Follow us on social

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

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)
Reporting | QiOSK
Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. speaking wit… | Flickr

Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten

Media


Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

keep readingShow less
Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

Peter Thiel attends the annual Allen and Co. Sun Valley Media Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, U.S., July 6, 2022. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

QiOSK

The trouble with doing business with Israel — or any foreign government — is you can't really say anything when they do terrible things with technology that you may or may not have sold to them, or hope to sell to them, or hope to sell in your own country.

Such was the case with Peter Thiel, co-founder of Palantir Technologies, in this recently surfaced video, talking to the Cambridge Union back in May. See him stumble and stutter and buy time when asked what he thought about the use of Artificial Intelligence by the Israeli military in a targeting program called "Lavender" — which we now know has been responsible for the deaths of an untold number of innocent Palestinians since Oct 7. (See investigation here).

keep readingShow less
Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Committee chairman Jack Reed (D-RI), left, looks on as co-chair Roger Wicker (R-MS) shakes hands with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on President Biden's proposed budget request for the Department of Defense on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., April 9, 2024. REUTERS/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Military Industrial Complex

Now that both political parties have seemingly settled upon their respective candidates for the 2024 presidential election, we have an opportune moment to ask a rather fundamental question about our nation’s defense spending: how much is enough?

Back in May, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, penned an op-ed in the New York Times insisting the answer was not enough at all. Wicker claimed that the nation wasn’t prepared for war — or peace, for that matter — that our ships and fighter-jet fleets were “dangerously small” and our military infrastructure “outdated.” So weak our defense establishment and so dangerous the world right now, Wicker pressed, the nation ought to “spend an additional $55 billion on the military in the 2025 fiscal year.”

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest

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.