慕尼黑理事追美问万斯 你引起的争议前所未有

慕尼黑理事追美问万斯 你引起的争议前所未有

慕尼黑安全会议理事会主席追来美国拷问万斯：你引起的争议前所未有！我们专门出了小本本！俄乌会谈，俄国根本没兴趣咋办？

A Conversation with the Vice President of the United States | Munich Leaders Meeting
Munich Security Con
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE-tqUrwBMc

2025年5月7日

与美国副总统对话 | 慕尼黑领导人会议

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE-tqUrwBMc
2025年5月7日

美国副总统JD Vance将在华盛顿特区举行的慕尼黑领导人会议上与慕尼黑安全会议基金会理事会主席Wolfgang Ischinger大使进行讨论。

发言人：

JD Vance
美国副总统

Wolfgang Ischinger
大使（退休）；慕尼黑安全会议基金会理事会主席

华盛顿特区慕尼黑领导人会议

美国新政府已启动美国外交和安全政策的重大调整，其中一些调整对欧洲施加了巨大压力。这促使欧洲领导人重新做好准备，做出一些艰难的决定，其中许多决定早就应该做出。然而，这也引发了人们对美国与其跨大西洋伙伴国共同安全及共同战略利益的承诺的质疑。

六十多年来，加强跨大西洋伙伴关系一直是慕尼黑安全会议的核心使命。自2009年以来，慕尼黑安全会议（MSC）每年都会在华盛顿特区举办跨大西洋高层会议，每次都在美国新政府就职后不久举行。

今年的慕尼黑领导人会议再次为大西洋两岸及其他地区的高级决策者提供了一个及时且非正式的平台，以应对当前的摩擦并确定共同的政策重点，并在二月份慕尼黑安全会议的基础上取得进展。

跨大西洋在政策和地区挑战方面存在巨大分歧，但持久的共同安全和经济利益也同样重要。在华盛顿特区举行的慕尼黑领导人会议以加强跨大西洋伙伴关系的“基础”为重点，旨在推动就面向未来、注重成果的联??合议程进行讨论。与会者将特别探讨跨大西洋合作在安全与防务、经济与贸易、能源和技术等领域面临的机遇与障碍。
<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

【杰森口译】慕尼黑安全会议理事会主席 沃尔夫冈·伊辛格 追来美国拷问万斯：你引起的争议前所未有！我们专门出了小本本！俄乌会谈，俄国根本没兴趣咋办？美中要就台湾问题达协议？美国还视自己为欧洲强国吗？如何阻止核武在中东扩散？

大家早上好！哇，好多人啊。
副总统先生，我们很高兴您能来。 这显然是我们这次在华盛顿召开的慕尼黑安全
会议的亮点。 我希望不是，当然...
这是个亮点。 今天上午非常荣幸欢迎您来到这里。 实际上，对于那些不经常参加慕尼黑会议的人来说， 这已经是副总统第三次参加这个会议的活动了。二月份的时候， 您在慕尼黑的演讲引发了一场关于一些根本价值观的， 相当有争议的辩论。 那次和我们在以往会议上见过的任何情况都不一样。

实际上， 我们出版了一本小册子， 你们出去的时候会拿到一份。这是关于那次演讲以及来自世界各地的反响。 好的。

关于根本价值观、 言论自由 和法治应该如何解读 和应用的激烈辩论，直到今天仍在继续。 但是昨天我们 和您的团队为今天的会议做准备时，我们达成了一致，他们也同意， 今天我们应该着重讨论当前外交政策的挑战，我们共同面临的挑战。

再次感谢各位抽出时间。 时间有限，我就直接开始吧。

您第一次来慕尼黑的时候， 还是俄亥俄州的参议员。提到俄亥俄州，我就想到了《代顿协议》。 三十年前， 也就是1995年，我当时是德国的谈判代表。

所以当时， 我其实在俄亥俄州代顿住了一个月。 太好了。为什么这一点很重要？ 因为正是通过美国的干预，因为美国的干预， 欧洲才得以在当时的巴尔干半岛实现和平。

如果可以的话， 我想问我的第一个问题， 是关于美国和欧洲的。 一位杰出的美国前外交官，理查德·霍尔布鲁克，， 大约三十年前在《外交事务》 上发表文章写道，美国是， 并且应该仍然是一个欧洲强国。

今天，三十年过去了， 我的问题是， 您是否认为美国应该继续将自己视为一个欧洲强国？记得在慕尼黑， 你曾说过“我们仍然是同一支队伍的”。 我们现在还是吗？

这对美国在欧洲的存在， 以及美国与欧洲的关系， 意味着什么？ 这是我的第一个问题。
好的，首先感谢。 抱歉，我的麦克风好像坏了， 不过我们有备用的， 大家现在能听到我说话吗？

很好。 嗯，是的，首先，我很高兴来到这里， 也很高兴能进行这次对话，
我一直很期待。 是的，我仍然认为美国和欧洲是同一阵营的。
你知道， 有时我被批评为过于现实， 认为外交政策纯粹是基于交易价值。
美国能从中得到什么？ 世界其他国家又能从中得到什么？
如果只关注事务性的价值， 我们有时会忽略人道主义或道德层面。
但是，至少在对欧洲的看法上， 这并不能完全概括我的观点，
因为我认为欧洲文明和美国文明、 欧洲文化和美国文化是紧密相连的，
而且它们将永远联系在一起。 我认为试图在美国 和欧洲的关系之间打入一个楔子是完全荒谬的。
当然，这并不意味着我们之间不会有分歧。 正如你之前提到的演讲， 这也不意味着欧洲不能批评美国，
或者美国不能批评欧洲。 但我认为， 从根本上讲， 我们必须而且也确实属于同一个文明阵营。
我认为， 在二十一世纪， 这意味着什么， 这显然是一个大问题。
川普总统和我相信， 这意味着欧洲应该在国防方面承担更多的责任。
我认为， 坦率的说， 大西洋两岸的我们， 在过去的二十年里， 都有点过于安于现状，
而这种安全态势不足以应对未来二十年的挑战。 所以，这个联盟有很多方式会演变和改变，
就像这个联盟从1945年到1975年， 再从1975年到2005年那样演变
和改变。 我的确认为我们正处于这样一个阶段， 需要重新思考很多大问题，
但我的确认为我们应该一起重新思考这些大问题。 这是我和总统都坚信的。
而且，你提到这是我第三次在慕尼黑安全会议上发言。 当然，前两次都是在慕尼黑，
我总是很怀念第一次， 那次我是作为俄亥俄州的参议员来的，
而且我很高兴你有机会在代顿待一个月。 我喜欢代顿。 如果能称得上是大城市的话，
它算是我长大的地方附近， 最大的城市了。 在第一个小组讨论上，我和戴维·拉米都在。
当时他还是个地位不高的反对派成员， 当然他现在是英国伟大的外交部长，
我和他已经成了好朋友。 所以我仍然认为欧洲盟友关系非常重要，
但我认为， 为了使其重要， 为了我们彼此成为真正的朋友（我认为我们是
非常好的朋友）， 我们必须讨论重要的问题， 我知道这是整个组织工作的重要组成部分，
所以我很高兴来到这里。 非常感谢。 我认为欧洲已经收到了这样的信息， 那就是我们需要承担更多责任。 正如你们所知，我们都在努力增加开支。
有些人确实增加了非常多的国防开支，
另一些人则稍微落后， 但我认为我们正朝着正确的方向前进。 嗯，让我来谈谈一个非常具体、紧迫的问题，
乌克兰。 从我们在媒体上看到的情况来看，
川普政府似乎 和我们欧洲的大部分人一样认为， 不幸的是， 俄罗斯似乎并不真正愿意结束这场军事对抗。
如果这是评估结果， 如果这是我们的集体评估，
您能否谈谈美国接下来的战略？ 我们都希望这场战争结束。 而且，我个人认为，
川普政府开启与乌克兰 和俄罗斯对话的进程是正确的。 但是，俄罗斯似乎对可能提供给他们的“交易”
不感兴趣。 所以，请您谈谈下一步的计划。
好的，关于这个问题，我想先说几点。 首先，感谢您对本届政府的赞赏。
显然，我认为我们启动谈判进程是正确的。 我认为俄罗斯和乌克兰之间的战斗已经持续太久了。
很明显，双方都有很多人丧生， 而且有大量无辜者失去了生命。
我们的观点是， 这场战争持续了这么长时间， 而双方甚至没有就结束冲突的必要条件进行建
设性的对话， 这很荒谬。 我认为， 川普总统一直很擅长的一件事，
也因此受到了很多批评， 在我看来， 来自美国和一些欧洲媒体的批评是不公平的，
那就是我所说的战略现实主义或战略洞察力。 换句话说，
你不必同意俄罗斯为这场战争提出的理由， 当然，川普总统和我本人都批评了这次全面入侵，
但你必须尝试理解对方的立场， 才能结束冲突。 我认为川普总统在这方面一直非常明确，
那就是实际上迫使俄罗斯人说出： “为了结束冲突，我们想要什么。”
再说一次， 你不必同意他们的要求， 你可以认为他们的要求太过分，
当然，俄罗斯人提出的第一个和平提议， 我们的反应是： “你们的要求太过分了。”
但谈判就是这样展开的。 我倒不至于…… 我还没那么悲观。
我不会说，俄方不希望解决问题。 我想说的是， 目前俄方提出了一系列要求，
一系列让步， 以此来结束冲突。 我们认为他们的要价太高了。 当然，乌克兰也很重要。
他们是另一方， 至少是直接冲突的另一方， 我们必须问，
乌克兰需要什么， 他们需要什么才能使这场冲突圆满结束？
我们会继续进行对话。 总统已经说过， 如果他认为没有取得进展，
他会退出。 我认为， 大概每隔四到五周，
你就会听到一些美国官员，
有时是多位美国官员说， “本周我们需要再进一步”。
特别是， 我们现在希望采取的步骤是， 我们希望俄罗斯 和乌克兰都能就坐下来谈判的一些基本准则达
成一致。 显然，美国乐于参与这些对话， 但俄罗斯和乌克兰开始对话非常重要。
我们认为这是我们希望采取的下一个重要步骤。 为什么这很重要？ 原因是，
我提到了俄罗斯， 但乌克兰也给我们递交了一份文件， 上面写着
“为了从我们的角度成功解决这场冲突， 我们需要什么”。 可以预见的是，
俄罗斯和乌克兰的立场之间存在着巨大的鸿沟， 我们认为谈判的下一步是努力弥合这一鸿沟。
我们认为， 如果双方不进行一些直接谈判， 我们可能无法完全调解此事。
所以我们关注的是这个。 但我现在还没有对此感到悲观。
我的意思是， 显然，俄方和乌方还没有达成一致，
因为战斗仍在继续。 乌方表示他们同意停火，三十天的停火。 我们对此表示赞赏。
俄方表示， “三十天的停火不符合我们的战略利益。”， 重要的是要了解对方的立场，
你不必非得反对它。 所以我们试图超越对三十天停火的坚持，
更多的关注长期解决方案会是什么样子， 并且我们一直试图推动事态发展。
最后一点， 我想说的是， 我认为这可能不会让在座的各位感到惊讶，
但有很多不在场的人在关注着。 坦率的说，我们对双方都感到失望。
他们彼此憎恨， 以至于如果你和任何一方谈话一个小时， 前30分钟他们都在抱怨一些历史上的委屈。
是的。 那些四年前、五年前，或者十年前的事。
我知道， 人们之间开战肯定是因为存在很多不满
和问题。 但我们正尽力发挥建设性作用， 以推动和平对话向前发展。
我想重复一下川普总统多次说过的一句话， 那就是我们坚信，
这场冲突持续下去对我们、 对欧洲、
对俄罗斯， 和对乌克兰都没有好处。 我们认为，
如果各方冷静下来， 我们就能促成持久和平， 这将有利于乌克兰和俄罗斯的经济发展，
最重要的是， 能够结束对生命的摧残。 我认为人们低估了我们美国总统在这件事上的态度，
他对此怀有真正的人道主义冲动。 他厌恶无辜人民丧生，
甚至厌恶士兵在不必要的冲突中丧生。 他只是想停止杀戮。
这也会继续是美国的政策。 但很明显， 正如各位所见，
我们会根据各方提出的诉求来调整政策并作出反应。
好的， 非常感谢。
如果可以的话，我想补充两点。 我认为对我们这些与乌克兰为邻的欧洲人，
