Follow us on social

google cta
GOP hawks slam Biden, say he has ‘no strategy’ for Ukraine

GOP hawks slam Biden, say he has ‘no strategy’ for Ukraine

Sen. Risch and Rep. McCaul demand to know whether there have been any ‘unacceptable’ talks with the Russians.

Reporting | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) slammed the Biden administration’s approach to Ukraine, arguing in an open letter that the White House has “failed to articulate a strategy outlining how U.S. assistance to Ukraine will help them achieve victory over Russia, while also prioritizing and advancing American interests.”

“A pledge to support Ukraine ‘for as long as it takes’ is not a strategy,” wrote the powerful lawmakers, each of whom is the top Republican in their chamber’s foreign affairs committee.

The letter appears aimed at reframing Republican calls for a strategy to end the war, which have grown increasingly loud in recent months amid polls showing a drop in support for continuing to arm Ukraine.

While other GOP lawmakers have argued that President Joe Biden is giving too much to Kyiv, McCaul and Risch contend that the White House has sent aid at a “deliberately slow pace” in a way that “stops short of helping Ukraine decisively defeat Russian forces.”

Notably, the missive also took aim at reports of talks between former U.S. officials and current and former Russian leaders, which the administration claims not to have approved.

“These meetings have not been briefed to the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That is unacceptable,” McCaul and Risch wrote, noting their concerns that Ukrainians were not involved in the talks. “[A]s it is Ukrainian—not American—soldiers fighting, it would be reprehensible to exclude Kyiv from discussions about its own future.”

The letter revives the debate over the reported talks, which NBC News first revealed back in July. The discussions reportedly included former high-level U.S. officials and, on at least one occasion, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, marking the closest equivalent to direct talks between Moscow and Washington since the early days of the war.

The Biden administration has so far dodged questions about the talks and denied playing any role in them, but it remains unclear whether the White House has received briefs from the former officials who participated.

The lack of clarity should come as no surprise given the secretive nature of the discussions, which reportedly included talks about issues that have become taboo in Washington, including potential concessions to Russia.

“We suggested setting up a number of diplomatic channels in order to satisfy the desires of all the parties involved,” one participant in the talks told the Moscow Times in late July. “There firstly needs to be a serious U.S.-Russia channel, as these are the only two countries powerful enough to negotiate security in Europe. There must of course be a channel between Ukraine and Russia, another between Russia and the EU; and one between Russia and the Global South.”

Track II diplomacy — sometimes known as “backchanneling” — is a common practice in international politics in which influential non-government stakeholders in different countries hold secret talks in order to exchange views. It is often difficult to determine whether any government has formally approved such discussions.

But Risch and McCaul are determined to get answers. The pair of lawmakers asked the administration whether it knew about the talks in advance, whether the White House received readouts of the discussions, and who participated in the effort. They also demanded to know if the talks have had any influence on U.S. policy.

While Risch and McCaul make clear that they seek a maximalist approach to the conflict and oppose talks of any sort, their questions indirectly get at the heart of whether the Biden administration is prepared to seek a diplomatic end to the war short of an all-out Ukrainian victory.

The powerful Republicans gave the administration until early November to respond to their questions. They did not, however, demand that the answers be given in an unclassified format, meaning that the responses may never become public.


Photo credit: Sen. Jim Risch (U.S. Embassy and Consulates in Canada/ CC BY 1.0); Rep. Michael McCaul (stock_photo_world/ Shutterstock)
google cta
Reporting | QiOSK
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

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.