On July 15, 2024, former U.S. President Donald Trump announced JD Vance as his Vice Presidential running mate ahead of the November 2024 election. Prior to becoming a politician, JD Vance had pursued a number of other occupations, including that of author, venture capitalist and lawyer. He gained national fame with his 2016 memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy,” which explores his Appalachian upbringing and broader socio-economic issues facing the white working class in America, but contains no references to his views on Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Since January 2023, Vance has served as Ohio’s junior senator, and it was in that capacity that his views and votes on Russia prompted the Kremlin to ban him from visiting the Russian Federation along with nearly 50 other members of the U.S. Congress. Vance’s views on Russia/Eurasia, which we have summarized below, reflect his broader worldview, which can be described as isolationist. 

Time and again he has argued that, in the former Soviet Union and in the Middle East (with the exception of U.S. support for Israel and possibly Taiwan) an ideal U.S. foreign policy demands standing down—especially in military assistance or intervention. Partly this is because he believes the United States has itself underinvested in the domestic manufacture of “hard power” weaponry such as artillery shells and Patriot missiles as compared to America’s potential adversaries (namely, China, but including Russia). It follows, Vance argues, that if the United States can’t manufacture enough real weapons to affect a conflict outcome in say, Ukraine, it should prioritize its aid commitments. In Vance’s view, this means supporting Taiwan against China and Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah. In Vance’s view, Russia isn’t a serious military threat to U.S. allies in Europe, and sites as evidence that France and Germany, just two key NATO allies, have consistently underinvested in their own defense. By contrast, he argues that U.S. support for Israel is vital because Israel is a long-time critical U.S. ally with an effective military pursuing an achievable goal; all factors he feels are missing in Ukraine.

It should be noted that some of Vance’s public views—in particular his assessments of Trump—have undergone an about-face since 2016, when he reportedly assessed Trump as an “idiot” and, privately, as “America’s Hitler.” More recently, Vance has sparked controversy by claiming the Labour Party’s landslide victory in Britain’s July 5 parliamentary elections converted Britain into the “first truly Islamist country” to possess nuclear weapons. 

This compilation is part of Russia Matters’ “Competing Views” rubric, where we share prominent American figures’ takes on issues pertaining to Russia, U.S.-Russian relations and broader U.S. policies affecting Russia. All sections may be updated with new or past statements. The quotes below are divided into categories similar to those in Russia Matters’ news and analysis digests; reflecting the most pertinent topic areas for U.S.-Russian relations broadly, and for drivers of the two countries’ policies toward one another. Entries are arranged in chronological order.

I. U.S. and Russian priorities for the bilateral agenda

Nuclear security and safety:

• I have to beat up on the U.K. – just one additional thing. I was talking with a friend recently and we were talking about, you know, one of the big dangers in the world, of course, is nuclear proliferation, though, of course, the Biden administration doesn’t care about it…and I was talking about, you know, what is the first truly Islamist country that will get a nuclear weapon, and we were like, maybe it’s Iran, you know, maybe Pakistan already kind of counts, and then we sort of finally decided maybe it’s actually the U.K., since Labour just took over. (The Guardian, 07.16.24)

North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs:

• Mr. Trump did more than simply keep the peace. ... He opened diplomatic talks with North Korea after a half century of stagnation. (WSJ, 01.31.23)

Iran and its nuclear program:

• Mr. Trump ... brokered the Abraham Accords, a historic agreement between Israel and Sunni Arab states providing the best hope of a long-term counterbalance to Iran. (WSJ, 01.31.23)
• In response to a question from CBS’s Margaret Brennan on whether Vance would authorize the use of force by President Joe Biden against Iran as attacks on U.S. troops rise in the Middle East: Right now, absolutely not. I think that we should be trying to deescalate the situation. Of course, we need to have red lines, though. If the Iranians attack American troops, if they play…if they play an escalatory role in the conflict, we need to be willing to respond. They have attacked, certain militia groups have attacked and I think we’ve done the right thing, a proportionate response. If they hit us, we have to hit them back, but if you’re talking about an attack on the Iranian mainland, I think that would be a significant escalation right now, it would be a mistake. (The Hill, 10.29.23)
• The Abraham Accords…showed real promise of uniting the Israelis with some of the Sunni Arab states…you’ve got to enable the Israelis and the Sunni Arab states to work together and actually provide a counterbalance to Iran. (Times of Israel, 07.16.24)
• 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. (Newsweek, 07.18.24)
• In addition to public statements, in his capacity as Ohio’s junior senator, Vance has sponsored or co-sponsored the following legislation related to Iran:
  • S. 3041, introduced by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) on Oct. 16, 2023, and co-sponsored by Vance, aims to reinstate certain sanctions on Iran that were previously waved as part of an agreement and to prohibit any future actions by the U.S. government to release funds or provide further sanctions relief to Iran.
  • S. 3049, the “Revoke Iranian Funding Act of 2023,” introduced by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) on Oct. 17, 2023, and co-sponsored by Vance, aims to ensure that Iranian funds held in Qatar cannot be accessed or used by Iran, particularly in ways that could support terrorism. It would also require detailed reporting on Iranian assets and related licenses.
  • S. 3061, introduced by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) on Oct. 17, 2023, and co-sponsored by Vance, would revoke the waiver determination submitted to Congress on Sept. 11, 2023, regarding certain sanctions on Iran, rendering the waiver null and void.
  • S. 3647, the “Justice for Former American Hostages in Iran Act of 2024,” introduced by Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) on Jan. 24, 2024, and co-sponsored by Vance, would reallocate funds from the lump sum catch-up payment reserve to compensate Iran hostages and their families under the Justice for United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act.

Humanitarian impact of the Ukraine conflict:

• We need to remember, Jake: Ukraine is functionally destroyed as a country. The average age of a soldier in the Ukrainian army right now is 43. That’s tragic… When I think about the great human tragedy here, hundreds of thousands of Eastern European innocents have been killed in this conflict. The thing that’s in our interest and in theirs is to stop the killing. (CNN’s State of the Union, 12.10.23)

Military and security aspects of the Ukraine conflict and their impacts:

• I gotta be honest with you, I don't really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another. I do care about the fact that in my community right now, the leading cause of death among 18-(to)-45-year-olds is Mexican fentanyl that’s coming across the southern border … I'm sick of Joe Biden focusing on the border of a country I don't care about while he lets the border of his own country become a total war zone. (The Columbus Dispatch, 10.11.22)
• Our lack of planning in Ukraine runs extraordinary risks. Russia has a significantly larger population and has ramped up production of adequate munitions from shells to drones. According to press reports, Russia is already producing more shells than the United States and Europe, and is on track to manufacture two million shells a year—whereas the United States expects to manufacture over a million a year by 2025. A protracted conflict could enable Russia to leverage its considerable advantages over Ukraine in men and material. It may also create opportunities to expand or escalate the conflict. Last year, for instance, the Ukrainian government insisted a missile that struck inside of Poland was Russian, despite evidence showing that it was Ukrainian. In September, the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations published an op-ed calling for U.S. military advisers to be stationed in Ukraine. Russia has repeatedly reminded the world of the risk of nuclear escalation. Major wars create wrenching decision-points that risk escalating conflict and expanding it to neighboring territories. The consequence of the U.S. failure to elucidate a clear, achievable strategy in Ukraine had made U.S. policy and the American people hostages to fortune and prisoners of hope. (“Differentiating Ukraine and Israel,” U.S. Senate Memo, 10.23.23) 
• By committing to a defensive strategy, Ukraine can preserve its precious military manpower, stop the bleeding and provide time for negotiations to commence. But this would require both the American and Ukrainian leadership to accept that Mr. Zelenskyy's stated goal for the war —a return to 1991 boundaries— is fantastical. The White House has said time and again that it can't negotiate with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. This is absurd. The Biden administration has no viable plan for the Ukrainians to win this war. The sooner Americans confront this truth, the sooner we can fix this mess and broker for peace. (NYT, 04.12.24)

