Posted on 04/01/2022 9:00:05 AM PDT by RandFan
Republican Senator Rand Paul told a friendly audience of conservatives Thursday that he is standing firm on his principles as a constitutional restrainer, and while he thinks Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is wrong and unjustified, he does not think that military escalation or regime change policies — or even sanctions with no defined goals — are right.
“If you say you don’t want to get involved in this war … people immediately think you’re on the other side, that you’re sympathetic with the other side,” he told the “Up from Chaos” foreign policy conference in Washington. “I have not sympathized with Putin, what he has done is not justified. But that doesn’t mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater and throw out our principle beliefs.”
We can make it worse for the Ukrainian people with escalation and intervention, he added. “Almost all war ends in negotiation,” he charged. “It doesn’t justify (Putin’s) aggression, but I do think we need to find off ramps and exits even for our enemies.”
Paul also revealed that his brief comments to a reporter a few weeks ago in support of the Iran nuclear deal were hardly a one-off, in fact he has a pretty straightforward view of the situation.
“Leaving the agreement didn’t make anything better,” he said. He needled critics who bemoaned reports that the JCPOA renewal deal may not be as strong as the one that President Trump ripped up in 2018. “It’s going to be ‘less for less’ because we rejected ‘more for more,’” he argued.
He also took a swipe at JCPOA opponents, including his fellow Republicans on the Hill, who have criticized an agreement that has yet to emerge publicly from the tense talks in Vienna. ”If you are condemning an agreement before you even see it aren’t you simply condemning diplomacy?”
Clearly getting out of the deal allowed the Iranians to continue to enrich uranium, he said. Slapping on further “maximum pressure” sanctions and making Iran a pariah in the region didn’t work either, he said. “There is no evidence that sanctions on Iran did anything.”
This was a rare receptive audience for restraint and non-interventionism in the heart the Washington — even rarer in that it focused on the right, hosting Rep. Thomas Massie, U.S. Senate hopeful J.D. Vance, Rep. Dan Bishop (who said critics complained he “joined the pro-Putin wing of the Republican Party” for questioning “war fever” on the Hill), and Fox News’s Mollie Hemingway. Co-sponsored by American Moment and The American Conservative, topics revolved around the current echo chamber promoting an aggressive posture against Russia, and attempts to silence dissent.
Paul also said he had a general skepticism for the over-use of sanctions against U.S. adversaries, including Russia. “I don’t think we should never use the threat of sanctions … but…we have hundreds on Russia and China and no one has an idea of how to lift them; they end up having no value at all.”
Good points! Vs the Putinistas point of view...kill all innocent women and children.
It shows how degraded our political debate is and how dominated the nation is by the MIC and corrupt media that he even must say this.
Neocons aren’t going to like this
I think this is certainly best.
If the Russians wind up keeping Eastern Donbas (not the whole provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk) and the Crimea, then ending the invasion and war would be best for the Ukrainians.
Many will disagree and say the Ukrainians would then have their land stolen. I think though, one could argue that they don’t control these regions anyway, and it would just make the ownership de jure as well as the current de facto.
Do I think it is wrong for Russia to wrestle these lands from them? Yes. But realpolitik would say they are never going to get them back, and I’m just acknowledging that. Zelinksyy already said they won’t join NATO, so that doesn’t have to be negotiated. He should tell the Russians, however, changing their Constitution to suit Russia is beyond negotiation. This is clearly up to the Ukrainians themselves to decide.
I’m not a Putinista, either. I actually support Ukraine as they were clearly the aggrieved party.
I like Zelinskyy and think he has risen to the challenge of his times.
But sometimes you have to give a lot to stop the carnage.
Name calling is much easier than attempting to refute an argument using logic.
Tough. Eisenhower and Washington were right. Sick of the war drums, sticking our nose where it isn't wanted or appreciated, American blood and treasure wasted with no plan, intention, or possibility of victory, and profiteering by politicians, pundits, and Wall Street. The Bidens being deeply enmeshed in all the corruption makes me want to find a tall tree and two short lengths of rope.
Uh oh. Rand is a craven Putin lover now!
At the outset Russia stated they wanted recognition of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent states. They also wanted recognition of Crimea as part of Russia.
“It doesn’t justify (Putin’s) aggression, but I do think we need to find off ramps and exits even for our enemies.”
***We should help those Ukes find nuke off ramps. They NEGOTIATED a nuke treaty and HONORED it. The Rukes VIOLATED it by invading twice. Since that agreement is null and void, the Ukes are free to pursue nukes.
We pursued nukes when we were in an existential war, so who are we to scold them for using nukes in their existential war? Especially when we are the ones who have betrayed them.
Why doesn’t Rand Paul look at it from that perspective, hmmmm?
Do I think it is wrong for Russia to wrestle these lands from them? Yes. But realpolitik would say they are never going to get them back, and I’m just acknowledging that.
***”Realpolitik” would understand that a single missile strike 10 miles into Russian Territory to blow up an ammo dump could easily be a demo that the Ukes can blow nukes on the Rukes, utterly changing that “realpolitik” equation.
Maybe he doesn’t want to get the world blown up.
American blood and treasure wasted with no plan, intention, or possibility of victory,
***We should follow the emBASEee strategee
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4043681/posts
At the outset of the 1994 agreement, Russia agreed that those regions are part of the Ukraine.
Since that agreement is null and void, the Ukes are free to pursue nukes.
When they employ their nukes, is the world MORE likely to get blown up or LESS likely?
In the Minsk II agreements, Ukraine agreed to allow the provinces to hold a vote on succession.
Instead, Ukraine waged war against them.
I’m leaning toward “more”.
They obviously changed their minds, what the justification was IDK. But this was one of their states objectives.
what the justification was IDK. But this was one of their states objectives.
***Oh, that’s easy. In 2012 there were vast reserves of oil & natural gas found in Ukraine. And lookie-here-guess-what, the Russians invaded THOSE areas.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4050958/posts
Minsk? AFAICT we didn’t sign the minskyminsk agreements, and the Budapest Agreement supercedes them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.