At the Munich Security Conference, JD Vance lectured Europe on democratic values.
This was seen as condescending, especially given Trump's announcement about meeting Putin.
Transcript:
Rory Stewart
Welcome to The Restless Politics with me, Rory Stewart.
Alastair Campbell
And me, Alistair Campbell. And Rory, you're in America and I'm in Germany.
Rory Stewart
Very fitting.
Alastair Campbell
And it strikes me that's where a lot of the Restless Politics issues of interest have been happening. So I think I'm afraid yet again, we're going to have to talk about Donald Trump. But in the context of his vice president, J.D. Vance, and his trip to the Munich Security Conference, what Trump has said about Ukraine. And I think this broader theme of the extent to which allies of America can continue to see them as a reliable ally. And then I think, given that we've got Yulia Navalnaya, widow of Alexei, on leading this week, I think at some point we should talk about the first anniversary of his death at the hands Of the Putin regime in a polar penal colony. So where do you want to start in all this kind of America, Europe, Ukraine, Trump, Vance stuff?
Rory Stewart
Well, let's start bang where you are, which is Germany, with the Munich Security Conference. And just to explain to people a little bit about what that is, it's a conference that's been going since the 1960s and was very much set up really to bring the West together for the interests Of security and peace. And the early meetings were quite small, but they had great figures like Henry Kissinger involved. Over time, it's grown. It's almost become one of the sort of regular bits of the international conference calendar, along with Davos, where we were in January. And traditionally, it's been a place where the US and its allies express their shared values. So if you'd gone to the Munich Security Conference any time over the last 30 years, generally what you would hear is Americans and Europeans talking about their shared commitment to Democracy, the rule of law. If you were an Afghan or an Iraqi or somebody who was not part of the Western group, you might have found the tone pretty patronizing because the Munich Security Conference was often Where the United States turned up and lectured other countries, particularly countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, but also countries in Africa and Asia, on not being democracies, Lecturing them on their absence of free speech, their fraudulent elections, and generally giving the impression that the US and the West had a superior model. But perhaps you can tell us what happened when J.D. Vance turned up.
Alastair Campbell
Well, he was certainly in lecturing mode, but it wasn't Asia and Africa, it was Europe he was lecturing. You mentioned it being created in the 60s, 1963. There is something called the Munich rule. And the Munich rule goes as follows, engage and interact with each other, don't lecture or ignore one another. Now, I don't know if any of J.D. Vance's team had briefed him on the Munich rule, but he sure as hell didn't follow it. And I think people in the room were, even though, you know, we know this is his style of politics and we know that he's very much focused on the domestic agenda, but bear in mind his speech Came within a day of Donald Trump announcing that he'd had this phone call with Vladimir Putin and further announcing that they might be meeting up in Saudi Arabia to bring an end to the Ukraine war. And that led to all sorts of, you know, anger and fear and some upset. Europe totally blindsided, Zelensky effectively blindsided. So I think people thought, here's J.D. Vance. He's the deputy to Trump. This is the Munich security conference where defense and foreign policy is what it's all about. He's going to come along and he's maybe going to put some flesh on the bones of what Trump had said, of which there was nothing. And instead, we got this kind of MAGA talking point stuff about freedom of speech and a pretty full frontal assault on the idea that European democracies are not really democracies At all. (Time 0:02:28)
Reinforcing Enemy Narratives
Vance's rhetoric reinforces narratives of Western hypocrisy used by adversaries like Russia and China.
This undermines trust and strengthens far-right populist movements in Europe.
Transcript:
Rory Stewart
Yeah. Just to remind people of the speech itself. I mean, if you haven't watched it, it's pretty uncomfortable watching. And it went down, I should say, like a lead balloon. So J.D. Vance stands up and here are all the European allies, as you say, nervously turning up to hear about how we're going to form an alliance. And he begins by saying, the threat that we're facing in the world is not a threat from Russia or China. The biggest threat comes from Europe's retreat from its most fundamental values. He then goes on to accuse Europe of planning to annul elections that it doesn't agree with, censor free speech, arrest Christians for praying in their homes. And to give a sense of the tone, imagine you are a European leader turning up and you're a bit nervous about Trump. And this is, I'm now quoting directly. But what seemed a little bit less clear to me, and certainly, I think to many citizens of Europe, is exactly what are you defending yourselves for? You are afraid of the conscience that guides your own people. You need to be responsive to your citizens. You need a mandate to govern. Don't put your opponents in jail. The voice of the people matters. And as John Paul II said, do not be afraid. So how do you think that goes down if you're sitting there as a European leader?
