Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio News. Welcome to special coverage
Speaker 1: from the Munich Security Conference and Froncine Laqua now Marco Rubio.
Speaker 1: Of course, the US Secretary of State has reassured European
Speaker 1: partners that the end of the Transatlantic Alliance is neither
Speaker 1: a goal or a wish. He speaks with our editor
Speaker 1: in chief, John mccausway.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Francine Mary Ruby, Secuty of State, thank you
Speaker 2: for talking to Bloomberg. You've just made this rather remarkable
Speaker 2: speech where you talked about the destiny of Europe and
Speaker 2: America always being intertwined. You talked about an alliance which
Speaker 2: has stretched all the way culturally from Michelangelo to the
Speaker 2: Rolling Stones, a first I suspect for a Secretary State,
Speaker 2: but a culture that has bled and died together. But
Speaker 2: the very common theme of your speech was the need
Speaker 2: to share the burden, the need for Europe and America
Speaker 2: to do to do things together, which was slightly different
Speaker 2: from the Vice President last year. Were offering a character
Speaker 2: where perhaps he was offering a state.
Speaker 3: I think it's the same message.
Speaker 4: I think what the Vice President said last year very
Speaker 4: clearly was that Europe and made a series of decisions
Speaker 4: internally that were threatening to the alliance and ultimately to themselves.
Speaker 4: Not because we hate Europe or we don't like Europeans,
Speaker 4: but because what is it that we fight for?
Speaker 3: What is it that binds us together?
Speaker 4: And ultimately it's the fact that we are both heirs
Speaker 4: to the same civilization, and it's a great civilization, and
Speaker 4: it's one we should be proud of. It's one that's
Speaker 4: contributed extraordinarily to the world, and it's one frankly upon
Speaker 4: which America is built. From our language, to our system
Speaker 4: of government, to our laws, to the food we eat,
Speaker 4: to the name of our cities and towns, all of
Speaker 4: it deeply linked to this Western civilization and culture that
Speaker 4: we should be proud of, and it's worth defending. And
Speaker 4: ultimately that's the point. The point is that people, you know,
Speaker 4: people don't fight and die for abstract ideas. They are
Speaker 4: willing to fight and defend who they are and what
Speaker 4: matters and is important to them. And that was the
Speaker 4: foundation he laid last year in speech, and we add
Speaker 4: on into this year to explain to people that when
Speaker 4: we come off as urgent or even critical about decisions
Speaker 4: that Europe has failed to make or made.
Speaker 3: It is because we care.
Speaker 4: It is because we understand that ultimately our own fate
Speaker 4: will be intertwined with what happens with Europe. We want
Speaker 4: Europe to survive, We want Europe to prosper because we're
Speaker 4: interconnected in so many different ways, and because our alliance
Speaker 4: is so critical. But it has to be an alliance
Speaker 4: of allies that are capable and willing to fight for
Speaker 4: who they are and what's important.
Speaker 2: Do you see a parallel You seem to see a
Speaker 2: parallel between the Cold War, which I think I would
Speaker 2: argue that the America beat the Soviet Union because it
Speaker 2: had a common idea and it had allies on its side.
Speaker 2: You're now in a struggle with China. People say you've
Speaker 2: often been a hawk on that subject. You're on a
Speaker 2: struggle with China. Do you think you absolutely need Europe
Speaker 2: to be able to Yeah.
Speaker 3: I would say two things.
Speaker 4: The first, the mentions of the Cold War, to remind
Speaker 4: people of everything we've achieved together in the past, in
Speaker 4: times when there was doubt. I mean, it's hard to
Speaker 4: imagine today, but there were those who believed in the
Speaker 4: sixties and seventies even that at a minimum we had
Speaker 4: to reach the stalemate and worse, that perhaps Soviet expansion
Speaker 4: was inevitable and that we needed to come to accept that.
Speaker 4: There were voices that actually argued this, and so it's
Speaker 4: reminding people of what we've done together in the past.
Speaker 4: But it's also a reminder that at the end of
Speaker 4: that era, when we won the Cold War, there was
Speaker 4: this euphoria that led us to make some terrible decisions
Speaker 4: that have now left us vulnerable and the industrialized the West.
