Trump's mission is to bring peace to Europe, says JD Vance
JD Vance also described the UK and US' relationship as 'a beautiful alliance', during a speech at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire.
It comes after Mr Vance and the US president joined a call with Sir Keir Starmer and leaders from across Europe, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, to discuss the war in Ukraine.
During the call on Wednesday, the Prime Minister said Mr Trump's interventions over the Ukraine war have created a 'viable' chance of a ceasefire.
Mr Vance met Foreign Secretary David Lammy earlier on Wednesday, where he said they 'worked on one of our most important shared security goals in Europe, which is the end of the war between Russia and Ukraine'.
The vice president has previously criticised Europe over its defence funding, with leaked messages from a US Signal group chat showing Mr Vance saying he hated 'bailing Europe out'.
He also criticised the UK in February, over a legal case in which a former serviceman who silently prayed outside an abortion clinic was convicted of breaching the safe zone around the centre.
At the time, Mr Vance said that the US' 'very dear friends the United Kingdom' appeared to have seen a 'backslide in conscience rights'.
Speaking to American troops stationed in the UK on Wednesday, Mr Vance said: 'We've got a beautiful country here. We've got a beautiful alliance.
'And I think every single one of you know that for over 100 years, we have worked with our friends from the United Kingdom to achieve great victories.
'And if you look at the long sweep of history, every time something big happens for the world, every time a great victory is won for freedom and for peace and for prosperity, it is almost always the Brits and the Americans that do it together, and we win every single time we go to war together.
'You guys know that as well as anybody.
'But it's not just about going to war, and it's not just winning when we do.
'When we work together, when we fight together, when we make it clear that we always approach every situation with an open hand – but if things go poorly, we're willing to do what we have to do, we make it easier to achieve peace and prosperity all over the world.'
He added: 'I started the week in a place called Chevening, with the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom (David Lammy), further south in the country, in a county called Kent.
'And what we did is we worked on one of our most important shared security goals in Europe, which is the end of the war between Russia and Ukraine.
'The president of the United States came in six months ago, and I just talked to him right before I came on the stage, and he said very simply that we are going to make it our mission as an administration to bring peace to Europe once again.
'But as you all know, it is impossible to bring peace anywhere, unless the bad guys are also worried that we've got a hell of a fine air force, and a hell of a fine military, to back up the peace to begin with.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
7 minutes ago
- BBC News
Zelensky and allies head to White House for Ukraine talks with Trump
US President Donald Trump will host Volodymyr Zelensky on Monday for their first meeting since the pair's heated exchange in the White House - but this time the Ukrainian president is bringing European general of Nato Mark Rutte and UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer are among the leaders who will join Zelensky in Washington for efforts to end the war with follows Trump's summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska that ended with the US president dropping a demand for a ceasefire and calling instead for a permanent peace deal.A US envoy said on Sunday that Putin had agreed to security guarantees that could lead to a Nato-like security pact for Ukraine. "BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA. STAY TUNED!" Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, without heading to Washington for Monday's meeting are French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Finnish President Alexander Stubb and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. It is unclear how many of them will go to the White handing Donbas to Putin would mean for UkraineIn maps: War-ravaged Ukrainian territoriesFor so many heads of state to travel with such little notice across the Atlantic to what is essentially a wartime crisis meeting appears without precedent in the modern era, underscoring the sky-high sources say European officials are concerned that Trump may try to press Zelensky to agree to terms, after the Ukrainian leader was excluded from the Trump-Putin meeting on US soil last US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the BBC's US partner CBS that any suggestion Zelensky might be bullied by Trump into accepting a peace deal was a "stupid media narrative". Nato leaders also appear eager to avoid a repeat of Zelensky's February trip to the Oval Office that ended abruptly after an argument with Trump and US Vice-President JD altercation - which saw Trump accuse Zelensky of "gambling with World War Three" - left Washington-Kyiv ties in European leaders have been working diligently behind the scenes since then to mend the relationship. The Ukrainian leader has been coached to talk in terms of deal-making - language that resonates with April, Ukraine signed a minerals agreement that gave the US a financial stake in the country, and Trump and Zelensky spoke privately at