Alastair Campbell
The whole thing went down very, very badly for all sorts of reasons. And I think the main reason it went down badly was that it wasn't really serious in terms of taking on the issues of defence and security that are front of mind at the moment. But the second thing was, it was so condescending and so patronising. The impression I was left with watching Vance is that there is definitely a strategy going on here with the United States at the moment of treating their friends like enemies and their Enemies like friends. The first ones they went for were Canada and Mexico. They went for Denmark. They went for Panama. They're going for the European Union. And also, when he talks about democracy, this is a guy who still, to this day, has not accepted that Joe Biden won the election in 2020. And he talked about us not accepting the will of the people. And then freedom of speech. This is a government that has thrown out the Associated Press from the White House or not being allowed to travel in the press corps on Air Force One because they refuse to report as a fact That the Gulf of Mexico does not exist. It is now called the Gulf of America. So they talk about free speech. They talk about democratic values. And then if you look at the stuff, I know you want to talk about this later, the stuff that they're doing in relation to the courts. Vance, it was this week, who said that judges really are not entitled to interfere in the running of the executive. Well, judges exist to interpret the law and the constitution. And many judges think that this government is breaking the law and defending the constitution. So it's a very, very strange thing.
Rory Stewart
One big problem is that, of course, it reinforces exactly what Europe's and America's enemies have always said. So, of course, if you're China or Russia, or indeed you're Viktor Orban in Hungary, you spent years saying all this talk about democracy coming out of Europe is hypocrisy. They're all a bunch of hypocrites. And now we have the US Vice President confirming what we always believed, which is these democracies are a sham. It also really strengthens the hand of far-right populist groups in Europe, who of course have the same line. We don't really live in a democracy. All these governments are a bunch of out-of dictatorial elites. And of course, it means that the goodwill and the mutual trust, which you might hope the US might have for its European allies to rebuild, begins to disintegrate. (Time 0:06:01)
Interference in German Elections
Vance's meeting with Alice Weidel, leader of the AfD, after his speech was seen as interfering in German elections.
Weidel praised Vance's speech, which violated diplomatic norms.
Transcript:
Rory Stewart
Now, I'd love to hear you talk a little bit about the impact that Vance's visit had on the AFD and on German elections. But before we do that, just one point, which I'd also like you on, which is the communications point. I was reminded, and this is a very unfair thing to say to David Cameron, but I was reminded a little bit of watching David Cameron try to write his first speech for his first visit to Pakistan. So this is back in 2010, 2011. And he had written a speech, which essentially in the first draft involved going to Pakistan and telling the Pakistan some home truths. He was going to tell them that they didn't treat their women correctly, that they were corrupt, that they supported terrorism, that they didn't support human rights. And I said to him, listen, this seems to me to be a terrible speech to make. You should make a speech praising Pakistan and building a relationship with them. And if you want to make those points, make them in private. So I rewrote the speech overnight. In fact, I barely slept that night, presented it to him. And he said to me, yeah, Rory, but I don't get what the headline is that's generated out of your speech. I mean, okay, my speech, maybe, it's only going to be page five or six in the Times, but I don't even see where your speech lasts. So I said, but this is about a year relationship with Pakistan, right? This is not about an article in the Times. And he said, oh, well, I'm feeling quite tired now. And I think we should knock it off for the day. And he headed up upstairs. So can you help me understand this? Presumably, this is part of what's going on with Vance. He's not really trying to change European behavior. If he was, he'd do it through private meetings. He'd produce a positive shared message. He's trying to do the equivalent of David Cameron landing an article in the Times.
