In the ever-evolving landscape of global conflict, the Russia-Ukraine war stands out not only for its impact on international relations but also for the increasingly polarized discussions surrounding it. Recently, former Tucker Carlson guest Ben Cohen, co-founder of the iconic Ben & Jerry’s, shared his perspective on this contentious topic, describing the war as “totally unnecessary.” While Cohen’s views may resonate with some, they also spark considerable debate. This blog post delves into key claims made during his discussion, presenting fact checks that illuminate the complexity of the conflict and examining the broader implications of his assertions. As we navigate through the differing perspectives, it becomes crucial to analyze the facts and discover what lies beneath the surface of such a significant geopolitical issue.

Find the according transcript on TRNSCRBR

All information as of 05/06/2025

Fact Check Analysis

Claim

Ben Cohen co-founded Ben and Jerry's in 1977.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Ben Cohen Co-Founded Ben & Jerry's in 1977

The claim that Ben Cohen co-founded Ben & Jerry's in 1977 can be partially verified through company history and records. Here is a detailed analysis:

### Founding Year and Activities
– **1977**: Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield did indeed take significant steps toward founding their company in 1977. They completed a correspondence course on ice cream making from Pennsylvania State University's creamery and incorporated their business with the intention of opening a food business, initially considering a bagel shop[3][5].
– **1978**: The actual opening of Ben & Jerry's Homemade Ice Cream Parlor occurred on May 5, 1978, in Burlington, Vermont, with a $12,000 investment[3][4].

### Conclusion
While the foundational steps were taken in 1977, the official opening of Ben & Jerry's occurred in 1978. Therefore, the claim that Ben Cohen co-founded Ben & Jerry's in 1977 is technically accurate in terms of the planning and incorporation phase but not entirely precise regarding the official launch.

### Additional Information on Ben Cohen's Activism
Ben Cohen is known for his liberal activism and has been vocal about various social and political issues. His stance on the U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war and his references to General Smedley Butler's work highlight his commitment to peace and social responsibility, consistent with the values that Ben & Jerry's has promoted throughout its history[2].

### Evidence and Citations
– The company's founding and early history are detailed in Wikipedia and other historical accounts[3][4].
– Ben Cohen's activism and political views are discussed in various media outlets[2].

Citations

Claim

Ben Cohen became famous for his liberal political activism.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Ben Cohen's Liberal Political Activism

The claim that Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's, became famous for his liberal political activism can be validated through various sources and his public actions.

### Evidence of Liberal Activism

1. **Political Activism and Public Support**: Ben Cohen is widely recognized as a political activist who uses his platform to promote progressive causes. He supported Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaigns in 2016 and 2020, serving as a national co-chair for the latter[5]. This involvement in political campaigns aligns with liberal activism.

2. **Public Appearances and Arrests**: Cohen has been arrested multiple times during protests, including a recent arrest in 2023 while protesting the arrest of Julian Assange[5]. Such actions demonstrate his willingness to engage in public activism, often associated with liberal or progressive causes.

3. **Founding of Left-of-Center Organizations**: Cohen has founded or financially supported several left-of-center organizations, such as CODEPINK and the People’s Power Initiative[5]. These organizations typically align with liberal or progressive ideologies.

4. **Ben & Jerry's Activism**: The company, co-founded by Cohen, is known for its social and political activism. Ben & Jerry's has taken stances on various issues, including environmental protection and human rights[1][4]. The company's activism often reflects liberal or progressive values.

### Stance on U.S. Involvement in the Ukraine War

While specific details about Cohen's stance on the Ukraine war are not provided in the search results, his general approach to military interventions and corporate interests can be inferred from his references to General Smedley Butler's work. Butler's book "War is a Racket" critiques military actions as serving corporate interests, a perspective that aligns with Cohen's broader critique of U.S. foreign policy.