the Vatican before Pope Francis's funeral. Ukraine made it clear it was willing to pay for US July, the two leaders had a phone call that the Ukrainian president described as "the best conversation we have had".Meanwhile, Trump had begun to express exasperation with Russia's unrelenting onslaught in Ukraine. He called Putin "absolutely crazy", drastically shortened his deadline for a peace deal, and threatened economic sanctions on these deliberations grind on, Russian forces continue to advance on the battlefield. They now occupy almost a fifth of Ukraine since Moscow launched its full scale invasion in February 2022. A virtual summit was held on Sunday between Zelensky and the so-called coalition of the willing - a group of nations including the UK, France and Germany that have pledged to protect peace in Ukraine once it is achieved. Afterwards, Emmanuel Macron told reporters their plan was to "present a united front" for Monday's talks with and the Nato leaders said they were keen to learn more after US envoy Steve Witkoff told US television that Putin had agreed on Friday to "robust security guarantees that I would describe as game-changing".Witkoff said such an agreement could see Europe and the US protect Ukraine from further aggression with a Nato-like defence agreement."We were able to win the following concession: that the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in Nato," Witkoff told CNN on has long opposed Ukraine joining Nato, and Witkoff said the arrangement could be an alternative if the Ukrainians "can live with it".Article 5 is a principle at the heart of the 32-member transatlantic military alliance that says its members will come to the defence of an ally that is under also told CNN that Russia made "some concessions" around five heavily contested regions of talks with European allies after the Alaska summit, Trump said Putin had reiterated that he wants the key Donetsk and Luhansk regions that make up Donbas, eastern Ukraine, according to European at Sunday's virtual summit with Nato leaders, Zelensky stressed that the Ukrainian constitution makes it impossible to give up territory - and that this should only be discussed by the leaders of Ukraine and Russia at a trilateral summit with the US secretary of state, meanwhile, sought to temper hopes that a deal to end Europe's deadliest conflict for 80 years could be imminent."We're still a long ways off," America's top diplomat said on Sunday.
The Guardian
13 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump's DC crackdown will do little to prevent crime, advocates say: ‘That's not what creates safety'
Donald Trump's hyperbolic portrayal of crime in major American cities, and his deployment of the national guard in Washington DC ostensibly in an effort to combat it, have reignited a decades-old debate about crime, violence and which policies and approaches can address it. The US president has cited cities such as Oakland, Philadelphia and Chicago as examples of places overwhelmed by crime and violence. He has put forward an increased militarization of law enforcement, and more money and legal protections for police, as the most effective ways to address homicides and other violent crime. But to violence prevention workers, the recent statements appeared made not out of care and concern for the lower-income Black and Latino victims who bear an outsized share of the nation's crimes, but to undermine and dismiss the progress community groups have made. And, the advocates argue, the administration's emphasis on law enforcement and prosecution as the sole ways to stop crime will do little to stop the cycles of violence and property crime that these groups have faced through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. 'The police are about response. But that's not what creates safety,' said Aqeela Sherrills, a longtime community violence intervention leader in Los Angeles. 'A lot of our urban communities have been war zones because they lack investment in infrastructure and programming. It's really disheartening to hear the president of the United States put out misinformation.' Sherrills began his career in violence prevention in Watts in the early 90s. Since then he's been a leading force in several organisations that work intensely with the small portion of a city's population responsible for the most violence in an effort to prevent crime and support victims of crime. Throughout his tenure, he said, he had seen the biggest successes in violence reduction come through training local non-profits, community leaders and officials on different violence community prevention models and then allowing them to build bespoke strategies from there. Over the decades, various models have seen major successes. Some deploy violence prevention workers to middle and high schools. In other programs, they use probation officers as a conduit to connect with young adults who are carrying and using firearms illegally. Some programs send workers to hospitals after a shooting, in an effort to prevent retaliatory violence. Some models rely on a police-community partnership, others don't involve police at all. But most programs center on connecting with mostly young men and teenage boys whose conflicts spill out on to city streets, traumatizing entire neighborhoods. This method has shown promise, research shows, In 2024 the Brooklyn community of Baltimore went a year without homicides after deploying a program called Safe Streets. And cities such as Oakland, Seattle and Philadelphia, where city leaders have invested in similar gun violence reduction programs, have seen drops in homicides when the programs were thriving, according to the Major Cities Chiefs Association's violent crime survey. And while the reasons for the ebb and flow of homicides can't be reduced to one program or strategy, those working to build these programs up have been fighting for credit and acknowledgment. During the Biden administration, they got it. Their approaches finally found federal support with the creation of an office of gun violence prevention and federal dollars for community prevention groups working on the ground. In past years, programs have expanded across the US as more municipalities build their own offices of violence prevention. But these insights don't appear to inform the Trump administration's approach, Sherrills adds. 