Alastair Campbell
I couldn't help thinking when I bumped into David Cameron just before Christmas, and he did at one point say, is Roy Stewart ever going to say anything positive about me on your podcast? Anyway, I think that what I would say about that is that it was very much for the domestic American audience. But because he was in the room he was in with all these European diplomats and leaders and military figures and spooks and all the rest of it, I think he probably did create the effect he Wanted to create. I asked our friend Anthony Scaramucci, how has Vance's speech gone down in the States? And he said, Fox News love it, MSNBC hate it, and the New York Times is about the only paper that's telling you what he said. And so it was a very deliberately divisive, polarizing speech. I think on the substance, though, there is a real problem. He is clearly interfering in the election in Germany. The norms of diplomacy are there's an election going on in a country that you happen to be visiting, and you're a leader from a different country, you just don't get involved. And how did he get involved? Well, first of all, he said in his speech, spelt it out, he said, there is just no room in modern life for firewalls in politics. Well, firewall, as I've said, I think, in the last two or three episodes, Brandtmauer goes to the heart of German post-war politics. The Brandtmauer, the firewall, is that all of those non-far parties saying they will have no truck with anything that can bring back memories of the Nazi years. And you can argue whether it's right or wrong. You can argue whether it's right or wrong that Alice Feidel, the leader of the AFD, wasn't invited to the Munich Security Conference. All the other leaders were. She was there in a TV debate last night where all the other leaders said they would not work with her in government. You can argue about whether it's right or wrong, but that is the position of the mainstream parties in Germany. He effectively came out for the AFD, as Elon Musk has done. He did not meet Schultz, the chancellor. He didn't have a separate private meeting with Schultz. And his people were merrily briefing, what's the point? He's not going to be here for long anyway. And he went off almost immediately after the speech and met with who? Alice Vidal, the leader of the AFD. What did she do? Tweet out what a great speech it was. Now, when you talk about the impact on the election, I don't know. I actually don't think it's going to move things. I think if I, the bits of the debate that I saw were very much about who will or won't work with the AFD, who might have in a coalition, the Social Democrats or the Greens, a lot about Ukraine With the AFD, the only party really that is not standing with Ukraine. But how that impacts in the election, I just think the polls have been settled now for so long that we kind of almost know the result already.
Rory Stewart
Just to go back to your firewall, and again, to do a brief explainer, that the reason for this is that in the 1920s and 30s, Mussolini and Hitler got into power because at a moment when they Had relatively few votes, pretty small percentage of the national vote, they were invited into government. In the case of Italy, Mussolini was put in charge by the king. In the case of Germany, Hitler was eventually put in power by Hindenburg. In both cases, the lesson that we drew from that is that what allows the far rights, and in those cases, the genuine fascists and Nazis to take power, is when the mainstream parties, and Particularly the mainstream parties from the right, decide to cooperate with them and give them space. And usually very naively, usually they said, we're bringing them in because we're going to be able to control them. Famously, von Papen in Germany thought, you know, Hitler would be an easy tool. And once he was in power, they'd be able to manipulate him. On the other hand, in Belgium and in Finland, in the run up to the Second World War, the mainstream conservative parties very, very courageously did not tie up with the fascist parties. Now, it's very difficult to do. I mean, if you think about it in a UK context, it would be, let's say Tommy Robinson suddenly had 15% of the vote, and you were the Conservative Party, and you were being crushed in the polls. And you were being told that the only way that you could stop him coming into power was to line up with Labour, which is effectively what you have to do, your supporters go absolutely nuts, Right? They hate Labour, they've campaigned against Labour. But that is the lesson. I mean, that was the lesson that most of us drew from the 20s and 30s. It remains from political scientists, the central lesson of the period that fascists get into power because mainstream conservatives enable them. Trump gets into power because the Republican Party ultimately allowed him to do it because Republican senators did not vote to impeach him after January the 6th. He gets his appointments through because Republican senators vote to get people like Hesketh in a Secretary of Defense. You said, quite understandably, you know, there's disagreement about whether this is the correct view and how far can it go? And what happens when those parties begin to develop so much support that it begins to challenge it? But it's something very, very precious to European peace. I (Time 0:09:44)
Historical Precedents of Far-Right Rise
Historical examples, like Hitler and Mussolini's rise, demonstrate how far-right groups gain power through mainstream party cooperation.
This emphasizes the importance of "firewalls" against such alliances.
