In his February 14 speech at the Munich Security Conference, Vice President JD Vance delivered a pivotal address that not only marked a significant moment in his political career but also signaled a shift in American foreign policy towards a more prudent, sober, and nationalistic approach. This change marks a departure from the universalist liberalism that followed the fall of the Berlin Wall, and Vance’s critique of European elites effectively highlighted this transformation. The implications are clear: U.S.-Europe relations are poised for change, and that’s a positive development.
Vance’s speech didn’t shy away from confronting sensitive European issues head-on. He criticized Europe’s recent censorship trends and the challenges posed by mass immigration from countries like Syria and Afghanistan. The reaction in Munich was one of shock, with one German official reportedly moved to tears. Yet, Vance’s words resonated with many Europeans who have been expressing their frustrations through the ballot box by supporting nationalist and populist parties.
More than anything, Vance was speaking from an American perspective, particularly as a young nationalist leader. His stance could redefine U.S.-Europe relations for years to come. For the previous generation of American leaders, such direct criticism of high-ranking European figures would have been unimaginable. During the Cold War, the U.S. and Western Europe were expected to maintain a close alliance based on shared values, contrasting sharply with the Soviet bloc.
However, Vance’s speech highlighted the growing divide in values between America and Europe. The U.S. holds free speech in high regard, while Europe seems to deviate from this principle. America’s renewed focus on sovereignty contrasts with Europe’s current approach.
This critique of Europe isn’t limited to value differences; it extends to national interests. Europe must understand that America’s “America First” foreign policy prioritizes national interests above all else. Until this is acknowledged, tensions will persist.
Vance reiterated a core principle of the Trump-Vance foreign policy doctrine, which is grounded in a realistic view of today’s multipolar world, prominently featuring Communist China. America’s strategic priority is to check China’s influence by allocating resources wisely. While the U.S. faces other threats, such as radical Islamism and the need for secure sea navigation, the focus remains on engaging allied nations to maintain regional stability.
The Abraham Accords, brokered towards the end of Trump’s first term, exemplify this practical foreign policy. By uniting Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan in a strategic alliance against Iran, these accords illustrate the power of empowering allies to address regional threats. These countries now play a vital role in countering Iranian influence, thereby aligning with American interests.
In Europe, a similar approach could be considered, especially in response to the Russian threat. Europe’s reliance on Russian energy and their mixed responses to Russia’s geopolitical ambitions highlight a “national interest” gap. While European leaders vocally oppose Putin, their energy purchases indirectly fund his military ambitions. Furthermore, many NATO members fall short in meeting their defense commitments.
Specific issues like the situation in Ukraine further underscore these differences. Europeans intensely focus on redrawing borders, yet they could invest more in their own defense and diplomacy. A U.S.-led resolution to the Ukrainian conflict would benefit from European support rather than resistance.
The era post-Berlin Wall has ended, with nationalism and realism becoming central tenets for modern geopolitics. Europe would be well-served by adapting to this reality. JD Vance’s message is a timely reminder of this paradigm shift.
Josh Hammer, the senior editor-at-large for Newsweek, collaborates with Creators Syndicate. You can follow him on Twitter @josh_hammer.
