Follow us on social

Munich Dispatch: Vance lectures Euros on democracy & tolerance

Munich Dispatch: Vance lectures Euros on democracy & tolerance

Audience left gasping as Vice President used his time to school on migration and the 'threat from within'

Reporting | Europe

MUNICH, GERMANY — The Munich Security Conference started this Friday in a city recovering from an attack in which a suspect drove his car into a crowd of people, leaving 36 people injured on Thursday morning.

The international meeting also takes place against the backdrop of the German parliamentary elections on Feb. 23. Friedrich Merz, the chancellor candidate of the center-right Christian-Democratic Union (CDU) — which comfortably leads the polls with around 30% of support — could be spotted in the first row of the conference hall. Merz held a short meeting with United States Vice President J.D. Vance earlier in the day.

Neither yesterday’s car attack, nor the coming elections, were left unaddressed by Vance in his speech Friday. The vice-president described the attack (committed by an Afghan asylum-seeker), as one of the “horrors wrought” by Europe's migration policies. He noted that “no voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants.” In addition, Vance expressed his fears that the German election results could be annulled, similar to the Romanian presidential elections in November.

Vance also accused European leaders of abandoning the core democratic values that led to the Soviet Union’s defeat in the Cold War. "The threat I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor. What I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America," Vance said.

Although Vance had provided a preview to Friday’s remarks in an earlier Wall Street Journal interview, his words were received with some arched eyebrows in the media center serving as a working place for the journalists covering the conference. “Undiplomatic announcements” was the headline topping an article about Vance’s speech published by the liberal Munich newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung.

The vice-president’s words also sent shockwaves in the conference hall. One of the first to respond was Boris Pistorius, the German defense minister. Pistorius, scheduled to speak less than two hours after Vance, described the vice-president words as “not acceptable.” He added that “democracy was called into question by the U.S. vice-president for the whole of Europe earlier.”

In the panel discussion that followed, which focused on Europe's defense policy, participants expressed bewilderment about the lack of attention to Ukraine in Vance’s speech.

President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen had taken a radically different approach earlier in the day focusing on what she sees as commonalities between the Trump administration’s approach to the Ukraine War and that of the EU. She noted that “both the EU and the U.S. want an end to the bloodshed. We want a just and lasting peace, one that leads to a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. And Ukraine should be given solid security guarantees.”

In another attempt to establish a bridge with the Trump administration, von der Leyen added: “Ukraine needs peace through strength. Europe wants peace through strength. And as President Trump has made clear: the United States is firmly committed to peace through strength.”

Asked about whether European countries would increase defense expenditure to 5% of the GDP as demanded by Trump (the U.S. currently allocates 3.4% of its GDP to such a purpose), the president of the European Commission did not want to provide a specific figure. Still, von der Leyen announced that the Commission plans to allow extra fiscal room to the EU member states by activating the escape clause for defense investments.

The EU’s GDP increased by only 0.9% in 2024 (with negative growth in Germany, the bloc’s largest economy). It remains to be seen whether European citizens will support lifting strict EU rules on public debt for defense spending (and not for social policies, for instance) at a time of low economic growth.

Von der Leyen’s conciliatory tone towards the U.S. regarding Ukraine contrasted with her remarks about Trump’s tariffs policies. Building on a statement released early Friday, the Commission president announced her preference for a negotiated solution to avoid a trade war between the U.S. and the EU but noted that, if needed, “we will use our tools to safeguard our economic security and interests.”

After rumors that the initially announced meeting might not take place after all, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had a bilateral encounter with Vice President Vance in the evening. Before the meeting, the Ukrainian leader said that his country wants “security guarantees” before any talks to end the war. Zelenskyy also noted that he is only willing to have an in-person meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin after a common plan is negotiated with U.S. President Trump.

Meanwhile, CNN reported Friday that the Russian government is assembling a high-level negotiating team that would engage in direct talks with the United States to put an end to the war in Ukraine.


Top photo credit: MSC/Lennart Preiss
Reporting | Europe
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.