### Conclusion

The claim that Ben Cohen became famous for his liberal political activism is supported by his involvement in progressive causes, public appearances, and the founding of left-of-center organizations. His use of Ben & Jerry's as a platform for social activism further reinforces this reputation. While specific statements on the Ukraine war are not detailed in the provided sources, Cohen's general stance against military interventions and in favor of peace aligns with liberal or progressive views.

### References

– [1] The Post: Ben & Jerry's activism and company values.
– [2] Instagram: Ben Cohen's political activism.
– [3] Fox Business: Ben & Jerry's political activism and legal disputes.
– [4] B The Change: Activism as part of Ben & Jerry's brand identity.
– [5] InfluenceWatch: Ben Cohen's political activism and affiliations.

Citations

Claim

Ben Cohen was one of the only liberals in the United States to come out against the war in Ukraine in 2022.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Ben Cohen as a Liberal Opposing the Ukraine War

The claim that Ben Cohen was one of the only liberals in the United States to come out against the war in Ukraine in 2022 requires a nuanced evaluation. Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's, is known for his liberal activism and has indeed taken a stance against U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict.

### Ben Cohen's Position

Cohen has expressed opposition to U.S. military aid and funding for Ukraine, arguing that the U.S. should advocate for a negotiated settlement rather than prolonging the war[3][5]. He has also suggested that U.S. foreign policy, including NATO expansion, contributed to the conflict[3]. This stance aligns with his broader critique of U.S. militarism and its perceived role in global conflicts.

### Landscape of Liberal Opinions

While Cohen's stance is notable, assessing whether he was "one of the only liberals" opposing the war requires examining the broader landscape of liberal opinions during this period. Liberal perspectives on the Ukraine war varied, with many supporting Ukraine and criticizing Russia's aggression. However, there were also voices within the liberal community advocating for diplomatic solutions and questioning U.S. military involvement.

### Evidence and Critique

Cohen's views have been criticized for aligning with narratives that blame U.S. and NATO actions for provoking the war, which some see as downplaying Russia's responsibility[3]. Despite this, Cohen emphasizes his support for negotiations over military escalation, reflecting a broader critique of U.S. foreign policy and military spending[3][5].

### Conclusion

While Ben Cohen is a prominent liberal figure opposing U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war, it is challenging to assert that he was "one of the only liberals" holding this view without more comprehensive data on liberal opinions during 2022. His stance reflects a segment of liberal thought critical of U.S. militarism and advocating for diplomatic solutions, but it is not representative of the entire liberal spectrum on this issue.

### References

– [1] Wikipedia: Ben Cohen (businessman)
– [2] Instagram: Ben Cohen's Background
– [3] Politico: Ben Cohen's Views on Ukraine
– [4] Full Transcript of Ben Cohen on The Tucker Carlson Show
– [5] InfluenceWatch: Ben Cohen's Activism

Citations

Claim

Smedley Butler wrote in 1955 that during his military service he was a racketeer and gangster for capitalism.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim

The claim that Smedley Butler wrote in 1955 that during his military service he was a racketeer and gangster for capitalism is **incorrect**. Here's why:

1. **Publication Date**: Smedley Butler's book "War Is a Racket" was first published in 1935, not in 1955[1][4]. This discrepancy in the publication year already suggests an error in the claim.

2. **Content of "War Is a Racket"**: In "War Is a Racket," Butler indeed argues that military actions often serve corporate interests rather than the public good. He describes his military service as contributing to the interests of American corporations, such as oil and banking companies, in various countries[1]. However, he does not explicitly refer to himself as a "racketeer and gangster for capitalism" in the book. Instead, he critiques the system that he believes exploits war for profit.

3. **Butler's Perspective**: Butler's work is a critique of the economic motivations behind war and how they benefit a small elite at the expense of the many. He reflects on his own role in military interventions, noting that he helped secure interests for American corporations, but this is presented as a critique of the system rather than a personal admission of being a "racketeer"[1][3].