Transcript:
Rory Stewart
To go back to your firewall, and again, to do a brief explainer, that the reason for this is that in the 1920s and 30s, Mussolini and Hitler got into power because at a moment when they had Relatively few votes, pretty small percentage of the national vote, they were invited into government. In the case of Italy, Mussolini was put in charge by the king. In the case of Germany, Hitler was eventually put in power by Hindenburg. In both cases, the lesson that we drew from that is that what allows the far rights, and in those cases, the genuine fascists and Nazis to take power, is when the mainstream parties, and Particularly the mainstream parties from the right, decide to cooperate with them and give them space. And usually very naively, usually they said, we're bringing them in because we're going to be able to control them. Famously, von Papen in Germany thought, you know, Hitler would be an easy tool. And once he was in power, they'd be able to manipulate him. On the other hand, in Belgium and in Finland, in the run up to the Second World War, the mainstream conservative parties very, very courageously did not tie up with the fascist parties. Now, it's very difficult to do. I mean, if you think about it in a UK context, it would be, let's say Tommy Robinson suddenly had 15% of the vote, and you were the Conservative Party, and you were being crushed in the polls. And you were being told that the only way that you could stop him coming into power was to line up with Labour, which is effectively what you have to do, your supporters go absolutely nuts, Right? They hate Labour, they've campaigned against Labour. But that is the lesson. I mean, that was the lesson that most of us drew from the 20s and 30s. It remains from political scientists, the central lesson of the period that fascists get into power because mainstream conservatives enable them. Trump gets into power because the Republican Party ultimately allowed him to do it because Republican senators did not vote to impeach him after January the 6th. He gets his appointments through because Republican senators vote to get people like Hesketh in a Secretary of Defense. You said, quite understandably, you know, there's disagreement about whether this is the correct view and how far can it go? And what happens when those parties begin to develop so much support that it begins to challenge it? (Time 0:14:05)
Trump's Constitutional Challenges
Trump's actions, like overturning birthright citizenship and firing protected civil servants, challenge the Constitution and Congress's authority.
This raises concerns about potential challenges to the courts and the separation of powers.
Transcript:
Alastair Campbell
Can no longer assume America is going to be there for it.
Rory Stewart
I think that J.D. Vance currently is in a good position. Now we're four years out, so much can change, but he is in a stronger position than people anticipated to be the next US president. And his relationship with Trump and his ability to tie in with the crowd has turned out to be stronger than many, many people thought it was during the campaign. And maybe just worth laying out what he said in that speech and what the kind of fact checking is. So basically, the examples that he gives are twofold. They're either examples, and when he says democracies collapse in Europe, they're either examples of Europe being worried about what social media can mean. So in Romania, a completely unknown candidate powered by TikTok and Russian money shot up to the head and almost won the presidential election. And that election was cancelled. And Vance complains about that. He complains also about attempts to sort of monitor hate speech on social media. And he puts that in the category of free speech, free elections. There, we have to understand what's at stake. What's at stake is that laws preventing people from spreading hateful lies have been on all our statute books forever. It's not a sort of simple case of free speech or not free speech. You cannot shout fire in a a crowded theatre. You can't go around publicly whipping up mobs to attack and destroy migrant hostels claiming that an attack had been mounted by a Syrian asylum seeker when it wasn't, for very good reasons. This isn't about dictatorship. And this is particularly true in an era of social media, where these things can move so much faster, get 3 million, 7 million likes much more quickly. The second question is around questions of norms. So he's very upset about the fact that the British have put a buffer zone around abortion clinics. So I'm talking to you here in New Haven, Connecticut. Literally 100 yards from the door when I'm standing at is a clinic that provides family planning advice. Outside it, at all times that I walk past, almost without exception, is a group of people handing out pictures of unborn fetuses and challenging any woman who walks into that clinic. Let's say you've made the very, very difficult decision to have an abortion, and you go to the family planning clinic right next door to me here. You have to walk straight through a large crowd of people who are demanding to know why you're trying to murder and kill an innocent child. That in Britain and in Scotland, two different laws, buffer zones have been put around 200 metre buffer zones so that women are free to go into those clinics without being harassed or Bullied. And J.D. Vance has made this the centre of his speech. He's even claimed that in Scotland it would be illegal to pray privately in your own home, which is complete nonsense, right? Then he gets upset when we talk about, or anybody talks about, there being a danger from misinformation.
