement from the government and we have no reason to believe there will be.”
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Foreign Secretary David Lammy (Ben Dance / FCDO/Flickr); UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer (Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street/Flickr) and Britain's Ambassador to the US Lord Peter Mandelson (Wikimedia/FCDO)
Against a background of negativity toward President Trump in the British establishment, Britain’s new Ambassador to Washington Lord Peter Mandelson has a battle on his hands to keep Downing Street relevant in D.C.
He has already been quick to backtrack on his previous disparaging comments about Trump.
If diplomacy is a game of influence, there is no better way to lose influence than to cause offense. He should aim to make courtesy great again.
In 2019, Lord Mandelson described then President Trump as a "danger to the world" and little more than a “white nationalist and racist.” Arriving in Washington to take up his role as His Britannic Majesty’s Ambassador, he has embarked on a charm offensive with U.S. news networks. Describing his prior comments as “childish and wrong,” Lord Mandelson has described President Trump as “nice” and “fair-minded,” and said that people must respect the President’s “strong and clear mandate for change.”
Beyond his personal rebrand, Lord Mandelson faces an uphill struggle to rebuild relationships in Washington, for a British government that had assumed, hoped even, that President Trump would not win.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer himself has fallen afoul with ill-advised comments about President Trump, at one point describing himself as “anti-Trump.” In offering to commit UK peacekeepers to Ukraine on the back of a U.S.-brokered peace deal, Starmer is now scrabbling to reposition himself, and Britain, as a vital bridge between the U.S. and Europe. That will require some deft diplomatic footwork.
Ambassador Mandelson has made a start, suggesting that Britain should position itself as “not Europe.” However, every aspect of British policy towards Ukraine since 2014 has been firmly aligned with the hardline European faction that includes Poland and the Baltic States; that is poles apart from a rapidly shifting U.S. policy under President Trump. Ambassador Mandelson might be better off describing UK policy as “not Biden,” showing a willingness to pivot away from the zero-sum Democratic Party approach to Russia of the last decade. Except, that would require a genuine change in Britain’s positioning on Ukraine, which has yet to manifest itself.
Prime Minister Starmer remains off message with the new U.S. Administration by reassuring President Zelensky that Ukraine is still on an irreversible path to NATO membership. He is hemmed in politically by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who has been buttering up President Trump with compliments, yet calling for the UK not to change its Ukraine policy.
While Johnson is able to navigate political differences with skill, given his natural affinity to the president’s politics, the Labour government has a deep seated Trump problem that will be harder to shift. This follows a long-running slew of negative comments by other senior figures. Foreign Secretary David Lammy has verbally excoriated the president many times, once declaring that “Donald Trump is not welcome in Britain.”
Recent years have witnessed a trend by western politicians and media figures in general to disrespect those foreign leaders they disdain, including President Trump.
Boris Johnson himself wrote a crude limerick in 2016 suggesting that President Erdogan of Turkey was a “wanker,” and famously compared President Putin to Dobby the house elf from Harry Potter. People domestically chuckled at his Etonian humor. Yet his ability to influence two seasoned heads of state was dented.
Kim Darroch, the former British ambassador to the United States, remains utterly unrepentant about his leaked comments that President Trump’s first government was “dysfunctional” and “inept.”
The system risks believing its own propaganda and rewarding people who become hoist with their own petard. Lord Darroch, as he is now known, received a Life Peerage and a hefty book deal for making a catastrophic diplomatic blunder that would have gotten anyone else sacked. I know from a senior diplomatic contact that he had been warned about his “fruity” telegrams about the U.S. President, but has chosen to grandstand nonetheless.
Diplomatic telegrams are not meant to be leaked, of course. But speaking respectfully about President Trump — or any foreign leader — shouldn’t be seized upon as moral weakness, but rather seen as the way that diplomatic business is carried out. Disagreements are best discussed with due diplomatic courtesy in private. Diplomacy isn’t about friendship — although it’s nice if you can get it — but rather about finding ways to coexist.
There is a reason that the UK invests significantly more in its diplomatic relationship with the United States than it does with any other country. The U.S. is the most powerful country on earth, and more powerful than the entirety of Europe in economic and military terms. Our ambassadors in Berlin and Paris are as senior as our man in Washington, but the latter is seen internally as primus inter pares.
Some people raised eyebrows about appointing a political figure like Lord Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to Washington. While political appointees are not the norm in the UK diplomatic service — unlike in the American — there are precedents, including David Cameron’s appointment of his chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, to be ambassador to Paris in 2016. Former Labour MP Boateng was made British high commissioner to South Africa in 2005.
The diplomat slated for the role, Sir Tim Barrow, is an exceptional diplomat, who had previously served as national security adviser, ambassador to Moscow when I arrived in 2014, and, before that, Kyiv. But while he is scrupulously independent, he made his ambassadorial career under the previous Conservative government.
