SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
diplomacy
Democrats: Say No to Endless Killing in Ukraine and Give Peace a Chance
While some hawks still pretend that Ukraine could "win" the war with enough missiles, bombs, ammunition, and other supplies from the U.S., realists scoff at such claims.
Aug 10, 2025
After three and a half years of carnage in Ukraine, the meeting expected soon between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is an opportunity to finally find a peaceful solution to a terrible war. Genuine diplomacy to end the bloodshed is long overdue.
Up to 100,000 Ukrainians are estimated to have been killed, many of them civilians, along with more than twice that number of deaths among Russian troops. Hundreds of thousands more have been wounded on each side, and Russian bombardment has devastated many of Ukraine’s cities and towns.
Condemnations of the Trump-Putin summit are predictable from congressional Democrats more interested in scoring political points than opening a diplomatic door for peace. While most Republican leaders will praise Trump no matter what he does, pressure from the so-called national security establishment could damage prospects for a peaceful outcome in Ukraine.
Since early 2022, the U.S. government, on a largely bipartisan basis, has provided upwards of $67 billion in military aid to Ukraine. Supporters of continuing the massive arming of Ukraine claim the highest moral ground, while others do the killing and dying. Even after it became clear that the war could go on indefinitely without any winner, the message from Washington’s elite politicians and pundits to the Ukrainian people has amounted to “let’s you and them fight.”
Last week, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) introduced a bill to give Ukraine $54.6 billion in aid over the next two years, with many billions going directly to arm the Ukrainian military. If the Trump-Putin summit is unsuccessful, the currently dim prospects for such legislation could brighten. This dynamic gives war enthusiasts and advocates for the military-industrial complex a motive to throw cold water on the summit.
While Murkowski now represents a minority view on Ukraine among fellow Republicans, Shaheen is decidedly in the mainstream of her Senate Democratic colleagues. Even after all the suffering and destruction in Ukraine, few seem really interested in giving peace a chance.
As for Trump, he has sometimes talked about seeking peace in Ukraine, even while greenlighting large quantities of weapons to the Kiev government. Given his mercurial approach, there is no telling what his mindset will be after meeting with Putin.
Most Democrats in Congress seem content with continuation of a war that has no end in sight. Little is being accomplished in military terms other than more killing, maiming and destruction.
During recent months, Ukrainian forces have lost ground to Russian troops. While some hawks still pretend that Ukraine could “win” the war with enough missiles, bombs, ammunition and other supplies from the U.S., realists scoff at such claims.
Unfortunately, while the war drags on, Democrats in Congress are prone to treat diplomacy as a third rail. To a large extent, their partisan template was reinforced nearly three years ago, making “diplomacy” a dirty word for the Ukraine war.
The fiasco began in late October 2022 with the release of a letter to President Biden signed by 30 House Democrats, led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The letter was judicious in its tone and content, affirming support for Ukraine and appropriately condemning “Russia’s war of aggression.” But the signatories got in instant hot water because the letter balanced its support for arming Ukraine with sensibly urging steps that could stop a war without a foreseeable end.
“Given the destruction created by this war for Ukraine and the world, as well as the risk of catastrophic escalation, we also believe it is in the interests of Ukraine, the United States, and the world to avoid a prolonged conflict,” the letter stated. “For this reason, we urge you to pair the military and economic support the United States has provided to Ukraine with a proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire.”
Just one day later, Jayapal issued a statement declaring that “the Congressional Progressive Caucus hereby withdraws its recent letter to the White House regarding Ukraine.” For some members of the caucus, the sudden withdrawal was a jarring and embarrassing retreat from a stance for diplomacy.
Ever since then, the war train has continued to roll, unimpeded by cooler heads. And, like elected officials in Washington, voters are looking at the war through partisan lenses.
A March Gallup poll found that 79 percent of Democrats said that the U.S. was not doing enough to help Ukraine — a steep jump from 48 percent since the end of last year. During the same period, the number of surveyed Republicans with that view remained under 15 percent.
It is time for Americans and their elected representatives to set aside partisan lenses and see what’s really at stake with the Ukraine war. Endless killing is no solution at all.
Rebuilding détente between Washington and Moscow is essential — not only for the sake of Ukrainians and Russians who keep dying, but also for the entire world. The two nuclear superpowers must engage in dialogue and real diplomacy if the next generations all over the globe are to survive.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump and Netanyahu: A Duplicitous and Murderous Pair
They repeat a lie over and over, and with such force, that it becomes real for those who trust them. Those who do not believe in the illusion are threatened, belittled, or shunned.