Alastair Campbell
This was a classic piece of misinformation, probably where he does know the facts, but he chooses to misrepresent them. So this is about a guy called Adam Smith Connor. He told the story and he said that he was charged with the heinous offense of standing 50 meters from an abortion clinic, silently praying, not obstructing anyone, not interacting With anyone, etc. Truth is that, as you say, there is a buffer zone. He had been requested multiple occasions to move away. And it also emerges that he's getting his legal support from a group called Alliance Defending Freedom International, which is an American conservative Christian legal advocacy Group, yet again, interfering in the politics and the governance of another country. If you go back to when we talked about Project 2025, Rory, and of course Vance, much more than Trump, is absolutely in with that crowd. Their utter obsession with abortion came through pretty much every chapter. So this is a guy who's on his own agenda. I think this is not just Trump's agenda. Trump's agenda, we know, is about Trump and it's about winning. Everything now is about the domestic audience and it's about him trying to take over, either when Trump falls over or when he goes to the next election, before the next election. Final (Time 0:18:31)
Misinformation on Abortion Clinic Case
JD Vance misrepresented a case involving a man praying near an abortion clinic, claiming he was unjustly charged.
The man had been asked to move multiple times and received support from a US Christian group.
Transcript:
Rory Stewart
Thing, I guess, before the break is just maybe to put this back in the American domestic context. So again, here I am in the US, and people are focused very, very strongly on what Trump's actions, and we've talked about a lot of those actions, you know, shutting down the American International Development Agency, firing auditors, obviously firing all the civil servants who work in USAID, overturning your right to get American citizenship if you're born in the US. What do all these things mean for the constitution and law? Because your rights as a USAID civil servant were protected by Congress, congressional statute that said you could only be fired if you committed a misdemeanor. This is, you know, why famously risk-averse parents want their kids to be civil servants, because you have a job for life, right? No longer in Trump's America. The ability to become an American citizen if you're born on American soil is to do with the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, right? And he's cancelled the 14th Amendment. He is freezing spending, which has been approved by Congress. Now, all of this stuff basically says that Congress doesn't really matter, congressional statutes, congressional spending doesn't matter, and the Constitution doesn't really Matter. The big test now that people are focused on is, will he now also challenge the courts? And there is a really interesting dance taking place. So the Supreme Court, people remember, has, thanks to his previous appointments, a six-person Republican majority. And the Supreme Court will want to show that it has power, and therefore it's going to be very careful what it challenges. It's probably not going to challenge the USAID ruling because it's too late. Everyone's lost their jobs. The building's been shut down. What it may do is challenge the 14th Amendment ruling. And then how does Trump respond? And what is he actually up to? Is he actually openly saying, I don't care about the law? Well, certainly seems to be rhetorically. So here's a couple of quotes. He tweeted out and has now pinned to his truth social, he who saves his country does not violate any law. And J.D. Vance said in 2021, he quoted Andrew Jackson, the chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it, which basically says we don't care what the Supreme Court does, we'll just Continue because they don't have any enforcement mechanisms. That's one view, right? Another view is that actually they're doing it more gradually and more subtly. And that one of the problems as regimes change, this happened in Venezuela, this happened in Turkey, happened in India, is that the shift from populism towards fascism often happens Under the guise of acting according to the law, following proper procedures. So there's also other stuff going on. You get the Justice Department issuing letters saying that the reason they're doing something is they're seeking to overturn a 1935 precedent set by the Supreme Court. You have Harvard lawyers coming out. It's a guy called Ben Bauer and Jack Goldsmith saying that actually what the regime is doing is good faith test cases to challenge the Supreme Court. And you've got other legal scholars in the US saying, no, no, this seems to be going far beyond this, that actually they're challenging fundamentally separation of power, free speech, Equal justice under the law. (Time 0:22:45)
Trump's Ukraine Meeting
Trump's announcement of a meeting with Putin to decide Ukraine's fate, excluding Ukraine and Europe, raises concerns.
This highlights Trump's disregard for allies and uncertain negotiation strategy.
Transcript:
Rory Stewart
This again and again, if the courts strike us down, we grumble, but all our civil servants implement and follow what the court has ruled. And even Boris Johnson, when the Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal for him to prorogue parliament, actually brought parliament back, attacking the Supreme Court, attacking The opposition and doing all this populist nonsense, but he did actually bring it back. But what happens if the court rules and Trump tells officials don't implement that rule, well, they don't have many options. They can sue the official for contempt of court, but that may become a badge of honor for a low-level official. They can try to appoint their own independent prosecutor, the court can, to get round the problem caused by Trump. They can try to tell the US marshals to come in because the US marshals constitutionally are supposed to implement the court decisions. But if all of these things fail, they're really, really stuck. And there have been times in American history in the 19th century when they were stuck. Now, when that happens, then there is no check and balance to Trump because what you'd find is the legislature is with him. And the judiciary increasingly don't want to challenge him because they don't want to be revealed as paper tigers. They don't want to tell him to do something he won't do for fear that they just lose all their authority.