Having spoken to two former senior British ambassadors last week, the considered view was that Lord Mandelson — who is not considered an ally of Prime Minister Keir Starmer — has the political clout to speak truth to power, with Starmer, behind closed doors on the big calls. That will be vital.
Navigating a huge shift on Ukraine policy under President Trump will occupy most of Mandelson’s time at the start of his term on Massachusetts Avenue. In order for Britain’s voice to be heard, he needs to help Starmer redraw the sword lines of diplomatic etiquette and make courtesy great again.
keep readingShow less
UKRAINE MARCH 22, 2023: Ukrainian military practice assault tactics at the training ground before counteroffensive operation during Russo-Ukrainian War (Shutterstock/Dymtro Larin)
Today marks the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. With the war entering its fourth year and serious diplomatic moves toward peace finally underway, it’s an appropriate time to look back on the U.S. approach to the conflict.
The Ukraine war is the most devastating European conflict since WW2. While accurate casualty figures are difficult to come by, in September 2024, The Wall Street Journal estimated that the war had already resulted in more than one million casualties, with more than 250,000 dead and some 800,000 wounded.
The carnage has only increased since then. Estimates are that the war has caused some $1 trillion in damage to Ukraine’s infrastructure and capital stock. Even before the war Ukraine was already one of the poorest countries in Europe. As of late 2024, the U.S. government had allocated some $175 billion in military and non-military aid to support Ukraine’s war effort.
The early months of the war saw astounding Ukrainian success in resisting Russian aggression, as Ukraine mobilized to drive Russian forces back from the Kyiv region and the Black Sea coast. After an additional offensive in September 2022 gained some further ground, the war settled into a grinding stalemate in Ukraine’s Eastern regions.
Since the end of 2022, the front lines in Ukraine have barely moved, with Russiaholding 18% of Ukraine’s internationally recognized territories in December 2022 and 18.6% of those territories today. But the costs of war continued to mount, with hundreds of thousands of additional dead and wounded and continued assaults on Ukraine’s infrastructure.
The military stalemate in Ukraine was predictable. In late 2022, around the time that shifts in the front line slowed to a crawl and the war became a bloody battle of attrition, General Mark Milley, then chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared that the Ukrainians had “achieved about as much as they could reasonably expect on the battlefield” and recommended that Ukraine should therefore “try to cement their gains at the bargaining table.”
The events of the next two years proved him essentially correct, but his advice was not followed. The Biden administration quickly distanced itself and publicly rejected a diplomatic track. Others calling for a diplomatic opening at the time were also met with sharp criticism.
The rejection of diplomacy was part of a larger Biden Administration pursuit of a maximalist strategy, essentially to extend the war “as long as it takes” to inflict complete defeat or even regime change on Russia and Putin.
In a recent assessment, the well-connected national security reporter David Ignatius summarized the Biden administration’s strategy by saying, “It was a sensible, cold-blooded strategy for the United States — to attrit an adversary at low cost to America, while Ukraine was paying the butcher’s bill.” This approach was certainly cold-blooded, but we can reasonably ask whether it was sensible.
These maximalist goals have led to a high cost in human life and economic destruction, with no clear gain. Ukraine has failed to regain any significant territory in the last two years and the very same issues that have been at the heart of the conflict since the beginning, such as Russia’s desire for a neutral Ukraine that was not affiliated with NATO, and Ukraine’s need for security from future Russian aggression, remain unsettled and will still have to be handled diplomatically.
Indeed, Ukraine is probably in a worse position to gain concessions from Russia today than it would have been had talks been opened much earlier in the war. In 2022, Russia was losing ground in important regions of Ukraine, giving it concrete military reasons for compromise. Since that time, it has mobilized additional troops, stabilized its military position, and is slowly pressing back a Ukrainian military suffering from severe manpower shortages.
The need for a broader diplomatic settlement of the issues underlying the Ukraine conflict has been evident for many years. In 2008, William Burns, the then–U.S. ambassador to Russia, cabledto Washington that Ukrainian entry into NATO was a Russian redline, stating that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin) … In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players … I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
Yet in that same year at the Bucharest Summit the U.S. and NATO committed to support NATO membership for Ukraine, and then just before Russia’s 2022 invasion the U.S. reaffirmed this commitment. It was, or should have been, obvious even before the war that a failure to recognize Russia’s interest in some form of Ukrainian neutrality risked tragedy.
Although diplomacy should have been pursued much earlier, at least it now appears to be beginning today. The U.S. and NATO retain substantial leverage to reach a settlement that will support a secure and independent Ukraine on at least 80 percent of its pre-2014 territory and to pursue goals for Ukraine’s future prosperity, such as membership in the European Union. My colleagues at the Quincy Institute just published a brief outlining Washington's critical role here, entitled, "Peace Through Strength in Ukraine: Sources of U.S. Leverage in Negotiations."
Rather than continuing the carnage and destruction of the last three years, it is past time to begin to play these cards wisely at the negotiating table in pursuit of a better future for Ukraine.
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.