Follow us on social

Sen. Paul: On Ukraine, State Department sounds like ‘department of war’

Sen. Paul: On Ukraine, State Department sounds like ‘department of war’

In Wednesday hearing, Senator accuses diplomats of not looking for ‘off-ramp’ with Russia

Reporting | QiOSK

Amid shifting battlefield and political dynamics in Kyiv and Washington, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) accused the State Department of resembling a “department of war” more than a “department of diplomacy” in its approach to the conflict in Ukraine during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Wednesday.

“Do you really believe that Ukraine is going to push Russia out of Ukraine? They're gonna push them out of Crimea and (...) that Zelensky’s position that ‘we will not negotiate until they’re gone from Ukraine’ is viable?” Paul asked during a testy exchange with James O’Brien, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. “You would think that as a superpower, we would be involved somewhat with encouraging negotiation, but I've heard nothing from you, and nothing from anyone in your administration, frankly, that talks about negotiating.”

“There are actually some who say we're back to about where we started as far as negotiating and tens of thousands of people died on both sides and we haven't been successful,” Paul added. “But I still hear only war and I don't hear diplomacy.”

In his response, O’Brien acknowledged that the war would end at the negotiating table once Ukraine is prepared to, and added that at this time, Moscow is not a viable negotiating partner. O’Brien noted that he had recently spent a weekend with representatives from 66 other countries to discuss what peace should look like.

“Russia didn’t show up,” O'Brien said, though reports say that Russia has not been invited to any of three three successive meetings aimed at shoring up support for Ukraine’s vision of a peace plan, including the one held in Malta late last month.

“Putin is not serious about negotiating the end of the war. He has said he wants to wait and see what happens in November ‘24,” O’Brien said. “So we're preparing for that eventuality. So we can have a negotiation that will actually stick as opposed to the track record of broken agreements that President Putin has made with a whole range of his neighbors up until now.”

“This is the wrong time to walk away because Ukraine's winning,” added O’Brien later in the hearing. “It's already taken back half the territory Putin’s seized since February 22. It's opened up the Black Sea grain lanes that Putin tried to shut down in July.”

"I haven’t seen any evidence that the Biden administration is willing to entertain negotiations to end the slaughter in Ukraine," Paul told RS after the hearing. "Based on O’Brien’s response today, the Biden administration seems to only be interested in war not diplomacy.”

Most other Senators on the committee agreed that the war is at a crucial turning point but interpreted the precarious situation on the ground as a signal that Western military support was more important than ever.

To make the case for continued aid, much of the focus was on the imperative of passing the White House’s proposed emergency supplemental spending package, emphasizing the links between Russia, China, Iran, and Hamas, and therefore the importance of passing legislation that would combat them all.

“By degrading Russia's military capabilities, we're also degrading the capabilities of those who Russia works with, like Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah,” said committee Chairman Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) during his opening statement. “We see these actors in concert not in isolation, which is why we need to consider the whole supplemental package.”

There was little mention of a recent acknowledgement from Ukraine’s top commander that his forces were locked in a “stalemate” with Russia on the battlefield and subsequent reports that Washington and Europe are quietly discussing the possibility of negotiations with Kyiv. Outside of Sen. Paul’s back-and-forth with O’Brien, there was little discussion of an endgame.

One exception came from Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho), the ranking member on the committee, who bemoaned the Biden administration’s lack of urgency with providing the necessary weapons to Ukraine. “This thing can’t go over forever,” Risch said in his closing remarks. “You've got to escalate. If you don't escalate, you're gonna lose. ...[The administration] still needs to do more on ATACMs and I want to see the F-16s. Give it to them and let them get this thing over with so we can move on.”


Photo: C-Span

Reporting | QiOSK
Hezbollah
Top photo credit: Flags of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon (Shutterstock/crop media)
Flags of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon (Shutterstock/crop media)

Hezbollah to US: It's not in your interest to support Israeli attacks

Middle East

The Secretary-General of the Lebanese Hezbollah movement, Sheikh Naim Qassem, recently asserted that continued instability in Lebanon does not serve U.S. interests.

Qassem made the remarks following an Israeli airstrike on Beirut’s southern suburbs which Israel claimed had targeted a Hezbollah weapons depot.

keep readingShow less
ukraine military
UKRAINE MARCH 22, 2023: Ukrainian military practice assault tactics at the training ground before counteroffensive operation during Russo-Ukrainian War (Shutterstock/Dymtro Larin)
Ukraine War at 3: The victory we demanded and the attrition we got

Ukraine’s battlefield position is deteriorating fast

Europe

The election of U.S. President Donald Trump changed U.S. policy toward Ukraine from “as long as it takes” to seeking a negotiated peace settlement. These negotiations will be driven by the battlefield reality. The side holding the biggest advantage gets to dictate the terms. This gets more complicated if there is no ceasefire during the negotiations and the battlefield remains dynamic. Belligerents may conduct offensive operations while negotiations are progressing to improve their bargaining position. Historically in many conflicts, peace negotiations lasted years, even as the war raged on, such as during the Korean and Vietnam wars. Thus, the balance of power, measured in resources, losses and quality of strategic leadership are critical to the outcome of negotiations.

For Western powers, this carries serious consequences. They have staked their reputation on this conflict and with it, the fate of the rules-based world order. The Global South and the multipolar world order is waiting in the wings to take over. Failure to achieve victory has the potential to fatally undermine that order and remove the West from global leadership, which it has enjoyed for the last several centuries.

keep readingShow less
Russia Navy United Kingdom Putin Starmer
Top Photo: Russian small missile ships Sovetsk and Grad sail along the Neva river during a rehearsal for the Navy Day parade, in Saint Petersburg, Russia July 21, 2024. REUTERS/Anton Vaganov

How Russia’s naval rearmament has gone unnoticed

Europe

Today, there are only three global naval powers: the United States, China, and Russia. The British Royal Navy is, sadly, reduced to a small regional naval power, able occasionally to deploy further afield. If Donald Trump wants European states to look after their own collective security, Britain might be better off keeping its handful of ships in the Atlantic.

European politicians and journalists talk constantly about the huge challenge in countering an apparently imminent Russian invasion, should the U.S. back away from NATO under President Trump. With Russia’s Black Sea fleet largely confined to the eastern Black Sea during the war, although still able to inflict severe damage on Ukraine, few people talk about the real Russian naval capacity to challenge Western dominance. Or, indeed, how this will increasingly come up against U.S. naval interests in the Pacific and, potentially, in the Arctic.

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.