Jul 14, 2025
Meetings between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are more akin to a master class in posturing and duplicity than in diplomacy. Last week’s meetings were no exception.
Both men are master manipulators, products of our media age. They create illusions that they insist are real. They repeat a lie over and over, and with such force, that it becomes real for those who trust them. Those who do not believe in the illusion are threatened, belittled, or shunned.
Both leaders have utilized their craftiness to achieve personal success in domestic politics. They have developed strong constituent bases, followers who believe that their leadership must be supported and protected. At the same time, they are polarizing figures who have contributed to creating deep fissures within their countries.
Because the illusions they project are based on lies, there are limits to their successes. In the first place, reality invariably presents a strong check to illusions. And ignoring reality can result in social unrest and political chaos.
For example, President Trump promoted his signature budget plan—which he called the “Big Beautiful Bill”—promising that it would be fiscally sound and bring greater prosperity to more Americans. Instead, it appears that it will dramatically increase the nation’s deficit while potentially causing 17 million Americans to lose their healthcare. For his part, Netanyahu has prolonged his war on Gaza (and Lebanon, Syria, and Iran) promising that it would lead to “total victory,” making Israel more respected and secure. Instead, it has led to his being indicted for war crimes and Israel seeing its international standing diminished because of its genocidal policy.
Truth wins out. And so, we can expect the day to come when Trump voters lose their healthcare plans and see their rural hospitals forced to close and realize that the illusion of the “Big Beautiful Bill” didn’t include them. Much the same will occur in Israel when Israelis realize that “total victory” is a farce—the conflict with Palestinians will continue as long as they are denied rights—and as tens of thousands of young Israeli soldiers return from having served multiple tours of duty in Gaza with PTSD, wreaking havoc at home and in their communities.
With this as a backdrop, it was both fascinating and deeply disturbing to see the two master manipulators at work with and on each other last week— a bizarre exercise in log-rolling flattery. As we say in colloquial English: “they laid it on thick.” Netanyahu, the indicted war criminal, gave Trump the letter he sent to the Nobel Prize Committee nominating him for the peace prize. And Trump returned the faux compliment calling Netanyahu “the greatest man alive.”
All of this can be dismissed as buffoonery or maybe even harmless puffery—just two manipulators playing each other. But where the efforts of these two become truly dangerous is when they and their acolytes come to believe the deceit and attempt to extend their efforts to supplant reality with illusion through policies that impact others.
From what little we know of what transpired in the meetings between Trump and Netanyahu, what’s clear is that the ideas driving both are not reality-based. Trump’s plan was to evacuate Palestinians from Gaza to a location outside of Palestine where housing will be provided so they can live productive lives, making way for Gaza to become a Riviera-style resort. This was trashed early on as being based on illegal ethnic-cleansing and a blatant colonialism. Netanyahu appears to have nothing better to offer than a slight modification of Trump’s idea. He wouldn’t expel all of Gaza’s Palestinians. But he would force as many to leave as possible to other countries that would take them. Those who remain would be “relocated” to what the Israelis are calling “a humanitarian relocation site” where Palestinians can be provided for and “deradicalized.”
Both plans share three elements. First, to sell their ideas, both Trump and Netanyahu clothe them in humanitarian language. Second, no matter how they try to dress them up, both plans are designed and offered without consideration for what Palestinians really want. And finally, therefore, both are delusional and destined not only to fail, but to exacerbate an already volatile situation.
Maybe the biggest illusion projected by both men is the notion that their “plans” will create the conditions for regional peace. Ignoring the reality that a root cause of tension in the Middle East is the Israeli dispossession of Palestinians, their proposals only add to that dispossession and the resistance it spawns in Gaza (all the while compounding the same dispossession in the West Bank and East Jerusalem). As history has shown, it is perilous to ignore the humanity of Palestinians. It is also foolish for Trump and Netanyahu to assume that their projected illusions will be believed in the Arab World, making possible an “era of peace.” This fantasy only exists in their minds and in the minds of the sycophants who surround them.
As a great Republican President said 160 years ago, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Former US Presidents Must Break Their Silence to Oppose War With Iran
Where are the voices of former presidents who once claimed to represent justice, human rights, and diplomacy?
Jun 25, 2025
‘There are moments in history when leadership is not measured by title or office, but by courage—the willingness to speak when silence is safest. We are living through such a moment right now. And yet, those who once held the highest office in the United States remain silent.