Speaker 4: It left us increasingly dependent on others, including China, for
Speaker 4: our critical supplies, and that needs to be reversed in
Speaker 4: order to safeguard us. And so I do think, yes,
Speaker 4: it would be ideal to have a Western supply chain
Speaker 4: that is free from extortion from anyone leave us side, China,
Speaker 4: anybody else. We should never have to We should never
Speaker 4: be in a situation where our alliance and our respective
Speaker 4: countries are vulnerable to extortion or blackmail because someone controls
Speaker 4: ninety nine percent of something that's critical to national life.
Speaker 4: So I think we do have a vested interest in
Speaker 4: that regard. Today is different than yesterday, but it has
Speaker 4: parallels in that China is the new Soviet Union, but
Speaker 4: that in our future, collectively will be stronger if we
Speaker 4: work on these things together.
Speaker 2: Do you worry from that perspective the fact that, especially
Speaker 2: in the recent period, various sort of allies Mark Colney
Speaker 2: has just been to Beijing, starmer has just been to Beijing.
Speaker 2: Mertz is about to go there. Do you worry that
Speaker 2: they're beginning to drift off too much in that direction?
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 4: I think nation states need to interact with one another
Speaker 4: just because you've I mean, remember, I serve under a
Speaker 4: president that's willing to meet with anybody. I mean, to
Speaker 4: be frank, I'm pretty confident in saying that if the
Speaker 4: Ayatola said tomorrow he wanted to meet with President Trump,
Speaker 4: the President would meet him, not because he agrees with
Speaker 4: the Ayatola, but because he thinks that's the way you
Speaker 4: solve problems in the world, and he doesn't view meeting
Speaker 4: someone as a concession. Likewise, the President in tends to
Speaker 4: travel to Beijing and has already met once with President
Speaker 4: g and in this very forum yesterday, I met with
Speaker 4: my counterpart, the Foreign Minister of China. So we expect
Speaker 4: nation states to interact with one another. In the end,
Speaker 4: we expect nation states to act in their national interest.
Speaker 3: I don't think that is excluded.
Speaker 4: That that in no way runs counter to our desire
Speaker 4: to work together on things that we share in common
Speaker 4: or threats we face in common. But I don't think
Speaker 4: visiting Beijing or meeting with the Chinese is on the country.
Speaker 4: I think it would be irresponsible for great powers not
Speaker 4: to have relationships and talk to things and to the
Speaker 4: extent possible and avoid unnecessary conflict. But there will be
Speaker 4: areas we'll never agree on, and those are the areas
Speaker 4: that I hope we can work together on.
Speaker 2: So you think the rupture that many people have spoken
Speaker 2: about is illusory that hasn't happened yet, Well.
Speaker 4: There's no I mean, even as I speak to you now,
Speaker 4: there are US troops deployed here on this continent, on
Speaker 4: behalf of NATO. There are still all kinds of cooperation
Speaker 4: that go on at every level, from intelligence to commercial
Speaker 4: and economic.
Speaker 3: The links remain.
Speaker 4: I think there is a readjustment that's happening because I
Speaker 4: think we have to understand that we want to reinvigorate this.
Speaker 4: This alliance has to look different because the world looks different.
Speaker 4: This alliance has to be about different things than it's
Speaker 4: been in the past. Because the challenges of the twenty
Speaker 4: first century are different than the challenges of the twentieth.
Speaker 4: The world has changed, and the alliance has to change.
Speaker 4: The fundamental thing that has to change is we have
Speaker 4: to remind ourselves of why it is we have an
Speaker 4: alliance in the first place. This is not just a
Speaker 4: military arrangement, This is not just some commercial arrangement. It
Speaker 4: is what holds us together in the first place. Is
Speaker 4: an alliance, is our shared civilizational values, the fact that
Speaker 4: we are all heirs to a common civilization and one
Speaker 4: we should be very proud of. And only after we
Speaker 4: recognize that and make that the core of why it
Speaker 4: is where allies in the first place, can we then
Speaker 4: build out all the mechanics of that alliance, and then
Speaker 4: everything else we do together makes more sense.
Speaker 2: Place for that's being most obviously tested at the moment
Speaker 2: is Ukraine. You see all these numbers from the front
Speaker 2: where the Ukrainians do seem to be doing better in
Speaker 2: terms of what's happening in the Russians. Do you think
Speaker 2: Ukraine or do you think Russia is still winning that war?
Speaker 2: Or where do you place it militarily?
Speaker 4: I think that's a difficult order to say. Anyone is winning.
