In May of last year, then-senator J.D. Vance delivered a speech on foreign policy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. A politician’s speech at a Washington think tank conference is usually best ignored—and, at the time, there was little reason to pay special attention to this one.
But nine months on, Vance’s remarks look less like obscure Beltway pablum, and more like the blueprint for the Trump administration’s foreign policy.
Vance drew a distinction between perhaps the two most important conflicts in the world, arguing that support for Israel was in the U.S. national interest, but backing the fight for Ukraine was not. “It’s sort of weird that this town assumes that Israel and Ukraine are exactly the same,” he remarked. “They’re not, of course, and I think it’s important to analyze them in separate buckets.”
This distinction is now on full display, with President Donald Trump and Vance tearing into Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, while doubling down on the U.S. commitment to Israel.
But is it coherent to back Israel while opposing aid to Ukraine? Are these two conflicts fundamentally different—or are both about a democracy’s right to defend its sovereignty against existential threats? If Israel is worthy of continued U.S. support against Hamas and Iran, why not Ukraine against Russia?
That’s the important subject of today’s installment of Fight Club.
The Free Press’s Eli Lake thinks Vance had it wrong, and argues that it’s inconsistent to advocate U.S. support for Israel but not Ukraine. Michael Brendan Dougherty, senior writer at the National Review, argues Vance has it right: These two conflicts are fundamentally different and must be treated as such.
—The Editors
First up, Eli Lake:
When J.D. Vance sought to draw a distinction between Israel’s war against Hamas and Ukraine’s fight for its survival against Russia, he argued that backing Israel is a strategy for eventually leaving the Middle East. Vance said that helping to negotiate peace agreements between Israel and the remaining Arab states (building on the strategy from Donald Trump’s first presidency) and arming Israel presented a path to maturity for America’s traditional clients. Eventually an Israeli-Sunni Arab alliance could replace American power in the Middle East. There was an end point.
The fate of Ukraine, according to Vance, is not a core American interest. Ukraine’s valiant three-year fight has only led to a stalemate. “There is no strategic end in sight,” he said. What’s more, arming Ukraine allows America’s European allies—which do have a more vital security interest in reversing Russia’s war of conquest—to free ride off of the American taxpayer.
In short, support for Israel helps free America from its burden of policing the Middle East, while support for Ukraine incentivizes Europe to let America remain the policeman of Europe.