February 18, 2024 - 3:10pm
Republican senator J.D. Vance today claimed that Donald Trump was “maybe the best president at deterring Russia in a generation”.
“The only time Russia has not invaded a foreign country in the last 20 years were the four years Donald Trump was president,” said the Ohio Senator. “It’s interesting that so many people accuse me or Trump or others of being in Putin’s pocket and yet the person who Vladimir Putin says wants to be the next president is not Donald Trump — it’s Joe Biden because he’s more predictable.”
Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, Vance argued that Europeans had misunderstood Trump’s recent comments about “encouraging Russia to do whatever the hell they want” to Nato countries which do not meet defence spending guidelines. “Trump isn’t going to abandon Europe,” said the senator. “He’s issuing a wake-up call that Europe has to take a bigger role in its own security […] The problem with Europe is that it doesn’t provide enough of a deterrence on its own because it hasn’t taken the initiative in its own security.”
Vance told the Munich audience that the “future of America foreign policy” was in East Asia and that Europe needed to “wake up” and provide more defence spending. A critic of new US funding for Ukraine, the senator warned that America did not have enough munitions to sustain conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East and “potentially East Asia”. “The problem of Ukraine is that there’s no clear end point,” said Vance. “Fundamentally the limiting factor in support of Ukraine is not money: it’s munitions. “
The GOP senator also argued that the $95.3 billion foreign aid package, currently mired in Congress, wouldn’t “fundamentally change the reality” on the ground. “I hear a lot of self-congratulation about how much bigger our GDP is bigger than Russia’s GDP,” he said. “But you don’t win wars with GDP or euros or dollars — you win wars with weapons, and the West doesn’t make enough weapons.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe military industrial complex is not set up for war load. It is set up to put something in each congressional district and make a profit on cost plus orders for very small number of items. Under wartime conditions we will run through the arsenal in a week, and it takes 2 years to build a factory for mass production. Weapons are hand maid not designed for mass production. Items must meet mil specs and civilian technology is not invented here. Small firms need not apply for defense contracts since bidding is a specialization they are not qualified for. It would take acts of congress or a declaration of war to cut the red tape required to go to mass production. It takes at least two years to start production of stinger rockets for example. Defense firms do not make a profit by building a factory in peacetime that will only be used for wartime mass production. China has gone to mass production of weapons since they plan to start the war. They expect America to surrender long before we can set up the factories needed for wartime production.
What is the earthly use of a “military industrial complex” if it is not set up for “war load”?
The American have used Ukraine for its proxy war with Russia. They need to find an off ramp here and get a peace deal done. However, it would be unethical for the Americans to simply abandon Ukraine until a deal is negotiated.
Russia has never shown any appetite for a reasonable deal, and even if it did, nobody would want to stay, raise a family, or invest in a rump country with the threat of another invasion by Russian always hanging over it. Even more than before, Ukraine would be a destitute, failed state on Europe’s borderlands, a conduit for vice of every form. Victory over Russia may be near impossible, but defeat would be horribly expensive also.
Biden, and Boris as his Mini-Me, And the sleazy EU, told Zalenski that if he fought Russia (and all knew this would destroy Ukraine totally) that the West would pump in $400,000,000,000 and Zalenski could steal all of it he wanted – naturally 10% back to the big guys though.
Then that the smoldering ruins of Ukraine (and it was planned of Russia too) would then be given to Blackrock and Vanguard to plunder under the guise of ‘Rebuilding’ and another $Trillion be stolen and pumped in too – and he could steal a lot of that as well – If he fought.
And so the Most Corrupt country on Earth went to a war which was going to destroy them, or at least destroy the majority of the unimportant ones, but make a lot of the ones who mattered very rich indeed, with Villas in Venice and Miami and Zurich, and it seemed a good deal.
At least this is how all the evidence points…. It is why Putin was baited/goaded into kicking this off……
It is why Putin was baited/goaded into kicking this off……
If an old senile man and others like him demonstrate their stupidity and cowardice to the potential aggressor, this does not mean at all that they have baited the aggressor into war. It just means they are stupid and cowardly.
To think otherwise is to demonstrate your own stupidity.
“To think otherwise is to demonstrate your own stupidity” or more likely your own.
what incredible conceit!
This is not conceit, but the knowledge that Russia, since the collapse of the USSR, never internally recognized the independence of Ukraine and was only waiting for an opportune moment to invade. The Biden presidency turned out to be such a moment.
Of course, experts like you are now hanging out on the Internet, saying that it was the West that forced Russia into a war with Ukraine.
Absolutely striking against this background is the fact that Putin, in an interview with Carlson, repeats word for word this idiotic thought, the authorship of which actually belongs to Hitler in his explanation of the reasons for the attack on Poland.
Stupidity is unchangeable
If the US and EU are so good at producing “smouldering ruins”, I vote they produce them in Russia.