如果你愿意的话，也可以说是与俄罗斯为邻的欧洲人来说 ——我们现在逐渐意识到，
目前的情况不仅仅是乌克兰抵抗俄罗斯侵略的防御战，
它也对整个欧洲的安全构成了威胁。
换句话说， 这也间接的关系到我们的防卫， 不仅仅是乌克兰。
所以我们非常希望看到这场战争能够结束，
而且我认为， 谈判和结束冲突的关键在于，
结果必须是持久的， 不会在未来三个月、
六个月或九个月内再次破裂。 副总统先生，
鉴于时间有限， 问题繁多， 如果可以的话，
请允许我转到另一个问题，中国。
正如我们所理解的， 这对美国， 对贵国的外交政策来说， 是一个关键的挑战。
这对我们欧洲来说， 也是一个非常重要的问题。
美国已经将中国定义为未来许多年的关键战略挑战。
这也是美国政府官员告诉我们， 美国必须更多的参与亚洲事务，
因此需要减少在欧洲的驻军和力量的理由。
但现在， 有媒体报道称， 白宫可能对与中国达成战略协议感兴趣，
甚至可能包括台湾问题。 您能否简单谈谈川普政府的中国战略？
我没有看到你提到的那些关于台湾战略协议的报道， 所以我对此不作评论。
我可以肯定的说， 我们两国政府之间没有就这个问题进行过战略 协议的对话。
我们讨论过的是， 我们不能吸收全世界的生产过剩。
在过去的三十年里， 这在某种程度上一直是美国经济扮演的角色，
包括对欧洲也是如此。 顺便说一句， 我们并不责怪德国人奉行一项使其出口商强大
的政策。 我们只是希望美国领导层能够采取一项能够增
强我们出口商实力的政策， 因为现在我们发现自己处境非常不稳定。
我说“我们”指的是整个西方， 指的是北约联盟， 指的是美国和欧洲，
因为在一个高度复杂、 高度全球化的供应链世界中， 我们发现自己越来越依赖于那些可能并不以我
们最佳利益为出发点的国家。 即使他们是还算不错的贸易伙伴， 但是把所有的鸡蛋放在一个篮子里，
在经济上来说仍然有点冒险。 总统的意思是，
我们必须重新平衡全球经济， 尤其是在与中国的贸易关系上。 我们不能再吸收每年数千亿美元，
甚至接近一万亿美元的贸易顺差， 而其中大部分来自中国。
这种再平衡意味着， 我们认为中国应该让本国人民更多的消费。
他们为了增加巨额出口， 一直压低国内消费水平。
这意味着在一些全球贸易协议中， 美国制造商需要得到更公平的对待。
这意味着我们将不得不与我们在欧洲的一些朋友， 以及一些更具对抗性的国家达成一些新的贸易协议。
当然，我们也要小心， 因为虽然我们想要重新平衡全球贸易，
而且这无疑是我们政策的明确目标， 但我们也要确保以正确的方式做到这一点。
是的，你们已经看到媒体报道说中方主动联系了美国。
当然，我们会和他们坐下来谈。 我不打算透露太多细节，
也不会预先判断谈判结果， 但我们希望能够为了美国工人以及美国制造商
的利益来重新平衡贸易。 这是我们的政策。 我们认为在做到这一点的同时，
至少可以 和中国以及世界上许多其他国家保持开放的对话。
但这并不意味着旧的经商方式会保持稳定 或持续下去。
这根本不可能。 十年前就不可持续， 四年前肯定也不可持续， 我们非常致力于改变它。
但是我们愿意 和我们的朋友以及那些更具对抗性的国家进行对话，
讨论这种再平衡最终会是什么样子。 大家要记住， 总统宣布这些对全球贸易体系的根本性变革的
“解放日” 才过去刚刚差不多三十天。 所以，我们正处于一个重大转变的初期阶段。
我认为这一转变将真正有益于美国和欧洲。 但从根本上说，
这件事必须发生， 而且将在川普总统的领导下发生。
好的。 如果你们和中国之间展开初步讨论，
我认为这很好。 您能否详细说明一下，
您对欧盟 和美国就这些贸易问题进行成功讨论的期望是什么？
我们能给我们在布鲁塞尔的朋友们带去什么信息吗？
因为从我们的角度来看， 这显然也是一个非常紧迫的问题。
好的。 简单来说，我们和很多欧洲朋友的高层， 包括总统和国家元首之间，
我和欧洲政府官员之间，以及贸易代表之间， 都进行了非常好的对话，
也包括贸易协定中非常具体的技术细节。 这些对话正在进行中， 但我可以先提出几个总体原则。
我认为首先， 美国希望它的出口商， 以及工人， 能够得到更公平的待遇。
我们希望， 就像美国市场向许多欧洲商品开放一样， 我们也希望欧洲市场能够向美国商品开放。
这里面既有农业方面的因素， 也有增值制造业方面的因素。 我们认为， 在软件以及更偏硬件的技术方面，
我们有一些很棒的国防技术公司。 一方面， 我们的欧洲朋友说“我们想要加强国防，
我们想要承担更多的责任”， 但另一方面， 如果销售软件和硬件的是美国公司，
他们似乎就不太愿意合作。 我们认为这是不合理的。
我们认为我们拥有世界上最好的军事硬件 和软件，
而且我们认为， 作为好盟友的一部分， 我们当然希望欧洲在欧洲大陆的防务中发挥更
大的作用， 但我们也认为他们可以与许多优秀的美国公司合作。
所以，再说一次，这不一定是一个零和博弈。 这可能是一个非常协同的关系，
但基本原则是， 我们认为世界上大多数国家对美国出口商
和美国公司的态度都过于强硬。 我们希望整个世界对美国工人生产的产品更加开放。
明白。 有时候欧洲的官员会说：
“我们要惩罚美国科技公司， 但我们绝不会用这种方式惩罚欧洲科技公司。”，
我们只是希望多一点公平， 或者用总统最喜欢的词来说，对等。
而且，我们认为和欧洲进行这种对话非常容易， 希望我们的欧洲朋友也同意这一点。
呃，我朋友示意我们时间快到了。 我尽量....
我正玩得开心呢。我们可以再回答几个问题。 好的，很好。 我的团队在后边很紧张。你们看不到，但是……
我们会尽量简短。 非常感谢。 我们听说未来几天或两周内，
总统将出访中东。 是的。 该地区有很多未解决的问题，
其中就包括伊朗及其核野心等等。
您能谈谈这个地区吗？ 我是说， 未解决的问题太多了，
比如加沙问题， 还有伊朗德黑兰的问题。 您期望达到的目标是什么？ 会争取伊朗浓缩铀减为零吗？
有人建议这样做， 还是说我们会重蹈十年前达成的协议的覆辙？
是的，之前的协议， 也就是《联合全面行动计划》存在一些问题。
这是协议在美国的名字。 我想在欧洲也是这么叫的。 协议的两个大问题是，
第一，执行或核查机制非常薄弱。 我认为它实际上并没有起到阻止伊朗走上核武
器道路的作用。 这是必须改变的一点。 第二，我们认为他们核计划的某些部分在《联合全面
行动计划》 下被保留了下来， 虽然它们不是核武器， 伊朗也没有核武器，
但这使得伊朗可以继续朝着核武器的方向发展， 如果他们启动开关并按下启动按钮的话。
而且我们不能只从伊朗的角度来考虑这个问题， 正如总统所说，
我们认为这里存在一种协议， 可以让伊朗重新融入全球经济，
这对伊朗人民来说是件非常好的事情， 而且可以彻底阻止他们获得核武器的任何机会。
这就是我们谈判的目标。 正如总统所说， “A方案对伊朗人民，
甚至对伊朗领导层中的一些人来说都非常好， 而B方案则非常糟糕。
这对所有人来说都很糟糕， 也不是我们想要的， 但这总比伊朗拥有核武器这个“C选项”要好。”
对于美国政府来说， 这是完全不可能接受的， 没有任何商量的余地。
还有其他一些值得思考的事情， 因为这不仅仅是关于伊朗。 如果伊朗拥有了核武器，
那么下一个拥有核武器的国家会是谁？ 当那个国家拥有核武器后，
再下一个国家又是谁？ 我们真正关心的不仅仅是伊朗， 而是核扩散问题。
总统在几周前的一次采访中也说过， 在媒体的漩涡中，
信号和噪音混杂， 这个信号非常明显， 但却被噪音淹没了。
总统非常厌恶核扩散，我也一样。 我认为总统会非常乐意与俄罗斯
和中国坐下来， 共同商讨如何改善现状，
大幅减少全球范围内的核武器数量。 当然，这并非朝夕之间可以实现的，
但愿几年后我们能有机会进行这样的对话。
但如果放任世界各地多个政权竞相研发核武器，
那么这一切都无从谈起。 而且我们真的认为， 如果伊朗这块多米诺骨牌倒下，
你将会看到核武器在中东地区扩散。 这对我们非常不利，
对我们的朋友非常不利， 这是我们认为不能发生的事情。
所以，在不对谈判进行预判的情况下， 我想说目前为止一切都还不错。
我们对伊朗人对我们提出的一些要点的回应感 到非常满意。 我们对一些中间人
和在场人士所发挥的作用感到非常满意， 特别是阿曼人， 他们发挥了非常积极的作用，
我们对此表示感谢。 所以目前为止， 我们走在正确的道路上，
但这终究会结束， 结果要么是伊朗放弃他们的核项目， 他们的核武器项目。
他们可以拥有民用核能，没问题。 但我想问一个基本的问题， 世界上哪个国家拥有民用核能和铀浓缩能力，
但没有核武器？ 答案是，没有。 现在没有任何一个国家只拥有民用核项目，
如果他们同时具备完整的基础设施， 能够将浓缩铀提炼到90%以上，
达到制造核武器所需的裂变材料的水平。 所以我们的提议很简单，
我们不反对各国发展核能， 但你们不能拥有能够制造核武器的铀浓缩项目，
这是我们的底线。 好的，我想我们大多数人都完全同意这一点，
特别是， 我想，作为一个无核国家，
我们的目标是维持核不扩散。 是的。
这点非常重要。 这让我可以转到下一个， 也就是关于北约的最后一个问题。 因为大多数人不明白，
在过去七十年里， 我们在美国领导下建立的北约， 一直是国际核不扩散的重要工具。
是的。 如果我们当年没有美国在欧洲的核存在，
我估计至少会有两三个、 四五个欧洲国家会发展核武器，
如果他们没有这种（安全）保障的话。 对。
所以北约在核不扩散方面发挥了重要作用。 六周后， 我们将迎来北约峰会，
同样，有很多问题。 其中一个将是国防开支的持续问题，
正如我们之前在讨论中提到的那样。 欧洲国家正在加大投入， 但我们也听到了本届美国政府提出的更宏伟的要求。
那么您能否谈谈您对北约峰会的期望？
在国防开支方面， 您希望峰会取得什么样的成果？ 欧洲需要做多少才能减轻美国在欧洲的负担？
是的，我认为这其中包含几个不同的部分。
首先，总统已经表示， 他希望看到北约的国防开支达到GDP的5%，
并且他认为这与我们的欧洲盟友告诉我们的， 他们对世界上某些威胁的担忧程度相符。
而且，鉴于不幸的是， 过去几十年里许多欧洲国家的军队发展都停滞不前，
所以现在需要迎头赶上， 这就是总统设定的目标。
当然，欧洲国家会自己做出决定， 但我们认为这是一个合理的目标。
但真正重要的不仅仅是支出本身， 还在于资金的使用方式。 再次，当我们审视一些欧洲盟友时，
我们感到担忧。 我在第一次参加慕尼黑安全会议时就提出了这一点，
即当我回顾十年前、 十五年前、 二十年前的德国时， 德国做得非常出色的一点是，
他们保持了其经济的工业实力， 使其与第一世界的生活水平相符。 但现在我们在欧洲看到的是，
我们的许多欧洲朋友正在去工业化， 而与此同时， 我们都看到， 真正的硬实力的经济基础需要非常强大
和有力的工业。 因此，不仅仅是花钱， 尽管这很重要， 我们要确保的是，
为第一世界生活水平提供动力的同一经济引擎， 在万不得已时，
可以生产战争武器。 所以，我认为这其中既有完全独立于支出水平的经济因素，
当然也有支出水平的问题。 但我们真心希望， 也真心关注欧洲能够自几自足。
几周前我接受了一次采访， 当时我试图强调， 是的，我们和欧洲之间会有分歧，
欧洲和我们之间也会有分歧。 有时，我会回想起2003年美国在中东的政策，
坦率的说， 我希望我们当时听取了欧洲朋友的意见。 但我认为在这个问题上，
我们从根本上是正确的。 而且我很高兴看到我们的许多欧洲朋友也认识
到这一点， 并认识到欧洲确实必须在欧洲大陆的防务中发 挥更大的作用。
我认为我们在这点上是有共识的， 只是如何实现以及最重要的是如何快速实现的问题。
当然，在德国， 正如你们所见， 我们国家出现了一线希望，在国防开支方面，
我们已经消除了所谓的“死亡刹车”。 德国新政府现在有机会大幅增加国防开支。
换句话说， 我认为我们能够很好的回应您刚才所说的话。
女士们、先生们，我们的精彩讨论到此结束。
我非常感谢大家允许这次会议以问答形式进行。 好的。 嗯，我相信我们可以继续讨论一上午，
但我知道各位还有其他安排。 最后，请允许我总结一下， 我和我的团队都非常希望，
各位能够愿意并准备好延续这个传统，
即美国能在慕尼黑安全会议的重要活动中保持 您这个级别的代表出席。
您不是第一位来到慕尼黑安全会议的美国副总统，
但我们非常感谢您以副总统的身份莅临本次会议。 请您明年再光临慕尼黑。
非常感谢副总统先生。 谢谢。
请允许我说几句总结性的发言。 首先，我感谢您的友善之辞。
我感谢您的再次邀请。 二月份之后， 我还不确定是否还会收到邀请，
很高兴知道邀请仍然有效。 我们已经替您考虑过了。
第二点， 既然你们提到了德国， 我想代表总统向默茨总理表示祝贺。
我知道接下来几天我们会和他进行对话， 我们很期待。 最后一点是，我不想重复那份文件里的内容。但我在上次慕尼黑演讲中提到的一点， 虽然没有得到太多的关注， 但我认为同样重要：
那就是， 我在上次演讲中所说的一切， 对之前的美国政府
和对欧洲任何国家的政府都同样适用。 而且，我发自内心，
以朋友的身份来说， 在约束言论自由的边界， 与失去人民的信任之间，
存在一种平衡。 每个国家划定的界限都会有所不同。
每个国家都认为有些事情是超出政治辩论范畴的。 我理解， 我接受这一点，
如果一个国家划定的界限与美国略有不同， 我也没意见。
但我认为我们所有人， 特别是美国， 都必须非常小心，
不要以某种方式划定界限， 以至于实际上破坏了我们文明赖以建立的民主
合法性。 我认为这才是问题的根本所在。
不是说欧洲不好，美国就好。 而是我认为欧洲和美国都有点偏离了轨道，
我希望我们都能一起回到正轨上来。 我们当然愿意，
并且有能力参与到这项工作中来， 我也相信大家也是如此。 谢谢。 上帝保佑你们。

A Conversation with the Vice President of the United States | Munich Leaders Meeting

Munich Security Con
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE-tqUrwBMc
2025年5月7日

The US Vice President JD Vance will participate in a discussion with Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger, President of the Foundation Council of the Munich Security Conference, at our Munich Leaders Meeting in Washington, DC.

Speakers: 
 
JD Vance 
Vice President, United States of America

Wolfgang Ischinger
Ambassador (ret.); President of the Foundation Council, Munich Security Conference Foundation

The Munich Leaders Meeting in Washington, DC
The new US administration has set major shifts in US foreign and security policy in motion – including some that put significant pressure on Europe. This has jolted European leaders into renewed readiness to take some difficult decisions, many long overdue. However, it has also given rise to doubts about US commitment to mutual security and shared strategic interests with its transatlantic partners.  

For more than six decades, strengthening the transatlantic partnership has been at the heart of the Munich Security Conference’s mission. Since 2009, the MSC has hosted high-level transatlantic gatherings in Washington, DC, always shortly after the inauguration of a new US administration.  

This year’s Munich Leaders Meeting again provides senior decision-makers from both sides of the Atlantic and beyond with a timely and informal platform to address current frictions and identify joint policy priorities, building on the Munich Security Conference in February.  

Transatlantic differences on policy and regional challenges are substantial. However, so are enduring common security and economic interests. With a focus on strengthening the “basics” of the transatlantic partnership, the Munich Leaders Meeting in Washington, DC, aims to drive discussion on a future-proof and results-oriented joint agenda. In particular, participants will discuss opportunities and obstacles for transatlantic cooperation in areas such as security and defense, economics and trade, energy, and technology. 
<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Wolfgang Ischinger

[Applause] how we doing
good morning everybody wow what a crowd what a crowd mr vice President we're so happy to have you here this morning this
is of obviously the highlight of our Munich Security Conference uh meeting in
Washington DC i hope not i hope not but it is the highlight it's really a great honor to welcome you here this morning
um actually for those of you who have not been regular participants in Munich
this is the third time already that the vice president is participating in a Munich Security Conference
event when you came to Munich last February your speech kicked off a pretty
controversial debate about fundamental values sure unlike anything we have ever
had at the Munich Security Conference and actually we published a brochure
copy of which you'll have on the way out about the speech and the reactions to it
from around from around the world uh this intense debate about how
fundamental values how the freedom of speech the rule of law should be
interpreted and applied continues to this day sure but when we prepared for this meeting
with your team yesterday we agreed and they agreed that today we should try to
focus on current challenges of foreign policy sure um which confront us
together so thank you again for making yourself available we don't have a great deal of time so uh I'll not come up with
a long introduction and I just want to get us started the first
time you came to Munich you were still a senator from Ohio what I associate with Ohio is the
Dayton agreement 30 years ago in 1995 i was at that time actually the German
negotiator so I actually lived in Dayton Ohio for one entire month so that's
right and this and and why is this important because it was through US intervention i
see it was through US intervention that peace was brought about in Europe in the
Balkans at that time uh so if I may let me ask my first question
u about the US and Europe a
distinguished former US diplomat Richard Hullbrook wrote almost exactly 30 years
ago in a foreign affairs article uh that the United States is and should remain a
European power today 30 years ago my question is
do you think that the United States should continue to see itself as a
European power in Munich remember you actually said and I quote we are still
on the same team are we and what does that mean for the US presence in Europe and
relationship with Europe first question 

JD Vance 

sure well first of all thank you and I'm sorry my microphone apparently is broken
but uh we have we have another one so that's good so everybody can hear me now right everybody can hear me great good
um yeah so so first of all um thrilled to be here and thrilled to to have this conversation i've been looking forward
to it and yeah I I do still very much think that the United States and Europe
are on the same team and I I think that this is you know sometimes I've been criticized as a hyper realist right i
think of foreign policy purely in terms of transactional values what does the America get out of it what do the you
know rest of the world get out of it and and try to you know focus so purely on the transactional value of it that we
ignore sometimes the humanitarian or the moral side of it and I think at least with Europe that's actually not a full
encapsulation of my views because I think that you know European civilization and American civilization
European culture and American culture are very much linked and they're always going to be linked and I I think it's
it's completely ridiculous to think that you're ever going to be able to drive a firm wedge between the United States and
Europe now that doesn't mean we're not going to have disagreements and of course you know you brought up the speech earlier it doesn't mean that
Europeans won't criticize the United States or the United States won't criticize Europe but I do think fundamentally we have to be and we are
on the same civilizational team and I think obviously there's a big question about what that means in the 21st
century i think you know obviously the president and I believe that it means a little bit more Europe European burden
sharing on the defense side i think that it means that all of us frankly on both sides of the Atlantic have gotten a
little bit uh too comfortable with the security posture of the last 20 years and that frankly that security posture
is not adequate to meet the challenges of the next 20 years so there are a lot of ways in which this alliance will
evolve and change in the same way that the alliance evolved and changed from 1945 to 1975 and from 1975 to 2005 i do
think that we're in one of these phases where we're going to have to rethink a lot of big questions but I do think that
we should rethink those big questions together that is a fundamental belief of both me and the president and you know
you mentioned this is my third time speaking uh with the Munich Security Conference group obviously the first
couple of times were in Munich and I always remember very fondly of course that the very first time it was as a
United States senator representing Ohio and I'm glad you got to spend a month in Dayton i love Dayton it's kind of the closest big city if you can call it a
big city to where I grew up uh but on that first panel I was on that panel and also David Lambie who at the time was a
a a lowly member in opposition and of course now is the great foreign secretary of the United Kingdom and he
and I have become good friends so I I I still think that this European alliance is very important but I think that for
it to be important and for us to be real friends with each other and I think that we are very much real friends we've got
to talk about the big questions and I know that's an important part of what this entire group does so I'm glad to be
here great thank you so much u and I think the message has arrived in Europe
that we need to carry a significantly larger share of the burden as you know
we are all trying to spend more some are are spending really a lot more others
are lagging behind a little bit but we're moving in the right direction I think um let me let me turn to a really
concrete urgent issue ukraine the Trump administration from
what we have seen in the media etc seems to
agree with most of us in Europe that unfortunately Russia does not seem to be
really willing to end this military confrontation um if that's the assessment if that if
that's our collective assessment uh could you talk a little bit about US
strategy going forward we we all want this war to end and and let me say as a
very personal comment I think the Trump administration did the right thing by
starting this process of talking to the Ukrainians talking to the Russians but
the Russians seem not to be interested in the kind of quote unquote deal that
could be offered to them so talk to us a little bit about how you see the next steps yeah so so let me say a couple of
things about this f first of all I I appreciate your kind words about the administration obviously I think it was the right thing to do for us to start
the process of negotiation i think for too long the the Russians the Ukrainians
have been fighting obviously there's been a lot of people dying on both sides there have been a lot of innocent loss of life and our view is it's absurd that
you've had this war go on for so long and the two sides aren't even talking constructively about what would be
necessary for them to end the conflict and I think that um you know one of the things that that the President Trump has
always been very good at and he's gotten a lot of criticism unfair criticism in my view from both the American and some
of the European press is is what I would call a strategic realism or a strategic
insight in other words you don't have to agree with the Russian justification for
the war and certainly both the president and I have criticized the full-scale invasion but you have to try to
understand where the other side is coming from to end the conflict and I think that's what President Trump has been very deliberate about is actually
forcing the Russians to say "Here is what we would like in order to end the conflict." And and again you don't have
to agree with it you can think that the request is too significant and certainly the first peace offer that the Russians
put on the table our reaction to it was you're asking for too much but this is how negotiations unfold and I wouldn't
say I'm not yet that pessimistic on this i wouldn't say that the Russians are uninterested in bringing this thing to a
resolution what I would say is right now the Russians are asking for a certain set of requirements a certain set of
concessions in order to end the conflict we think they're asking for too much
okay and then obviously uh the Ukrainians matter a lot they're the other SAR side they're the other party
at least to the direct conflict and we have to ask what is the Ukrainian what do they what do they need in order um to
bring this conflict to a successful completion and we're going to continue to have that conversation now what the
president has said is that he will walk away if he thinks he's not making progress and I think that you know about
once every four or five weeks you will hear some American official or sometimes multiple American officials say this is
a week where we need to make another step and in particular the step that we would like to make right now is we would
like both the Russians and the Ukrainians to actually agree on some basic guidelines for sitting down and
talking to one another obviously the United States is happy to participate in those conversations but it's very
important for the Russians and the Ukrainians to start talking to one another we think that is the next big
step that we would like to take and why does that matter the reason it matters is because again I mentioned the
Russians but also the Ukrainians have also been sort of they they've they've put a piece of paper in our hands that
says this is what we would need in order to bring this conflict to a successful resolution from our perspective and
there's a big gulf predictably between where the Russians and the Ukrainians are and we think the next step in the
negotiation is to try to close that gulf we think it's probably impossible for us to mediate this entirely without at
least some direct negotiation between the two and so that's what we focus on but I I'm I'm not yet a pessimist on
this i mean obviously you know the Russians and the Ukrainians are not there yet because the fighting is still
going on you know the Ukrainians have have said they would agree to a ceasefire a 30-day ceasefire we
appreciate that what the Russians have said again you don't have to disagree with it but it's important to understand
where the other side is coming from what the Russians have said is a 30-day ceasefire is not in our strategic
interest so we've tried to move beyond the obsession with a 30-day ceasefire and more on the what would the long-term
settlement look like and we've tried to consistently advance the ball one final point I'd make about this I think this
probably wouldn't surprise anybody in the room but there are a lot of people watching who are not in the room is is a
frustration that we've had frankly with both sides is that they hate each other
so much that if you have an hour conversation with either side the first 30 minutes are just them complaining
about some historical grievance from four years ago or 5 years ago or 10 years ago look I understand it i
understand that people don't fight wars against each other without a lot of grievance and a lot of of problem but
we're trying to as much as we can play a constructive role in advancing the peace conversation forward what I I'll say
just to echo something that President Trump has said many times but I think it bears repeating is our strong view is
that the continuation of this conflict is bad for us it's bad for Europe it's bad for Russia and it's bad for Ukraine
we think that if cool heads prevail here we can bring this thing to a durable
peace that will be economically beneficial for both the Ukrainians and the Russians and most importantly will
stop the end of the of the destruction of human lives i think people underappreciate this about our president
here in the United States is he has a genuine humanitarian impulse about this he hates innocent people losing their
lives he hates even soldiers losing their lives in unnecessary conflicts he
just wants the killing to stop and that will that will continue to be America's policy but obviously as all of you have
seen we'll navigate that policy and react as the parties bring their grievances to us great thank you very
much i if I can just offer two footnotes to that i think for us
uh Europeans living as neighbors of Ukraine and if you wish also as
neighbors of Russia we have begun to understand that what we're looking at
here is not just the defensive war by Ukraine against the Russian aggression
it is also a confrontation that puts at
risk all of European security in other words it's indirectly our defense also it's not
just Ukraine and this is why we're so desperately interested in seeing that this u comes to an end hopefully and the
and and I I think the real trick for negotiations and for a conclusion of this is going to be that it's going to
be lasting and not not broken u in the next three six or nine months again let
me Mr mr Vice President since we have so little time there are so many issues if
I if you allow let me let me turn to another issue
china that's a key as we understand a key challenge for the United States for
your foreign policy it's also of tremendous interest for for us in Europe
so the United States has defined China as the key strategic challenge going
forward for coming probably many years this has also been the the justification the reasoning
when American staff members of yours tell us the United States must do must be much
more present in Asia and will therefore uh need to reduce their presence their
strength etc in Europe but now there are some signals in the media that you that
the United States government that the White House might actually be interested in a strategic deal with China maybe
even including on Taiwan could you talk a little bit about China strategy of the
Trump administration yes so I haven't seen those reports that you mentioned a strategic deal on Taiwan so I I wouldn't
speak to that i certainly say that would say that there has been no conversation between our governments about a strategic deal on on that particular
question what we have talked about of course is that we cannot absorb the
producer surplus of the entire world that has been the role of the American economy for the past 30 years in some
cases visav Europe and by the way we don't blame for example the Germans for pursuing a policy that makes their
exporters strong we just wish that American leadership had pursued a policy that made our exporters strong because
now we find ourselves in a very precarious place when I say we I mean the entire West i mean the NATO alliance
i mean the United States and Europe which is that we become in a world of hyper complicated hyper globalized
supply chains we find ourselves more and more reliant on countries that may not
have our best interest at heart and even if they're halfway decent trading partners it's still a little bit risky
to put all of your eggs in one proverbial basket economically and what the president has said is we must
rebalance the global economy visav China we cannot absorb hundreds of billions of
dollars close to a trillion dollars per year in annual surplus most of it coming
from the People's Republic of China and what that's going to mean in in in the rebalancing is that we think that the
PRC is going to have to frankly let their own population consume a little bit more they've held consumption levels
down in order to increase these massive exports it means that American manufacturers are going to have to be
treated more fairly in some of these global trade deals it means we're going to have to cut some new trade deals with
some of our friends in Europe but also with some of our more adversarial nations but but that also you know we
have to be careful here because while we want to rebalance global trade and that has certainly been the explicit goal of
our policy we also want to make sure that we do this in the right way and yes you've seen media reports that the
Chinese reached out to the United States of course we're going to sit down and talk to them i'm not going to divulge
too many details or prejudge the negotiations but we want to rebalance trade in the interests of American
workers in the interest of American manufacturers that is our policy we think that we can do that while
preserving at least an open dialogue with the PRC and with a lot of other nations all over the world uh but but
that that doesn't mean the old way of doing business is going to be stable or that it's going to persist it simply
cannot it was not sustainable 10 years ago it was certainly not sustainable four years ago and we're very very
committed to changing it but we're open to having conversations with both again our friends and more adversarial nations
about what that rebalancing ultimately looks like and and and people have to remember you know liberation day which
was where the president announced these this this fundamental change I think in the global trading system that was
almost exactly 30 days ago so we are in the early innings of a very significant
shift i think that shift is going to really enure to the benefit of both the United States but also of Europe but it
it's fundamentally it has to happen and it's going to happen under President Trump's leadership
all right um I think it's great if there are beginning discussions between you and
the Chinese uh could you expand a little more on what would your expectations be
for an EU US successful discussion of these trade issues uh is there any
message that we can take home to our friends in Brussels um because that's
also from our point of view obviously a very urgent issue yeah so it to put it very simply and
we've obviously had great conversations with a lot of our European friends at the very senior levels between you know
the president and heads of state between me and and officials in European governments but also with trade
representatives and also the very nitty-gritty technical details of a trade agreement so these conversations
are ongoing but I'll throw a few general principles out there i think the first is that again America wants its
exporters and and by implication its workers to be treated much more fairly we want American markets and sorry
excuse me in the same way that American markets have been open to a lot of European goods we'd like a lot of European markets to be open to American
goods now there's an agriculture component to that there's an value added manufacturing component to that uh we
think that we have in both the software but also the more harder technology side we have some great defense technology
firms where on the one hand we have our European friends saying we want to
actually build up our defense we want to do more burden sharing but on the other
hand it seems like some of our European friends are less open for business if the people selling software and hardware
are American firms well we think that's inconsistent we think that we have some of the best military hardware and
software in the world and we think part of being good allies is yes we obviously want the Europeans to take a bigger role
in the continental defense but we also think that there are a lot of great American companies that they can work with and so again this doesn't have to
be a zero- sum dynamic this can be a very synergistic relationship but the fundamental principle is we think that
most nations most nations in the world have been way too hard on American exporters and American firms we want to
make the entire world a little bit more open to the products built by American workers we're obviously biased we think
that they're the best in the world and we think that we can have a much better trading relationship with a lot of our
European friends if they were if they just dropped some of those both tariff but also non-tariff trade barriers there
are regulatory barriers there are sometimes you have a an official at the Ministry of Defense completely
disconnected as far as we can tell from a from an actual law or regulation who will just say we're not buying American
products sometimes you have officials in Europe who will say well we're going to penalize American technology firms in a
way that we would never penalize European technology firms we just want a little bit more fairness or to use the
president's favorite word reciprocity and again with with Europe we think that's a very very easy conversation to
have we hope our European friends agree great uh I get signs from my friend here
that we're quickly running out of time i'll try I'm having I'm having fun and
uh let's we can take a few more questions okay great wonderful my team over there is very nervous you guys can't see them behind but we'll be we'll
be we'll be brief so thank you very much um uh we we've heard that there is in
coming days or next two weeks a presidential trip to the Middle East coming up sure among the many unresolved
issues of that region is the issue of Iran and their nuclear ambition etc etc
could you talk a little bit about the region uh I mean there's so many unresolved issues the Gaza issue but
also Tehran what would we what would your expectation be what would the goal
be would you go for zero enrichment by Iran some people have suggested that or
are we looking at a a a a a replay of
the earlier you know agreement that was reached 10 years ago yeah so there are a
couple issues with the earlier agreement um the JCPOA as as uh it's it's called here in
the United States and I assume in Europe here here the two big issues with that agreement are number one the enforcement
or the inspections regime was incredibly weak and I I I don't think that it actually served the function of
preventing the Iranians from getting on the pathway to a nuclear weapon that's one thing that must be different and
then second yes we believe that there were some elements of their nuclear program that were preserved under
JCPOA that yes they weren't nuclear weapons iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon but allowed Iran to sort of stay
on this glide path towards a nuclear weapon if they flipped the switch and press go and we have to think about this
not just in terms of Iran which again the president has said this we think that there is a deal here that would
