The nomination on Monday of Senator James David (JD) Vance as Donald Trump’s running mate in the November 5 presidential election is very bad news for Ukraine. The young Republican senator from Ohio, newly elected two years ago, has become known as the bête noire of the pro-Ukrainian lobby in the United States.
His now close association with candidate Trump, who is therefore potentially at the top of American power, makes an American desire to find a rapid solution to the war very plausible, even if it is to the detriment of Ukraine.
The next vice president of the United States, if the Republican ticket wins, has never hidden his feelings about the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. He believes, like his boss, that this war is a distraction from the major challenges facing the United States in the Indo-Pacific region, particularly against China, and that the time has come to direct a large part of the country’s financial and military resources to this sensitive region.
The Iraq War, a founding moment
Vance’s opposition to aid to Ukraine is rooted in the United States’ traumatic military experiences in the 20th century.e and in the 21st centurye century: notably in Vietnam (in the 1970s) and in Iraq and Afghanistan (in the 2000s).
They have forged a vision of the world in which elites, especially in the Republican camp, have come to believe that their country must stop engaging in wars across its borders and that Washington must get busy rebuilding a country that they believe is failing on all sides, particularly in terms of control of its borders.
In a speech on the Senate floor last April, during the vote on $60 billion in aid to Ukraine, the senator delivered what appear to be the foundations of Donald Trump’s future foreign policy.
Having served in the Marine Corps from 2003 to 2007, he recounted his experience in Iraq. It was a painful experience for him, he said. “I believed the propaganda from the George W. Bush administration that we had to invade Iraq, that this was a war for freedom and democracy.” “I was lied to.” For him, the episode in Iraq was “the most shameful in the history of the Republican Party.” The war in Iraq, the senator lamented, ultimately allowed Iran to gain decisive influence over that country, to the detriment of the United States.
Today, he told his fellow senators, “I’m being accused of being Vladimir Putin’s stooge” because he opposes military aid and prefers diplomacy. But before pursuing support for Ukraine, he urged senators to think carefully about the consequences. “Have we learned anything in the last 20 years? No, I don’t think so. We’ve learned that if we beat ourselves on the chest instead of engaging in diplomacy, we’re going to get some kind of good results. That’s not true,” implicitly referring to the disastrous wars in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Returning to the war in Ukraine, Vance painted a bleak picture of the situation in Ukraine in this speech, on the economic, military and social levels. He argued for giving the future American president the means to really engage in diplomacy, in order to put an end to the killing on the ground. In an op-ed in New York Timesreleased before his speech, he said: “The White House has said, over and over again, that it cannot negotiate with Vladimir Putin. This is absurd. The Biden administration has no viable plan that can allow the Ukrainians to win this war. The sooner Americans understand this reality, the sooner we can clean up this mess and negotiate peace.”
A message to Ukraine and Europe
Vance’s remarks are absolutely clear about the intentions of a future Trump administration: not only will Ukraine no longer receive massive military aid, but it will have to negotiate with Russia. And, necessarily, give up recovering lost territories.
This nomination is also a powerful message to Europeans: do not count on the fact that the Trump 2.0 administration will descend into chaos like its version 1.0 and that it will be easy to circumvent. Its ideological coherence is now displayed with the Trump-Vance tandem, and the future nominations of Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor will reinforce it. In short, Europe will be faced with its military responsibilities towards the security of its own territory, and that of Ukraine.
Reading Vance’s remarks, one might think that he is part of the isolationist current of American foreign policy, still present in this society whose history has always inclined towards a temptation to withdraw into itself. This is not the case. The vice-presidential candidate does not reject alliances and multilateralism, as he recalled in a speech in February before the Munich Security Conference: rather, he wants the United States to use them intelligently.
The senator’s vision marks a break with the bipartisan consensus that has long dominated American foreign policy. He is not, and will not be, alone in moving in this direction. The presidential and legislative elections in November will bring forth a new cohort of men and women like him who will strengthen those who already form the majority within the Republican legislature.
These parliamentarians are increasingly concerned with domestic issues and are bringing a new approach to American interests on the international stage. This perspective, whether we like it or not, invites us to reflect on this new world that is unfolding before our eyes.