A French Take On JD Vance
Arnaud Bertrand has done a profile of JD Vance from the standpoint of Vance’s geopolitical stances—such as they are, so take it all FWIW. Bertrand characterizes Vance as a creature of Sino-phobe Peter Thiel. Maybe. On the other hand Vance also sounds a lot like John Mearsheimer, who is all for pivoting to the “China threat”.
Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand
Quick take on JD Vance:
- Good for Europe. In the sense that he's anything but an Atlantist and wants the US to disengage from Europe, NATO, Ukraine, etc. Many in Europe will see this as bad news because they suffer from an acute case of geopolitical Stockholm syndrome and can't bear the idea of not being vassalized anymore, but for folks who care about sovereignty it would be a step in the right direction, if Europe can seize the opportunity (a big if!).
- Horrible for Palestinians. In this regard he's your typical AIPAC-funded genocide-endorsing Republican.
- Horrible for China. Vance is a creature of Peter Thiel (who launched Vance's career and reconciled him with Trump) who is undoubtedly the most hawkish US businessman on China (literally maniacally obsessed with containing China). In fact Vance is on the record saying he wants to disengage from Europe precisely because he wants to focus on containing China...
That’s the part that sounds like he’s channelling Mearsheimer. Now read this next carefully:
That being said the possibility that Vance, much like Trump, might be transactional and not ideological (unlike Democrats with their "we protect values" hypocritical rhetoric) cannot be dismissed so there's some degree of chance we could see some surprises instead of the pure ideologically-driven hostility we've been used to lately with the Biden administration.
Lastly, unless Trump gets actually assassinated and unless the Democrats nominate another candidate who manages to turn the tide (unlikely), with a pick like Vance as VP it's now a virtual certainty that Trump will be president once more.
So there you go: in balance it's bad news for the world, all the more since - as we've seen during the first Trump administration - it's highly doubtful that the "blob" will allow any US administration to change America's direction much anyhow if they disagree with it 
7:40 PM · Jul 15, 2024
[Addendum]
The fact that in his first foreign policy interview after being picked as VP he said that China is the ‘biggest threat’ to the US and that the US need to focus ‘on the real issue, which is China’, seems to confirm my "horrible on China" assessment...
Realistically, none of this is remotely ideal. As usual in American politics, this isn’t a totally Good Guy v. Bad Guy election, and yet we need to make a choice while attempting to influence. We know who the bad guys are, but our alternative isn’t always what we want. The hope is that we get what we need at this juncture.
The closing paragraph of the first tweet rightly raises the fear of another Trump admin being held captive to the Deep State on foreign policy. That fear is real. The hope is to balance that with the possibility that Trump has learned from his first term. The key will be to see, if he wins, who gets the important policy positions—in foreign policy (State and Defense) but also in the IC and NSC.
The other important point is Bertrand’s observation that Vance may, like Trump, prove to be “transactional” rather than ideological. The more I read about Vance the more it appears that the possibility exists for considerable “fluidity” in his positions. He wanted this Veep gig badly and has been willing to tailor his views to fit Trump’s in some respects.
Candace Owens @RealCandaceO
Like is it possible for us to get one effing person in office who doesn’t immediately speak about how we need to continue bombing the Middle East?
We do not need to do ANYTHING with Iran.
Quote
Chris Menahan @infolibnews
Trump VP pick JD Vance: "A lot of people recognize that we need to do something with Iran—but not these weak little bombing runs. If you're going to punch the Iranians, you punch them hard..."
Exactly. The American people do not want another Middle East war. My guess is that Trump knows that and is saying what he believes he needs to say. Not pretty, but neither is sausage making. What can I say? We live in hope.
MILWAUKEE /Wisconsin/, July 16. /TASS/.
**US presidential candidate Donald Trump will be ready to enter into dialogue with Russian leader Vladimir Putin to resolve the conflict in Ukraine without any mediators.**
This was reported to a TASS correspondent by **a high-ranking Republican Party functionary** taking part in the party’s national convention in Milwaukee, where Trump’s official nomination as a presidential candidate was recently announced. “Undoubtedly, he will begin a dialogue with Putin. And he will do this without intermediaries,” the agency’s interlocutor emphasized, answering a question about Trump’s readiness to enter into a dialogue with Putin on Ukraine. “Now the democrats are not conducting any negotiations [with Russia]. Of course, there must be someone who will start negotiations so that you [Russia and Ukraine] can come to some kind of agreement,” the agency’s interlocutor emphasized and answered the question affirmatively, whether that person will be Trump.
**The functionary expressed confidence that the North Atlantic Alliance should not be present in Ukraine, the conflict should be resolved through negotiations. “NATO does not need to be in Ukraine. We need dialogue, and if it starts, we can all come to an agreement on how to overcome it [the conflict in Ukraine],” the agency’s interlocutor noted.**
The bottom line is that we can pontificate until the cows come home but there is no telling how Trump, Vance or any of his team will act until we see them back in corridors of power. If I were American, I'd still vote for him because of his raw courage and persistence in the face of evil, and because the alternative is the complete destruction of the nation. However, God alone knows what he will do when he is safely ensconced in the Oval Office.