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
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

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?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

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.