Recently, Rubio spoke at the G7 foreign ministers' meeting:
Several European leaders said the Iran war is not our European war. Rubio responded: "The Ukraine war is also not our American war, yet we have provided more assistance than any other country!"
"The United States is constantly being asked to help in conflicts, and we have indeed done so. … When the U.S. has needs, some European leaders have said this is not Europe's war. Therefore, this will become a matter requiring scrutiny—indeed, the president must also take it into consideration."
The core of Rubio’s remarks lies in countering Europe’s 'double standards' on security responsibilities, paving the way for future U.S. strategic retrenchment or 'transactional diplomacy.' It reflects a profound shift in American foreign policy thinking:
Traditionally, the U.S. viewed itself as the leader of the 'free world,' intervening in conflicts based on alliance systems and great-power credibility.
Now, politicians like Rubio increasingly see alliances as 'contractual relationships': if you don’t support me on issues I care about, then don’t expect me to commit unconditionally when your issues arise.
When he mentioned "this is a matter that needs scrutiny," he was actually redefining the boundaries of American commitments—future U.S. aid may no longer be based on 'shared values,' but rather on 'reciprocal returns.'
In summary, Rubio’s statement is a carefully crafted political defense. It provides moral justification for potential future reductions in U.S. involvement in European security affairs ("you were the ones who drew distinctions first"), while simultaneously pressuring U.S. European allies: if they wish America to continue playing the role of 'world policeman,' they must abandon selective stances such as 'this is your war, not mine,' and instead bear equivalent costs on America’s core concerns.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1860759385545804/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.