- Figures like Vance, Donald Trump Jr., and Stephen Miller are 'winning' an internal tug-of-war in the administration to 'distance the US from Europe,' pushing against other officials including Keith Kellogg, Marco Rubio, and Mike Waltz, Lucas says

- ‘Trump and Vance greatly weakened the Ukrainian and Western bargaining positions by pointing out Ukraine’s challenges on the battlefield and being so open about their lack of support for Ukraine,’ political science professor Roseanne McManus tells Anadolu

ISTANBUL

The meeting between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was already tense when Vice President JD Vance, seated across from Trump in the Oval Office, jumped into the fray.

“Have you said thank you once?” Vance snapped, as Zelenskyy, pushing for continued American support against Russia, challenged Washington’s shifting stance on the war.

“It’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media,” Vance told Zelenskyy, echoing Trump’s criticism that Ukraine was taking US support for granted.

Friday’s heated exchange between Zelenskyy, Trump, and Vance made headlines globally, in what many fear could set the tone for US foreign policy on Ukraine under Trump.

The showdown erupted soon after Vance began praising the US president for seeking a diplomatic end to the war between Kyiv and Moscow, now in its fourth year.

Referring to the vice president by his first name, a visibly frustrated Zelenskyy countered: “What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about?”

“I’m talking about the kind that will stop the destruction of your country,” Vance shot back. “Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who’s trying to save your country.”

The Oval Office offensive stunned observers, but also served as a defining moment for Vance, cementing his status as Trump’s most aggressive surrogate on foreign policy.

‘Attack dog’

The vice president’s forceful approach earned him a new title by experts and media: Trump’s “attack dog.”

Often taking a more aggressive stance than the president against opponents, he has long sought such a role under Trump even before the president’s second term began in January, according to political scientist Scott Lucas.

“JD Vance is definitely Donald Trump’s attack dog,” said the professor of American Studies at the University of Buckingham. “He was used that way in the campaign. He had been lobbying for that job for months before being named the vice-presidential nominee by appearing on Fox TV and other outlets … and he’s continued to do that, including what was a staged ambush of Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday.”

But Lucas argued that Vance’s role goes beyond being a loyal enforcer.

“I do think he has an important role in the Trump administration’s rather incoherent, chaotic, but clear lines of policy that are threatening and damaging. That, especially, I think is true on the foreign front,” he said.

Roseanne McManus, an associate professor of political science at Pennsylvania State University, said Vance’s confrontational approach was in line with the administration’s broader tone.

“Confrontational rhetoric is common among Trump administration officials, including Trump himself. Vance is more confrontational than a few officials, like (Secretary of State Marco) Rubio,” she said.

McManus, however, was skeptical that Vance had been deliberately designated for the role of “attack dog.”

“I think all of the officials in the administration have an incentive to speak aggressively in order to gain the approval of Trump and his support base. Perhaps this incentive is particularly strong for Vance,” she said, noting that the vice president, seen as a top contender to succeed Trump at the helm of his “Make America Great Again” camp, seeks to run for president in 2028.

Vance’s rhetoric and internal rifts

The confrontation with Zelenskyy was not Vance’s first foray into provocative foreign policy rhetoric. Just weeks earlier, he had stunned European leaders at the Munich Security Conference, where he delivered a blistering speech accusing them of failing to protect their own borders and abandoning democratic principles.

Attacking European leaders and saying they faced a “threat from within,” Vance blamed their governments for allowing “floodgates” of unvetted immigrants to enter. While repeating Trump’s calls for NATO allies in Europe to take on a greater share of its own security burden, he also went a step further, criticizing European politicians, institutions, and courts for what he sees as a departure from democratic principles and restricting “freedom of speech.”

Lucas noted that Vance’s remarks at the conference reflected the views of a faction within the Trump administration that wants the US to “have nothing to do, not only with the security of Ukraine but nothing to do with the security of Europe.”

That position, Lucas explained, is not unique to Vance. It is shared by a group of influential Trump allies, including the president’s son Donald Trump Jr. and senior policy advisor Stephen Miller.

But the vice president’s sharp tongue has also landed him in trouble. Most recently, he’s been accused of dishonoring hundreds of allied troops killed while fighting alongside US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Vance was arguing in favor of a Ukraine mineral deal over a proposed European peacekeeping mission that only long-time US allies Britain and France have publicly backed. The major US presence that the agreement would provide Ukraine would be a “way better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years,” he had said in a TV interview, sparking a wave of backlash from both nations.

What Vance and like-minded figures are “trying to do is to distance the US from Europe while boxing in those who in the past have said that you need a US-European relationship,” he said.

But not everyone in the administration agrees. Trump’s envoy to Ukraine, retired Gen. Keith Kellogg, Secretary of State Rubio, and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz have all expressed support for maintaining some level of US engagement with European allies.

And in this internal struggle for influence in the administration, he added, Vance and his group “are winning.”

A break in the US-Europe alliance?

The shift in US foreign policy under Trump’s second term is fueling concerns that the longstanding transatlantic alliance is unraveling.

“This new approach is a breaking of the alliance that the US has had with European countries since 1941,” said Lucas.

Rather than multilateral cooperation, Lucas said the Trump administration is pushing a transactional, bilateral approach — one that often involves using economic leverage to pressure allies.

“It’s a win-lose approach, which is that whole idea of threatening other countries with tariffs … The US no longer has your back. It no longer has your back in NATO. It no longer has your back in the European Union. It no longer has your back if you’re part of other security organizations,” he said, pointing out that this would indicate a fundamental reorientation of US foreign policy.

McManus agreed that the Trump administration appears to be deprioritizing traditional alliances and “seems to feel little affinity” for European allies. “It seemingly wants European countries to handle the problem of Ukraine’s security on their own.”

But she warns that the public antagonism toward Zelenskyy could backfire.

“Even if you want a peace agreement, it is always better to negotiate from a position of strength. In both diplomatic and business negotiations, it is not strategically beneficial to reveal that you think your own side is in a weak position and should accept any deal.”

“Trump and Vance greatly weakened the Ukrainian and Western bargaining positions by pointing out Ukraine’s challenges on the battlefield and being so open about their lack of support for Ukraine.”

“I infer from this that they care very little about what happens to Ukraine.”