J.D. Vance’s VP nomination will send chills through Ukraine | Wilnesh News

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s choice of Sen. J.D. Vance as his vice presidential running mate will send shivers down the spines of Kyiv on Tuesday morning.

Vance, an Ohio Republican, is a staunch supporter of Trump’s “America First” policy vision and is generally ambivalent about U.S. intervention in foreign affairs. He also strongly opposes providing more aid to Ukraine.

Vance believes the United States should encourage Ukraine to reach a peace deal with Russia and that Kyiv should be prepared to cede land to invaders, adding to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s concerns as he considers the possibility of another Trump presidency.

“Almost every war ends this way: when people negotiate, both sides give up something they don’t want to give up,” Vance told reporters in December. “Nobody can explain that to me,” he added. How it happened. “There were no territorial concessions compared to the 1991 borders. “

Vance, who served in the Marine Corps, also dismissed concerns that Ukraine’s territorial concessions, an unthinkable idea for Kiev, would not be enough for Russian President Vladimir Putin and that the rest of Europe could be at risk. Take a look.

“If you look at the size of the Russian armed forces, if you look at what it would take to conquer all of Ukraine, let alone further west into Europe, I don’t think this man has shown any ability to achieve these, these imperialist goals, assuming he With these goals,” Vance saidNBC News reported.

In February, Vance wrote an opinion piece for the Financial Times in which he said Europe was overly dependent on the United States and that the region should take on the responsibility of defending neighboring Ukraine.

He also echoed Trump’s view that NATO members in the region don’t spend enough on defense – a charge that analysts say has been valid in the past. However, the record is getting better, with Nato saying last week that 23 of its 32 allies are currently meeting their defense spending target of 2% of GDP.

“The United States has provided security for Europe for too long,” Vance wrote in the Financial Times.

“With the U.S. defense budget approaching $1 trillion a year, we should be spending that money in Europe No Defense spending is what it is: an implicit tax on the American people to keep Europe safe.

“Nothing in recent memory has demonstrated this more clearly than the war in Ukraine,” he said, adding that the United States “is being asked to fill this void at great cost to its own citizens.”

This was the three-word response that Timothy Ash, emerging markets strategist at BlueBay Asset Management, responded to in an email on Monday after learning of the news that Vance had been selected as Trump’s running mate.

Ashe has previously questioned Vance’s stance on Ukraine and suggestions that Europe should bear responsibility for helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia.

Responding to Vance’s Financial Times op-ed in February, Ashe warned that “the stark reality is that without immediate U.S. military support and supplies, Ukraine may lose the war, or at least lose more territory.” , enough to question its viability as a country.”

Ashe added: “Vance and others should ask themselves what this means for Europe and the United States in terms of transatlantic security.”

When Vance made his comments about Ukraine to the media in December, President Zelensky was preparing to meet with lawmakers on Capitol Hill to urge them to pass a much-needed $61 billion aid package for Ukraine as the country’s military artillery Shortages began.

The aid was finally passed in April, This provides Ukraine with a lifeline as Russia begins a new offensive in the country’s northeast. Since then, as aid has trickled down to the front lines, Ukraine has continued to ask international partners for more aid, air defense systems and fighter jets to help it turn the tide of the war.

One of Ukraine’s biggest concerns is the U.S. presidential election and whether Trump will win it, as polls suggest Second term comes in November.

Trump has always been contradictory about the war in Ukraine and continued aid. The former president’s relationship with Russia’s Putin grew increasingly warm during his tenure from 2017 to 2021. He previously said he would end the war in Ukraine “within 24 hours” If he were to take charge, no details were revealed about how he would be responsible.

However, the comments are an ominous sign for Ukraine, suggesting that Trump may try to withhold further aid.

The military alliance in Washington last week was keen to provide Ukraine with fences and seemingly “Trump-free” NATO aid, reaffirming its long-standing support for Ukraine and the country’s ambition to join the Western defense bloc.

However, concerns about the possibility of a Republican administration also hang over the meeting, with analysts saying the alliance may be nervous about possible changes in the direction of U.S. policy under a potential Trump presidency.

“We don’t know who will be elected, but we do know that the likelihood of Trump’s election has increased,” Guntram Wolff, a senior fellow at the Bruegel think tank, told CNBC last week.

“Donald Trump will mean a major break with several NATO policies, especially regarding Ukraine and support for Ukraine. There are rumors that the ideologues around Trump have proposed some peace plans, which means that Ukraine will Give support to Ukraine.

Wolf said such a move would be a “dangerous path” because it would “embolden Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, and the question of who will keep Ukraine safe after that remains open. So I think there’s a lot of real question.

At present, analysts believe that the possibility of a ceasefire is very small, and Kiev does not want to seek a ceasefire with Russia because the war is still in the “active stage” and both sides believe that they have a chance to overwhelm the other.

“Russia’s recent demands for any kind of ceasefire are very extreme and there’s not going to be a lot of room for negotiation there, and I think that sends a signal that negotiations are not imminent or that there’s something on both sides’ minds.” Verisk Anna Gilmour, head of country risk and geopolitics at Maplecroft, told CNBC’s Squawk Box Europe last week.

“I think that, along with NATO’s continued support for Ukraine, is a sign that we’re not going to see the fighting end.”