'He's not reading the data, he's not looking at the trends and reports, it's just more kneejerk reactions,' he said. 'It's shortsighted because they're only speaking about one aspect of our criminal legal system.' This most recent crime debate comes nearly four months after the Trump administration cut nearly $170m in grants from gun violence prevention organizations, including several groups founded and co-founded by Sherrills who have had to lay off several staff members, dealing a serious blow to critical summertime programming. For small, upstart organizations this loss of funds puts their work in jeopardy, said Fredrick Womack, whose organization, Operation Good, lost 20% of its budget due to the April cuts. Womack says he was dismayed to hear the list of cities that Trump singled out, because they are all cities with Black leaders who have invested in community violence intervention. The calls for increased police and potential military presences, he says, shows a disconnect between the halls of power and the needs of the people most affected by violent crime. 'How is the military going to provide support for victims when they need someone who's going to be compassionate to what they're going through?' He asked. 'I know people want justice, but they also need support. They need healing and counseling. 'They won't go into the projects and ask the people how life is going for you. But they'll look at someone who lives in the hills who heard a gunshot two miles away last week and say: 'We have a crime problem,'' he continued. Womack founded Operation Good in 2013, and since then he and his small staff and gaggle of volunteers have worked with the teenagers and young men responsible for most of the city's violence and given them odd jobs and taken them to civil rights museums so they can understand where they come from and gain a sense of community. Womack's work has made a difference: in the years since the pandemic – which saw nationwide surges of gun violence – the homicide rate started to tick down, a change city officials have attributed in part to the work of community-based groups including Operation Good, and their collaboration with the police. Community leaders also argue that not only will Trump's approach be less effective, it's not aimed at helping the people most affected by violence. During a 12 August press conference, Jeanine Pirro, the former Fox News host who was recently appointed the US attorney for DC, argued that Trump's rhetoric about crime and his administration's approach to violence in DC were done in the name of victims. Flanked by posters of mostly Black teenagers and children killed by gun violence, Pirro argued that policies including DC's Youth Rehabilitation Act have only emboldened perpetrators. 'I guarantee you that every one of these individuals was shot and killed by someone who felt they were never gonna be caught,' Pirro told reporters. And when reporters asked about addressing the root causes of crime and violence and the recent cuts to community-based programs, Pirro argued that her focus is on being punitive, not preventive. For Leia Schenk, a Sacramento-based victim and violence prevention advocate, these sorts of sentiments, while common among conservatives, miss the point. 'It's tone-deaf and an oxymoron. The root causes are why we have victims,' Schenk said. 'In my experience [crime and violence] come from systemic oppression. Meaning if a family can't feed their kids, they're gonna steal, rob or commit some sort of fraud to just live and survive.' Schenk has been working in the community advocacy space for more than three decades and in that time has seen the most successful approaches to youth crime, shootings and other forms of violence happen when schools districts, local mental and physical healthcare systems get a level of investment that matches the scale of the problem. 'We're seeing the most success when we are supported – from schools to law enforcement to churches – their support allows us to do what we're doing on a bigger scale.' Despite the comments and moves from the Trump administration, Sherrills says the field of violence prevention will continue to thrive thanks to a strong foundation that was fortified in recent years due to federal support and increased support from philanthropic groups. 'We know that we're in challenging times but it's about doubling down on success and making sure we preserve the wins,' he said. 'We're going to continue to see violence trend down because of the work practitioners are doing in the field. Folks are tired of the killing and the dying and are looking for alternative ways to create better ways of navigating a conflict so that it doesn't lead to violence.'