4. **Ben Cohen's Reference**: Ben Cohen's reference to Butler's work in the context of opposing U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war highlights the ongoing relevance of Butler's critique of military actions serving corporate interests. However, Cohen's stance does not imply that Butler wrote about being a "racketeer and gangster" in 1955, as Butler passed away in 1940[1].

In summary, the claim about Smedley Butler writing in 1955 that he was a racketeer and gangster for capitalism is **false**. Butler's book "War Is a Racket" was published in 1935, and while it critiques the economic motivations behind war, it does not contain the specific language or publication date mentioned in the claim.

## Additional Context

– **Historical Context**: Butler's work reflects his disillusionment with the role of military power in serving economic interests. His experiences during World War I and interventions in Central America and the Caribbean led him to question the true purposes of military actions[1][3].

– **Ben Cohen's Activism**: Ben Cohen's advocacy for peace and critique of military spending aligns with Butler's critique of war profiteering. However, Cohen's references to Butler's work do not support the claim about the 1955 publication or the specific language used[3].

In conclusion, while Butler's work critiques the economic motivations behind war, the specific claim about his writing in 1955 and referring to himself as a "racketeer and gangster for capitalism" is not supported by historical evidence.

Citations

Claim

The U.S. overthrew or invaded the governments of many countries, causing refugees and immigrants to seek safety in the U.S.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

**Fact-Checking Analysis: U.S. Foreign Interventions and Immigration Consequences**

### **Claim Validity Assessment**
The claim that **"the U.S. overthrew or invaded the governments of many countries, causing refugees and immigrants to seek safety in the U.S."** is **partially substantiated**, with historical evidence supporting U.S. interventions linked to destabilization, though direct causation to refugee inflows requires nuanced analysis.

—

### **Evidence of U.S. Interventions**
1. **Regime Change Operations**
– **Chile (1973):** The CIA-backed coup against Salvador Allende installed Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship, leading to widespread human rights abuses and political repression[2].
– **Nicaragua (1981-1990):** U.S.-backed Contra insurgency destabilized the country, contributing to economic collapse and displacement[2].
– **Iraq (2003):** The invasion toppled Saddam Hussein, sparking sectarian violence and prolonged instability, displacing millions[3][5].

2. **Military Interventions**
– **Laos/Cambodia (1970s):** Secret bombings and invasions during the Vietnam War caused mass civilian casualties and refugee crises[2][3].
– **Haiti (2004):** U.S. forces facilitated the removal of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, exacerbating political turmoil[3].
– **Somalia (2006-present):** AC-130 strikes and drone attacks against Al-Shabab have perpetuated conflict-driven displacement[3].

3. **Scale of Interventions**
– **469 military interventions** since 1798, with **251 occurring post-1991**, often targeting Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East[5].
– **Cold War-era doctrines** (e.g., Truman, Reagan) prioritized countering communism through proxy wars and covert operations, destabilizing nations like Angola and El Salvador[1][2].

—

### **Link to Refugee Crises**
– **Direct Causation Examples**:
– **Central America (1980s):** U.S.-backed regimes in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua faced insurgencies, leading to refugee flows northward[2].
– **Iraq War (2003-2011):** Over 9 million Iraqis were displaced, with many seeking asylum globally[^1^].
– **Indirect Consequences**:
– **Economic Sanctions/Blockades** (e.g., Cuba, Iran) exacerbate poverty, a push factor for migration.
– **Arms Proliferation**: U.S. military aid to factions in conflicts (e.g., Syria, Yemen) prolongs violence, displacing civilians[3][5].

—

### **Ben Cohen’s Arguments: Contextual Support**
– **General Smedley Butler’s Thesis**: The assertion that wars serve corporate interests aligns with interventions in oil-rich states (e.g., Iraq, Libya) and Cold War anti-communist campaigns benefiting defense contractors[1][4].
– **NATO Expansion**: While not a direct cause of U.S. interventions, Cohen’s critique of NATO’s post-Cold War eastward expansion as a driver of Russia-Ukraine tensions is a debated but recognized geopolitical concern[^2^].
– **Military Spending vs. Social Needs**: The **$886 billion 2024 Pentagon budget** contrasts sharply with underfunded domestic programs, a point corroborated by fiscal policy analyses[^3^].

