
The Guardian view on JD Vance in Munich: Europe must stand up for its values
In 2007, Vladimir Putin delivered a speech to the Munich security conference that stunned western diplomats by launching an unforeseen assault on the post-1989 international order. The United States, alleged Mr Putin, had perniciously manufactured a unipolar world 'in which there is one master, one sovereign'. Seven years later, Russian forces illegally occupied Crimea, and Moscow-funded separatists seized swathes of territory in eastern Ukraine, in what turned out to be the precursor to full-blown invasion.
Nearly two decades later, the disturbing speech at the same venue by the US vice-president, JD Vance, may prove to be similarly significant as the geopolitics of the 21st century continue to shift. Mr Vance had been expected to concentrate last Friday's remarks on Ukraine, after a week in which Donald Trump appeared to be unilaterally preparing to negotiate a ceasefire deal entirely on Mr Putin's terms. Instead, he used his platform as a pulpit from which to berate the US's European allies on issues such as multiculturalism, migration and the regulation of social media. Indefensibly, the Trump administration now actively cheerleads for far-right parties such as Germany's Alternative für Deutschland, whose leader, Alice Weidel, he chose to meet in Munich.
A month into Trump 2.0, Mr Vance and other senior outriders such as Elon Musk are full of ideological hubris and jubilant self-regard. But the vice-president's use of Maga-style culture war rhetoric to attack European governments amounted to more than mere trolling. In deeply ominous fashion it also shredded the idea of a 'west' that shares fundamental values.
In the post-cold war era, the transatlantic alliance was founded on a common commitment to international norms that this White House holds in sneering contempt. Mr Trump's brutally transactional approach is infused with a Hobbesian cynicism – witness his determination to exploit Ukraine's vulnerability to seize 50% of its rare earth minerals on favourable terms. Europe must swiftly learn to adapt to an isolationist US that sees it as an ideological adversary and economic competitor.
Conflicts and challenging trade-offs are inevitable. Mr Vance's excoriation of 'digital censorship' in Europe is a prelude to future attempts to see off the regulation of US tech companies via the EU Digital Services Act. On security and defence, climate action and the terms of transatlantic trade, European nations will need to find the unity to stand up to 'America-first' bullying tactics, and begin to lay foundations for greater strategic and economic autonomy.
This week's crisis meeting on Ukraine in Paris, convened at short notice by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, is a step in the right direction. Amid justified fears of a neo-imperial carve-up, it is imperative to ensure that Europe, along with Ukraine itself, plays a full part in any future negotiations with Mr Putin – all the more so given that the apparent US expectation that it would police the result.
Europe was slow to wake up to the implications of a newly rivalrous and multipolar world, in which transatlantic ties would no longer bind in the same way. The new reality will be characterised by Trumpian bluff, bluster and brinkmanship. Following Mr Vance's visit to Munich, leaders can hardly say they have not been warned. The task now is to find ways to safeguard the European model from an increasingly sinister US administration that would love to see it fail.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
Afghan man accused of planning an Election Day attack in the U.S. pleads guilty
An Afghan man in Oklahoma accused of planning an Election Day attack in the U.S. on behalf of the Islamic State group pleaded guilty Friday to terrorism-related charges in federal court. Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, 27, pleaded guilty to two offenses: conspiring and providing support to the Islamic State group, and attempting to receive firearms to commit a federal crime of terrorism. The Islamic State is designated by the U.S. as a foreign terrorist organization. Tawhedi faces up to 35 years in prison. 'The defendant admits he planned and obtained firearms to carry out a violent terror attack on Election Day in 2024, a plot that was detected and disrupted through the good work of the FBI and our partners,' FBI Director Kash Patel said in a statement. A phone message was left seeking comment from Craig Hoehns, an attorney for Tawhedi. Tawhedi was living in Oklahoma City last year when he acquired two AK-47-style rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition to target large crowds, according to court documents. Authorities said he had conspired with multiple people, including his brother-in-law, Abdullah Haji Zada, for several months to plot out the attack. Zada, who was 17 at the time, was charged as an adult and pleaded guilty in April. He faces up to 15 years in prison. Tawhedi arrived in the U.S. in September 2021 on a special immigration visa shortly after the capital city of Afghanistan, Kabul, was captured by the Taliban. At the time of his arrest on Oct. 7, Tawhedi was on parole while his immigration status was pending, according to the Justice Department. His parole status has since been revoked. FBI agents had testified earlier that Tawhedi, who worked as a rideshare driver and at auto shops, was under surveillance for more than a month before his arrest.