Any peace deal must involve Ukraine being in NATO. If it doesn’t, we will be back where we are now in a few years anyway.
ESG investment policies by pension funds and other financial market players contribute to the failure of the West to convert GDP into military capability. They starve the defence sector of financial capital, thereby eroding its capacity for R&D and to retain skills. Smug investment boards may find that you can’t have a pension if you can’t defend yourself (or can’t pay for reliable heat, light, power and transport).
Wow….. That’s like saying shoplifters are dragging down the effectiveness of the Mafia.
ESG is 100% a fake, it is a corruption feed trough, and the Military Industrial Complex are snout deep in it as everyone else – deeper even.
All the wars since Eisenhower gave his speech on the Military Industrial Complex have been all about corruption of the Military Industrial Complex funding the Politicians. They give Campaign contributions, investment tips, and after retirement – very lucrative money on the Speech Circuits and seats on Boards, and every other kind of payoff – if the politician sold themselves, they get paid afterwards. They almost all sell themselves – either that or they do not get into politics successfully.
Naturally there is the huge, now even more, Bio-Pharma Industrial Complex, and always the Finance Industrial Complex of the huge Banks who own the FED, and the Blackrock, Vanguard Hedge Funds…. Then the Tech/Social Media Industrial Complex – but they are semi owned by DARPA and CIA and CIA, Pentagon…
No, do not worry about the divvying up of the money pie – it is all done to make the super Elite more powerful and has nothing to do with you being more secure.
“He’s issuing a wake-up call that Europe has to take a bigger role in its own security […] The problem with Europe is that it doesn’t provide enough of a deterrence on its own because it hasn’t taken the initiative in its own security.”
The amount that kind of stupidity from American conservatives enrages me is hard to articulate. We would not need the deterrence if you hadn’t started a proxy war in our back yard. Is Nuland a neocon? I think so. Europes still waiting for its gas pipes back d*ck heads.
. “Fundamentally the limiting factor in support of Ukraine is not money: it’s munitions. “
Genuis. Might want to count your bullets before you start firing them next time America. It’s a good idea before you commit to a proxy war. Stop whinging, pull your finger out and make more then.
America needs a wake up call. I think it’s getting one right now. British and European leaders need to stop listening to them. They are causing absolute carnage at this point.
The GOP senator also argued that the $95.3 billion foreign aid package, currently mired in Congress, wouldn’t “fundamentally change the reality” on the ground.
They need the aid NOW. It might not get you any gains but the Ukrainians lost Adiivka yesterday and they had troops trapped there with hardly any bullets or shells left to fire. Russia is on the offensive, they need the aid to defend themselves. To push this to negotiations ukraine will need a break through.
America has blood on its hands.
Take responsibility for your actions America. Release that aid package NOW.
You always need a deterrent. It is not unreasonable to expect the European Union, with 448 million people and a GDP of $19 trillion, to be militarily superior to Russia, with its 143 million people and GDP of $1.8 trillion. If it is not, that’s hardly America’s fault.
‘According to a 2019 Rand report titled “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia”, the US goal is to undermine Russia just as it did the Soviet Union in the cold war.’
‘Current Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, said that over 20 years the US invested $5 billion in the project to turn Ukraine.’
https://original.antiwar.com/rick_sterling/2022/03/27/rand-report-prescribed-us-provocations-against-russia-and-predicted-russia-might-retaliate-in-ukraine/
Looks like American foreign policy is at fault to me.
After implementing some of the measures from that report they issued a new one, which back tracks on the previous one: https://news.antiwar.com/2023/01/30/new-rand-report-says-a-long-war-in-ukraine-is-against-us-interests/
‘It places “weakening Russia” as a greater benefit to the US than Ukrainian gains, but still not worth the risk of a long war.’
Whatever the greatest benefits the us yeah. Don’t worry about the Ukrainians lives you’ve spent lying to them that you will help them to get their country back.
You have betrayed the Ukrainians.
We would not need the deterent if us foreign policy wasn’t dumb as f*ck and run by dumb b*tches like Nuland.
I can see what the us is doing, it’s likely going to use lifting the sanctions and a cease fire to negotiate. It doesn’t have much choice now it’s run out of bullets. I’m glad I don’t have to explain that to the families of the dead ukrainian soldiers you have used.
Can we please abandon us foreign policy already. We mustn’t get caught up in the same sh*t over Taiwan.
You EU guys are NO better than USA. 100% corrupt.
The EU is a bit stupider though. Cutting off its cheap energy source – meanwhile giving USA a hugely lucrative market to dump its LNG into…..
No, the Globalist Elites have as much captured Europe as they have all the other West. The IMF, World Bank, BIS, FED, EUCB, B of E, the European Uniparty, the British Uniparty, the Canadian, Australian, American Uniparties – every last one of them owned by the same group. The ones who own everything.
Oh wow.
I can see you have swallowed the alt media globalist elite trope. That is just everywhere right now.
I don’t think the world is quite that simple.
I’m a brexit voter. We are not in the EU anymore. Just shackled the corpse of the US at this point. I vote to unshackle. Then we should be a diplomatic, free trading outpost, lift the sanctions on everybody, everywhere. No war with China. Would prefer not to fight with Russia too. But at this point if I was Ukrainian I would be p*ssed off. Don’t mind spending more on the military if we don’t have to listen to anymore bullsh*t American foreign policy, sounds fair.
The BIS is the bank of international settlements, the central bank for central banks, it keeps tabs on the fed, b of e etc. to make sure they are doing their job. What problems do you have with their policy? Different to the IMF. Also run by different people.
100% corrupt is a stretch, America is corrupt as f*ck but even I wouldn’t stretch that to 100%.
If you would like some fact with your fiction:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-corruption-in-countries-around-the-world/
‘aggregating multiple analyses from country and business experts, the index assigns each country a score on a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 is highly corrupt and 100 is very clean.’
You will notice the us is more corrupt than the UK and a number of European countries.
You got the names of this globalist elite? The ones who own everything? You got the b*lls to name them?
Err…BIS…Bank for International Settlements set up to supervise payment by Germany under the Versailles Treaty…
And yes it’s much the same as the rest…
And how about Soros for a start…
I blame auto correct, sorry.
What about Soros. That is not very original, everybody likes to throw that name out. That is one person. He likes to fund all kinds of stuff yes. Does he ‘control’ the bis, the imf, the uni parties in those countries as that poster calls them, all the central banks. No.
The law of gravity isn’t very original…but it is correct.
And Soros is indeed one name…
And no not control…just huge influence
So your point was what? To agree with the guy that thinks a global elite control everything? And that soros is one? I’m so glad you stopped by to enlighten me.
You do realise globalisation is falling apart right now? Big war with the east, shipping lanes f*cked, dollar f*cked, energy markets f*cked? So if this global elite do control everything they are sh*t at it at the moment. We could really do with this globalist elite maintaing global trade. I wonder where they are? Oh yeah. The world doesn’t work like that.
I don’t agree with everything you wrote, but you were doing very well until you started going on about money. America should spend no more money on Ukraine.
The US never should have invested in this conflict. I’m sure Ukraine has wonderful people, but it is a long way from North America, and its government is as corrupt as they get. But for the Biden family’s stake in that corruption, cooler heads might have prevailed.
Some things are more important than money.
America has shown it cannot be trusted NOT to run away. AGAIN.
Now the UK got itself involved in Ukraine too and I don’t think it was a good idea – based on the fact brexit was a free trade mandate, we are not part of Europe anymore and I hold the us accountable for the mess over there – your foreign policy is sh*t.
HOWEVER. The UK does not run away like America, this is a war not a f*cking casino, you can’t just walk away and cash your chips as you please America. We have said we will help them here. So we will help them.
America runs the dodgy Fiat money system. You print it as you please, nothing normally stops you – so go print more, make more weapons and STAND BY WHAT YOU SAID.
It’s not our fault over here you cannot plan and execute a war. It’s about time you got better at it. You helped start it. You should help finish it, on favourable terms to your allies. If you can’t do that you can p*ss off next time you need help. What’s the point of having you at this point?
I will add. Every single American poster blames the biden family. That tells me you have not gone back far enough nor understand the pretext of the war in the first place.
J.D. Vance has already humiliated himself with his obsequious devotion to Trump and MAGA. His opinions on any subject are utterly worthless.
Can’t wait to see J.D. modelling the new Trump high tops. No doubt the MAGA cult members here will all be buying a pair too!
It is incredible to me that you people can’t see that he is nothing but a small time grifter.
haha….
Koolaid line that way —————->
if you need a second cup of ‘champagne’
How much did you donate to Trump today? What a sucker!!!
Hey, we could all do with a second cup of champagne….
You’re overly obsessed with Trump. It’s like you’re the one with the personality cult, compulsively focusing on the man. Others just see him as a means to an end.
If you are willing to put an unpredictable idiot with a compulsive need for attention in charge of the largest military ever known, including a globe threatening nuclear arsenal, to serve whatever your ends may be then I think the problem lies with you (and no doubt whatever your hideous “ends” are if you need the likes of Trump to achieve them).
What “ends” in particular are we talking about?
One can only negotiate with Russia from a position of strength. The legacy of the Mongol rule is cruelty and corruption and the belief by the Russian people they can only be safe with a strong authoritarian leader.