—

### **Limitations and Counterpoints**
– **Multifactorial Displacement**: Refugee crises often stem from **combined factors** (e.g., climate, local governance), not solely U.S. actions.
– **Humanitarian Interventions**: Some operations (e.g., Kosovo 1999, Liberia 2003) aimed to stabilize regions, though outcomes vary[3][5].
– **Data Gaps**: Refugee statistics directly tied to specific U.S. interventions are inconsistently tracked, complicating causal claims.

—

### **Conclusion**
The claim **holds merit** for specific cases (e.g., Central America, Iraq) where U.S. interventions directly exacerbated instability and displacement. However, attributing **all** refugee flows to U.S. actions oversimplifies complex migration drivers. Cohen’s emphasis on corporate influence in military policy is historically grounded but requires contextualization with broader geopolitical factors.

—

**Sources Cited**:
[1] U.S. foreign intervention history (Wikipedia)
[2] Global Policy Forum’s military interventions list
[3] Tufts University’s 2023 report on 393 interventions
[5] Congressional Research Service data (469 interventions since 1798)

[^1^]: UNHCR Iraq displacement figures (external data).
[^2^]: NATO-Russia tensions analysis (beyond provided sources).
[^3^]: U.S. Defense Budget data (FY2024).

Citations

Claim

The U.S. made promises to Russia not to expand NATO eastward at the end of the Cold War.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

**Fact-Checking Analysis: U.S. Promises on NATO Expansion and Ben Cohen's Stance**

### **Claim Validity: "The U.S. made promises to Russia not to expand NATO eastward"**
#### **Key Findings**
1. **No Formal Agreement Exists**:
– **Diplomatic records** show no legally binding treaty or written commitment prohibiting NATO expansion. Discussions during German reunification in 1990 included assurances about NATO forces not being stationed in former East Germany, but these were specific to Germany, not a blanket ban on eastward expansion[1][3][5].
– **Mikhail Gorbachev's ambiguity**: The Soviet leader gave conflicting accounts, sometimes referencing a "guarantee" but later stating NATO expansion "wasn’t discussed at all" in the early 1990s[1][4].

2. **Context of Oral Discussions**:
– **James Baker's 1990 remark** ("not one inch eastward") referred to NATO jurisdiction in East Germany, not future membership for Eastern European states[2][5].
– **Academic consensus**: Scholars widely reject the "broken promise" narrative, noting that post-Cold War NATO enlargement was driven by voluntary requests from Eastern European states seeking security guarantees[1][5].

3. **Russian Narrative vs. NATO Policy**:
– **Russia's position** hinges on interpreting informal Cold War-era discussions as binding, despite the absence of formal agreements[1][3].
– **NATO's open-door policy** (Article 10 of its founding treaty) allows any European state to apply, and membership requires unanimous approval by existing members[1][5].

—

### **Evaluation of Ben Cohen's Arguments**
#### **1. NATO Expansion as a Conflict Driver**
– **Cohen's assertion** that NATO enlargement "threatened Russia" aligns with Moscow’s rhetoric but lacks empirical support. NATO’s post-1997 expansions (e.g., Poland, Baltic states) occurred without direct conflict until Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea[1][3].
– **Academic criticism**: The "provocation" narrative oversimplifies Russia’s imperial ambitions in Ukraine, which predate NATO’s post-2004 enlargement[2][5].

#### **2. U.S. Military-Industrial Complex**
– **General Smedley Butler’s thesis** ("War is a Racket") is cited accurately, but Cohen’s application to Ukraine oversimplifies:
– **Corporate influence**: While defense contractors lobby for military spending, NATO’s support for Ukraine is primarily a geopolitical response to Russian aggression, not a profit-driven scheme[2][5].
– **Pentagon budget**: Cohen correctly notes the U.S. defense budget’s size ($886B in 2024), but humanitarian aid to Ukraine ($75B since 2022) is separate from military allocations[^1^].

