The first more softly criticizes them and conveys “politically inconvenient” realities with a bit more tact while the second is much harsher and comparatively uncouth.
Andrew Korybko
Rubio’s speech at this year’s Munich Security Conference was loudly cheered by the Europeans, some of whom sharply contrasted it with Vance’s
from the year prior, which they considered insulting. Vance had
chastised them for their embrace of liberal-globalist policies such as
radical climate change ones, mass migration, and the persecution of
conservative-nationalists, et al. Rubio said much of the same, however,
he just did it in a more diplomatic way while also admitting that the US
made these policy mistakes too.
In the intervening year between their speeches, Trump imposed tariffs on the EU to coerce them into a lopsided trade deal,
re-engaged Russia and thus spooked the Europeans into fearing that
he’ll cut a deal with Putin at their perceived expense, and threatened
Denmark over Greenland,
among other moves. These cumulatively had the effect of humbling the EU
and making its leaders realize that their bloc is subordinate to the US
in the new world order that Trump 2.0 envisages building.
Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever explicitly acknowledged this reality when remarking
at Davos that “Being a happy vassal is one thing. Being a miserable
slave is something else.” Vance’s speech was such a shock to the
Europeans due to how direct he was with is criticisms, them still
somewhat remaining in denial over Trump’s return to office, and their
obsession at the time with dwelling on how difficult Trans-Atlantic ties
were during his first time. This context arguably shaped their reaction
to his speech.
Rubio’s was viewed by the Europeans as more
reassuring after they’d already managed to reach a modus vivendi with
Trump 2.0 by then, not to mention his much more diplomatic approach
towards leveling almost the same criticisms as Vance, which is why it
was perceived much more positively. In all actuality, however, nothing
has changed; top US officials are still criticizing the EU over its
liberal-globalist policies, the US is still subordinating the EU, and
the US still does what it wants no matter what the EU thinks.
Rubio
and Vance are therefore functioning as a masterful good cop, bad cop
duo vis-à-vis the EU whereby the first more softly criticizes them and
conveys “politically inconvenient” realities with a bit more tact while
the second is much harsher and comparatively uncouth. In a sense,
despite being a conservative, Rubio is seen as more “European” by the
European liberal-globalists than Vance, who’s considered by them to be a
caricature of an American nationalist just like they view Trump as
being.
With this in mind, Trump 2.0 can manipulate the
Europeans’ perceptions to have Vance or even Trump himself get tough
with them whenever the US believes that this is needed and then have
Rubio soften the blow, soothe them, and calmly persuade them to comply
with the US’ demands. For instance, Vance recently told
them to “stop sabotaging themselves” through policies that the US
disapproves of, while Rubio could easily spin the demanded reforms as
pragmatic adaptations to a new US-led world order.
Whether
by design or just the way that everything naturally unfolded, Rubio’s
and Vance’s stylistically different engagements with the Europeans have
now enabled them to function as a masterful good cop, bad cop duo for
most effectively advancing American policy towards the EU. The bloc
tacitly accepts its junior partner status vis-à-vis the US but some
resentment over this still remains, which could complicate their ties,
ergo the importance of Trump 2.0 strategically relying on Rubio for
assuaging this as needed.