Sullivan goes silent on Musk/Trump decision to side with Russia against Ukraine
Sen. Dan Sullivan took a strong stand this week to support the U.S. troops who fought and died on Iwo Jima. No one in Congress will oppose the resolution he co-sponsored with about 20 other senators.
Trump is using Putin propaganda and talking points. He has abandoned Ukraine, which is what Putin wants. Trump does not criticize Putin.
Sullivan has either flipped his position to side with Musk/Trump and Putin or he is afraid to cross his political leaders about the betrayal of Ukraine.
Neither possibility is acceptable.
The studied silence by Sullivan needs to be understood by Alaskans because Sullivan never stopped talking about Ukraine during the Biden administration.
He never stopped saying that Biden was failing the people of Ukraine and not doing enough to help them battle Putin.
He never stopped attacking Biden for being weak and blaming him for what Putin did. He never stopped saying that Biden was not spending enough on defense.
“No matter the soaring rhetoric from President Biden, his administration is not in it to win it in Ukraine,” Sullivan said last summer.
Trump is in it to win it for Russia.
After Trump called Ukraine President Zelensky a “dictator” and blamed him for Putin’s invasion, a few Republicans called out Trump.
"I certainly would not call President Zelensky a dictator," Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said, adding that Putin started the war, not Ukraine.
Meanwhile, now comes word that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has called for tens of billions in cuts in defense spending in each of the next five years, the Washington Post reported.
This, Hegseth claims, is part of peace through strength. He wants to “revive the warrior ethos.”
In his constant attacks on Biden, Sullivan always said that the Republicans are the party of peace through strength, while the Democrats are the “opposite,” whatever that means.
Trump likes to talk about building an “Iron Dome,” a name that he really likes, to ward off missile attacks.
Unlike Ukraine, Sullivan has a lot to say about Trump’s expensive dream of putting untold billions more into missile defense.
Iron Dome is to “further the goal of peace through strength,” according to Trump.
This piece in Scientific American makes more sense than what is coming out of Sullivan and Trump.
The authors give a practical argument against a system that will not bring peace through strength, but financial ruin:
“Then there is the cost: an Iron Dome actually modeled on Israel’s short-range missile defense system, scaled up to cover the 3.7 million square miles of the continental U.S. (the contiguous 48 states plus Alaska), at $100 million per battery, would cost around $2.5 trillion, estimated nuclear policy analyst Joseph Cirincione in July. That system offers a defense only against dumb, ballistic missiles—not even addressing maneuverable, hypersonic ones. Another estimate published in 2024 by Defense and Peace Economics found such a system would cost from $430 billion to $5.3 trillion. That estimate noted the fundamental economic challenge facing missile defenses: they cost more, anywhere from eight to 70 times more, than the ICBMs they are meant to defend against. They are machines for bankruptcy.”
Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673.