Military aid to Ukraine:

• You hear all the time from folks who support endless funding to Ukraine that unless we send resources to Ukraine, Vladimir Putin will march all the way to Berlin or Paris. … Vladimir Putin can’t get to western Ukraine. How is he going to get all the way to Paris? (Office of Sen. JD Vance, 04.23.24)
• In addition to public statements, in his capacity as Ohio’s junior senator, Vance has sponsored or co-sponsored the following legislation related to Ukraine:
  • S. 2940, the “Define the Mission Act,” which aims to mandate a comprehensive report from the president outlining the U.S. strategy for involvement in Ukraine.
  • S. 3909, the “Ukraine Aid Transparency Act of 2024,” which aims to mandate quarterly detailed reports on U.S. government expenditures for Ukraine.

S. 3962, the “Enhanced End-Use Monitoring Accountability Act of 2024,” intended to improve accountability and reporting for defense articles provided to Ukraine.

Punitive measures related to Russia’s war against Ukraine and their impact globally:

• Sanctions policy in Russia has been a complete and total failure. We thought that we would shrink the Russian economy by 10%, 20%, 30%, even 50%, yet we’ve shrunk the Russian economy by very little. And if you compare it to the performance of other regional economies, and let’s say in terms of the performance of its currency, it’s actually doing pretty well relative to other world currencies…The foreign policy establishment claimed that one of the strongest sanctions measures was the disconnection of Russian banks from SWIFT. Scholars claimed that this would kneecap the Russian economy. But while the Washington foreign policy establishment was preoccupied with crafting a sanctions regime, they failed to consider that Russia had been developing their own alternative to SWIFT, which is of course the SPFS. (Office of Sen. JD Vance, 05.31.23)
• I think it’s really important for the next administration to have diplomatic flexibility to negotiate what will certainly, I think, be an end to the Russia-Ukraine War, whatever that ultimately takes. I hope to God that it doesn’t last another five years… And what I worry about with the REPO Act is that we actually, if we are freezing the sanctions regime, we prevent the president from having an important tool at his disposal in actually negotiating a peaceful settlement to that conflict. (Office of Sen. JD Vance, 04.10.24)
• In response to freezing Russian central bank assets via the REPO Act, and using them to support Ukraine’s war effort: The core concern with the REPO Act is its impact on… global interest in, U.S. Treasuries. … Foreign central banks and financial institutions alike invest in U.S. Treasuries for both reliable returns and to have safe asset vehicles in which to park capital. However, if foreign governments perceive a risk that their assets will not only be frozen but actually seized and repurposed outright, it is unlikely that foreign governments would continue to view American Treasuries as favorably as they have in the past. Losing our capacity to auction off Treasuries would render the United States unable to meet its federal debt obligations—potentially threatening the U.S. ability to finance the national debt and avoid default risk. (Memo to Senate Republicans, 04.15.24)

Ukraine-related negotiations:

• What’s in America’s best interest is to accept Ukraine is going to have to cede some territory to the Russians and we need to bring this war to a close…The idea that Ukraine was going to throw Russia back to the 1991 border was preposterous – nobody actually believed it. (The Guardian, 12.11.23)
• I think what’s reasonable to accomplish is some negotiated peace. I think Russia has incentive to come to the table right now. I think Ukraine, Europe, and the United States have incentive to come to the table. That is going to happen. This will end in a negotiated peace. The question is when it ends in a negotiated peace and what that looks like. (Office of Sen. JD Vance, 02.18.24)

Great Power Rivalry/New Cold War/NATO-Russia relations:

• The idea that Russia in 2012, or 2023, is our most important geopolitical foe is clearly not right. It’s obviously China, it was obviously China back then. (The American Conservative, 03.15.23)
• On the question of European security, I think there’s a fundamental issue here that Europe really has to wake up to. And I offer this in the spirit of friendship, not in the spirit of criticism, because, no, I don’t think that we should pull out of NATO, and no, I don’t think that we should abandon Europe. But yes, I think that we should pivot. The United States has to focus more on East Asia. That is going to be the future of American foreign policy for the next 40 years, and Europe has to wake up to that fact. (Office of Sen. JD Vance, 02.18.24)
• We owe it to our European partners to be honest: Americans want allies in Europe, not client states, and our generosity in Ukraine is coming to an end. Europeans should regard the conclusion of the war there as an imperative. They must keep rebuilding their industrial and military capabilities. And Europe should consider how exactly it is going to live with Russia when the war in Ukraine is over. (FT, 02.19.24) 
• For three years, the Europeans have told us that Vladimir Putin is an existential threat to Europe. And for three years, they have failed to respond as if that were actually true … If we keep on carrying a substantial share of the military burden, if we keep on giving the Europeans everything that they want, they’re never going to become self-sufficient and they’re never going to produce sufficient weapons so that they can defend their own country. … [I]f Vladimir Putin is a threat to Germany and France, if he’s a threat to Berlin and Paris, then they should spend more money on military equipment. … If the Europeans were forced to step up and provide for their own security, we could actually take care of some more domestic problems at home. (Office of Sen. JD Vance, 04.23.24)

China-Russia: Allied or Aligned?

• Mr. Trump ... began the long, slow process of decoupling the U.S. from its economic reliance on China. (WSJ, 01.31.23)
• My concern is that our Ukraine policy has had this massive, unintended consequence. And if we had gone into this 18 months ago knowing that we would be pushing Russia and India closer to the Chinese … If the consequence of our Ukraine policy is weakening that financial system and strengthening an alternative financial system, I think it’s one of the many consequences for our country that our policymakers haven’t fully incorporated. (Office of Sen. JD Vance, 05.31.23)
• You have to ask yourself, is China going to be more dissuaded by us thumping our chests and acting tough in Europe, or are they going to be more dissuaded by us having the weapons necessary to prevent them from invading Taiwan? My argument is the Chinese are focused on real power. They’re not focused on how tough people talk on TV or how strong our alleged resolve is. They’re focused on how strong we actually are, and to be strong enough to push back against the Chinese, we’ve got to focus there, and right now, we’re stretched too thin. (Office of Sen. JD Vance, 04.28.24)
• The reason Europe has become weaker is because they've de-industrialized. And why have they de-industrialized? Because they've pursued a green energy agenda following the lead of the Biden administration and that necessarily empowers China and Russia. We need to acknowledge that it's our decisions that are making these countries stronger. (Face the Nation, 05.19.24)

Missile defense:

• If China were to set its sights on Taiwan, the Patriot missile system would be critical to its defense. In fact, the United States has promised to send Taiwan nearly $900 million worth of Patriot missiles, but delivery of those weapons and other essential resources has been severely delayed, partly because of shortages caused by the war in Ukraine. (NYT, 04.12.24)

Nuclear arms:

• The only responsible thing to do is try to bring this conflict to an end before it gets to the point of nuclear weapons. You can believe, as I do, that Ukrainians are brave people and that Vladimir Putin is a bad guy, without pushing the United States to the brink of nuclear war. (Newsweek, 10.12.22)

Counter-terrorism:

• “When members of the Senate considered a bill providing military aide to both Israel and Ukraine, Mr. Vance led a group of senators proposing legislation to send money only to Israel. Echoing the words of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, he said the country needed to eliminate Hamas after the terrorist group’s deadly Oct. 7 attack on Israel. ‘Israel has an achievable objective,’ Mr. Vance wrote in a memo he circulated among Senate Republicans before introducing the bill. ‘Ukraine does not.’” (NYT, 07.15.24)

Conflict in Syria:

• Bipartisan foreign policy consensus has led the country astray many times. Leadership in both parties supported the invasion of Iraq, the decadeslong nation-building project in Afghanistan, regime change in Libya and guerrilla war in Syria. All of these policies cost a lot of money and killed many. None of those conflicts has served the nation’s long-term interest. Very few were ever challenged by a leader of national significance. (WSJ 01.31.23)

Cyber security/AI:

• In response to an attack on U.S. critical infrastructure by Chinese state-sponsored hacker group Volt Typhoon: The impact from a full-scale Volt Typhoon attack on U.S. critical infrastructure would be devastating and could result in our nation being thrown into disarray at the exact time it is under military attack from foreign adversaries. The consequences of a Volt Typhoon attack would presumably include a threat to the U.S. military by disrupting power and water to our military facilities and critical supply chains. (Letter to CISA Director Jen Easterly, 05.10.24)

Energy imports from CIS:

• To be updated.

Election interference:

• [T]he same people who have obsessed over Ukraine and Russia over the last two weeks are the same people who tried to take down a democratically-elected president, Donald Trump, with their obsession of Russia. They say they care about democracy, these are the people who were obsessed with the fake Russia conspiracy for years in this country. (RealClear Politics, 02.23.22)
• A big part of the Russia hawkishness from the left is blood lust over 2016. They still blame Vladimir Putin for Donald Trump. And the fact that so many Republicans don’t see that obvious obsession from the left is bizarre to me, because if the left wasn’t so obsessed with Vladimir Putin, I don’t think that they would be seeing the Russia-Ukraine conflict the way that they do. (The American Conservative, 03.15.23)
• Do I think there were problems in 2020? Yes, I do…If I had been vice president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia and so many others, that we needed to have multiple slates of electors and I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there…That is the legitimate way to deal with an election that a lot of folks, including me, think had a lot of problems in 2020. I think that's what we should have done. (ABC News, 02.04.24)

U.S.-Russian economic ties:

• To be updated.

U.S.-Russian relations in general:

• We didn’t serve in the Marine Corps to go and fight Vladimir Putin because he didn’t believe in transgender rights…which is what the U.S. State Department is saying is a major problem with Russia. (Politifact, 02.21.22)
• I have never been one of these guys who says nice things about Putin, despite the implication from the left…I don’t think that the invasion was somehow justified. But I also try to think about this rationally. And there are a lot of people that I don’t like, and there are a lot of bad guys, and that doesn’t mean we should try to fight them. (The American Conservative, 03.15.23)
• I’ve never once argued that Putin is a kind and friendly person. I’ve argued that he’s a person with distinct interests, and the United States has to respond to that person with distinct interests. We don’t have to agree with him. We can contest him and we often will contest him. But the fact that he’s a bad guy does not mean we can’t engage in basic diplomacy and prioritizing America’s interests. There are a lot of bad guys all over the world, and I’m much more interested in some of the problems in East Asia right now than I am in Europe. (Office of Sen. JD Vance, 02.18.24)
• And yes, we are richer than Russia. Our citizens have better lives than the average Russian citizen. That is certainly something to celebrate and be proud of. But you don’t win wars with GDP or euros or dollars. You win wars with weapons, and the West doesn’t make enough weapons. (Office of Sen. JD Vance, 02.18.24) 

II. Russia’s domestic policies

Domestic politics, economy and energy:

• To respond to Navalny’s death: look, he was clearly a brave person. His death is a tragedy. I don’t think that he should have been in prison. I don’t think that he should have been killed in prison. And I condemn Putin for doing it. But here’s the problem: it doesn’t teach us anything new about Putin. (Office of Sen. JD Vance, 02.18.24) 

Defense and aerospace:

• To be updated.

Security, law-enforcement and justice:

• To be updated.

III. Russia’s external policies, including relations with “far abroad” countries:

Russia’s general foreign policy and relations with “far abroad” countries:

• To be updated.

Ukraine:

• See “U.S. and Russian priorities for the bilateral agenda”

Russia’s other post-Soviet neighbors:

• To be updated.

Photo by Gage Skidmore shared under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license.