As the Ukraine war drags on, it is not surprising that it has become a more divisive issue in politics today. But the division, like most issues, is not just between left and right; there are also divisions within the Republican Party over continuing to support Ukraine's defense against Russia.

Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Auburn) has made his position on the issue clear, recently voting against further aid to the country. Unfortunately, he goes beyond wanting to see an end to the war and argues that Vladimir Putin's invasion is not actually a threat to NATO.

“He doesn't want Ukraine. He doesn't want Europe. He has enough territory,” Tuberville said. “He just wants to make sure there are no U.S. weapons in Ukraine pointed at Moscow.”

Taberville said Putin has always only wanted peace, but the U.S. wants war. “He doesn't want Ukraine. He doesn't want Europe. He has enough territory, anyway. He just wants to make sure there are no U.S. weapons in Ukraine.” pic.twitter.com/VoKMEqDasG

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) June 5, 2024

I agree with Mr. Tuberville on many issues, and have sometimes vigorously defended him, but on this one I completely disagree: I am far from convinced that Mr. Tuberville supports Putin, but I think he is overly suspicious of the Russian dictator.

Republicans are wrong to claim that Putin has interests similar to those of the United States. It may be true that Putin did not want NATO allies on his borders, but I think it is naive to claim that he did not also have other selfish, sinister and megalomaniacal agendas.

Not only has Putin been successful in killing and imprisoning his political opponents, he has made it clear on multiple occasions that he desires to expand the Russian Empire. His initial objective in this war is to completely take over the Ukrainian government and install a puppet regime that will give Russia full access and control over the country's abundant natural resources. He also seeks full control of the Black Sea ports, which would help Russia both economically and militarily.

Taberville also argues that even if Russia were to fully occupy Ukraine, it would not be possible for it to subsequently threaten any actual NATO member states. It is probably fair to assume that Putin is not going to invade the rest of Europe anytime soon, but what about five or ten years from now? Would we just let him continue to gain power? Wouldn't it be in our national interest to stop him now, before we are forced to use American forces to stop him in the future after he has built up his capabilities?

Frankly, I am not in favor of continuing to fund this war indefinitely. I think most people realize at this point that neither side is going to get exactly what they want. True leadership would be to pressure both sides to come to a negotiated settlement.

Taberville is right on the core principle: President Joe Biden has utterly failed at diplomacy to end this war. I think there is room for argument in trying to end the bloodshed, but that doesn't mean we have to defend Putin's intentions when making that argument.

Yaffe is a contributing writer for Yellow Hammer News and hosts “The Yaffe Program” weekdays from 9-11 a.m. WhistlerYou can follow him on X @Yaffe