Alastair Campbell
Well, listen, let's go to a break, Rory. And before we do, I want to give you my tweet of the week from Munich. It was from the guy we interviewed a leading a few months ago, Tim Snyder. He tweeted as follows, I'm in Munich. People keep asking me to decode J.D. Vance's speech. Okay. In Vance English, free speech means let Elon Musk run your elections. Democracy means let Russia run your elections. Now move on. 2025 is about what Europeans do, not what Americans say. So let's come back after the break and talk about what Europeans are today in Europe, in Paris, under a meeting organised by Macron, actually doing. Very good. Look forward to seeing you after the break. This episode is brought to you by one of our favourite sponsors, long-term partners of the rest is politics.
Rory Stewart
That's NordVPN. And we're guilty, sometimes assuming the internet is safe by default. We browse the same sites, we use the same passwords. Nothing normally goes wrong, and it's very easy to let your guard down. But hackers, as I'm sure many listeners have found out, are always looking for ways to get into your system. And they're trying to steal your money or they're trying to steal your data. And internet service providers are happy to sell your browsing data to companies and marketeers.
Alastair Campbell
And that's when NordVPN comes in. It's your go-to solution for secure internet access. What it does is it creates a virtual private network, that's the VPN bit, which you use to connect to the internet. Just download their app and switch it on and it works in the background.
Rory Stewart
It got military grade encryption so you can browse with confidence knowing your personal information is safe from prying eyes our listeners get an exclusive deal at nordvpn.com/rest
Alastair Campbell
Is politics and one subscription covers 10 of your devices so that's nordvpn.com/rest is politics completely risk-free with their 30-day money-back guarantee and you can find the Link in the episode description Welcome back to The Restless Polities with me, Alistair Campbell. And with me, Rory Stewart. So Rory, let's talk about Ukraine then and what we think Trump is trying to do and whether we think that Macron was right to call to this kind of what's clearly an emergency meeting. Him and Schultz and Rutter from NATO and Keir Starmer and the Tusk from Poland, Prime Minister of Denmark. And, you know, he's got together the Europeans. And I think partly this is about showing a bit of weight, so we're not going to be excluded from this. But meanwhile, Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, is out saying, why should we involve Europe? All they want to do is keep the war going. This from the country that started the war. And likewise, the Americans, Kellogg, who is Trump's special advisor on this, essentially saying, well, you know, instead of whining about not being in the talks, why don't they come Up with some constructive ideas? So what do you think about European reaction? Yeah, well, I think the first (Time 0:27:28)
European Divisions on Ukraine
Europe is split on how to respond to Trump's actions on Ukraine, with Britain seeking to influence Trump and Macron considering worst-case scenarios.
This division underscores the uncertainty and concern within Europe about US reliability.
Transcript:
Rory Stewart
They found it easier to mobilize soldiers' troops than the Ukrainians have. They found it extremely easy to manufacture missiles. And so if he wants a quick deal, he doesn't have much to push back at Putin with. And I'm very happy to get in a second maybe into the question of what these different deals are. I think there are three possible scenarios that might come out of what Trump's doing. But the split that I want to come back to you on, Alastair, is there's a split basically within Europe, which I would describe, maybe this is unfair, as Britain on the one hand and Macron On the other. The British view is being frightfully keen, trying to take Kellogg seriously. David Lammy was absolutely delighted that he got a meeting, very delighted about how close the UK government is to Trump, one of the only people who got a meeting with Trump when other People were excluded. And the UK is talking about moulding Trump's mind, coming up with a deal, with an offer, and sees itself as this absolutely pivotal relationship between the US and Europe. And Keir's theme next week. And Keir's theme next week. Macron, I think, is a little bit more doubtful. Macron is beginning to think about the worst case scenario. What would it mean if we had to cut US weapons out of European supply chains? Would we be able to cancel F-35 orders? What other alternative countries could we turn to? I think there are people in Europe even beginning to ask questions about whether actually Europe may have to turn to China for semiconductors, EVs. How does Europe make long-range missiles? So, over to you. Tell us a little bit about your sense from the inside of the British government of how they're seeing the situation. Am I right in saying that actually, Lammy and others are quite pleased at the moment, strangely, with their relationship with Trump and are hoping they can shape deals? (Time 0:33:25)
Trump's Trust in Strongmen
Fiona Hill's observation that Trump favors strongmen's views over his advisors raises concerns about his trust in Putin.