As a scientist trained to seek evidence and truth, their silence is deafening. As an immigrant who came to the U.S. in search of justice, it is heartbreaking. As a woman and mother living with Stage 4 cancer, I watch the devastation unfolding not only in Gaza but increasingly in Iran with profound sorrow and urgency.
Recent Israeli strikes, reportedly backed with U.S. intelligence and weaponry, have pushed the region to the edge of catastrophe. These attacks have extended beyond Gaza, with operations targeting Iranian infrastructure, nuclear facilities, and senior military leaders. Iran risks being pulled deeper into a violent regional entanglement—while its people, already suffocated by economic sanctions, political repression, and isolation, now face the looming threat of all-out war.
If former presidents truly believe in peace, now is the time to show it. They have platforms. They have credibility. They have nothing to lose, except history's judgment.
Where are the voices of former presidents who once claimed to represent justice, human rights, and diplomacy?
Former President Barack Obama, whose administration negotiated the Iran nuclear deal, knows better than most what is at stake. That agreement once offered a path to peace and global cooperation. It was torn apart for political gain, and now we are witnessing its consequences—diplomacy abandoned, escalation normalized, and entire populations treated as expendable.
In 2009, President Obama stood at Cairo University and told the Muslim world: "So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace...This cycle of suspicion and discord must end." He called for a new beginning between the United States and Muslim-majority countries, based on mutual respect and shared interests. What happened to that vision? How can that promise be reconciled with today's silence in the face of mass suffering?
Former President George W. Bush claimed to care about freedom in the Middle East. His war in Iraq shattered that notion. But what might it mean now, in retrospect, for him to publicly oppose the current militarization and collective punishment of Iranian civilians?
Even those whose terms seemed quieter—like former President Bill Clinton—could choose to stand for peace today. They could issue a joint statement calling for a cease-fire, denouncing attacks on civilians, or simply affirming that Iranian lives, like Palestinian and Israeli lives, matter.
Instead, we hear nothing. Their silence is not neutral. It becomes complicity.
Iranian scientists are assassinated without trial. Hospitals, power plants, and schools face sabotage. Families in Tehran and Isfahan live with the fear that the next drone won't be aimed at a military site—but at them. The already precarious state of women's rights and education in Iran now faces further erosion as war drums drown out every other concern.
This is not theoretical. I know what it means to grow up under threat. I was a child during the Iran-Iraq war, when bombing became part of daily life. I know what it's like to lose trust in institutions, to question the future, to long for stability in a world that seems to forget your humanity.
And still, in the face of this spiralling violence, American leaders of the past say nothing.
Maybe they fear political backlash. Maybe they worry that defending Iranian civilians will be misinterpreted as endorsing the Iranian regime. But this is a false binary. One can denounce authoritarianism in Tehran while also opposing war, sanctions, and collective punishment that harms ordinary Iranians most.
Maybe they are protecting diplomatic legacies, unwilling to criticize the Israeli government. But legacy without moral clarity is hollow. Comfort without conscience is betrayal.
The people of Iran are not monolithic. Many have risked their lives to protest for freedom and dignity. Iranian women, in particular, have led some of the bravest civil resistance movements in recent history. To remain silent as bombs fall, as sanctions tighten, as hopes for diplomacy vanish—is to abandon them.
This is not just a regional issue. It is a global moral reckoning. The war machine that consumes Gaza and threatens Iran is the same one that diverts trillions from healthcare, education, and climate action. It is the same system that prioritizes weapons over welfare, surveillance over science, destruction over diplomacy.
If former presidents truly believe in peace, now is the time to show it. They have platforms. They have credibility. They have nothing to lose, except history's judgment.
They could issue a joint call for deescalation. They could demand the protection of civilians, humanitarian access, and a halt to military actions that risk igniting a broader war. They could remind the world that diplomacy is still possible, and that the Iranian people—like all people—deserve a future free from bombs, sanctions, and authoritarianism alike.
They could speak. But they don't.
Meanwhile, young Iranians grow up watching rockets cross their skies. Iranian Americans worry for their families, their safety, their futures. And the rest of us grow more numb, more detached, more hopeless.
It doesn't have to be this way. Leadership is not limited to the Oval Office. It lives in action, in conscience, in the refusal to stay quiet when lives hang in the balance.
The world is watching. Iranians, across Tehran and in the diaspora, are watching. Young Americans yearning for moral clarity are watching. History is watching.
To the former presidents of the United States: Use your voice. Speak before it's too late. You owe it to the people who once believed you stood for something.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular