Opinion: Translating JD Vance - Making Sense of Gibberish
kyivpost.com -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 6:27:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, U.S.–NATO Relations
Vice-President JD Vance told Fox News on Sunday:
What we said to Europeans is simply, first of all, this is in your neck of the woods, this is in your backdoor, you guys have got to step up and take a bigger role in this thing, and if you care so much about this conflict you should be willing to play a more direct in a more substantial way in funding this war yourself. I think the president and I certainly think that America, we're done with the funding of the Ukraine war business. We want to bring about a peaceful settlement to this thing. We want to stop the killing. But Americans, I think, are sick of continuing to send their money, their tax dollars of this particular conflict but if the Europeans want to step up and actually buy the weapons from American producers, we're OK with that, but we're not going to fund it ourselves anymore.
Before translating his statements, it is essential to clarify some basic points.
Firstly, there is no such thing as the "Ukraine war business."
It is an unjustified, unprovoked and horrific full-scale Russian war of aggression in gross violation of international law. Ukraine is the victim, and Russia is the internationally recognized aggressor. Full stop.
The only one turning the war into a business opportunity is the US. It has stepped away from a value-based foreign policy to a transactional one. As a consequence, it has stopped supporting a partner. It has started selling weapons to European allies for them to donate to Ukraine. It is demanding access to Ukrainian minerals in exchange for "nothing." It is offering Ukrainian territories and maritime economic zones for the restoration of US/Russian relations and increased trade.
Secondly, Europe is not involved because it "cares so much" about the war.
In the words of Daniel Hannan (former member of the European Parliament), "We are backing Ukraine because it is the wronged party. We are sending it weapons because it was attacked without provocation by a neighbor to whom it presented no threat. We are training its soldiers because, when Ukraine agreed to hand over its nuclear arsenal in 1994, it did so in exchange for an explicit promise that its independence would be respected within its existing borders - a promise guaranteed by Britain, the United States and (never forget) Russia."
Europe is standing up for principles Russia has grossly violated, and the US has flagrantly turned its back on.
Thirdly, the war is not in Europe's "neck of the woods" or its "backdoor."
The war in Ukraine is - as I have been persistently stressing - only a part of a much broader confrontation. Russia's strategic aims and objectives go far beyond Ukraine. It sees the West as the enemy, demanding a sphere of interest over parts of NATO territory. It is trying to rewrite international law and undermine Western global dominance with the support of China, Iran and North Korea. It is already waging a hybrid war in Europe and the US. It is a war with global repercussions, a war that involves more than 60 countries and that is extremely worrisome, similar to the run-up to World War II.
Former President Biden characterized the war as a defining struggle between democracy and authoritarianism, positioning Ukraine as the front line in defending democratic values. "When Russia invaded, it wasn't just Ukraine being tested. The whole world faced a test for the ages. Europe was being tested. America was being tested. NATO was being tested. All democracies were being tested. And the questions we faced were as simple as they were profound," President Biden said.
Vance's framing of the war as a "European problem" stands in stark contrast to the global realities.
Fourthly, Europe's taxpayers are no less keen to fund wars than Americans.
Supporting Ukraine is, however, no less crucial than funding our national defense, internal security and law enforcement, emergency management and civil protection, public health and biosecurity or cybersecurity and infrastructure protection. We are doing it because failure to invest in either of the mentioned areas - including Ukraine - will result in catastrophic loss of life, economic collapse, and political instability. It is not a matter of choice or whether taxpayers like it or not. Europe is supporting Ukraine because it is the only smart thing to do when facing a clear and present threat.
That said, several analyses show that most of the US past defense aid to Ukraine remained within the American economy, creating jobs, upgrading the Defense Industrial Base, strengthening the supply chain, and replenishing US stockpiles with modern systems. Estimates suggest that between 60% and 90% of funds were used domestically, strengthening both US security and its economy.
The US's decision to stop funding Ukraine means that it is effectively stopping funding its national security. That is just plain stupid.
Lastly, Europe is not funding Ukraine. It is funding security and stability.
When European leaders call on Trump to protect Ukraine's interests during the forthcoming talks with Putin, they stress that it is all about "Ukraine and Europe's vital security interests." International law. The restoration of peace. Global stability. The rules-based world order. It's security and stability. National defense. Shared values.
The failure to fund any of these will have far-reaching global repercussions.
So, what was the VP really saying in the Fox interview?
If you replace "Ukraine" with "Europe," you get the gist of it. European security and stability are directly linked to the destiny of Ukraine. The latter has been protecting NATO territory - fulfilling the task of the Alliance - for nearly four years. It is commonly recognized that Russia will not stop at Ukraine's western borders. It has repeatedly told the West as much, as it is preparing for the next phase of the war.
Europe has slowly come to grasp that it risks a full-scale conflict with Russia by 2029-30. Its concerns grow by the day as the US seems dead set on enabling the Kremlin by rewarding its war of aggression.
President Trump insists on negotiating European security over the heads of Europe (and Ukraine, obviously). He is proposing recognizing occupied territories as Russian, lifting sanctions and restarting trade. Trump is supporting Putin's demands for a change of the Ukrainian president and government and is opposing Ukrainian NATO membership. He is prepared to give Putin nearly all he is asking for in exchange for a reset of relations and business opportunities.
Ignoring the broader confrontation - and utterly failing to understand our common strategic opponent and "the extremism of Putinism" - President Trump is prepared to strengthen Russia's economy, enabling it to quickly reconstitute its Armed Forces and prepare for the next assault.
When one replaces "Ukraine" with "Europe," one realizes that Vance was paraphrasing Project 2025. He talked about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its commitment under the Washington Treaty.
The Trump administration wants Europe to handle Russia alone while helping America fight China. Project 2025 spells it out: "US allies must play their part not only in dealing with China, but also in dealing with threats from Russia, Iran, and North Korea." It stresses that NATO must be transformed so that its "allies are capable of fielding the great majority of the conventional forces required to deter Russia while relying on the United States primarily for... nuclear deterrent," and other selected capabilities, while "reducing the US force posture in Europe."
The US does not want to commit to fighting wars in Europe but seeks to commit Europe to fighting wars in the Indo-Pacific area.
I have long argued that while Ukraine is not a NATO member and, therefore, not eligible for collective defense under Article 5, the Alliance was - until the Madrid Summit in June 2022 - committed to defending itself in Ukraine. The member states were committed to using a mix of political and military means to end a war that threatens the security of the Alliance. The Alliance was determined to put out fires before they spread to its territory.
When the US stops funding Ukraine, it essentially stops funding European security. It turns its back on its NATO commitment and disgracefully fails to honor the thousands of European casualties suffered in support of the US-led operations.
While President Trump reaffirmed the US's commitment to NATO's Article 5 during the Hague Summit, the sum of statements and actions by his administration paints a very different picture. After all, President Trump has threatened allies with landgrabs by military force, annexation, started a trade war and increasingly aligned his foreign policy with that of Russia. The President sees the EU, which represents most of the US's European allies, as "worse than our so-called enemies." He argues that the EU "was formed in order to screw the United States."
On top of that, Trump is offering Russia generous concessions before negotiations have even started. He is making concessions at the peril of European security without inviting the US allies to the table.
European security can no longer be based on the hope that the US will honor its NATO commitment when all signs indicate that it will not. President Trump and his administration have persistently demonstrated that they cannot be trusted.
The US's commitment must be put to the test.
Europe must invoke NATO Article 5 because of Russia's hybrid war. Since Russia's aggressions - its attempts to undermine NATO from within, its influence operations, its acts of sabotage and assassinations, its interruption of navigation systems, its cyberattacks and more - are on record, an American decision to refuse Article 5 will tell us everything we need to know.
It is, after all, far better to know today that the US will not back it than the day after the war starts. This realization will enable alternative solutions - like the Coalition of Like-Minded Countries I recently suggested - while it is still relevant.
If NATO has become a liability, effectively stopping all debates about a new and credible military alliance, it is crucial to conclude, as this will trigger a process that we most urgently need. Europe must know. Not hope. It must act. Not wait.
Europe must embrace the US as a part of the problem and Ukraine as a part of the solution. It urgently needs to form a Coalition of Like-Minded European Countries.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author's and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
Sign Our PetitionIn recent statements made by Vice-President JD Vance regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine, he has reduced a deeply complex geopolitical crisis to an oversimplified and transactional narrative. This kind of rhetoric requires careful scrutiny, especially when considering the historical context of the conflict and the moral imperatives that should guide international relations. Vance's comments echo a broader trend in American politics, where the framing of foreign policy often prioritizes fiscal concerns over the ethical dimensions of global conflicts, particularly those involving aggression and oppression.
Historically, the conflict in Ukraine emerged from decades of geopolitical tension, with roots in the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the subsequent eastward expansion of NATO. The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 was a blatant violation of international law, witnessed and condemned by much of the global community. Rather than viewing Ukraine as a mere pawn in a larger chess game, it is essential to recognize the nation's struggle for sovereignty and self-determination against a backdrop of imperial aggression. Vance’s comments, which suggest that the war is simply a “business” opportunity, downplay the lived realities of millions of Ukrainians who face violence, displacement, and loss. This framing fails to honor the sacrifices made by those fighting for their country's independence.
Vance’s assertion that the United States should withdraw its financial support for Ukraine in favor of European nations taking on greater responsibility reflects a transactional outlook that prioritizes short-term economic considerations over long-standing principles of solidarity and support for democracy. Such a stance overlooks the historical commitments made by the U.S. to uphold the sovereignty of nations that have relinquished nuclear arms, as was the case with Ukraine. The Budapest Memorandum of 1994, which guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for its nuclear disarmament, highlights a moral obligation that the U.S. cannot simply dismiss. By framing military support as a burden, Vance mirrors a historical pattern in which powerful nations abandon their allies during critical moments, creating a dangerous precedent that undermines global stability.
Moreover, the notion that Europe is wholly responsible for addressing the crisis in its “backyard” is not only misleading but also ignores the interconnected nature of contemporary global politics. The war in Ukraine is part of a larger confrontation involving Russia's ambitions, which extend beyond its borders and challenge the principles of international law and order. To suggest that this conflict is merely a European problem disregards the collective responsibility of all nations to uphold democratic values and resist aggression. It is vital to recognize that the security of Europe is contingent upon a stable and free Ukraine, and thus, the U.S. has a vested interest in supporting its ally.
Furthermore, Vance’s comments reflect a worrying trend in U.S. foreign policy where the focus shifts from moral imperatives to transactional relationships that prioritize arms sales over humanitarian considerations. This approach not only risks prolonging the conflict but also exacerbates the suffering of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. The implications of such a policy extend beyond the borders of Ukraine; they signal a retreat from the principles that have traditionally guided American foreign policy, namely the promotion of democracy and the protection of human rights. Advocating for peace and humanitarian support should be the priority, rather than reducing complex international relations to mere economic transactions.
In conclusion, it is important to engage critically with the narratives emerging from political figures like JD Vance. The framing of the Ukraine conflict as a mere “business opportunity” not only distorts the reality of the situation but also undermines the ethical responsibilities that accompany international engagement. By recognizing the historical context, the moral imperatives at stake, and the interconnectedness of global politics, we can advocate for a more principled approach to foreign policy—one that emphasizes solidarity, support for sovereignty, and a commitment to justice over profit. These discussions are essential for fostering a more just world and ensuring that the lessons of history are not forgotten in the face of contemporary challenges.
The recent comments made by Vice-President JD Vance highlight a troubling trend in American foreign policy discourse, one that seeks to minimize the complexities of international conflict to mere financial transactions. His assertion that Europeans should "step up" and take a more active role in funding the war in Ukraine while suggesting that Americans are fatigued by the financial burden of supporting Ukraine reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the geopolitical landscape. This perspective reduces a significant violation of international law—Russia's unprovoked aggression against Ukraine—to a mere “business” concern, stripping away the moral implications of such a conflict. This commentary will delve into the historical context, the implications of Vance's stance, and actionable steps for Americans to engage in this crucial conversation.
Historically, the conflict in Ukraine is rooted in a long-standing tension between Russia and the West, exacerbated by centuries of territorial disputes and political maneuvering. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine relinquished its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from the US, UK, and Russia, underscores the international community's obligation to safeguard Ukraine’s sovereignty. By calling for European nations to take on the financial burden, Vance not only neglects the commitments made under this agreement but also minimizes the suffering of the Ukrainian people. The historical precedent set by this agreement should compel American citizens to advocate for a robust and principled stance supporting Ukraine, rather than adopting a transactional view of foreign policy that prioritizes fiscal concerns over moral duties.
Moreover, Vance's comments reflect a broader trend within certain political circles that dismiss the urgency of international solidarity. While he suggests the United States is prepared to withdraw from its role in funding Ukraine's defense, this overlooks the reality that European nations are also contributing to this cause, albeit in a context that recognizes the need to support a nation under siege. The notion that the war is not "in Europe's neck of the woods" is fundamentally flawed; Ukraine's struggle against Russian aggression poses a direct threat to the stability and security of Europe as a whole. For Americans, this emphasizes the need to counter narratives that erode the perception of global interconnectedness.
To engage effectively in this discourse, Americans can take several constructive steps. First, it is essential to educate oneself and others about the nuances of the conflict, including the historical context, the implications of foreign relations, and the moral responsibilities that come with global alliances. This educational effort can take the form of community discussions, book clubs focusing on international relations, or even engaging with local representatives to advocate for a continued commitment to Ukraine. By fostering a better understanding of the issues at hand, citizens can push back against simplistic narratives that frame foreign policy as merely a financial burden.
Additionally, Americans can utilize their voices in political spaces to hold elected officials accountable for their foreign policy stances. This means demanding that representatives prioritize human rights and the principles of sovereignty and self-determination over fiscal concerns. Grassroots movements and advocacy groups can be instrumental in amplifying these demands, ensuring that policymakers recognize the moral weight of their decisions. Engaging in dialogue with individuals holding opposing views can also be a powerful tool to challenge and reshape the narrative surrounding foreign aid and military support.
Lastly, it is crucial to recognize the broader implications of Vance’s rhetoric, which can foster isolationism and undermine the United States' role as a leader on the global stage. By framing international support as a burden, we risk creating a precedent that prioritizes short-term financial considerations over long-term stability and cooperative security. As citizens, it is our responsibility to engage with these issues thoughtfully and to advocate for a foreign policy rooted in a commitment to justice, international law, and the protection of human dignity. By actively participating in these discussions and advocating for principled action, we can counteract the dangerous simplifications that threaten to undermine vital alliances and the very fabric of international order.
In response to the recent statements made by Vice-President JD Vance regarding the Ukraine conflict, there are several concrete actions we can take to advocate for a more principled approach to foreign policy and support for Ukraine. It’s crucial to engage in meaningful dialogue and promote actions that affirm our commitment to international law and the sovereignty of nations. Here’s a detailed list of ideas and actions that individuals can personally undertake:
### 1. **Educate Yourself and Others** - **Action**: Host discussions or workshops within your community or online forums to raise awareness about the complexities of the Ukraine conflict, emphasizing the principles of international law and human rights. - **Example**: Organize a local community event or an online webinar featuring speakers knowledgeable about the conflict, international law, and human rights advocacy.
### 2. **Contact Elected Officials** - **Action**: Reach out to your elected representatives to express your views on the importance of supporting Ukraine and upholding international law. - **Who to Write To**: - **Your Senators**: Find their contact information at [senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov). - **Your Representative**: Find their contact information at [house.gov](https://www.house.gov). - **What to Say**: Express your support for continued funding and military aid to Ukraine, emphasizing the need for a principled foreign policy. You can use the following template: ``` Dear [Representative/Senator's Name],
I am writing to express my strong support for continued assistance to Ukraine in its struggle against unprovoked aggression from Russia. It is vital that the United States uphold its commitments to international law and support the sovereignty of nations. I urge you to advocate for policies that reinforce our support for Ukraine and promote peace through collaboration with our European allies.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address or Email] ```
### 3. **Petition for Peace and Support** - **Action**: Start or sign petitions that advocate for a robust and principled response to the Ukraine crisis. - **Where to Find Petitions**: Websites like [Change.org](https://www.change.org) or [Petition.org](https://www.petition.org). - **Example Petition**: Look for petitions that call for the U.S. to stand firmly with Ukraine in international forums, or create your own petition addressing these issues.
### 4. **Engage with Advocacy Organizations** - **Action**: Join or donate to organizations that support Ukraine and advocate for human rights. - **Examples**: - **Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA)**: [ucca.org](https://www.ucca.org) - **International Crisis Group**: [crisisgroup.org](https://www.crisisgroup.org) - **Human Rights Watch**: [hrw.org](https://www.hrw.org) - **What to Do**: Participate in their events, volunteer, or support their initiatives financially to help amplify their voices.
### 5. **Use Social Media for Awareness** - **Action**: Utilize platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to spread awareness about the situation in Ukraine. - **What to Post**: Share informative articles, personal reflections, and calls to action regarding the importance of supporting Ukraine and holding aggressors accountable. - **Example Hashtags**: Use hashtags like #StandWithUkraine, #SupportUkraine, #InternationalLaw to increase visibility.
### 6. **Attend Local Government Meetings** - **Action**: Engage at the local level by attending town hall meetings or city council sessions where foreign policy might be discussed. - **What to Do**: Make public comments to advocate for local resolutions supporting Ukraine or promoting peace and international cooperation.
### 7. **Support Ukrainian Culture and Businesses** - **Action**: Engage with Ukrainian culture and support Ukrainian businesses as a form of solidarity. - **Examples**: Attend Ukrainian cultural events, support Ukrainian restaurants, or purchase products from Ukrainian artisans.
By taking these actions, we can contribute to a more informed and proactive stance towards the Ukraine conflict, advocating for peace, international law, and the necessary support for Ukraine in the face of aggression.