MONUMENTAL TRANSITION IN D.C. ⟩ JJ Green: EU and NATO Remain Vital to U.S. Interests, Especially in Countering Threats From China

Another important achievement was opening up the national security apparatus to more diverse leadership. President Biden appointed Lloyd Austin as the first Black Secretary of Defense and General C. Q. Brown as the Second Black Chair of the Joint Chiefs at the same time. Thus there are two Black men serving in the nation’s two highest military positions simultaneously.

Biden’s deliberative decision-making process also stands out. His readiness to listen and weigh options, honed during his time as vice president and senator, played a crucial role in navigating the Ukraine crisis. His leadership helped shift perceptions of Russia, once feared, by exposing its vulnerabilities. This changed the narrative, demonstrating that fear or excessive deference to Russia was not necessary.

Interviewer: Might President Joe Biden have demonstrated an undue level of deference toward Vladimir Putin during the 2021 Stability Pact negotiations? Critics suggest the U.S. was too transparent about its reluctance to engage militarily in Ukraine, raising concerns about America’s military deterrence.

JJ Green: I wouldn’t characterize it that way. Joe Biden has always been willing to engage and to talk.

One issue in the U.S. is the tendency of high-profile officials to leak information. Recently, someone was indicted for leaking Israel's plans to attack Iran. Leaks often come from senior figures, not random staffers, and these individuals rarely face consequences. In this case, some officials talked too openly about government plans, especially to the press, which can backfire.

While journalists like me appreciate sources sharing sensitive matters, there’s a risk in over-communication. Early in the Ukraine war, the U.S. declassified intelligence about Russia’s movements, which was useful but may have set a precedent for excessive transparency across the administration.

Interviewer: Would you say there was a fervent surge of transparency?

JJ Green: Exactly.

Interviewer: Having been to Afghanistan twice, what did you feel in 2021 during the withdrawal, amid the confusion?

JJ Green: As a journalist, it was disappointing; as someone who made friends there, it was heartbreaking. Some friends had to leave their families behind; others couldn’t escape. Watching people cling to planes, knowing they’d die, was gut-wrenching.

The terror attacks that killed U.S. and allied troops during the chaotic withdrawal added to the tragedy. It was a poorly executed political decision. “Let’s get out now,” but at what cost? Nearly 20 years later, Afghanistan was left in Taliban hands, undoing the hope for a better life. I still don’t know the fate of some friends.

Interviewer: Did the August 2021 withdrawal tarnish America’s military reputation?

JJ Green: Yes, it did. The U.S. has made poor decisions before, and this was another costly one. It’s unresolved—families remain separated, and for many, there’s no closure. While the administration did what it thought was best with the information available, the outcome damaged international trust. Allies were upset about the lack of consultation, as I witnessed at the Lennart Meri Conference in 2021. Failing to consider allied input was a mistake the U.S. is still paying for.

Interviewer: How would you describe Joe Biden’s immigration policy? Success, neutral, or worse?

JJ Green: It fell short of success. Most Americans probably didn’t even know what the policy was. The Southern border was assigned to Kamala Harris, but it took her a long time to visit. Optics matter in politics, and many felt the administration lacked a clear plan.

While they tried to move away from Trump-era policies like family separations, illegal immigration surged, and the opposition framed it as a worsening crisis. The administration also hurt itself by limiting press access, favoring certain outlets, which mirrored similar missteps during Harris’s campaign.

Interviewer: Why did Democrats lose the election?

JJ Green: They fell short in their messaging, losing key demographics that supported them during Biden’s election.

Interviewer: So they struggled to find the right voice to connect with voters?

JJ Green: They had the right voice but didn’t use it effectively. Democrats weren’t inclusive enough in their outreach, failing to go to the right places or media. Meanwhile, Trump’s team excelled at messaging, focusing on the economy and the border. The Biden administration, however, spent too much time attacking Trump instead of promoting their own achievements.

Interviewer: What would be the ultimate nightmare scenario of a Trump presidency?

JJ Green: I hate to disappoint you, but the worst nightmare has already been avoided. Before the election, intelligence agencies warned of a close race that could take weeks to resolve, potentially sparking street violence amid widespread disinformation. Thankfully, the election results were clear within days, and it was free, fair, and democratic—a major victory for the U.S.

The real nightmare during his presidency would be if the U.S. lost sight of its democratic principles and descended into violence and chaos, as some have predicted. That would represent the darkest scenario.

Interviewer: President Trump has already navigated a wave of urban unrest during the Black Lives Matter protests.

JJ Green: Black Lives Matter riots weren’t about Trump or partisan divides; they stemmed from deep-seated issues in America around race, diversity, and equity. These systemic shortcomings, combined with the fear, anger, and grief during the early days of the COVID pandemic, fueled the unrest. People were scared—losing jobs, loved ones, uncertain about their future.

While Trump’s handling of certain events, like the Lafayette Square incident, was poorly executed and symbolic missteps didn’t help, the BLM riots reflected America’s internal struggles, not his presidency. It was part of the nation’s growing pains.

Interviewer: Will Donald Trump carry out a purge within the military and security ranks? He has lingering traumas from past disobedience.

JJ Green: It’s entirely possible. High-ranking officers serve at the pleasure of the President, so he can remove them. However, he can’t control the actions of lower-ranking personnel, who have the right to question orders in certain situations.

Interviewer: How do you explain a President, often described as authoritarian, having such a messy relationship with the military?