#### **3. Immigration and Instability**
– **Link to U.S. interventions**: Cohen’s broader argument about U.S. wars causing refugee crises (e.g., Syria, Afghanistan) has merit, but this connection is less direct in Ukraine, where displacement stems from Russia’s invasion, not NATO policy[^2^].

—

### **Conclusion**
– **Claim Rating**: **False**. No formal U.S. or NATO promise against eastward expansion exists.
– **Cohen’s Stance**: Mixes valid critiques of military spending with oversimplified causality regarding NATO and Ukraine. His emphasis on peacebuilding aligns with humanitarian priorities but underestimates the role of collective defense in deterring further aggression.

—

**Citations**
[1] [NATO expansion controversy (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_regarding_the_legitimacy_of_eastward_NATO_expansion)
[2] [CEPA analysis on NATO expansion myths](https://cepa.org/article/sympathy-with-the-devil-the-lie-of-nato-expansion/)
[3] [France 24: NATO "betrayal" claims](https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east)
[4] [Gorbachev's mixed statements (GFSIS)](https://gfsis.org/en/did-the-united-states-make-a-promise-to-the-soviet-union-on-nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard/)
[5] [Chatham House: Myths on NATO expansion](https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconceptions-debate-russia/myth-03-russia-was-promised-nato-would-not-enlarge)

[^1^]: Pentagon budget and aid figures are widely reported but not directly cited in provided sources.
[^2^]: Ukraine refugee data from UNHCR (not included in sources).

Citations

Claim

The U.S. has military commands that cover every portion of the globe and 800 military bases worldwide.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: U.S. Military Commands and Bases

The claim states that the U.S. has military commands covering every portion of the globe and 800 military bases worldwide. To evaluate this claim, we need to examine the available data on U.S. military bases and global military presence.

### U.S. Military Bases Worldwide

– **Number of Bases**: The claim mentions 800 military bases. However, recent data suggests that the U.S. has approximately 750 military bases in 80 countries as of 2023[4]. Another source indicates at least 128 known bases across 49 countries[3][5]. The discrepancy may arise from the inclusion of temporary sites or smaller installations not always publicly disclosed.

– **Global Coverage**: The U.S. military indeed has a significant global presence, with bases in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and the Pacific. This presence supports the notion that U.S. military commands cover a substantial portion of the globe, particularly in strategic regions like Europe and East Asia[5].

### U.S. Military Commands

– The U.S. military is organized into several geographic combatant commands, which are responsible for different regions of the world:
– **Africa Command (AFRICOM)**: Covers Africa.
– **Central Command (CENTCOM)**: Focuses on the Middle East and parts of South Asia.
– **European Command (EUCOM)**: Responsible for Europe.
– **Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM)**: Covers the Asia-Pacific region.
– **Northern Command (NORTHCOM)**: Focuses on North America.
– **Southern Command (SOUTHCOM)**: Covers Central and South America and the Caribbean.
– **Space Command (SPACECOM)**: Oversees space operations.
– **Special Operations Command (SOCOM)**: Handles special operations globally.
– **Transportation Command (TRANSCOM)**: Manages logistics and transportation.

This structure supports the claim that U.S. military commands cover every portion of the globe, as these commands are designed to address security issues in their respective regions.

### Conclusion

While the exact number of U.S. military bases might be debated due to variations in reporting and classification, the claim that U.S. military commands cover every portion of the globe is supported by the structure of the U.S. military's geographic combatant commands. However, the claim of 800 bases appears to be an overestimation based on available data, which suggests around 750 bases in 80 countries[4].

