Sen. J.D. Vance could share some responsibility if Mike Johnson’s proposal for Ukraine aid does not succeed in the House.
Last week, the Ohio Republican penned an op-ed for The New York Times titled “The Math on Ukraine Doesn’t Add Up.” In addition to that, he held a meeting with the House’s Republican Study Committee on Wednesday to rally opposition against Johnson’s Ukraine bill.
Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to engage in extensive conversations with Vance, delving into his journey as a freshman Republican who has emerged as Donald Trump’s unwavering ally in the Senate. Moreover, our discussions shed light on Vance’s ambition to establish a broader and more radical version of the “America First” ideology. Throughout our in-depth exchanges, Vance passionately defended his unwavering stance against U.S. aid to Ukraine, a cause that he has championed even more fervently than Trump himself since assuming office in the Senate last year.
Yet, opposition to Vance’s approach is just a fraction of his extensive theory on international affairs. Vance envisions a significant shift in the United States’ global role, with the withdrawal of funding to Ukraine being just the initial phase.
Vance holds a strong skepticism towards the commonly referred to rules-based international order. This system, established after World War II, aimed to reduce global conflict and promote international economic cooperation through laws, norms, and multilateral institutions. However, Vance believes that this system has primarily benefited economic elites, while negatively impacting working-class individuals in traditional industrial economies. Moreover, he argues that it has failed to achieve its primary objective of democratizing non-democratic nations such as China and Russia.
According to Vance, the United States’ decision to protect the principles of the international rules-based order in Ukraine is not driven by noble intentions or high-minded policies. Instead, Vance believes that it is a self-interested move by the economic elites who aim to maintain a global order that benefits their own interests, while disregarding the needs of people like those he represents in post-industrial Ohio.
He once told me, “You need to reconsider the entire project.”
Instead of adhering to a rules-based international order, Vance argues for a new approach that prioritizes nationalism, wherein individual nations take full responsibility for their security and economic prosperity, and are less involved in global economic and military alliances. Vance believes that the first step towards achieving this vision is to halt U.S. assistance to Ukraine, a move that would require him to persuade his Republican colleagues in the House to reject Johnson’s foreign aid package.
Vance has presented various arguments opposing further U.S. assistance to Ukraine, which has led his critics from both political parties to claim that he is simply advocating for the interests of Vladimir Putin and other authoritarian leaders. (Vance, however, has strongly refuted this portrayal.)
In terms of the details of the Ukraine bill, Vance has raised three key concerns. In his recent op-ed in The New York Times, Vance contended that the proposed aid package, which aims to allocate an extra $60 billion to Ukraine, would have minimal impact on altering the course of the war in Ukraine’s favor. (Advocates of the current aid package have disputed this assertion.) Furthermore, Vance asserts that the United States lacks the necessary manufacturing capabilities to produce the quantity of weapons required for Ukraine to secure victory in the war.
Vance’s latest objection, which is clearly biased, arises from his preparations for the potential return of Trump to the White House next year. He is specifically opposed to a component of Johnson’s aid package, which suggests the seizure of Russian assets under the REPO Act and the maintenance of the current sanction regime against Russia. Vance argues that this provision would restrict a second-term Trump’s ability to negotiate with Russia. It is worth noting that Vance has previously raised concerns about Ukraine aid by invoking Trump. In February, during the Senate’s discussion of its own aid package, Vance warned that locking spending levels in place could serve as a hidden mechanism for Democrats to impeach Trump during his second term.
During our conversations, Vance explained to me that while his efforts to persuade his Republican colleagues in the House to address these specific objections are important, they are only part of his larger goal. Vance aims to shift the Republican paradigm on foreign policy, going beyond introducing some “realism” into the discussions, which critics may label as “isolationism.” He sees the debate over Ukraine aid as a representation of the broader discussion on the direction of “the American empire” and, consequently, the future of America as a whole.
According to Vance, there is a fascinating debate taking place between the establishment right and the populist right. The crux of this debate revolves around the belief that the current state of affairs in the American empire. On one hand, establishment Republicans argue that things are progressing positively. On the other hand, populist Republicans assert that the American empire is teetering on the edge of collapse. The establishment camp highlights the declining poverty rates worldwide, while the populist right emphasizes the declining birth and life expectancies within the nation.
“There’s a desperate attempt to argue that everything has gone well,” Vance expressed, “but honestly, I don’t believe it for a second.”