JJ Green: Explaining or predicting Trump is like betting on the world’s biggest gamble. He seems different since the shooting incident, but he remains erratic—one day he’s one way, the next day he’s another. It’s unclear if his unpredictability is a mental condition or a calculated tool. Honestly, I don’t know.

Interviewer: It’s curious, considering the military tends to lean Republican.

JJ Green: Often they do lean Republican, but that’s not inherently problematic. Soldiers have a strong sense of right and wrong, respect for the chain of command, and a commitment to constitutional obligations. For legitimate military members, these principles outweigh political affiliations.

Interviewer: How sincere are Trump’s plans to end the war in Ukraine? Was it just pre-election rhetoric?

JJ Green: I wonder how much of it ties to his relationship with Vladimir Putin.

Interviewer: Are you suggesting genuine sympathy between them?

JJ Green: I know that there is a relationship and I know that there is affinity that the two of them have for each other. The question is how deep and long-standing it is. Did it begin during Trump’s presidency or years earlier? This relationship will influence Trump’s decisions on the war. However, both leaders have big egos. If the war ends, who takes the credit? Neither would easily concede that to the other, which complicates things. Their obsession with legacy could allow the conflict to continue.

Interviewer: Some suggest Ukraine is irrelevant to Trump, with his focus on China, Iran, Israel, and even Mexico. Could that irrelevance turn out to be decisive?

JJ Green: Ukraine isn’t irrelevant to Trump because Europe, the EU, and NATO remain vital to U.S. interests, especially in countering threats from China, North Korea, and Iran. The U.S. relies on its alliances for strength. Allowing Ukraine to fall to Putin, even if he’s Trump’s friend, would undermine U.S. values and credibility.

Forcing Ukraine into a territorial concession for a quick deal won’t work. Ukraine has sacrificed too much and knows this would only pause, not end, the conflict. The bigger picture includes China, whose alliance with Putin strengthens both. China benefits from a distracted, divided U.S., so they wouldn’t want the U.S. to shift focus entirely to them. Trump’s plans for Ukraine must consider this broader geopolitical dynamic.

There are people on Trump's team who can play chess pretty well.

Interviewer: Are you referring to Trump’s newly appointed national security team?

JJ Green: Exactly. But the reality is, Trump’s control over China is limited. He could impose heavy tariffs, but that would hurt the U.S. economy, with consumers bearing the cost. While Trump has ambitious goals, like mass deportations, I doubt they’ll fully materialize. The logistics are daunting.

A systematic deportation process is more plausible—targeted efforts rather than random roundups. It could involve requiring people to verify their status to access services, a more government-driven approach.

Interviewer: Every democracy has a deportation process.

JJ Green: True, but I’m talking about aggressively targeting people for deportation, which hasn’t been done before. This could happen systematically, not by random door-to-door checks, but through government-driven processes where people must verify their status to access services.

Trump’s mandate, however, is limited. In two years, Congressional elections could shift the balance of power, altering his plans.

Interviewer: Before the last elections, supporters of both parties suggested that these could potentially be the final U.S. elections.

JJ Green: That rhetoric is worthless. The U.S. is at a critical juncture but remains a democracy. No single person can change that—there will always be resistance to anyone trying to undermine it, regardless of who they are.

Interviewer: Were there any surprises for you in the cabinet appointees?

JJ Green: Not really. Nominations don’t guarantee confirmation, and even confirmed appointees may not last long. Plus, the President can use recess appointments to bypass Congress. It’s early in the process, and each nominee deserves a fair chance, just as I had in my role as a journalist.

Interviewer: The assassination attempts on Trump this year—are they a new normal, like the era of shooting the Kennedys?

JJ Green: I don’t think it’s a new normal, but Trump will likely face such threats for life, especially considering how Iranians and others view him. Hopefully, these threats will subside, as no one should face assassination attempts.

Interviewer: Do you have a clear understanding of who the attackers were and why they targeted Trump?

JJ Green: The first attempt appeared politically motivated, though the shooter’s mental state is unclear. The second shooter’s motives are also uncertain. The third, revealed recently by the Justice Department, was an Iranian-led international assassination attempt—clearly a hostile operation by a foreign state.

Interviewer: Will there be a U.S. response?

JJ Green: Given this president’s “maximum pressure” strategy on Iran, which includes all options, it’s hard to say.

Interviewer: How are American police doing after the “Defund the Police” campaigns?

JJ Green: That movement is over. People realized defunding the police was absurd, a knee-jerk reaction to George Floyd’s death. Communities now recognize police as essential members of society with a vital role. However, not every issue, like mental health crises, requires police involvement.

Law enforcement has also acknowledged the need for better training. While there are bad officers, they don’t represent the entire force. Defunding was more about political retribution and served no one. Hopefully, lessons have been learned.

Interviewer: What impact did the January 6, 2021, siege of Congress have? Was it unprecedented in U.S. history?

JJ Green: It was unprecedented—something the world had never seen, broadcasted live. As an American, it was deeply regrettable; as a journalist, it was vital to witness and report on. The media played a crucial role in holding those involved accountable, meeting society’s expectation to expose the events and their severity.

January 6 was both embarrassing and a stark reminder of the risks to democracy. Trump’s role, including his call to “go to the Hill”, was undeniable. Yet, many politicians who initially denounced him soon flew to Mar-a-Lago [Donald Trump’s luxurious private residence in Florida - editor] to personally apologize, showing how power can overshadow democratic principles.

The attack revealed America’s vulnerability to such attempts but also its resilience. That night, our leaders stayed to ensure the democratic process continued. We became stronger as a result.