Rep. McCormick to Newsmax: Putin 'Not a Guy You Want to Trust'
d3662.cms.socastsrm.com -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 4:22:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–NATO Relations
Upcoming international talks aimed at resolving the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine will test Western resolve against Russian aggression, Rep. Rich McCormick said on Newsmax, Sunday.
Further, Russian President Vladimir Putin is "not a guy that you want to trust," the Georgia Republican told Newsmax's "Sunday Report," adding that he has been watching Putin since the Russian leader's time as a KGB agent.
McCormick, however, agreed with Putin's contention that the war might not have happened if President Donald Trump had been in office rather than former Presidents Barack Obama or Joe Biden.
"If Trump was president, this never would have happened. I don't think they would have even gone into Crimea like they did when Obama was president," McCormick said.
The congressman argued that deterrence depends on demonstrating strength. "Weakness always results in war," he said. "When you have strength, it really does equal peace."
He pointed to prior agreements guaranteeing Ukraine's security. "This whole quick reaction force they're talking about is something we actually negotiated in the Budapest Accords that Russia signed when Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear arms. So there's nothing new there," he said.
Looking ahead to the talks, McCormick said the central issue is territory. "I'll be very curious to see what, if any, territory might be ceded to Russia. That will be the sticking point, of course, because Russia wants as much as they can get," he said.
He added that Ukraine's economic significance makes the outcome consequential for Europe: "Seventy percent of Europe's grain is produced there. They have tons of cobalt, lithium, and uranium. This is going to be high stakes."
The congressman described NATO allies as resolute. "They understand that's just a step closer that Russia would be to Europe. The whole reason we formed NATO to begin with was because of Russian aggression," he said. McCormick noted that Europe's $20 trillion GDP dwarfs that of Russia's $2 trillion, but said Putin's military spending and threats toward neighbors keep allies wary.
On the trajectory of the war, McCormick said Russia's goals have been clear.
"They wanted Ukraine to fold," he said. "They wanted Zelenskyy to leave like Biden actually said. If that had happened, that country would have folded in the first few weeks. But he didn't. He stood firm."
He suggested Putin may be asking for more territory than he expects to secure to leave room for compromise. "Zelenskyy says he shouldn't have any of it. These are known borders. Why should Russia get this land? But something's going to be in between," he said.
McCormick added that the war has already carried a heavy cost.
"Tens of thousands of people died," he said. "You've had a million casualties in Russia. Now you've had 40,000 Korean troops committed. This has cost the world a lot of money and lives. And I would love to see an end to this quickly."
GET TODAY :
is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America with more than 30 million people watching!
Reuters Institute reports is one of the top news brands in the U.S.
You need to watch today.
Get it with great shows from Rob Schmitt, Greta Van Susteren, Greg Kelly, Carl Higbie, Rob Finnerty - and many more!
Find the channel on your cable system -
Sign up for and get , our streaming channel and our military channel World at War.
Find hundreds of shows, movies and specials.
Even get Jon Voight's special series and President Trump's comedy programs and much more!
Watch on your smartphone or home TV app.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent comments by Rep. Rich McCormick on Newsmax regarding the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine raise significant questions about the interpretation of power dynamics in international relations and the implications of past U.S. administrations on current geopolitical events. McCormick's assertion that the presence of Donald Trump in the presidency might have prevented the war emphasizes a belief in deterrence rooted in strength rather than diplomacy. This perspective, while popular among certain political factions, overlooks the historical complexities and the socio-political context that have led to the current crisis.
Historically, the roots of the conflict can be traced back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the subsequent eastward expansion of NATO, which has long been viewed by Russia as a direct threat to its sphere of influence. While McCormick posits that strength equates to peace, the narrative of deterrence often fails to account for a more nuanced understanding of global relations, where diplomatic engagement can yield long-term stability. The Budapest Memorandum of 1994, which McCormick references, underscores the need for international guarantees of sovereignty and territorial integrity rather than military posturing. Trust and collaboration among nations have proven essential in navigating the complexities of shared security and mutual respect.