reintegrate Iran into the global economy that would be really good for the Iranian people but would result in the
complete sessation of any chance that they could get a nuclear weapon and that's what we're negotiating towards and as the president has said that's
option A and option B if option A is very good for the Iranian people and and and even um you know some of the folks
the leadership in Iran option B is very bad it's very bad for everybody and it's not what we want but it's better than
option C which is Iran getting a nuclear weapon that is what is completely off the table for the American
administration no ifs ands or buts now there are a couple of other things that are worth thinking about because this is
not just about Iran if Iran gets a nuclear weapon which country then next
gets a nuclear weapon and then when that country gets a nuclear weapon which country after that we really care not
just about Iran but about nuclear proliferation and yeah the president said this in an interview a few weeks ago it's one of these things that in the
in the maelstrom of the media the signal in the noise this was very much signal
but it got lost in the noise the president hates nuclear proliferation i hate nuclear proliferation and I I I
think that that the president would be very open to sitting down with the Russians and the Chinese and saying
"Look let's get this thing in a much better place let's reduce the number of nuclear weapons that are in the world at
large." That's obviously not a conversation for tomorrow that's a conversation God willing for a few years
from now but there is no way you get to that conversation if you allow multiple regimes all over the world to to to
basically enter this sprint for a nuclear weapon and we really think that if the Iran domino falls you're going to
see nuclear proliferation all over the Middle East that's very bad for us it's very bad for our friends and it's
something that we don't think can happen so without prejudging the negotiations I I will say so far so good we've been
very um happy by how the Iranians have responded to some of the points that we've made we've been very happy that
some of the intermediaries and some of the folks who are in the room the role that they've played the Omanis in particular have played a very positive
role and we're very grateful to that so so far we're on the right pathway but
this is going to end somewhere and it will end either in Iran eliminating
their nuclear program their nuclear weapons program they can have civil nuclear power okay we don't we don't
mind that but what let me ask this basic question which regime in the world has
civil nuclear power and enrichment without having a nuclear weapon and the
answer is no one no one right now has a civil nuclear program with their entire
enrichment infrastructure that can enrich to the you know 90 plus% needed to get to fistal material and a nuclear
weapon so our our our proposition is very simple yes we we don't care if people want nuclear power we're fine
with that but you can't have the kind of enrichment program that allows you to
get to a nuclear weapon and that's where we draw the line great i think we most
of us would totally agree with that and especially I think speaking on behalf of
a non-nuclear country with the goal of maintaining the nuclear non-prololiferation regime that's very
important uh that allows me to turn to my next or last question on NATO because
most people don't understand that the fact that we've had NATO under US
leadership for the last 70 years that has been an essential instrument of
international non-prololiferation if we had not had you u the US nuclear
presence in Europe I would be prepared to give you the uh at least two three four five
countries in Europe that would have gone nuclear if they had not had this reassurance so NATO has played a big
role in nuclear non- proliferation in six weeks time we have a NATO summit
coming up and uh again there are many many issues one will be the continuing
issue of defense spending uh as we mentioned earlier in our discussion
Europeans are doing more but we've also listened to uh to uh demands coming out
of uh the administration um that are even more ambitious so could you talk a
little bit about your level of expectation what would be your desired outcome of that NATO summit in terms of
defense spending in terms of of how much Europe will need to do on its own in
order to relieve the United States more in Europe yeah so I think there are two
there are a couple of different components of this so so first of all what the president has said is he'd like to see 5% spending on defense in NATO
and he thinks that that is consistent with what our European friends are telling us about how much they fear some
of the threats in the world and you know given unfortunately that a lot of
European militaries have not kept pace over the past few decades there's a bit
of catching up to do and so that is the goal that the president has set obviously European countries are going
to make their own determinations but that's what we think is a reasonable goal but it's really not just about the spend itself it's also how the money is
spent and it's again there there's this fear that we have when we look at some of our European friends and I I made
this point at the first Munich security conference I ever went to that when I looked at Germany 10 15 20 years ago one
of the things that the Germans were very good about is that they were they had kept the industrial strength of their
economy consistent with the first world standard of living but now what we see in Europe is a lot of our European
friends are de-industrializing at the very moment where we're all seeing the hard power underpinning or the economic
underpinning of real hard power requires very strong and powerful industry and so it's not just spending money as
important as that is it's making sure that the same economic engine that
powered first world living standards is actually geared towards producing god forbid weapons of war if those weapons
of war are ever necessary and so I I think there's both an economic component to this that's completely divorced from
the spending levels and then of course there's the spending levels too but we we really want and we really care about
Europe being self-sufficient i you I gave an interview a couple of weeks ago where I actually tried to to make the
point that yes we're going to have disagreements with Europe and Europe will have disagreements with us sometimes you know I would I would
hearken back to 2003 uh United States policy in the Middle East i frankly wish
we had listened to our European friends but I think this is an area where we're
fundamentally right and I think it's it's gratifying to see so many of our European friends recognize that and
recognize that Europe does really have to play a bigger role in continental defense i think we're all aligned on it
it's just a question of getting there and most importantly getting there quickly there is a glimmer of hope in
our country in Germany as I'm sure you've seen we've uh eliminated the
so-called debt break yes uh when it comes to defense spending so there is
now the opportunity for the incoming new government in Germany to spend significantly more uh in other words I
think we're we're in good shape in terms of responding to what you have just said um ladies gentlemen that brings us to
the end of this wonderful discussion i'm really grateful to you that you uh
allowed this to be a Q&A session sure um uh we could continue this I'm sure for
the uh rest of the morning but I know you have other things coming up uh may I
simply conclude by saying that we hope very much my team and I that you will be
willing and prepared to continue this young tradition that the United States
at major Munich Security Conference events will be represented at your level
uh you are not the first vice president of the United States who has come to the Munich Security Conference but we are
extremely grateful that you came in your new position please come again to Munich next year thank you very much Mr vice
President thank
you so if if I may just say a few things in conclusion first of all I appreciate the kind words and I appreciate the
invitation back i wasn't sure after February whether I'd get the invitation back but it's good to know uh that it's
still there we thought about it second of all uh second of all since you brought
up Germany I I wanted to of course u from the president issue our congratulations to Chancellor Mertz and
I know that we'll have a conversation with him in the next couple of days but we're looking forward to it and uh the
final point that I'd make is is you know not not to rehash what's in that in that document but one of the things that I
said in that speech that didn't get as much airplay but I thought was just as important is that everything that I said
there applied as much to the previous American administration as it did any
government in Europe and I and I think that this I I mean this from the heart and as a friend that there is a tradeoff
between policing the bounds of de democratic speech and debate and losing
the trust of our people every single country and we're all going to draw the lines a little bit differently every
single country says there are things that are outside the realm of political debate i understand that i accept that
and I'm fine if one country is going to draw those lines a little bit differently than the United States but I
think all of us including especially the United States we have to be careful that
we don't draw the lines in such a way that we actually undermine the very
democratic legitimacy upon which all of our civilization rests and I I think that is fundamentally the point here
it's not Europe bad America good it's that I think that both Europe and the United States we got a little bit off
track and I'd encourage us all to get back on track together we're certainly willing and able to participate in that work and I think all of you all too thank you god bless you great，thank you so much.