万斯反对美国攻击也门,至少应当推迟一个月,他认为维护此航道主要有益于欧洲,和他在墨安会把欧盟骂了一顿相同,痛恨美国承受欧洲的负担,有人建议让欧洲买单。
Google 翻译:
这让万斯更加让欧洲感到担忧。欧洲外交政策负责人卡贾·卡拉斯指责万斯“试图挑起与欧洲盟友的争端”。另一位欧洲外交官说:“他对欧洲非常危险……也许是政府中最危险的。”另一位外交官说,他“痴迷于”挑拨欧洲和美国之间的关系。
回到谈话中,一些人试图——小心翼翼地——劝说万斯放弃。赫格塞斯说,这次袭击将促进“核心”美国价值观,包括航行自由和预先建立威慑。但他表示,如果愿意,袭击可以推迟。外交政策传统主义者沃尔兹表示:“必须由美国来重新开放这些航道。”但他同意,政府试图“汇总相关成本并向欧洲人征收”。
“如果你认为我们应该这样做,那就去做吧。我只是讨厌再次救助欧洲,”万斯回答道。赫格塞斯同意“我完全赞同你对欧洲搭便车的厌恶。这太可悲了。”但他补充说,“我们是地球上唯一可以做到这一点的人(在我们这边)。”
Stunning Signal leak reveals depths of Trump administration’s loathing of Europe
Andrew Rothin Washington
Messages inadvertently shared with Atlantic journalist lay bare the unvarnished truth about how Vance and Hegseth feel about European allies
But Vance appears determined to push that angle as a reason to postpone the strike.
Outrage after White House accidentally texts journalist war plans: ‘Huge screw-up’
Read more
“I think we are making a mistake,” wrote Vance, adding that while only 3% of US trade goes through the Suez canal, 40% of European trade does. “There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary,” he added. “The strongest reason to do this is, as [Trump] said, to send a message.”
Vance was contending that once again the United States is doing what Europe should be. It is consistent with his past arguments that the US is overpaying for European security and the derision he displayed toward European allies (almost certainly the UK and France) when he described them as “some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”. (Both fought in Afghanistan and the UK fought alongside the US in Iraq).
It was during this policy discussion, Goldberg wrote, that he was convinced that he was reading remarks by the real Vance, as well as defense secretary
Pete Hegseth, national security advisor Michael Waltz, and senior Trump advisor Stephen Miller.
Then Vance went a step further. He tacitly admitted a difference between his foreign policy and Trump’s saying that the strike would undermine the president’s Europe policy – one that has been led by Vance in his
divisive speech at the Munich Security Conference where he accused European leaders of running from their own electorates and of his Eurosceptic comments on Fox News.
“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vance wrote. “There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”
Those designated on the call also reflect the vice-president’s growing clout in foreign policymaking circles. Vance named Andy Baker, his national security advisor who helped lead the transition team at the Pentagon, as his representative. Hegseth named Dan Caldwell, a leading proponent of “restraint” in the exercise of US foreign power abroad to protect Europe and counter rivals like Russia, indicating the Vance team’s presence at high levels of the Pentagon as well.
At heart, the disagreement indicated that Vance’s views of foreign policy are not quite aligned with Trump. Trump broadly sees the world as transactional and optimists in Europe have claimed he could force a positive outcome by forcing those nations to spend more on defense budgets. But Vance appears far more confrontational and principled in his antipathy toward the transatlantic alliance, and has attacked European leaders for backing values that he says are not aligned with the US.
That makes Vance even more of a concern for Europe. Kaja Kallas, the European foreign policy chief, accused Vance of
“trying to pick a fight” with European allies. Another European diplomat said: “He is very dangerous for Europe … maybe the most [dangerous] in the administration.” Another said he was “obsessed” with driving a wedge between Europe and the US.
Back on the chat some sought – carefully – to talk Vance down. Hegseth said the strike would promote “core” American values including freedom of navigation and pre-establish deterrence. But he said the strikes could wait, if desired. Waltz, a foreign policy traditionalist, said: “It will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes.” But he agreed that the administration sought to “compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans”.
“If you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again,” Vance replied. Hegseth agreed that “I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.” But, he added, “we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this.”
Miller, the Trump confidant, effectively ended the conversation by saying that the president had been clear. “Green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return.”
Broadly, the administration’s policies on Europe are coming into focus. And there are few stepping up to voice backing for Nato or for Europe writ large. On a podcast interview this weekend, the senior Trump envoy Steve Witkoff mused about the potential for the Gulf economies to replace those of Europe. “It could be much bigger than Europe. Europe is dysfunctional today,” he said.
Tucker Carlson, the host and another Trump confidant, agreed. “It would be good for the world because Europe is dying,” he said.
Messages inadvertently shared with Atlantic journalist lay bare the unvarnished truth about how Vance and Hegseth feel about European allies
www.theguardian.com