Speaker 4: The Russians are losing seven to eight thousand soldiers a week,
Speaker 4: a week not wounded dead. Ukraine has suffered extraordinary damage,
Speaker 4: including you know, overnight and again to its energy infrastructure,
Speaker 4: and it will take billions of dollars in years and
Speaker 4: years to rebuild that country.
Speaker 3: So I don't think anyone can claim to be winning it.
Speaker 4: I think that both sides are suffering tremendous damage, and
Speaker 4: we'd like to see the war come to an end.
Speaker 4: It's a senseless war, and our view, the President believes
Speaker 4: that very deeply. He believes the war would have never
Speaker 4: happened that he'd been president at the time.
Speaker 3: So we're doing two things.
Speaker 4: So obviously we continued, Look, we don't provide arms to Russia,
Speaker 4: we provide arms to Ukraine.
Speaker 3: We don't sanction Ukraine. We sanction Russia.
Speaker 4: But at the same time, we find ourselves in a
Speaker 4: unique position of serving as probably the only nation on
Speaker 4: earth that can bring the two sides to discuss the
Speaker 4: potential for ending this war on negotiated terms. And it's
Speaker 4: an obligation we won't walk away from because we think
Speaker 4: it's a very unique one to have.
Speaker 3: It may not come to fruition. Unfortunately.
Speaker 4: I hope it does, and I think there are days
Speaker 4: when I feel more optimistic about it than others. But
Speaker 4: we're going to keep trying because that is in the end,
Speaker 4: this war will not be solved militarily. It will be
Speaker 4: in the end it will come to a negotiated settlement.
Speaker 4: I'd like to see that happen as soon as possible.
Speaker 2: If Ukraine loses the war, it's going to be a
Speaker 2: disaster for the Transatlantic relationship because Americans will say the
Speaker 2: Europeans didn't provide enough arms, and Europeans will look and
Speaker 2: remember the beating the White House and Silenski of Trump,
Speaker 2: and they will, but.
Speaker 3: That would ignore reality.
Speaker 4: Look Ukraine, first of all, they deserve a lot of credit.
Speaker 4: They've fought very bravely. They've received extraordinary amount of support
Speaker 4: from the United States, to the tune of billions of
Speaker 4: dollars that pre exist the war. In fact, Ukraine probably
Speaker 4: wouldn't have survived the early days of the war had
Speaker 4: it not been for American aid that came to them
Speaker 4: even before the war had started, you know, with the
Speaker 4: javelin missiles that disabled the Take that.
Speaker 2: Saying it was fair, I was just saying there's a possible.
Speaker 4: I mean, you have to deal with but I'm not
Speaker 4: worried about that because I can tell you that I
Speaker 4: think history well understand that. But I don't think the
Speaker 4: war is going to end in a traditional loss in
Speaker 4: the way people think. I don't think it's possible for
Speaker 4: Russia to even achieve whatever initial objectives they had at
Speaker 4: the beginning of this war. I think now it's largely
Speaker 4: narrowed down to their desire to take twenty percent of
Speaker 4: the nets they don't currently possess, and that's hard. It's
Speaker 4: a hard concession for Ukraine to make for obvious reasons,
Speaker 4: both from a tactical standpoint and also from a political one.
Speaker 4: And so that's kind of where this thing is narrowed.
Speaker 4: And you know, we'll continue to search for ways to
Speaker 4: see if there's a solution to that unique problem that's
Speaker 4: acceptable to Ukraine and that Russia will also accept. And
Speaker 4: it may not work out, but we are going to
Speaker 4: do everything we can to see if we can find
Speaker 4: a deal there. Like I said, there are days like
Speaker 4: last week where you felt we'd made some pretty substantial progress,
Speaker 4: but ultimately we have to see a final resolution to
Speaker 4: this to feel that it's been.
Speaker 3: Worth the work, but we're going to keep trying.
Speaker 4: And our negotiators Steve Woodcoff now Jared Kushner is involved,
Speaker 4: have dedicated a tremendous amount of time to this, and
Speaker 4: they'll have meetings again on Tuesday.
Speaker 3: Regards to this, what.
Speaker 2: About a country with which you've had a long interest
Speaker 2: in Cuba? You mentioned it obliquely in the speech talking
Speaker 2: about the Cuban missile crisis. How long do you think
Speaker 2: the regime can last without Well, I.
