60 Minutes<\/a>, charged Vance with \u201csomehow justifying\u201d Russia\u2019s invasion of his country.<\/p>\nVance counters this by referring to his condemnations of Moscow\u2019s actions since 2022. But he adds: \u201cI\u2019ve also tried to apply strategic recognition that if you want to end the conflict, you have to try to understand where both the Russians and the Ukrainians see their strategic objectives. That doesn\u2019t mean you morally support the Russian cause, or that you support the full-scale invasion, but you do have to try to understand what are their strategic red lines, in the same way that you have to try to understand what the Ukrainians are trying to get out of the conflict.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI think it\u2019s sort of absurd for Zelensky to tell the [American] government, which is currently keeping his entire government and war effort together, that we are somehow on the side of the Russians.\u201d That kind of rhetoric, Vance says, \u201cis certainly not productive\u201d.<\/p>\n
Beyond Ukraine, the American Vice President worries that European leaders are still failing to reckon with 21st-century realities on immigration, integration, and security.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s not good for Europe to be the permanent security vassal of the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n
Vance says: \u201cWe\u2019re very frustrated \u2014 \u2018we\u2019 meaning me, the President, certainly the entire Trump administration \u2014 that European populations keep on crying out for more sensible economic and migration policies, and the leaders of Europe keep on going through these elections, and keep on offering the European peoples the opposite of what they seem to have voted for.\u201d<\/p>\n
Immigration is at the heart of Vance\u2019s palpable frustration with European leaders. He argues that, as in the United States, open-borders policies handed down from on high are poisonous to democratic trust. As Vance notes, \u201cthe entire democratic project of the West falls apart when the people keep on asking for less migration, and they keep on being rewarded by their leaders with more migration.\u201d<\/p>\n
Europe\u2019s other blind spot, Vance says, is security. \u201cThe reality is \u2014 it\u2019s blunt to say it, but it\u2019s also true \u2014 that Europe\u2019s entire security infrastructure, for my entire life, has been subsidised by the United States of America.\u201d As recently as a quarter-century ago, \u201cyou could say that Europe had many vibrant militaries, at least militaries that could defend their own homelands\u201d.<\/p>\n
Fast-forward to today, Vance says, and \u201cmost European nations don\u2019t have militaries that can provide for their reasonable defence\u201d. True, \u201cthe British are an obvious exception, the French are an obvious exception, the Poles are an obvious exception. But in some ways, they\u2019re the exceptions that prove the rule, that European leaders have radically underinvested in security, and that has to change.\u201d<\/p>\n
Vance\u2019s message to the Continent, he says, is the same one delivered by Charles de Gaulle at the height of the Cold War, when the French president insisted on a healthy dose of independence from Washington. De Gaulle \u201cloved the United States of America, but [he] recognised what I certainly recognise, that it\u2019s not in Europe\u2019s interest, and it\u2019s not in America\u2019s interest, for Europe to be a permanent security vassal of the United States\u201d.<\/p>\n
What the Vice President had not made clear before this interview is that he would prefer to see a strong and independent Europe precisely because it could then act as a better check against the foreign-policy missteps of the Americans.<\/p>\n
He says: \u201cI don\u2019t think that Europe being more independent is bad for the United States \u2014 it\u2019s good for the United States. Just going back through history, I think \u2014 frankly \u2014 the British and the French were certainly right in their disagreements with Eisenhower about the Suez Canal.\u201d<\/p>\n
Vance also alludes to his own experience as a combat veteran of the Iraq War. \u201cSomething I know a little bit more personally: I think a lot of European nations were right about our invasion of Iraq. And frankly, if the Europeans had been a little more independent, and a little more willing to stand up, then maybe we could have saved the entire world from the strategic disaster that was the American-led invasion of Iraq.\u201d<\/p>\n
Bottom line: \u201cI don\u2019t want the Europeans to just do whatever the Americans tell them to do. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s in their interest, and I don\u2019t think it\u2019s in our interests, either.\u201d<\/p>\n
Talking about the UK specifically, Vance puts great emphasis on the place it occupies in the affections of President Trump \u2014 with a trade deal highly likely as a result.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re certainly working very hard with Keir Starmer\u2019s government\u201d on a trade deal, Vance says. \u201cThe President really loves the United Kingdom. He loved the Queen. He admires and loves the King. It is a very important relationship. And he\u2019s a businessman and has a number of important business relationships in [Britain]. But I think it\u2019s much deeper than that. There\u2019s a real cultural affinity. And of course, fundamentally America is an Anglo country.\u201d Thus, \u201cI think there\u2019s a good chance that, yes, we\u2019ll come to a great agreement that\u2019s in the best interest of both countries\u201d.<\/p>\n