This reinforces European anxieties about US reliability under Trump.
Transcript:
Alastair Campbell
I don't think there's a foreign affairs minister anywhere in the world, but particularly in Europe right now, who isn't very, very nervous about what Trump has announced and about How it's going to play out. But I do think the British government thinks it can carve out that place that traditionally the UK has managed to have as a sort of bridge between America and the European Union. It is interesting. It may be bullshit, I don't know, but it is interesting how on the few occasions he has talked about Keir Starmer, Trump has been very positive and very warm. And I've always worried whether that's a sort of divide and rule thing going on with with the European Union he does have a kind of curious relationship with Macron there's a he obviously Knows Macron's you know not going to be there for that long Schultz is clearly not going to be there for that long but he's I think he's got a bit of a grudging respect for Macron and and the Fact Macron does kind of, you know, say what he thinks. And even the fact of this summit today, this meeting today, is Macron basically saying we're not going to sit around and just imagine we get carved out of this. We will be part of this discussion because it's about us. Since this thing. He's basically said, you know, there can be no talk about Europe security without Europe being involved. And there can certainly be no discussion of the settlement of the war with Ukraine without Ukraine being involved. Now, that being said, all that being said, another leading interview we did a fair while back now with Fiona Hill, who was a foreign policy advisor to Trump in the first term. And Foreign Affairs Magazine, I don't know if you saw this, but they reposted the article she wrote in November 2021 about what that was like. But there was this lie that really struck, leapt out at me. If a foreign visitor or caller was one of his favoured strongmen, Trump would always give the strongman's views and version of events the benefit of the doubt over those of his own advisers. And she gives examples of where that happened. And if you just think, the point I made at the start of the programme about treating your friends like enemies and your enemies like friends, he continually gives this sense that he believes Vladimir Putin when he talks to him. He says, I've talked to Putin. He wants peace. He wants this to stop. He wants to, you know, and I trust him and he trusts me. We have a great relationship. Whereas Zelensky, they kind of basically talk about him. Zelensky constantly bigging up the Americans because he has to. But Zelensky himself, the way that they talk about him is very, very different. And I think that this is creating the sense within the European community that, you know, Zelensky is right when he says you can't rely on this guy anymore. You cannot rely on America anymore. And within the American politics, you know, how badly does that damage him politically, which is what he thinks about the whole time? And the answer is probably not very much.
Rory Stewart
No. And it's also interesting how little criticism comes out. I got some pushback from Denmark after our comments last week, where I'd said that it seems to me that Denmark is being quite sort of isolationist and saying, we're okay in Denmark. We don't care very much about the rest of the world. We're not prepared to criticize Trump. And the pushback was to say, well, Denmark spends a great deal on international aid and cares about European institutions. But I think the deeper point is this, that for Denmark, as for Ukraine, and maybe even for Britain, they don't even really feel they can criticize the US, whatever their private views Are. Feel very, very small. (Time 0:35:11)
Yulia Navalny's Commitment
Yulia Navalny showed unwavering commitment to her husband's cause despite the risks.
She emphasized the importance of Navalny's legacy and continued fight against Putin.
Transcript:
Alastair Campbell
That, you've probably been to say, I wasn't going to raise this, but might as well, Millet in Argentina in all sorts of trouble at the moment, because he backed some weird cryptocurrency, Which turns out not to have been quite what it seems. So he's got lawyers and judges taking a look at that. We interviewed Yulia Navalny, the widow of Alexei Navalny. It's out on Leading this week, and it was timed to the first anniversary. I was very, very impressed by how many people turned out at Navalny's grave in Moscow yesterday. Now, the truth is, since Navalny's death, there has been very little organized or disorganized opposition to Putin and Russia. So those people who turned out, I was watching on the German news, there were some of them interviewed, and they said, you know, we're taking a risk being here, but sometimes in life you Have to stand up and be counted. So that's their courage. I think the courage that they both represent came through in that interview with her. (Time 0:52:20)
