Why JD Vance continues to support Russia in the conflict with Ukraine

Marco Rubio, aside from Henry Kissinger, is one of the few Americans to have held both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor simultaneously, yet he largely stayed on the sidelines regarding high-stakes diplomacy on Ukraine. Instead, former Trump envoy Steve Witkoff led negotiations on a 28-point plan seen as favorable to Russia, with Vice President JD Vance acting as its primary supporter within the White House.

Vances actions align with his far-right worldview, and with Trump as an older president uninterested in detailed policy, Vances perspectives remain influential. Witkoff essentially recycled a plan written by Russia, even guiding Russian officials on how to interact with Trump and disrupt upcoming U.S. discussions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The Trump administration timed this effort to coincide with a corruption scandal in Ukraine, hoping it would pressure Zelenskyy into accepting unfavorable terms.

Rather than sending Rubio or a State Department official, the administration dispatched U.S. Army Secretary Dan DriscollVances Yale Law classmateto present the plan as an ultimatum. The strategy failed. Once details leaked, European nations were shocked, and Ukraine countered with a reasonable proposal, which Russia predictably rejected, as Putin seeks conquest rather than compromise. Rubio attempted to clarify that the plan reflected Russian priorities, though later backtracked, acknowledging it as a U.S. proposal.

Despite this failure, Vance continues seeking ways to pressure Ukraine toward surrender, consistent with his longstanding approach. His public commentary frequently expresses sympathy for Russia, at times using misleading statements to suggest that U.S. supporters of Ukraine are advocating sending American troops to fighta claim with no basis in reality.

In a February Oval Office meeting intended to announce a U.S.-Ukraine mineral mining deal, Trump and Vance confronted Zelenskyy, with Vance blaming Ukraine for a war initiated and sustained by Russia, labeling Ukrainians as ungrateful.

Vance regularly engages with far-right communities online, particularly on X (formerly Twitter), a platform transformed by Elon Musk into a hub of propaganda and misinformation. He follows around 1,000 accounts, several of which have openly supported extremist ideologies. Some prominent right-wing accounts on X have even posed as Americans despite being foreign.

The online right promotes the Great Replacement theory, cited by multiple terrorists in real-world attacks. Musk amplifies this narrative, and Vance has long adapted versions of it, including during his vice presidency, blending extremist ideas with intellectualized rhetoric. While Trump uses and fuels this online right, Vance is actively part of it. This faction admires Russia, viewing Putin as a champion of cultural and ideological battles, portraying Russias military as superior to Ukraines Western-backed forces.

Trump has expressed admiration for Putin and the Russian approach to Ukraine, and has sought to tilt U.S. policy in a Russia-friendly direction, including reducing military aid to Ukraine and urging concessions. His main goal appears to be ending the war quickly for personal and financial gain. Vance, however, shows deeper ideological support for Russia, sometimes taking positions that go beyond Trumps actions, including more overt alignment with Russian objectives.

Vance draws inspiration from far-right thinkers like Peter Thiel and Curtis Yarvin and identifies with transnational white Christian nationalist ideology. He defines alliances not as nations versus authoritarian regimes, but as a global struggle against democracy and left-leaning movements. In this worldview, Russia is seen as an ally against a perceived common enemy.

The most plausible explanation for Vances consistent efforts to support Russia is his alignment with Putins objectives. For him, Ukraine, the EU, pro-democracy Americans, and an international order valuing freedom stand on the opposing side of his ideological framework.

Author: Sophia Brooks