Other European states are likely to reach new trade arrangements too, though the climb might be steeper. Already, \u201cwith the United Kingdom, we have a much more reciprocal relationship than we have with, say, Germany\u2026 While we love the Germans, they are heavily dependent on exporting to the United States but are pretty tough on a lot of American businesses that would like to export into Germany.\u201d<\/p>\n
The administration\u2019s lodestar will be \u201cfairness\u201d, Vance says. \u201cI think it will lead to a lot of positive trade relationships with Europe. And again, we very much see Europe as our ally. We just want it to be an alliance where Europeans are a little more independent, and our security and trade relationships are gonna reflect that.\u201d<\/p>\n
As financial markets have whipsawed in recent weeks, it has not been clear what success looks like from the administration\u2019s point of view. I ask Vance how he will judge the tariff policy in the long term. \u201cWhat we want to see is lower trade deficits, really across the board,\u201d says Vance. \u201cSometimes, a trade deficit makes sense. Like, America doesn\u2019t produce bananas. So obviously, we\u2019re gonna be importing bananas, not exporting bananas. So with certain product categories and maybe even with some countries, a small trading deficit can be justified.\u201d<\/p>\n
The status-quo system as a whole, however, is intolerable from the White House\u2019s point of view. \u201cWhat the global trading system has led to,\u201d complains Vance, \u201cis large and persistent trade deficits across product categories, with the gross majority of countries really using the United States [home market] to absorb their surplus exports. That\u2019s been bad for us. It\u2019s been bad for American manufacturers. It\u2019s been bad for workers. And God forbid, if America ever fought a future war, it would be bad for America\u2019s troops.\u201d<\/p>\n
But before he became a politician, Vance was a venture capitalist. Has he had heart-sinking moments watching his own portfolio sink into the red in recent weeks? He sounds unfazed.<\/p>\n
\u201cAny implementation of a new system is fundamentally going to make financial markets jittery,\u201d says Vance. \u201cThe President has been very consistent that this is a long-term play\u2026\u00a0 Now, of course, you have to be responsive to what the business community is telling you, what workers are telling you, what bond markets are telling you. These are all variables that we have to be responsive to\u201d in order to \u201cmake the policy successful\u201d.<\/p>\n
But Vance says the administration can\u2019t govern for the stock market alone. \u201cNo plan is, you know, going to be implemented perfectly\u2026 We\u2019re very cognisant of the fact that we live in a complicated world where nobody else\u2019s decisions are static. But the fundamental policy is to rebalance global trade, and I think the President has been very clear and persistent on that.\u201d<\/p>\n
Even as adjustments and delays to tariffs seem to have soothed markets and allies, for now, the Trump administration is bent on applying its brand of shock therapy 2.0 to the international system. The goal, of course, is nearly the diametrical opposite of the original therapy: while shock therapy 1.0 goaded the world to follow America into adopting neoliberal globalisation and to follow Washington on its military adventures, this one is aimed at reversing both outcomes.<\/p>\n
Yet it can be no less discomfiting to live through the change \u2014 not just in the policy orientation, but how it\u2019s communicated: not least by a very-online Millennial Vice President who revels in online debate. Does he think he tweets too much? Eyebrows were certainly raised in Europe when he took the time to get into a Twitter dispute with podcaster Rory Stewart.<\/p>\n
Vance laughs. \u201cThere are many blessings to this job. One unquestioned downside is that I very much live in a bubble. I\u2019m surrounded by Secret Service agents. It\u2019s very hard for a random person to walk up to me \u2014 in fact, it\u2019s damned-near impossible. I see social media as a useful, albeit imperfect, way to stay in touch with what\u2019s going on in the country at large\u2026 I probably spend way less time on Twitter than I did six months ago, and that\u2019s probably good for me.\u201d<\/p>\n
All told, the Trump-Vance administration\u2019s commitment to turning the page on globalisation as we knew it runs deeper than allies and adversaries alike might imagine. As Vance says: \u201cWe\u2019re not on anybody\u2019s side, we\u2019re on America\u2019s side.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\u201cIt\u2019s not good for Europe to be the permanent security vassal of the United States.\u201d So says JD…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":21016,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5174],"tags":[6207,32,2000,299,5187,462,601,285,978],"class_list":{"0":"post-21015","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-eu","8":"tag-america","9":"tag-donald-trump","10":"tag-eu","11":"tag-europe","12":"tag-european","13":"tag-interview","14":"tag-jd-vance","15":"tag-politics","16":"tag-us"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114340052558845881","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21015","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21015"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21015\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/21016"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}