Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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.”


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!

Photo: C-Span

google cta
Reporting | QiOSK
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
The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025
Top image credit: Dabari CGI/Shutterstock

The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025

Media

I spent the last few weeks asking experts about the foreign policy books that stood out in 2025. My goal was to create a wide-ranging list, featuring volumes that shed light on the most important issues facing American policymakers today, from military spending to the war in Gaza and the competition with China. Here are the eight books that made the cut.

keep readingShow less
Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war
Top image credit: People walking on Red square in Moscow in winter. (Oleg Elkov/Shutterstock)

Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war

Europe

After its emergence from the Soviet collapse, the new Russia grappled with the complex issue of developing a national identity that could embrace the radical contradictions of Russia’s past and foster integration with the West while maintaining Russian distinctiveness.

The Ukraine War has significantly changed public attitudes toward this question, and led to a consolidation of most of the Russian population behind a set of national ideas. This has contributed to the resilience that Russia has shown in the war, and helped to frustrate Western hopes that economic pressure and heavy casualties would undermine support for the war and for President Vladimir Putin. To judge by the evidence to date, there is very little hope of these Western goals being achieved in the future.

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.