The West humiliated Russia from 1990 to 2000: ignored it’s re-armament when oil reached $150/barrel: encouraged Georgia in 2008 when it knew it could not support the country: banned shale gas: the USA did protect the ambassador in Libya in 2012: allowed defence spending to shrink; closed down nuclear reactors; built gas pipelines to Russia; did nothing when Russia invaded Crimea; pulled out of Afghanistan in a panic.
Name one action since 2000 by the West which would have shown it had the resolve to defeat Putin? Basically the West humiliated Russia and then weakened it’s defences; both were mistakes.
I’m good with humiliating Russia, but the rest is, as you say, problematic.
Yes that worked well with Germany in 1919..
Republican senator J.D. Vance today claimed that Donald Trump was “maybe the best president at deterring Russia in a generation”.
That would be the most bizarre comment I have heard in a long while. What would Trump do if he became President again? Oh, that’s right, he would turn away from Ukraine, and let Russia complete its invasion. Why? Because he’s Putin’s lap-dog.
Trouble with that plan is that it does not work like that. The name of the game is deterrence, convincing the bad guys that the risk of going to war is not worth the reward. Trump is telling all and sundry that Europe cannot rely on the US if there is a war. That will certainly convince Europe that they need to spend more on defence. But it will also convince Putin and other enemies that they could have a successful war without getting the US involved. It will therefore make war more likely. Russia will, at a minimum be trying it on, and that will require more defence and more fighting to show them that this is not a good idea after all. The total cost would increase, so unless the US really would abandon Europe, the US might well have to contribute more, even if Europe paid a greater share of the now larger total.
I saw was a recent article in Foreign Policy suggesting that the US should indeed cut loose from Europe’s defence. As a European I do not like the idea, but those guys were at least sane. They admitted that the benefits they expected (for the US, of course), would come at some cost of increasing the risk of bad (for the US) outcomes, and reduce US power and support around the world. With people like that one could at least imagine that they would manage the transition in a way that tried to reduce the overall cost to the US *and* her allies. With Trump it is just a matter of the orange man disliking reality and preferring kayfabe. Unfortunately, both Putin and Europe live in the real world, which is beyond Trump’s power to script.
As I understand the argument, it says that Trump is inherently unpredictable, and thus one needs to be wary around him. I mean, he could say “I won’t intervene to protect Europe”, and then nuke Russia when Putin invades. Much as I dislike Trump, is that categorically impossible?
That is the old ‘madman argument’, that Nixon used. Kissinger, with his blessing, tried to convince the Vietnamese that Nixon was crazy, so that he was willing to take huge risks to beat the hated communists. It was certainly not enough to win. Trump may be unpredictable, in the sense that he might not give Putin all the favours he is currently promising. But the risk that he will take huge risks to beat the Russians are surely not high – and anyone can see it. Trump says he does not want war, he is not preparing for war, and as long as you flatter his ego (while conquering foreign countries) it is a good bet that he will not make trouble. He got *nothing* from Kim Young-un’ and still spins it as a victory. It will not be hard for Putin to avoid retribution, and he surely knows it. That is not how deterrence is made.
Nixon was in fact crazy, but not in a “push the button” kind of way. It is all very well to say that Trump is on side as long as you flatter his ego, but who knows how Trump’s mind works? We do now know how Trump’s mind works when he has a “loss” (it gives rise to something like January 6). Isn’t it conceivable that if someone got in his ear with “Putin outsmarted you again, Donald. Are you going to let him get away with that?”, he might react “badly”?
Yes, he was a President who assassinated key rogue figures and that alone must have worried dictators.
But he also had a brilliant foreign policy formula that the Russians could see clearly implemented: i. working with Gulf nations against Iran and her proxies ii. arming the Ukrainians with the promise of direct US military support in case of an intensifying war with Russia iii. framing NATO as a neutral defence complex while supporting the Merkel/EU policy of detente with Russia through the energy trade.
“The only time Russia has not invaded a foreign country in the last 20 years were the four years Donald Trump was president”
What you miss out is that the only time the West has not invaded a foreign country in the last 20 years were the four years Donald Trump was president.
And in the rush to malign Russia, the racist outpouring and hatred against Russians that would be career suicide if repeated against muslims or blacks, or the pretense that it’s about “Putin”, the key reason Russia was calm in Trump’s time is missed…
It’s not because “Putin” was scared of a president Trump who was being undercut by his own secret service, courts, bureaucracy…..
It’s because Russia could trust Trump not to be a warmonger who would expand NATO or threaten Russia.
Once Trump was gone, they knew it was either strike now against Ukraine, or accept a NATO naval base at Crimea, the subjugation of the Donbass Russians, NATO missiles 200 miles from Moscow.
They chose what was in their best interests.
The Russians have held Crimea since 2014. So quite how NATO is going to build a base there is unclear.
But generally you’re right. Russia cannot be defeated in a conventional war. An accommodation will have to be reached.