Unlike as my colleague Natan Ehrenreich suggested, J. D. Vance’s foreign policy is, in almost every case, that of an isolationist.
In a 2022 interview with Steve Bannon, Vance said, verbatim, “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.” While Vance has often stated that the U.S. must save itself for potential conflict with East Asia, the fates of Ukraine and Taiwan are intertwined. Nothing will entice a major totalitarian power (China) to seize a smaller, democratic nation (Taiwan) more than the visage of America doing nothing as a major totalitarian power (Russia) takes a smaller, democratic nation (Ukraine).
And, further, Vance’s claims that the U.S. is sending ten-figure blank checks to Zelensky’s government are fictional. The vast majority of Ukraine aid has gone into U.S.-based jobs and industries. Not one cent has been issued as a “blank check” so that “one of Zelensky’s ministers can buy a bigger yacht.” (Putin, however, has been lapping up American leaders adopting the language of Russian propaganda.)
The crucial — and just about only — exception to Vance’s isolationism is his support for Israel. It seems this is a case of “the exception proves the rule.” While Vance has often voiced his concern for trouble boiling in the Pacific, he has not supported increased military spending.
For the record, I am very sympathetic to Vance’s righteous recognition of the plight of industrial towns in the Rust Belt and the Midwest more broadly. How might we fix that? Perhaps up our defense spending and channel military-industrial contracts to Midwestern regions? Just a thought . . .