Moreover, McCormick's statement that "weakness always results in war" aligns with a militaristic worldview that has characterized much of U.S. foreign policy in the post-World War II era. This belief system often leads to the justification of military interventions and increased defense spending, which can cause further destabilization rather than resolution. The ongoing war in Ukraine has already resulted in millions of displaced persons and significant loss of life, highlighting the humanitarian costs of such policies. Rather than fostering a narrative of strength through aggression, there is an urgent need to prioritize humanitarian assistance and diplomatic solutions that address the root causes of conflict, including economic disparity and historical grievances.
While McCormick rightly points out the economic significance of Ukraine, particularly in relation to Europe's agricultural output, it is crucial to examine the broader implications of relying on military might to protect economic interests. The war has not only disrupted grain supply chains but has also magnified existing inequalities within Europe and beyond. Countries that rely heavily on imported grain face soaring food prices and increased vulnerability, underscoring the interconnectedness of global economies and the need for cooperative solutions to ensure food security. The focus should be on fostering sustainable agricultural practices and regional partnerships that can withstand geopolitical tensions.
In contemplating the future of Ukraine amidst ongoing negotiations and potential territorial concessions, it is vital to remember the lessons of history. The ceding of territory in the name of peace has often led to further conflict and resentment, as seen in various historical examples ranging from the Treaty of Versailles to more recent agreements in the Middle East. The insistence on maintaining internationally recognized borders, as highlighted by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, should be embraced as a fundamental principle of international law. Genuine peace can only be achieved through respect for sovereignty, mutual recognition of rights, and an inclusive dialogue that considers the voices of all affected parties.
Ultimately, as the international community navigates this challenging landscape, it is essential to advocate for approaches that prioritize human rights, diplomatic engagement, and cooperative security arrangements. As McCormick reflects on the dire costs of the war, it is imperative to consider that the path to lasting peace will not be paved by military strength alone but by a commitment to justice, equity, and the protection of vulnerable populations. It is through these lenses that we can foster a more profound understanding of the complexities of international conflict, equipping ourselves to engage in constructive discussions about the future of global governance and cooperation.
The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine represents a critical juncture in global politics, emblematic of not just military aggression but also the wider ideological battles that underpin international relations. Recent comments from Representative Rich McCormick highlight the complex interplay of historical grievances, territorial disputes, and the role of international alliances like NATO. Understanding these dynamics is essential, particularly in framing how we respond to right-wing narratives that often oversimplify the situation and ignore the historical context leading to today's crisis.
Historically, the roots of the conflict can be traced back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, which left Ukraine in a precarious position. The Budapest Memorandum of 1994, which McCormick referenced, saw Ukraine relinquishing its nuclear arsenal in exchange for assurances of territorial integrity from Russia, the UK, and the US. This agreement was not merely a symbolic gesture; it was a significant diplomatic commitment that underlined the importance of respecting national sovereignty. However, the subsequent annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 marked a blatant violation of this accord, raising serious questions about the reliability of international agreements and the long-term consequences of military aggression. It is imperative that we remind ourselves and others that the current situation did not arise in a vacuum but rather is a continuation of longstanding tensions exacerbated by a failure to uphold international law.
McCormick’s assertion that "weakness always results in war" reflects a common right-wing perspective that equates military strength with peace. This viewpoint, however, overlooks the fact that strength can also manifest in diplomacy and cooperation. The narrative that only military deterrence can prevent conflicts ignores the successful resolutions achieved through dialogue and compromise. As citizens, we can advocate for a more nuanced understanding of international relations that emphasizes the value of diplomacy, peace-building, and conflict resolution. We should challenge our political leaders and representatives to prioritize diplomatic engagement with adversaries rather than resorting to militaristic posturing that often escalates tensions further.
Moreover, McCormick's comments about Ukraine's economic significance, particularly in relation to European grain production and critical minerals, underscore the need for a broader conversation about the intertwining of economic interests with geopolitical actions. The war has not only resulted in a humanitarian crisis but has also disrupted global markets, highlighting the interconnectedness of our economies. To address this, Americans can push for policies that promote economic resilience and sustainability, advocating for local food production and renewable energy sources that reduce reliance on international markets and vulnerable supply chains. By emphasizing economic independence, we can mitigate some of the impacts of such conflicts on our own soil, while also fostering a more equitable global economy.