Speaker 4: Think the regime in cubas are look in Cuba, and
Speaker 4: that a long time ago and in failure. The Cuba's
Speaker 4: fundamental problem is that it has no economy, and its
Speaker 4: economic model is one that has never been tried and
Speaker 4: has never worked anywhere else in the world. Okay, it
Speaker 4: doesn't have a real economic policy, It doesn't have a
Speaker 4: real economy. Not to forget it, put aside for a moment,
Speaker 4: the fact that it has no freedom of expression, no democracy, anything,
Speaker 4: no respect for human rights. The fundamental problem Cuba has
Speaker 4: is it has no economy, and the people who are
Speaker 4: in charge of that country, in control of that country,
Speaker 4: they don't know how to improve the everyday life of
Speaker 4: their people. Without giving up power over sectors that they control.
Speaker 4: They want to control everything. They don't want the people
Speaker 4: a Cuba to control anything. So they don't know how
Speaker 4: to get themselves out of this, and to the extent
Speaker 4: that they've been offered opportunities to do it, they don't
Speaker 4: seem to be able to comprehend it or accept it
Speaker 4: in any ways. They would much rather be in charge
Speaker 4: of the country than allow it to prosper.
Speaker 2: Is there any kind of offramp for the regime? I
Speaker 2: mean previous ones when you negotiate with Venezuela, you said
Speaker 2: if they agreed with various things, it would be possible.
Speaker 3: To get tarre is I mean, look.
Speaker 2: I think you could the Cuban regime.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm not going to tell you or announce this
Speaker 4: in an interview here because obviously these things require space
Speaker 4: and time to do it in the right way. But
Speaker 4: I will say this that that is that it is
Speaker 4: important for the people of Cuba to have more freedom,
Speaker 4: not just political freedom, but economic freedom. The people of Cuba,
Speaker 4: and that's what this regime is not willing to give
Speaker 4: them because they're afraid that the people of Cuba can
Speaker 4: provide for themselves. They lose control over them, they lose
Speaker 4: power over them. So I think there has to be
Speaker 4: that opening. It has to happen, and I think now
Speaker 4: Cuba's faced to such a dire situation. Remember, this is
Speaker 4: a regime that has survived almost entirely on subsidies, first
Speaker 4: from the Soviet Union, then from Ugo Chavez, and now
Speaker 4: for the first time it has no subsidies coming in
Speaker 4: from anyone, and the model's been laid bare. And it's
Speaker 4: not just that. Look, multiple countries have gone in and
Speaker 4: help with the problem is that you lose money in Cuba.
Speaker 4: They never pay their bills, they never end they never
Speaker 4: end up paying, It never ends up working out. There
Speaker 4: were European countries that went to Cuba and made what
Speaker 4: they thought were investments in certain sectors, only to have
Speaker 4: them the contracts canceled and get themselves kicked out. Because
Speaker 4: the Cuban regime has no fundamental understanding of what business
Speaker 4: and industry looks like, and the people are suffering as
Speaker 4: a result of it. So I think certainly their willingness
Speaker 4: to begin to make openings in this regard.
Speaker 3: Is one potential way forward.
Speaker 4: I would also say that this has not been really
Speaker 4: talked about a lot, But the United States has been
Speaker 4: providing humanitarian assistance directly to the Cuban people via the
Speaker 4: Catholic Church. We did it after the hurricane. We actually
Speaker 4: just recently announced an increase in the amount we're willing
Speaker 4: to give, and that's something we're willing to continue to
Speaker 4: explore it, but obviously that's not a such long term
Speaker 4: solution to the problems on the island.
Speaker 2: Malco Rubia, thank you very much for doing to Blimberg.
Speaker 1: Thankk you great and substantial interview there the Secretary of
Speaker 1: State Mark or Rubio speaking to our very own editor
Speaker 1: in chief, John Micklethwaite. Now, Secretary Rubio really seeking to
Speaker 1: reassure some of the allies, but also seeking to reassure
Speaker 1: Europe of the US commitment to the continent, whilst at
Speaker 1: the same time criticizing Western leaders for what he calls
Speaker 1: dangerous delusion of open borders, free trade and punishing energy policies. Now,
Speaker 1: they also talked about Ukraine in Iran Venezuela, and then
Speaker 1: queried about the relationship with China. The Secretary said it
Speaker 1: would be a geopolitical malpractice not to be in conversations
Speaker 1: with China. Well, that's it for our special coverage right
Speaker 1: here from the Munich Security conference in Francin Lacwis.
Speaker 3: And this is Bluemberg