### Additional Context

Ben Cohen's stance on U.S. military involvement and its implications aligns with broader critiques of U.S. foreign policy and military spending. The argument that military actions often serve corporate interests and contribute to global instability is a perspective shared by various critics of U.S. foreign policy, including references to historical figures like General Smedley Butler. However, these arguments are more subjective and depend on political and ideological perspectives rather than purely factual data.

Citations

Claim

The Pentagon consumes over half of the federal discretionary budget.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: The Pentagon Consumes Over Half of the Federal Discretionary Budget

To evaluate the claim that the Pentagon consumes over half of the federal discretionary budget, we need to examine recent data on U.S. federal spending allocations.

### Background on Federal Discretionary Spending

Federal discretionary spending includes both defense and non-defense expenditures. In recent years, defense spending has been a significant portion of discretionary spending, but whether it exceeds half of the total discretionary budget requires examination of specific figures.

### Current Data on Defense Spending

As of the latest available data for Fiscal Year 2026, defense spending is proposed to increase by 13% from $848 billion to $962 billion[1][2]. Meanwhile, total discretionary spending is maintained at $1.6 trillion for Fiscal Year 2026[1].

### Calculation and Analysis

To determine if defense spending exceeds half of the discretionary budget, we can calculate the percentage of defense spending within the total discretionary spending.

Given:
– Total discretionary spending for FY 2026 = $1.6 trillion
– Proposed defense spending for FY 2026 = $962 billion

Percentage of defense spending = (Defense spending / Total discretionary spending) * 100
= ($962 billion / $1.6 trillion) * 100
= 60.125%

This calculation indicates that defense spending indeed accounts for more than half of the federal discretionary budget for Fiscal Year 2026.

### Conclusion

Based on the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2026, the claim that the Pentagon consumes over half of the federal discretionary budget is **true**. Defense spending is projected to exceed 60% of the total discretionary spending, aligning with the assertion made by Ben Cohen and others critical of military spending levels.

### Additional Context

Critics like Ben Cohen argue that high military spending comes at the expense of social needs and humanitarian assistance, echoing concerns raised by figures like General Smedley Butler about the role of military actions in serving corporate interests rather than the public good. However, the factual accuracy of the claim regarding the Pentagon's share of the discretionary budget is supported by the latest budget proposals.

Citations

Claim

The U.S. represents 5% of the world population but has a dominant military presence globally.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

Here's a fact-check evaluation of the claim and related assertions:

**Claim Verification: "5% of world population with dominant military presence"**
– **Population**: The US represents ~4.2% of the global population (335M vs 8B globally).
– **Military Expenditure**:
– **Absolute terms**: The US accounts for **37% of global military spending** ($997B in 2025)[1], with a $849.8B base defense budget request for FY2025[2].
– **GDP percentage**: Historically ranges between **3.32-3.70% of GDP** (2017-2022)[3], with 3.36% in 2023[4]. Post-WWII peaks reached **11.4% during the Korean War**[5].

**Ben Cohen's Assertions**
1. **"Military actions serve corporate interests"**:
– **General Butler's thesis** (1935) about war profiteering remains debated. While defense contractors like Lockheed Martin ($65B+ in 2023 arms sales) benefit from conflicts, causation between corporate lobbying and specific military actions requires case-by-case analysis.

2. **"NATO expansion caused Ukraine conflict"**:
– **Geopolitical context**: NATO added 14 Eastern European members since 1999. Russia explicitly cited NATO's 2008 Bucharest Summit (declaring Ukraine would join) as a security threat.
– **Counterargument**: NATO's Article 5 collective defense hasn't been triggered in Ukraine, and membership requires unanimous approval.

3. **"Military spending vs. social needs"**:
– **Budget priorities**: The proposed $849.8B defense budget[2] equals ~12% of total federal spending. For comparison, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid account for ~$2.9T annually.
– **Global resentment**: No direct evidence links immigration crises solely to US military interventions, though destabilization in Afghanistan/Iraq contributed to refugee flows.

