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.”


Photo: C-Span

google cta
Reporting | QiOSK
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi 首相官邸 (Cabinet Public Affairs Office)

Takaichi 101: How to torpedo relations with China in a month

Asia-Pacific

On November 7, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi stated that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could undoubtedly be “a situation that threatens Japan’s survival,” thereby implying that Tokyo could respond by dispatching Self-Defense Forces.

This statement triggered the worst crisis in Sino-Japanese relations in over a decade because it reflected a transformation in Japan’s security policy discourse, defense posture, and U.S.-Japan defense cooperation in recent years. Understanding this transformation requires dissecting the context as well as content of Takaichi’s parliamentary remarks.

keep readingShow less
Starmer, Macron, Merz G7
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Keir Starmer meets Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and António Costa, President of the European Council at the G7 world leaders summit in Kananaskis, June 15, 2025. Picture by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street

The Europeans pushing the NATO poison pill

Europe

The recent flurry of diplomatic activity surrounding Ukraine has revealed a stark transatlantic divide. While high level American and Ukrainian officials have been negotiating the U.S. peace plan in Geneva, European powers have been scrambling to influence a process from which they risk being sidelined.

While Europe has to be eventually involved in a settlement of the biggest war on its territory after World War II, so far it’s been acting more like a spoiler than a constructive player.

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?

Saudi leans in hard to get UAE out of Sudan civil war

Middle East

As Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), swept through Washington last week, the agenda was predictably packed with deals: a trillion-dollar investment pledge, access to advanced F-35 fighter jets, and coveted American AI technology dominated the headlines. Yet tucked within these transactions was a significant development for the civil war in Sudan.

Speaking at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum President Donald Trump said that Sudan “was not on my charts,” viewing the conflict as “just something that was crazy and out of control” until the Saudi leader pressed the issue. “His majesty would like me to do something very powerful having to do with Sudan,” Trump recounted, adding that MBS framed it as an opportunity for greatness.

The crown prince’s intervention highlights a crucial new reality that the path to peace, or continued war, in Sudan now runs even more directly through the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The fate of Sudan is being forged in the Gulf, and its future will be decided by which side has more sway in Trump’s White House.

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.