Special Coverage: A Conversation with Secretary of State Marco Rubio

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