Finally, as we navigate the complexities of this situation, it is crucial to articulate a vision for a just peace that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and the lives of the people affected by this war. The idea that "something's going to be in between," as McCormick suggested, should not imply conceding to aggression but rather finding a solution that acknowledges the rights and dignity of all parties involved. As engaged citizens, we can advocate for peace initiatives that prioritize humanitarian needs and support for refugees, ensuring that the voices of those directly impacted by the conflict are heard. By fostering grassroots movements that challenge militaristic solutions and promote humanitarian aid, we can contribute to a more peaceful and just resolution.
In conclusion, the rhetoric surrounding the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as exemplified by McCormick's comments, reveals the need for critical engagement with the narratives being presented. By grounding our discussions in historical context, advocating for diplomatic solutions, and emphasizing economic resilience, we can effectively counter oversimplified arguments and work towards a more peaceful future. Engaging in thoughtful dialogue about these issues not only empowers us as citizens but also fosters a deeper understanding of the complexities of international relations and the necessity of a just and equitable global order.
Analyzing the article about Rep. Rich McCormick's comments on the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, we can see several areas where grassroots activism and personal involvement can make a difference. Here’s a detailed list of ideas and actions people can take:
### Personal Actions to Consider:
1. **Educate Yourself and Others**: - Stay informed about the geopolitical landscape, the history of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and the implications of international politics. - Share resources with your community, such as articles, documentaries, and reputable news sources.
2. **Engage with Local Representatives**: - Contact your congressional representatives to express your views on U.S. involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. - Discuss the importance of diplomatic solutions and the need for humanitarian aid.
3. **Support Humanitarian Efforts**: - Donate to organizations providing assistance to those affected by the war, such as the International Red Cross or local NGOs working in Ukraine and refugee support. - Volunteer your time or resources to local organizations assisting displaced families.
4. **Participate in Advocacy Campaigns**: - Join or create campaigns urging for peaceful resolutions and strong humanitarian responses to the conflict. - Use social media platforms to raise awareness and mobilize your network.
### Specific Actions:
1. **Write to Your Representatives**: - Identify your congressional representatives. Use websites like [GovTrack](https://www.govtrack.us/) to find their contact details. - **Example**: If you live in Georgia, you could reach out to Rep. Rich McCormick: - Email: [rich.mccormick@mail.house.gov](mailto:rich.mccormick@mail.house.gov) - Mailing Address: 2425 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
2. **Sign and Share Petitions**: - Use platforms like Change.org or MoveOn.org to find petitions that advocate for increased humanitarian aid to Ukraine or diplomatic initiatives. - Example petition: “Support Humanitarian Aid for Ukraine” on Change.org. Share this within your social circles to amplify the message.
3. **Organize or Join a Local Discussion Group**: - Create a space for community dialogue on foreign policy and humanitarian issues. This could be a book club focusing on international relations or a community forum discussing current events.
4. **Contact Local Media**: - Write letters to the editor of local newspapers expressing your views on the importance of supporting Ukraine and the humanitarian crisis resulting from the conflict. - Ensure you articulate the need for a strong U.S. stance against aggression while advocating for diplomatic solutions.
5. **Engage with Nonprofit Organizations**: - Reach out to organizations actively working on the ground in Ukraine and Europe, such as Save the Children or Doctors Without Borders. Inquire about volunteer opportunities or ways to help. - Example Contact: - Save the Children - Email: info@savethechildren.org - Mailing Address: 501 Kings Highway East, Suite 400, Fairfield, CT 06825
6. **Attend Local Events**: - Participate in rallies, discussions, or forums on foreign policy related to Ukraine. These can provide opportunities to connect with like-minded individuals and organizations.
### What to Say:
- **In Communications with Representatives**: - Clearly articulate your support for increased humanitarian aid to Ukraine and emphasize the need for diplomatic solutions over military escalation. - Request that they advocate for policies that prioritize peace and support the Ukrainian people in their time of need.
- **In Public Forums**: - Discuss the significance of international cooperation and the economic implications of the conflict, as highlighted by Rep. McCormick's comments about Ukraine’s resources. - Encourage community members to think critically about the narratives around strength and aggression in foreign policy.
By taking these actions, individuals can contribute to a broader movement advocating for peace, humanitarian support, and informed political dialogue surrounding the conflict in Ukraine.