**Conclusion**
The **core claim about disproportionate military influence** is **validated** by spending data[1][2], though the population percentage is slightly overstated. Cohen's arguments about NATO expansion and corporate influence reflect **established viewpoints in anti-interventionist discourse**, but causal relationships between defense spending and specific geopolitical outcomes require nuanced analysis. The **3-3.7% GDP military expenditure**[3][4] remains below historical highs[5], complicating direct comparisons to Cold War-era impacts.

Citations

Claim

The Eisenhower Media Network was formed to critique the Pentagon by retirees with military credentials.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

**Fact-Checking Analysis: Eisenhower Media Network's Purpose and Ben Cohen's Stance**

### **Claim Validity: Eisenhower Media Network's Formation**
The claim that the **Eisenhower Media Network (EMN)** was formed to critique the Pentagon through military veterans is **substantiated by available evidence**.
– **Mission**: EMN explicitly states it provides "alternative analyses untainted by Pentagon or defense industry ties" and opposes systemic corruption in the military-industrial-congressional complex[1][2].
– **Expert Composition**: EMN's roster includes retired military officers such as Maj. Gen. Dennis Laich, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, and Col. Ann Wright, who leverage their credentials to critique U.S. foreign policy[^expert_list].
– **Critique Focus**: EMN publications challenge Pentagon priorities like the "Great Power Competition" framework, which they argue perpetuates global rivalry[4].

### **Ben Cohen's Stance on U.S. Foreign Policy**
While Cohen's specific involvement with EMN is **not directly cited** in available sources, his arguments align with EMN's broader critique of militarism:
– **Historical Parallels**: Cohen references Gen. Smedley Butler's *War is a Racket* (1935, not 1955), which critiques corporate influence on military interventions—a theme consistent with EMN's opposition to defense industry lobbying[^butler_date].
– **NATO Expansion**: Cohen's assertion that NATO's post-Cold War growth contributed to tensions with Russia reflects a viewpoint shared by some EMN experts, though EMN materials focus more broadly on systemic militarization[4].
– **Budget Priorities**: Both Cohen and EMN emphasize redirecting Pentagon spending to domestic needs, with EMN highlighting the "undue influence" of defense contractors on policy[2][5].

### **Key Considerations**
– **Partisan Labeling**: EMN is described as "left wing antiwar" by KeyWiki[5], though its experts include bipartisan voices (e.g., Col. Wilkerson, a Republican).
– **Scope of Critique**: EMN's analysis extends beyond specific conflicts (e.g., Ukraine) to systemic issues like congressional lobbying and contractor profiteering[2][4].

**Conclusion**: The claim about EMN's founding purpose is **accurate**, supported by its mission statement and expert composition. Cohen's arguments, while not directly tied to EMN, align with its broader critique of militarized foreign policy.

—

**Footnotes**
[^expert_list]: EMN's listed experts include retired officers from multiple service branches, emphasizing firsthand experience in national security[1][5].
[^butler_date]: *War is a Racket* was published in 1935; the 1955 date in the claim appears erroneous.

Citations

Claim

Tensions surrounding NATO expansion contributed to the current conflict in Ukraine.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: NATO Expansion and the Ukraine Conflict

The claim that tensions surrounding NATO expansion contributed to the current conflict in Ukraine is a complex issue that has been debated extensively in geopolitical and academic circles. Here, we will analyze this claim using reliable sources and evidence.

### Argument for NATO Expansion as a Contributing Factor

1. **Perceived Threat by Russia**: Many analysts argue that Russia views NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe as a threat to its security and territorial influence. This perception is seen as a central cause of the Ukraine crisis, as Russia seeks to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and thereby maintain its strategic buffer zone[1][2].

2. **Historical Context**: The expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe, starting with the inclusion of countries like Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, was opposed by many experts who foresaw it as a potential trigger for Russian aggression. This historical context suggests that NATO's expansion has been a long-standing concern for Russia[1].

### Counterarguments

1. **Lack of Prom