Gabbard Blasts ‘Deep State’ for Pushing Russia War Hysteria

Paul Riverbank, 12/22/2025Tulsi Gabbard challenges US narratives on Russia, exposing the tangled realities of foreign policy debates.

For its part, the Reuters piece clung to six anonymous voices from the U.S. intelligence world and laid out a survey: Washington—according to them—now suspects Putin still nurses greater territorial dreams. The upshot? If Russian forces eventually advance farther west, American troops could be pulled into a military showdown most leaders in Washington say they hope to avoid.

But, as is so typical in matters of American foreign policy, another respected voice dug in on the opposite side. Congressman Mike Quigley, a Democrat, cuts a figure of pragmatic worry: “The intelligence has always been that Putin wants more,” he insists, and notes the urgency that European allies bring to the table. One needn’t search hard for unease in Warsaw or Riga—both Poland and the Baltic states make few bones about their fear they are next on Moscow’s list.

Gabbard, undeterred, countered that plenty of U.S. intelligence “briefs” in fact argue the Kremlin is reluctant to widen the war. “Russia’s battlefield performance… shows it does not currently have the capability to conquer and occupy all of Ukraine, let alone Europe,” she observed—relying on dry analysis rather than polemic.

The question of NATO’s posture is, if anything, even thornier. Gabbard portrayed alliance leaders, along with the EU, as intent on drawing the U.S. further into hostilities, whether by arms shipments or new commitments. The media, in her view, has joined the chorus: “promoting this false narrative to block President Trump’s peace effort, and fomenting hysteria and fear.” It is a familiar charge, though her words carried particular sharpness given the present climate.

Stepping back, it becomes plain why these arguments churn. American foreign policy—especially in election years—wobbles between promises of restraint and moments of assertion. Neither direction is quite what it seems. Consider the actual actions since the Russian invasion began, not merely the statements. Despite President Trump’s often-quoted desire for peace, airstrikes have hit Iranian nuclear targets. Ukraine continues to receive American arms. Reports describe the administration weighing blockades and sanctions on far-off adversaries such as Venezuela.

Amid these pushes and pulls, figures like Senator Marco Rubio work behind the scenes. He is not especially visible but, by many accounts, wields considerable sway—twisting old notions of “Nixonian realism” into a tapestry that is both hawkish and opportunistic. He accumulates influence, critics note, but has avoided public infighting rarely seen at such heights.

Here’s the point: public and private messages in American foreign policy are rarely identical. The rift between rhetoric and action—for example, promising de-escalation while simultaneously clinging to military options—can be read not merely as hypocrisy, but as the real dilemma of statesmanship. And all the while, the media must walk a line: reporting facts, yes, but deciding which claims merit the most oxygen. Are they chasing government leaks, or amplifying their own anxieties? Gabbard’s accusations aim directly at this uneasy balance.

In the end, the true scope of Russian aims—and, just as crucially, the possible U.S. response—remains hazy. Anyone searching for an easy answer won’t find one. History teaches us that what’s said and what’s done can remain misaligned for years. Choices made in Washington and Moscow reverberate far longer than a news cycle, and none will matter more to those living near Europe’s front lines. For now, the world waits—sorting fact from fear—watching to see which story emerges as reality, and which fades away.

Few political debates ignite as much emotion as the current divide over Russia’s intentions in Eastern Europe. Most recently, former presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has placed herself squarely in the center of that maelstrom. In blunt terms, she blasted Reuters for a story speculating that Vladimir Putin’s ambitions stretch far beyond Ukraine—that he in fact eyes the old Soviet sphere, and thus potentially direct confrontation with NATO. “It’s propaganda,” Gabbard charged, reserving little patience for either journalists or the unnamed officials behind the report.For its part, the Reuters piece clung to six anonymous voices from the U.S. intelligence world and laid out a survey: Washington—according to them—now suspects Putin still nurses greater territorial dreams. The upshot? If Russian forces eventually advance farther west, American troops could be pulled into a military showdown most leaders in Washington say they hope to avoid.But, as is so typical in matters of American foreign policy, another respected voice dug in on the opposite side. Congressman Mike Quigley, a Democrat, cuts a figure of pragmatic worry: “The intelligence has always been that Putin wants more,” he insists, and notes the urgency that European allies bring to the table. One needn’t search hard for unease in Warsaw or Riga—both Poland and the Baltic states make few bones about their fear they are next on Moscow’s list.Gabbard, undeterred, countered that plenty of U.S. intelligence “briefs” in fact argue the Kremlin is reluctant to widen the war. “Russia’s battlefield performance… shows it does not currently have the capability to conquer and occupy all of Ukraine, let alone Europe,” she observed—relying on dry analysis rather than polemic.The question of NATO’s posture is, if anything, even thornier. Gabbard portrayed alliance leaders, along with the EU, as intent on drawing the U.S. further into hostilities, whether by arms shipments or new commitments. The media, in her view, has joined the chorus: “promoting this false narrative to block President Trump’s peace effort, and fomenting hysteria and fear.” It is a familiar charge, though her words carried particular sharpness given the present climate.Stepping back, it becomes plain why these arguments churn. American foreign policy—especially in election years—wobbles between promises of restraint and moments of assertion. Neither direction is quite what it seems. Consider the actual actions since the Russian invasion began, not merely the statements. Despite President Trump’s often-quoted desire for peace, airstrikes have hit Iranian nuclear targets. Ukraine continues to receive American arms. Reports describe the administration weighing blockades and sanctions on far-off adversaries such as Venezuela.Amid these pushes and pulls, figures like Senator Marco Rubio work behind the scenes. He is not especially visible but, by many accounts, wields considerable sway—twisting old notions of “Nixonian realism” into a tapestry that is both hawkish and opportunistic. He accumulates influence, critics note, but has avoided public infighting rarely seen at such heights.Here’s the point: public and private messages in American foreign policy are rarely identical. The rift between rhetoric and action—for example, promising de-escalation while simultaneously clinging to military options—can be read not merely as hypocrisy, but as the real dilemma of statesmanship. And all the while, the media must walk a line: reporting facts, yes, but deciding which claims merit the most oxygen. Are they chasing government leaks, or amplifying their own anxieties? Gabbard’s accusations aim directly at this uneasy balance.In the end, the true scope of Russian aims—and, just as crucially, the possible U.S. response—remains hazy. Anyone searching for an easy answer won’t find one. History teaches us that what’s said and what’s done can remain misaligned for years. Choices made in Washington and Moscow reverberate far longer than a news cycle, and none will matter more to those living near Europe’s front lines. For now, the world waits—sorting fact from fear—watching to see which story emerges as reality, and which fades away.