NBC News
6 hours ago
- NBC News
Trump's balancing act on the Israel-Iran conflict: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, we examine how the escalating tensions between Israel and Iran are splitting President Donald Trump's base. Plus, Kristen Welker writes that Trump's showdown with California is testing his political strength on a core issue. And Gordon Lubold answers a reader question on Trump's military parade this weekend. — Adam Wollner Israel-Iran conflict splits Trump's MAGA backers By Jonathan Allen and Henry J. Gomez As the percussion of Israeli munitions rattled Tehran on Thursday night, President Donald Trump's MAGA movement observed a rare silence — a sign, influential Republicans say, of the divide within their own party when it comes to the prospect of a war between Israel and Iran. It took Trump, who comments publicly more often than any president in recent memory, about 10 hours to put out a statement on his Truth Social platform, in which he urged Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program. The first official U.S. assessment had been issued by the White House under Secretary of State Marco Rubio's name, and it emphasized that America was 'not involved' in the strikes. In the meantime, Charlie Kirk, the co-founder of Turning Point USA, polled his 5 million X followers on the question of whether America should 'get involved in Israel's war against Iran.' By Friday afternoon, the poll showed more than 350,000 votes, with an overwhelming proportion in the 'No' column. When Kirk read Rubio's statement on the strikes during a podcast Thursday night, Jack Posobiec, a right-wing activist popular with the MAGA audience, interjected that it was 'not a supportive statement at all.' Earlier Thursday, before the strikes, Posobiec had warned on X that a 'direct strike on Iran right now would disastrously split the Trump coalition.' And Steve Bannon, host of the 'War Room' podcast, which is influential with MAGA adherents within the administration and outside of it, steered clear of public commentary Thursday night. It all adds up to a demonstration of the quandary facing Trump as he and other elected Republicans seek safe political turf. Trump's electoral success owes in no small part to his isolationist-leaning 'America First' platform and his fierce criticism of drawn-out U.S. engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Israel's latest action pits traditional Republican support for the Jewish state — and antipathy toward Iran — against the MAGA base's fear that the U.S. will be drawn into a new foreign war. And even within Trump's MAGA wing, there's a long-running split over American backing of Israel. Trump has always been on the pro-Israel side of the divide. California standoffs provide pressure test for one of Trump's top issues By Kristen Welker The ongoing protests in Los Angeles and legal standoff over President Donald Trump's decision to federalize California National Guard troops dominated the headlines this week, providing a pressure test for the president on one of his signature issues. Immigration has consistently been one of the bright spots for Trump when it comes to his poll numbers. Even as Americans soured on his handling of the economy and inflation throughout the course of his first 100 days in office, they tended to be split over his handling of immigration. It may still be too soon to gauge how Americans feel about the ramped-up immigration raids and the decision to deploy National Guard troops over Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's objections, since events are still unfolding. But a new Reuters-Ipsos poll released suggests some cracks may be emerging. Half of Americans surveyed said they do not approve of the president's response to protests in Los Angeles, with 35% approving and 15% saying they were unsure or did not answer. A similar share of Americans (49%) said Trump has gone too far with arrests of immigrants, while 40% did not believe he has gone too far, and 11% unsure or not answering. (The poll was conducted from June 11-12 and has a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.) Around half of Americans (48%) said that the president should deploy the military 'to bring order to violent protests,' while 41% say he should not do so, and 11% were unsure or did not answer. California leaders have disputed Trump's claims that the L.A. protests were violent, saying the 'majority' have been peaceful. Surveys conducted as the Los Angeles protests were unfolding had mixed more results. A Quinnipiac University poll, which was in the field June 5-9, found majorities of registered voters disapproving of Trump's handling of deportations (56% disapprove and 40% approve) and immigration broadly (43% approve and 54% disapprove), though immigration was still one of Trump's better-testing issues. (The poll had a margin of error of +/- 2.8 points). An Economist/YouGov survey conducted June 6-9 found Americans gave Trump a net-positive rating on his handling of immigration, with 49% approving and 45% disapproving. That survey, which had a margin of error of +/- 3.5 points, also found varying levels of support for deportations, with less support for deporting those who have not committed violent crimes. And on Sunday, we'll have our own set of numbers. Steve Kornacki will join 'Meet the Press' to unpack our latest NBC News Decision Desk poll, powered by SurveyMonkey, which will look at Americans' views of the Trump presidency, including his handling of immigration and other issues. We'll also discuss the latest in Los Angeles and the future of Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill with Sens. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Rand Paul, R-Ky. ✉️ Mailbag: How much will Trump's parade cost? Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's reader question is about this weekend's military parade in Washington, D.C. 'How much is it going to cost? Who approved spending it?' To answer that, we turned to national security reporter Gordon Lubold. Here's his response: The estimated cost for the parade was put at about $45 million by the U.S. Army, which pays for the range of things required to put it on, like transporting the slew of tanks, helicopters and vehicles as well as the roughly 7,000 soldiers brought from around the country to participate and provide support for the big event. The parade is celebrating the Army's 250th birthday, which happens to fall on President Donald Trump's 79th birthday. While the parade is the centerpiece event, the Army is planning several other events, including static stations for Americans to see its many vehicles, drones and other things, areas for group workouts, a flyover and even a jump by the Army's Golden Knights demonstration parachute team, weather permitting. The estimated cost includes the $3 million it cost to install large metal plates onto some of the streets in the nation's capital to mitigate damage that the tracks of the tanks was expected to cause. The $45 million also includes a $16 million estimate to repair the streets and other damage to the city following the event, which is expected to draw as many as 200,000 or more people. In an interview with NBC News' 'Meet the Press' last month, Trump said the cost of the parade was 'peanuts compared to the value of doing it.'


The Independent
7 hours ago
- The Independent
Tucker turns on Trump: Ex-Fox News host blasts ‘complicit' president for backing Israel after attacks on Iran
Tucker Carlson has turned on President Donald Trump by accusing him of being 'complicit' in Israel's attacks on Iran. The former Fox News host and MAGA figurehead rebuked Trump and the administration in his newsletter titled: 'This Could Be the Final Newsletter Before All-Out War.' 'Despite being complicit in the act of war, the president hopes last night's events will help his ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran,' Carlson wrote. 'While the American military may not have physically perpetrated the assault, years of funding and sending weapons to Israel, which Donald Trump just bragged about on Truth Social, undeniably place the U.S. at the center of last night's events,' the right-wing pundit added. Trump boasted on Truth Social that Israel was using military equipment made in the U.S., which he described as 'the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR.' Carlson's newsletter went on to say that the U.S. is now 'in deep.' 'Washington knew these attacks would happen. They aided Israel in carrying them out,' Carlson continued. 'Politicians purporting to be America First can't now credibly turn around and say they had nothing to do with it.' The conflict is already splitting MAGA down the middle, leading figures of the movement have said publicly. 'A direct strike on Iran right now would disastrously split the Trump coalition,' podcaster Jack Posobiec wrote on X. 'Trump smartly ran against starting new wars, this is what the swing states voted for.' He added that it could cost the Republicans the midterms. Conservative activist Charlie Kirk said that 'no issue currently divides the right as much as foreign policy.' If Trump gave Israel the 'green light' to target Iran, it 'would be seen as an unforgivable betrayal by millions of American voters,' Mollie Hemingway, the editor of right-wing publication The Federalist, said in a post on X. In one of his calls with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, Trump had advised against the attacks, according to The Wall Street Journal, telling him that the negotiations should be allowed to run their course before military options were considered. The president's advice went unheeded as Israel embarked on a series of deadly strikes on more than 100 targets, killing General Hossein Salami, the leader of Iran 's Revolutionary Guard, and Major General Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff to its armed forces, among others. Iran has since retaliated by firing missiles at Israel, which the U.S. is supporting to intercept, according to Axios. Trump had been aware of Israel's pre-dawn raid before it commenced but said that the U.S. had played no part in it. 'We knew everything, and I tried to save Iran humiliation and death,' Trump told Reuters. 'I tried to save them very hard because I would have loved to have seen a deal worked out. They can still work out a deal however, it's not too late.'