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Putin won in Anchorage. Now Zelenskyy and Europe are in an even more perilous position
Donald Trump portrays himself as a hard-nosed dealmaker. Yet in the run-up to Friday's summit with Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, his claim that the Russian leader held him in high regard and was therefore serious about ending the war in Ukraine sounded naive. Putin doesn't let sentimentality shape his political and military decisions. Nor has he disavowed his longstanding claim to four Ukrainian provinces: Donetsk and Luhansk, which together comprise Ukraine's eastern Donbas region, and Zaporizhzhia and Kherson in the south. Despite Russia's overwhelming numerical advantage in troops and weaponry, Putin occupies only one province, Luhansk, almost entirely. Yet he persists. In the days before his meeting with Putin, Trump said the Russian economy 'stinks' and that falling oil prices would cause Russia's war to run aground. The war has certainly placed severe strains on Russia's economy, including high inflation and interest rates, labour shortages and a lack of investment by private businesses. Earnings from oil sales, a key source of state income, have also shrunk by 18% this year due to falling prices. There has even been talk of a recession. But these pressures have not prompted Putin to reassess his war plans. He ignored Trump's proposal for a 30-day ceasefire, which Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, accepted right away. Likewise, he was unfazed by Trump's threats to impose additional sanctions – with 'severe consequences', as he put it just before the summit – if Russia did not relent. Trump returned from Anchorage empty-handed for other reasons. Successful summits require painstaking advance work by leaders' subordinates; this one was arranged in haste. Given the rush, it was unsurprising that the Anchorage talks ended hours ahead of time. (The working lunch the two delegations were to have was cancelled.) During his post-summit press conference, Trump gamely praised Putin's goodwill and said that they had agreed on 'many points' during discussions that he described as 'productive'. Yet he failed to identify a single point of agreement and, atypically, didn't stay to answer reporters' questions. Putin came out ahead in Anchorage. He didn't agree to Trump's pet proposal for a ceasefire. It was Trump who ended up accepting Putin's position that a ceasefire must be preceded by a comprehensive peace agreement that addresses the 'root causes' of the war. Putin did show some flexibility by agreeing to freeze the frontline if Ukraine were to withdraw from Donetsk and Luhansk, and thus the entire Donbas, enabling Russia to acquire lands it has failed to conquer despite more than 40 months of fighting. Yet this offer could prove to be a trap. If Zelenskyy, who arrives in Washington for talks with Trump on Monday, refuses to do this, Putin may be able to look on as Trump tries to coerce the Ukrainian leader, forcing Europe to take sides. If Trump fails, Putin can paint Zelenskyy as the real obstacle to peace. Trump had declared that there would be no future talks if the summit failed – which it did, as he couldn't obtain a ceasefire, his main objective – yet in Anchorage, he spoke of follow-up meetings. Putin concurred, mischievously suggesting Moscow as the venue, but without indicating that he was open to including Zelenskyy and European leaders. By agreeing to further negotiations and keeping Trump's hopes for a peace deal alive, Putin may have ensured that the efficacy of additional US sanctions on Russia remains untested. By simply showing up in Anchorage, Putin demonstrated that the western policy of isolating him won't work. Zelenskyy and European leaders are undoubtedly relieved that the duo didn't unveil a deal to end the war by partitioning Ukraine. Still, Trump's readiness to accept Putin's insistence on this bilateral meeting after US efforts to include Zelenskyy failed had already sown more mistrust between Washington and Europe. Now Trump has embraced Putin's view that there can be no ceasefire without an overall agreement that addresses all aspects of the conflict. He has also in effect endorsed Putin's call for Ukraine to cede Donbas in exchange for a freeze of the frontline. These shifts will increase Ukraine and Europe's distrust of Trump – to Putin's advantage. Putin's confidence in Russia's eventual victory has been bolstered by Trump's decision, taken well before the summit, to cease direct weapons deliveries to Ukraine – assistance that totalled $65.9bn while Joe Biden was the US president. Russia will continue bombing Ukraine's cities, and its ground troops will keep pushing to grab even more land. In this respect, the summit has changed nothing. What has changed since Trump's return to the White House, though, is the US's role in the war. Ultimately, Trump believes that Russia's invasion does not threaten the US so it's up to the Europeans to support Ukraine's defence, a point JD Vance reiterated shortly before the summit. European countries have been increasing its defence spending and military support to Ukraine. But it had better be prepared to do even more and summon the unity to stay the course. Meanwhile, the lure of additional talks with Putin will keep alive Trump's illusion that continued diplomatic engagement with Russia and his self-proclaimed deal-making skills will eventually end the war – clearing the path to the Nobel peace prize he covets. Rajan Menon is a professor emeritus of international relations at the City College of New York and a senior research scholar at Columbia University's Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies
