๐ŸŸฉ ๐ŸŸข LEARN ENGLISH WITH GLOBAL NEWS INSIGHTS ๐Ÿ—ž๏ธ Learning Section Featuring News Enhance Your English with U.S. Government News โ€“ Vice President JD Vance Delivers Remarks at the Munich Leaders Conference, 2025. 5. 07.

Enhance Your English with U.S. Government News โ€“ Vice President JD Vance Delivers Remarks at the Munich Leaders Conference, 2025. 5. 07.

Q&A Dialogue

Timestamp & New Words

Scripts
Scripts
0:00 good morning everybody wow what a crowd what a crowd mr vice President we’re so happy to have you here this morning this 0:07 is of obviously the highlight of our Munich Security Conference uh meeting in 0:13 Washington DC i hope not i hope not but it is the highlight it’s really a great honor to welcome you here this morning 0:20 um actually for those of you who have not been regular participants in Munich 0:26 this is the third time already that the vice president is participating in a Munich Security Conference 0:32 event when you came to Munich last February your speech kicked off a pretty 0:39 controversial debate about fundamental values sure unlike anything we have ever 0:45 had at the Munich Security Conference and actually we published a brochure 0:51 copy of which you’ll have on the way out about the speech and the reactions to it 0:56 from around from around the world uh this intense debate about how 1:03 fundamental values how the freedom of speech the rule of law should be 1:09 interpreted and applied continues to this day but when we prepared for this meeting 1:16 with your team yesterday we agreed and they agreed that today we should try to 1:23 focus on current challenges of foreign policy sure u which confront us together 1:31 so thank you again for making yourself available we don’t have a great deal of time so u I’ll not come up with a long 1:39 introduction and I just want to get us started the first time you came to Munich you were still a 1:47 senator from Ohio what I associate with Ohio is the 1:52 Dayton agreement 30 years ago in 1995 i was at that time actually the German 1:58 negotiator so I actually lived in Dayton Ohio for one entire month so that’s right and this and and why is this 2:06 important because it was through US intervention i 2:12 see it was through US intervention that peace was brought about in Europe in the 2:18 Balkans at that time uh so if I may let me ask my first question 2:26 u about the US and Europe a 2:31 distinguished former US diplomat Richard Hullbrook wrote almost exactly 30 years 2:38 ago in a foreign affairs article uh that the United States is and should remain a 2:46 European power today 30 years ago my question is do you 2:53 think that the United States should continue to see itself as a European 2:59 power in Munich remember you actually said and I quote we are still on the 3:05 same team are we and what does that mean for the US presence in Europe and 3:12 relationship with Europe first question sure well first of all thank you and I’m sorry my microphone apparently is broken 3:17 but uh we have we have another one so that’s good so everybody can hear me now right everybody can hear me great good 3:23 um yeah so so first of all um thrilled to be here and thrilled to to have this conversation i’ve been looking forward 3:29 to it and yeah I I do still very much think that the United States and Europe 3:35 are on the same team and I I think that this is you know sometimes I’ve been criticized as a hyper realist right i 3:42 think of foreign policy purely in terms of transactional values what does the America get out of it what do the you 3:49 know rest of the world get out of it and and try to you know focus so purely on the transactional value of it that we 3:56 ignore sometimes the humanitarian or the moral side of it and I think at least with Europe that’s actually not a full 4:02 encapsulation of my views because I think that you know European civilization and American civilization 4:08 European culture and American culture are very much linked and they’re always going to be linked and I I think it’s 4:14 it’s completely ridiculous to think that you’re ever going to be able to drive a firm wedge between the United States and 4:21 Europe now that doesn’t mean we’re not going to have disagreements and of course you know you brought up the speech earlier it doesn’t mean that 4:26 Europeans won’t criticize the United States or the United States won’t criticize Europe but I do think fundamentally we have to be and we are 4:34 on the same civilizational team and I think obviously there’s a big question about what that means in the 21st 4:40 century i think you know obviously the president and I believe that it means a little bit more Europe European burden 4:46 sharing on the defense side i think that it means that all of us frankly on both sides of the Atlantic have gotten a 4:52 little bit uh too comfortable with the security posture of the last 20 years and that frankly that security posture 4:58 is not adequate to meet the challenges of the next 20 years so there are a lot of ways in which this alliance will 5:04 evolve and change in the same way that the alliance evolved and changed from 1945 to 1975 and from 1975 to 2005 i do 5:13 think that we’re in one of these phases where we’re going to have to rethink a lot of big questions but I do think that 5:18 we should rethink those big questions together that is a fundamental belief of both me and the president and you know 5:23 you mentioned this is my third time speaking uh with the Munich Security Conference group obviously the first 5:28 couple of times were in Munich and I always remember very fondly of course that the very first time it was as a 5:36 United States senator representing Ohio and I’m glad you got to spend a month in Dayton i love Dayton it’s kind of the closest big city if you can call it a 5:42 big city to where I grew up uh but on that first panel I was on that panel and also David Lambie who at the time was a 5:49 a a lowly member in opposition and of course now is the great foreign secretary of the United Kingdom and he 5:55 and I have become good friends so I I I still think that this European alliance is very important but I think that for 6:02 it to be important and for us to be real friends with each other and I think that we are very much real friends we’ve got 6:08 to talk about the big questions and I know that’s an important part of what this entire group does so I’m glad to be 6:13 here great thank you so much u and I think the message has arrived in Europe 6:19 that we need to carry a significantly larger share of the burden as you know 6:24 we are all trying to spend more some are are spending really a lot more others 6:30 are lagging behind a little bit but we’re moving in the right direction I think um let me let me turn to a really 6:38 concrete urgent issue ukraine the Trump administration from 6:44 what we have seen in the media etc seems to 6:49 agree with most of us in Europe that unfortunately Russia does not seem to be 6:57 really willing to end this military confrontation um if that’s the assessment if that if 7:04 that’s our collective assessment uh could you talk a little bit about US 7:10 strategy going forward we we all want this war to end and and let me say as a 7:15 very personal comment I think the Trump administration did the right thing by 7:21 starting this process of talking to the Ukrainians talking to the Russians but 7:26 the Russians seem not to be interested in the kind of quote unquote deal that 7:32 could be offered to them so talk to us a little bit about how you see the next steps yeah so so let me say a couple of 7:39 things about this f first of all I I appreciate your kind words about the administration obviously I think it was the right thing to do for us to start 7:46 the process of negotiation i think for too long the the Russians the Ukrainians 7:51 have been fighting obviously there’s been a lot of people dying on both sides there have been a lot of innocent loss of life and our view is it’s absurd that 7:59 you’ve had this war go on for so long and the two sides aren’t even talking constructively about what would be 8:05 necessary for them to end the conflict and I think that um you know one of the things that that the President Trump has 8:11 always been very good at and he’s gotten a lot of criticism unfair criticism in my view from both the American and some 8:17 of the European press is is what I would call a strategic realism or a strategic 8:22 insight in other words you don’t have to agree with the Russian justification for 8:28 the war and certainly both the president and I have criticized the full-scale invasion but you have to try to 8:33 understand where the other side is coming from to end the conflict and I think that’s what President Trump has been very deliberate about is actually 8:40 forcing the Russians to say here is what we would like in order to end the conflict and and again you don’t have to 8:47 agree with it you can think that the request is too significant and certainly the first peace offer that the Russians 8:53 put on the table our reaction to it was you’re asking for too much but this is how negotiations unfold and I wouldn’t 9:00 say I’m not yet that pessimistic on this i wouldn’t say that the Russians are uninterested in bringing this thing to a 9:07 resolution what I would say is right now the Russians are asking for a certain set of requirements a certain set of 9:14 concessions in order to end the conflict we think they’re asking for too much 9:19 okay and then obviously uh the Ukrainians matter a lot they’re the other s side they’re the other party at 9:25 least to the direct conflict and we have to ask what is the Ukrainian what are the what do they need in order um to 9:31 bring this conflict to a successful completion and we’re going to continue to have that conversation now what the 9:37 president has said is that he will walk away if he thinks he’s not making progress and I think that you know about 9:44 once every four or five weeks you will hear some American official or sometimes multiple American officials say “This is 9:51 a week where we need to make another step.” And in particular the step that we would like to make right now is we 9:57 would like both the Russians and the Ukrainians to actually agree on some 10:02 basic guidelines for sitting down and talking to one another obviously the United States is happy to participate in 10:07 those conversations but it’s very important for the Russians and the Ukrainians to start talking to one 10:13 another we think that is the next big step that we would like to take and why does that matter the reason it matters 10:19 is because again I mentioned the Russians but also the Ukrainians have also been sort of they they’ve they’ve 10:25 put a piece of paper in our hands that says this is what we would need in order to bring this conflict to a successful 10:31 resolution from our perspective and there’s a big gulf predictably between where the Russians and the Ukrainians 10:37 are and we think the next step in the negotiation is to try to close that gulf we think it’s probably impossible for us 10:44 to mediate this entirely without at least some direct negotiation between the two and so that’s what we focus on 10:50 but I I’m I’m not yet a pessimist on this i mean obviously you know the Russians and the Ukrainians are not 10:57 there yet because the fighting is still going on you know the Ukrainians have have said they would agree to a 11:02 ceasefire a 30-day ceasefire we appreciate that what the Russians have said again you don’t have to disagree 11:09 with it but it’s important to understand where the other side is coming from what the Russians have said is a 30-day 11:14 ceasefire is not in our strategic interest so we’ve tried to move beyond the obsession with a 30-day ceasefire 11:21 and more on the what would the long-term settlement look like and we’ve tried to consistently advance the ball one final 11:27 point I’d make about this I think it’s probably wouldn’t surprise anybody in the room but there are a lot of people watching who are not in the room is is a 11:35 frustration that we’ve had frankly with both sides is that they hate each other 11:41 so much that if you have an hour conversation with either side the first 30 minutes are just them complaining 11:47 about some historical grievance from four years ago or 5 years ago or 10 years ago look I understand it i 11:53 understand that people don’t fight wars against each other without a lot of grievance and a lot of of problem but 11:59 we’re trying to as much as we can play a constructive role in advancing the peace conversation forward and what I I’ll say 12:06 just to echo something that President Trump has said many times but I think it bears repeating is our strong view is 12:12 that the continuation of this conflict is bad for us it’s bad for Europe it’s bad for Russia and it’s bad for Ukraine 12:20 we think that if cool heads prevail here we can bring this thing to a durable 12:25 peace that will be economically beneficial for both the Ukrainians and the Russians and most importantly will 12:31 stop the end of the of the destruction of human lives i think people underappreciate this about our president 12:38 here in the United States is he has a genuine humanitarian impulse about this he hates innocent people losing their 12:45 lives he hates even soldiers losing their lives in unnecessary conflicts he 12:50 just wants the killing to stop and that will that will continue to be America’s policy but obviously as all of you have 12:57 seen we’ll navigate that policy and react as the parties bring their grievances to us great thank you very 13:04 much i if I can just offer two footnotes to that i think for us 13:11 uh Europeans living as neighbors of Ukraine and if you wish also as 13:16 neighbors of Russia we have begun to understand that what we’re looking at 13:22 here is not just the defensive war by Ukraine against the Russian aggression 13:28 it is also a confrontation that puts at 13:34 risk all of European security in other words it’s indirectly our defense also it’s not 13:41 just Ukraine and this is why we’re so desperately interested in seeing that this u comes to an end hopefully and the 13:50 and and I I think the real trick for negotiations and for a conclusion of this is going to be that it’s going to 13:56 be lasting and not not broken u in the next three six or nine months again let 14:04 me Mr vice President since we have so little time there are so many issues if 14:09 I if I if you allow let me let me turn to another issue 14:14 china that’s a key as we understand a key challenge for the United States for 14:20 your foreign policy it’s also of tremendous interest for for us in Europe 14:27 so the United States has defined China as the key strategic challenge going 14:33 forward for coming probably many years this has also been the the justification 14:41 the reasoning when American staff members of yours tell us the United 14:48 States must do must be much more present in Asia and will therefore 14:54 uh need to reduce their presence their strength etc in Europe but now there are 15:01 some signals in the media that you that the United States government that the 15:07 White House might actually be interested in a strategic deal with China maybe 15:12 even including on Taiwan could you talk a little bit about the China strategy of 15:17 the Trump administration yeah so I haven’t seen those reports that you mentioned a strategic deal on Taiwan so 15:23 I I wouldn’t speak to that i certainly say that would say that there has been no conversation between our governments 15:29 about a strategic deal on on that particular question what we have talked about of course is that we cannot absorb 15:37 the producer surplus of the entire world that has been the role of the American economy for the past 30 years in some 15:43 cases visav Europe and by the way we don’t blame for example the Germans for pursuing a policy that makes their 15:49 exporters strong we just wish that American leadership had pursued a policy that made our exporters strong because 15:55 now we find ourselves in a very precarious place and when I say we I mean the entire west i mean the NATO 16:01 alliance i mean the United States and Europe which is that we become in a world of hyper complicated hyper 16:07 globalized supply chains we find ourselves more and more reliant on 16:14 countries that may not have our best interest at heart and even if they’re halfway decent trading partners it’s 16:19 still a little bit risky to put all of your eggs in one proverbial basket economically and what the president has 16:26 said is we must rebalance the global economy visav China we cannot absorb 16:31 hundreds of billions of dollars close to a trillion dollars per year in annual 16:37 surplus most of it coming from the People’s Republic of China and what that’s going to mean in in in the 16:43 rebalancing is that we think that the PRC is going to have to frankly let their own population consume a little 16:50 bit more they’ve held consumption levels down in order to increase these massive exports it means that American 16:57 manufacturers are going to have to be treated more fairly in some of these global trade deals it means we’re going to have to cut some new trade deals with 17:04 some of our friends in Europe but also with some of our more adversarial nations but but that also you know we 17:10 ought to be careful here because while we want to rebalance global trade and that has certainly been the explicit 17:17 goal of our policy we also want to make sure that we do this in the right way and yes you’ve seen media reports that 17:24 the Chinese reached out to the United States of course we’re going to sit down and talk to them i’m not going to 17:29 divulge too many details or prejudge the negotiations but we want to rebalance 17:34 trade in the interests of American workers in the interest of American manufacturers that is our policy we 17:40 think that we can do that while preserving at least an open dialogue with the PRC and with a lot of other 17:46 nations all over the world uh but but that that doesn’t mean the old way of doing business is going to be stable or 17:53 that it’s going to persist it simply cannot it was not sustainable 10 years ago it was certainly not sustainable 17:59 four years ago and we’re very very committed to changing it but we’re open to having conversations with both again 18:05 our friends and more adversarial nations about what that rebalancing ultimately looks like and and and people have to 18:12 remember you know liberation day which was where the president announced these this this fundamental change I think in 18:18 the global trading system that was almost exactly 30 days ago so we are in 18:23 the early innings of a very significant shift i think that shift is going to really enure to the benefit of both the 18:30 United States but also of Europe but it it’s fundamentally it has to happen and it’s going to happen under President 18:36 Trump’s leadership all right um I think it’s great if there are 18:43 beginning discussions between you and the Chinese uh could you expand a little 18:48 more on what would your expectations be 18:53 for an EU US successful discussion of these trade issues uh is there any 19:01 message that we can take home to our friends in Brussels um because that’s 19:06 also from our point of view obviously a very urgent issue yeah so it to put it 19:12 very simply and we’ve obviously had great conversations with a lot of our European friends at the very senior 19:18 levels between you know the president and heads of state between me and and officials in European governments but 19:24 also with trade representatives and also the very nitty-gritty technical details of a trade agreement so these 19:30 conversations are ongoing but I’ll throw a few general principles out there i think the first is that again America 19:38 wants its exporters and and by implication its workers to be treated much more fairly we want American 19:44 markets in the sorry excuse me in the same way that American markets have been open to a lot of European goods we’d 19:50 like a lot of European markets to be open to American goods now there’s an agriculture component to that there’s an 19:55 value added manufacturing component to that uh we think that we have in both the software but also the more harder 20:01 technology side we have some great defense technology firms where on the one hand we have our European friends 20:09 saying we want to actually build up our defense we want to do more burden 20:14 sharing but on the other hand it seems like some of our European friends are less open for business if the people 20:21 selling software and hardware are American firms well we think that’s inconsistent we think that we have some 20:26 of the best military hardware and software in the world and we think part of being good allies is yes we obviously 20:32 want the Europeans to take a bigger role in the continental defense but we also think that there are a lot of great 20:37 American companies that they can work with and so again this doesn’t have to be a zero sum dynamic this can be a very 20:43 synergistic relationship but the fundamental principle is we think that most nations most nations in the world 20:50 have been way too hard on American exporters and American firms we want to make the entire world a little bit more 20:57 open to the products built by American workers we’re obviously biased we think that they’re the best in the world and 21:02 we think that we can have a much better trading relationship with a lot of our European friends if they if they just 21:09 dropped some of those both tariff but also non-tariff trade barriers there are regulatory barriers there are sometimes 21:16 you have an official at the Ministry of Defense completely disconnected as far as we can tell from a from an actual law 21:23 or regulation who will just say we’re not buying American products sometimes you have officials in Europe 21:29 who will say “Well we’re going to penalize American technology firms in a way that we would never penalize 21:34 European technology firms.” We just want a little bit more fairness or to use the president’s favorite word reciprocity 21:40 and again with with Europe we think that’s a very very easy conversation to have we hope our European friends agree 21:48 great uh I get signs from my friend here that we’re quickly running out of time 21:55 i’ll try I’ll having I’m having fun and uh let’s we can take a few more questions okay great wonderful my team 22:00 over there is very nervous you guys can’t see them behind but we’ll be we’ll be we’ll be brief so thank you very much 22:06 um uh we we’ve heard that there is in coming days or next two weeks a trip to 22:15 the Middle East coming up sure among the many unresolved issues of that region is 22:20 the issue of Iran and their nuclear ambition etc etc could you talk a little 22:26 bit about the region uh I mean there’s so many unresolved issues the Gaza issue 22:32 but also Tehran what would we what would your expectation be what would the goal 22:38 be would you go for zero enrichment by Iran some people have suggested that or 22:43 are we looking at a a a a replay of the 22:49 earlier you know agreement that was reached 10 years ago yeah so there are a couple issues with the earlier agreement 22:56 um the JCPOA as as uh it’s it’s called here in the United States and I assume 23:02 in Europe but here here the two big issues with that agreement are number one the enforcement or the inspections 23:09 regime was incredibly weak and I I I don’t think that it actually served the 23:14 function of preventing the Iranians from getting on the pathway to a nuclear weapon that’s one thing that must be 23:19 different and then second yes we believe that there were some elements of their nuclear program that were preserved 23:25 under JCPOA that yes they weren’t nuclear weapons iran doesn’t have a nuclear 23:30 weapon but allowed Iran to sort of stay on this glide path towards a nuclear weapon if they flip the switch and press 23:37 go and we have to think about this not just in terms of Iran which again the president has said this we think that 23:43 there is a deal here that would reintegrate Iran into the global economy that would be really good for the 23:48 Iranian people but would result in the complete sessation of any chance that they could get a nuclear weapon and 23:55 that’s what we’re negotiating towards and as the president has said that’s option A and option B if option A is 24:01 very good for the Iranian people and and and even um you know some of the folks the leadership in Iran option B is very 24:08 bad it’s very bad for everybody and it’s not what we want but it’s better than option C which is Iran getting a nuclear 24:14 weapon that is what is completely off the table for the American administration no ifs ands or buts now 24:20 there are a couple of other things that are worth thinking about because this is not just about Iran if Iran gets a 24:25 nuclear weapon which country then next gets a nuclear weapon and then when that country gets a nuclear weapon which 24:32 country after that we really care not just about Iran but about nuclear proliferation and yeah the president 24:38 said this in an interview a few weeks ago it’s one of these things that in the in the maelstrom of the media the signal 24:45 in the noise this was very much signal but it got lost in the noise the president hates nuclear proliferation i 24:52 hate nuclear proliferation and I I think that that the president would be very open to sitting down with the Russians 24:58 and the Chinese and saying “Look let’s get this thing in a much better place let’s reduce the number of nuclear 25:05 weapons that are in the world at large that’s obviously not a conversation for tomorrow that’s a conversation God 25:10 willing for a few years from now but there is no way you get to that conversation if you allow multiple 25:16 regimes all over the world to to to basically enter this sprint for a nuclear weapon and we really think that 25:22 if the Iran domino falls you’re going to see nuclear proliferation all over the Middle East that’s very bad for us it’s 25:28 very bad for our friends and it’s something that we don’t think can happen so without without prejudging the 25:33 negotiations I I will say so far so good we’ve been very um happy by how the 25:39 Iranians have responded to some of the points that we’ve made we’ve been very happy that some of the intermediaries 25:44 and some of the folks who are in the room the role that they’ve played the Omanis in particular have played a very positive role and we’re very grateful to 25:51 that so so far we’re on the right pathway but this is going to end somewhere and it will end either in Iran 25:59 eliminating their nuclear program their nuclear weapons program they can have civil nuclear power okay we don’t we 26:07 don’t mind that but what let me ask this basic question which regime in the world 26:14 has civil nuclear power and enrichment without having a nuclear weapon and the 26:20 answer is no one no one right now has a civil nuclear program with their entire 26:27 enrichment infrastructure that can enrich to the you know 90 plus% needed to get to fiscal material and a nuclear 26:34 weapon so our our our proposition is very simple yes we we don’t care if people want nuclear power we’re fine 26:40 with that but you can’t have the kind of enrichment program that allows you to 26:45 get to a nuclear weapon and that’s where we draw the line great i think we most 26:51 of us would totally agree with that and especially I think speaking on behalf of 26:57 a non-nuclear country with the goal of maintaining the nuclear 27:02 non-prololiferation regime that’s very important uh that allows me to turn to 27:07 my next or last question on NATO because most people don’t understand that the 27:15 fact that we’ve had NATO under US leadership for the last 70 years that 27:20 has been an essential instrument of international non-prololiferation 27:27 if we had not had U the US nuclear presence in Europe I would be prepared to give you 27:34 the uh at least two three four five countries in Europe that would have gone nuclear if they had not had this 27:42 reassurance so NATO has played a big role in nuclear non-prololiferation in 27:47 six weeks time we have a NATO summit coming up and uh again there are many 27:53 many issues one will be the continuing issue of defense spending uh as we 28:00 mentioned earlier in our discussion Europeans are doing more but we’ve also 28:05 listened to uh to uh demands coming out of uh the administration um that are 28:13 even more ambitious so could you talk a little bit about your level of expectation what would be your desired 28:20 outcome of that NATO summit in terms of defense spending in terms of of how much 28:25 Europe will need to do on its own in order to relieve the United States more 28:32 in Europe yeah so I think there are two there are a couple of different components of this so so first of all 28:37 what the president has said is he’d like to see 5% spending on defense and NATO and he thinks that that is consistent 28:43 with what our European friends are telling us about how much they fear some of the threats in the world and you know 28:51 given unfortunately that a lot of European militaries have not kept pace 28:56 over the past few decades there’s a bit of catching up to do and so that is the 29:01 goal that the president has set obviously European countries are going to make their own determinations but that’s what we think is a reasonable 29:07 goal but it’s really not just about the spend itself it’s also how the money is spent and it’s again there there’s this 29:14 fear that we have when we look at some of our European friends and I I made this point at the first Munich security conference I ever went to that when I 29:21 looked at Germany 10 15 20 years ago one of the things that the Germans were very 29:26 good about is that they were they had kept the industrial strength of their economy consistent with the first world 29:33 standard of living but now what we see in Europe is a lot of our European friends are de-industrializing at the 29:39 very moment where we’re all seeing the hard power underpinning or the economic 29:44 underpinning of real hard power requires very strong and powerful industry and so it’s not just spending money as 29:51 important as that is it’s making sure that the same economic engine that 29:56 powered first world living standards is actually geared towards producing god 30:01 forbid weapons of war if those weapons of war are ever necessary and so I I think there’s both an economic component 30:07 to this that’s completely divorced from the spending levels and then of course there’s the spending levels too but we 30:13 we really want and we really care about Europe being self-sufficient i you know 30:18 I gave an interview a couple of weeks ago where I actually tried to to make the point that yes we’re going to have 30:23 disagreements with Europe and Europe will have disagreements with us sometimes you know I would I would 30:29 hearken back to 2003 uh United States policy in the Middle East i frankly wish 30:34 we had listened to our European friends but I think this is an area where we’re 30:39 fundamentally right and I think it’s it’s gratifying to see so many of our European friends recognize that and 30:45 recognize that Europe does really have to play a bigger role in continental defense i think we’re all aligned on it 30:51 it’s just a question of getting there and most importantly getting there quickly there is a glimmer of hope in 30:57 our country in Germany as I’m sure you’ve seen we’ve uh eliminated the 31:02 so-called debt break yes uh when it comes to defense spending so there is 31:08 now the opportunity for the incoming new government in Germany to spend significantly more uh in other words I 31:14 think we’re we’re in good shape in terms of responding to what you have just said um ladies and g gentlemen that brings us 31:22 to the end of this wonderful discussion i’m really grateful to you that you uh 31:28 allowed this to be a Q&A session sure um uh we could continue this I’m sure for 31:33 the uh rest of the morning but I know you have other things coming up uh may I 31:39 simply conclude by saying that we hope very much my team and I that you will be 31:47 willing and prepared to continue this young tradition that the United States 31:53 at major Munich Security Conference events will be represented at your level 32:00 uh you are not the first vice president of the United States who has come to the Munich Security Conference but we are 32:06 extremely grateful that you came in your new position please come again to Munich next year thank you very much Mr vice 32:13 President thank you 32:22 so if if I may just say a few things inclusion first of all I appreciate the kind words and I appreciate the 32:28 invitation back i wasn’t sure after February whether I’d get the invitation back but it’s good to know uh that it’s 32:33 still there we thought about it second of all uh second of all since you brought 32:39 up Germany I wanted to of course u from the president issue our congratulations to Chancellor Mertz and I know that 32:45 we’ll have a conversation with him in the next couple of days but we’re looking forward to it and uh the final 32:50 point that I’d make is is you know not not to rehash what’s in that in that document but one of the things that I 32:57 said in that speech that didn’t get as much airplay but I thought was just as important is that everything that I said 33:04 there applied as much to the previous American administration as it did any 33:10 government in Europe and I and I think that this I I mean this from the heart and as a friend that there is a tradeoff 33:18 between policing the bounds of de democratic speech and debate and losing 33:25 the trust of our people every single country and we’re all going to draw the lines a little bit differently every 33:30 single country says there are things that are outside the realm of political debate i understand that i accept that 33:36 and I’m fine if one country is going to draw those lines a little bit differently than the United States but I 33:41 think all of us including especially the United States we have to be careful that 33:46 we don’t draw the lines in such a way that we actually undermine the very 33:52 democratic legitimacy upon which all of our civilization rests and I I think that is fundamentally the point here 33:58 it’s not Europe bad America good it’s that I think that both Europe and the United States we got a little bit off 34:04 track and I’d encourage us all to get back on track together we’re certainly willing and able to participate in that 34:10 work and I think all of you all too thank you god bless you

๐ŸŸฉ ๐ŸŸข LEARN ENGLISH WITH GLOBAL NEWS INSIGHTS ๐Ÿ—ž๏ธ

โ€ข Brochure โ€“ ์†Œ์ฑ…์ž, ์•ˆ๋‚ด์ฑ…์ž
โ€ข Interpret โ€“ ํ•ด์„ํ•˜๋‹ค
โ€ข Confront โ€“ ์ง๋ฉดํ•˜๋‹ค
โ€ข Distinguished โ€“ ์ €๋ช…ํ•œ
โ€ข Transactional โ€“ ๊ฑฐ๋ž˜ ์ค‘์‹ฌ์˜
โ€ข Encapsulation โ€“ ์š”์•ฝ, ์••์ถ•
โ€ข Adequate โ€“ ์ถฉ๋ถ„ํ•œ, ์ ์ ˆํ•œ
โ€ข Civilizational โ€“ ๋ฌธ๋ช…์ 
โ€ข Burden sharing โ€“ ๋ถ€๋‹ด ๋ถ„๋‹ด
โ€ข Intervention โ€“ ๊ฐœ์ž…
โ€ข Grievance โ€“ ๋ถˆ๋งŒ, ๊ณ ์ถฉ
โ€ข Constructive โ€“ ๊ฑด์„ค์ ์ธ
โ€ข Strategic realism โ€“ ์ „๋žต์  ํ˜„์‹ค์ฃผ์˜
โ€ข Concessions โ€“ ์–‘๋ณด, ์–‘ํ•ด์‚ฌํ•ญ
โ€ข Mediation โ€“ ์ค‘์žฌ
โ€ข Ceasefire โ€“ ํœด์ „
โ€ข Durable โ€“ ์ง€์† ๊ฐ€๋Šฅํ•œ
โ€ข Proliferation โ€“ ํ™•์‚ฐ
โ€ข Surplus โ€“ ํ‘์ž, ์ž‰์—ฌ
โ€ข Hyper-globalized โ€“ ๊ณผ๋„ํ•˜๊ฒŒ ์„ธ๊ณ„ํ™”๋œ
โ€ข Rebalance โ€“ ์žฌ์กฐ์ •ํ•˜๋‹ค
โ€ข Tariff โ€“ ๊ด€์„ธ
โ€ข Non-tariff barriers โ€“ ๋น„๊ด€์„ธ ์žฅ๋ฒฝ
โ€ข Reciprocity โ€“ ์ƒํ˜ธ์„ฑ, ํ˜ธํ˜œ
โ€ข Ambition โ€“ ์•ผ๋ง
โ€ข Enrichment โ€“ (์šฐ๋ผ๋Š„ ๋“ฑ) ๋†์ถ•
โ€ข Inspections regime โ€“ ์‚ฌ์ฐฐ ์ฒด๊ณ„
โ€ข Civil nuclear power โ€“ ๋ฏผ๊ฐ„ ์›์ž๋ ฅ ๋ฐœ์ „
โ€ข Legitimacy โ€“ ์ •๋‹น์„ฑ
โ€ข Undermine โ€“ ์•ฝํ™”์‹œํ‚ค๋‹ค
โ€ข De-industrializing โ€“ ์‚ฐ์—… ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ์•ฝํ™” ์ค‘์ธ
โ€ข Self-sufficient โ€“ ์ž๋ฆฝ์ ์ธ
โ€ข Reassurance โ€“ ์•ˆ์‹ฌ, ์•ˆ๋ณด๋ณด์žฅ
โ€ข Disagreements โ€“ ์ด๊ฒฌ
โ€ข Gratifying โ€“ ๊ธฐ์œ, ๋งŒ์กฑ์Šค๋Ÿฌ์šด
โ€ข Hearten back โ€“ ๋˜์งš๋‹ค, ํšŒ์ƒํ•˜๋‹ค
โ€ข Maelstrom โ€“ ๋Œ€ํ˜ผ๋ž€
โ€ข Domino effect โ€“ ๋„๋ฏธ๋…ธ ํšจ๊ณผ

๐ŸŸฉ๐ŸŸขEnglish Summary:

Q&A Dialogue Format

0:00
Moderator: Good morning, everybody. Wow, what a crowd. Mr. Vice President, weโ€™re so happy to have you here this morning.
JD Vance: I hope Iโ€™m not the highlight, but thank youโ€”great honor to be here.

0:26
Moderator: When you came to Munich last February, your speech triggered a major debate about valuesโ€”rule of law, freedom of speech. But today, letโ€™s focus on current foreign policy challenges.
Hereโ€™s the first question:

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Ukraine-Russia Conflict
6:38
Moderator: Whatโ€™s the U.S. strategy moving forward in Ukraine? Talks have started, but Russia doesnโ€™t seem interested in a deal.
JD Vance:
โ€ข Starting negotiations was the right thingโ€”people are dying on both sides.
โ€ข Trumpโ€™s โ€œstrategic realismโ€ focuses on understandingโ€”not agreeing withโ€”the other side.
โ€ข Russiaโ€™s demands are too much now, but progress is possible.
โ€ข Ukraine must also define its own goals.
โ€ข The goal now is to get both sides to agree on basic guidelines for direct talks.
โ€ข We reject the idea that endless war benefits anyoneโ€”itโ€™s bad for Ukraine, Russia, the U.S., and Europe.
โ€ข Trumpโ€™s priority is to stop unnecessary deathsโ€”his stance is deeply humanitarian.

๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ China Strategy
14:14
Moderator: Letโ€™s talk about China. There are rumors about a strategic deal, possibly on Taiwan. Can you clarify?
JD Vance:
โ€ข No conversation on a Taiwan dealโ€”those reports are not accurate.
โ€ข We must rebalance global tradeโ€”America canโ€™t absorb the worldโ€™s surplus anymore.
โ€ข Europe and the U.S. both depend too much on Chinaโ€”we need diversified supply chains.
โ€ข China must let its citizens consume more instead of just exporting.
โ€ข Weโ€™re open to talkingโ€”but the old trade model is over.
โ€ข Trumpโ€™s โ€œLiberation Dayโ€ trade shift began only 30 days agoโ€”this is the start of a big global reordering.

๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡บ EUโ€“U.S. Trade
18:48
Moderator: What would successful U.S.โ€“EU trade discussions look like? Any messages for Brussels?
JD Vance:
โ€ข America wants fairnessโ€”European markets must open more to U.S. goods.
โ€ข American defense firms should have access when Europe boosts its military.
โ€ข We want less discriminationโ€”some EU officials treat U.S. tech firms unfairly.
โ€ข Trump’s key demand: Reciprocity.

๐ŸŒ Middle East & Iran
22:15
Moderator: Youโ€™re heading to the Middle East. What are U.S. expectations on Iran and its nuclear program?
JD Vance:
โ€ข The old deal (JCPOA) failed on enforcement and allowed Iran to stay close to nuclear capability.
โ€ข U.S. seeks a complete stop to Iranโ€™s nuclear weapons program, not civil nuclear use.
โ€ข If Iran agrees, they benefit economically; if not, option B (pressure) is better than option C (a nuclear Iran).
โ€ข Proliferation is a huge concernโ€”we canโ€™t allow a domino effect in the Middle East.
โ€ข So far, talks are going wellโ€”Oman has helped as an intermediary.

๐ŸŒ NATO & Defense Spending
27:07
Moderator: NATO has been vital for nuclear non-proliferation. With the summit in 6 weeks, whatโ€™s your goal on defense?
JD Vance:
โ€ข Trump wants NATO members to spend 5% of GDP on defense.
โ€ข Itโ€™s not just about more spendingโ€”itโ€™s about how itโ€™s spent.
โ€ข European re-industrialization is keyโ€”power comes from economic strength.
โ€ข The U.S. wants Europe to be self-sufficient in continental defense.

๐Ÿง  Final Reflections
32:22
JD Vance (closing):
โ€ข Thank you for the invitationโ€”I wasnโ€™t sure Iโ€™d get another one after February!
โ€ข Congratulations to Chancellor Mertz.
โ€ข One final note: All democratic nations must be careful not to undermine free speech in the name of order.
โ€ข Trust in our systems depends on open debateโ€”letโ€™s get back on track together.

๐ŸŸฉ๐ŸŸขKorean Summary:

Q&A ๋Œ€ํ™” ํ˜•์‹

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ ๋ฏธ๊ตญ๊ณผ ์œ ๋Ÿฝ์˜ ๋™๋งน
1:47
์‚ฌํšŒ์ž: โ€œ์šฐ๋ฆฌ๋Š” ์—ฌ์ „ํžˆ ๊ฐ™์€ ํŒ€์ด๋‹คโ€๋ผ๊ณ  ํ•˜์…จ์ฃ . ์—ฌ์ „ํžˆ ๋ฏธ๊ตญ์€ ์œ ๋Ÿฝ์„ ์ „๋žต์  ํŒŒํŠธ๋„ˆ๋กœ ๋ด์•ผ ํ•œ๋‹ค๊ณ  ์ƒ๊ฐํ•˜์‹œ๋‚˜์š”?
JD ๋ฐด์Šค:
โ€ข ๋„ค, ๋ฌผ๋ก ์ž…๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ์šฐ๋ฆฌ๋Š” ์—ฌ์ „ํžˆ ๊ฐ™์€ ๋ฌธ๋ช…, ๊ฐ™์€ ๊ฐ€์น˜๋ฅผ ๊ณต์œ ํ•˜๋Š” ํŒ€์ž…๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ๋•Œ๋•Œ๋กœ ์˜๊ฒฌ ์ฐจ์ด๋Š” ์žˆ๊ฒ ์ง€๋งŒ, ๋ฏธ๊ตญ๊ณผ ์œ ๋Ÿฝ์€ ๋ฌธํ™”์ ์œผ๋กœ ๊นŠ์ด ์—ฐ๊ฒฐ๋˜์–ด ์žˆ์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ๋‹ค๋งŒ, ์ง€๋‚œ 20๋…„์˜ ์•ˆ๋ณด ์ฒด์ œ์— ์•ˆ์ฃผํ–ˆ๋˜ ๊ฒฝํ–ฅ์ด ์žˆ์–ด ์ด์ œ๋Š” ํ•จ๊ป˜ ์ƒˆ๋กœ์šด 20๋…„์„ ์ค€๋น„ํ•ด์•ผ ํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฆ ์šฐํฌ๋ผ์ด๋‚˜-๋Ÿฌ์‹œ์•„ ์ „์Ÿ
6:38
์‚ฌํšŒ์ž: ๋Ÿฌ์‹œ์•„๋Š” ์—ฌ์ „ํžˆ ํ˜‘์ƒ์— ์†Œ๊ทน์ ์ธ๋ฐ, ๋ฏธ๊ตญ์˜ ํ–ฅํ›„ ์ „๋žต์€ ๋ฌด์—‡์ธ๊ฐ€์š”?
JD ๋ฐด์Šค:
โ€ข ํ˜‘์ƒ ์‹œ์ž‘์€ ์˜ณ์€ ์ผ์ด์—ˆ์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ์–‘์ธก ๋ชจ๋‘ ์ˆ˜๋งŽ์€ ์ธ๋ช… ํ”ผํ•ด๋ฅผ ๊ฒช๊ณ  ์žˆ์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ํŠธ๋Ÿผํ”„ ๋Œ€ํ†ต๋ น์˜ ์ ‘๊ทผ์€ “์ „๋žต์  ํ˜„์‹ค์ฃผ์˜”์ž…๋‹ˆ๋‹คโ€”์ƒ๋Œ€๋ฐฉ์„ ์ดํ•ดํ•˜๋ ค๋Š” ๋…ธ๋ ฅ์ด ์ค‘์š”ํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ๋Ÿฌ์‹œ์•„์˜ ์ฒซ ์š”๊ตฌ๋Š” ๊ณผ๋„ํ–ˆ์ง€๋งŒ, ํ˜‘์ƒ์€ ๊ทธ๋Ÿฐ ๊ณผ์ •์ž…๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ์šฐํฌ๋ผ์ด๋‚˜๋„ ์ž์‹ ๋“ค์˜ ์กฐ๊ฑด์„ ์ œ์‹œํ–ˆ์œผ๋ฉฐ, ์–‘์ธก ๊ฐ„์˜ ๊ฐ„๊ทน์„ ์ขํžˆ๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์ด ๋‹ค์Œ ๋‹จ๊ณ„์ž…๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ํ˜„์žฌ์˜ ์ „์Ÿ์€ ๋ฏธ๊ตญ, ์œ ๋Ÿฝ, ๋Ÿฌ์‹œ์•„, ์šฐํฌ๋ผ์ด๋‚˜ ๋ชจ๋‘์—๊ฒŒ ํ•ด๋กญ์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ํŠธ๋Ÿผํ”„ ๋Œ€ํ†ต๋ น์€ ๋ฌด๊ณ ํ•œ ์ƒ๋ช…์ด ํฌ์ƒ๋˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์„ ์ง„์‹ฌ์œผ๋กœ ์‹ซ์–ดํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. **โ€œ์ฃฝ์Œ์„ ๋ฉˆ์ถ”๋Š” ๊ฒƒโ€**์ด ๊ทธ์˜ ์ •์ฑ… ํ•ต์‹ฌ์ž…๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.

๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณ ์ค‘๊ตญ ์ „๋žต
14:14
์‚ฌํšŒ์ž: ์ตœ๊ทผ ๋ฏธ๋””์–ด์—์„œ ๋Œ€๋งŒ๊ณผ ๊ด€๋ จ๋œ ๋ฏธ์ค‘ ์ „๋žต์  ๊ฑฐ๋ž˜์„ค์ด ๋„๋Š”๋ฐ, ์‚ฌ์‹ค์ธ๊ฐ€์š”?
JD ๋ฐด์Šค:
โ€ข ๊ทธ๋Ÿฐ ๋…ผ์˜๋Š” ์—†์—ˆ์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ์‚ฌ์‹ค์ด ์•„๋‹™๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ๊ธ€๋กœ๋ฒŒ ๋ฌด์—ญ ๋ถˆ๊ท ํ˜•์„ ์žฌ์กฐ์ •ํ•˜๋ ค๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์ด ์šฐ๋ฆฌ์˜ ๋ชฉํ‘œ์ž…๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ๋ฏธ๊ตญ์€ ์„ธ๊ณ„์˜ ๊ณผ์ž‰ ์ƒ์‚ฐํ’ˆ์„ ๋‹ค ๋– ์•ˆ์„ ์ˆ˜ ์—†์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ์œ ๋Ÿฝ๊ณผ ๋ฏธ๊ตญ ๋ชจ๋‘ ๊ณต๊ธ‰๋ง์„ ์ค‘๊ตญ์— ์ง€๋‚˜์น˜๊ฒŒ ์˜์กดํ•˜๊ณ  ์žˆ์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ํŠธ๋Ÿผํ”„ ๋Œ€ํ†ต๋ น์€ โ€œํ•ด๋ฐฉ์˜ ๋‚ โ€ ์„ ์–ธ ์ดํ›„ ์ƒˆ๋กœ์šด ๊ธ€๋กœ๋ฒŒ ๋ฌด์—ญ ์งˆ์„œ๋ฅผ ์ถ”์ง„ ์ค‘์ž…๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.

๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡บ ๋ฏธ๊ตญ-์œ ๋Ÿฝ ๋ฌด์—ญ
18:48
์‚ฌํšŒ์ž: EU์™€์˜ ๋ฌด์—ญ ๋…ผ์˜์—์„œ ๋ฏธ๊ตญ์ด ๋ฐ”๋ผ๋Š” ํ•ต์‹ฌ์€ ๋ฌด์—‡์ธ๊ฐ€์š”?
JD ๋ฐด์Šค:
โ€ข ๊ณต์ •ํ•œ ๋ฌด์—ญ ํ™˜๊ฒฝ์ด ํ•„์š”ํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ๋ฏธ๊ตญ ๋ฐฉ์‚ฐยท๊ธฐ์ˆ  ๊ธฐ์—…์ด ์œ ๋Ÿฝ์—์„œ ์ฐจ๋ณ„๋ฐ›๋Š” ์ผ์€ ์—†์–ด์•ผ ํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ์œ ๋Ÿฝ์˜ ๊ตญ๋ฐฉ ๊ฐ•ํ™”๋Š” ํ™˜์˜ํ•˜์ง€๋งŒ, ๋ฏธ๊ตญ ๊ธฐ์—…๋“ค๊ณผ์˜ ํ˜‘๋ ฅ๋„ ์—ด๋ ค ์žˆ์–ด์•ผ ํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ํŠธ๋Ÿผํ”„ ๋Œ€ํ†ต๋ น์˜ ํ•ต์‹ฌ ์›์น™: โ€œ์ƒํ˜ธ์„ฑ (Reciprocity)โ€

๐ŸŒ ์ค‘๋™๊ณผ ์ด๋ž€ ๋ฌธ์ œ
22:15
์‚ฌํšŒ์ž: ๊ณง ์ค‘๋™ ์ˆœ๋ฐฉ ์˜ˆ์ •์ด์‹ ๋ฐ, ์ด๋ž€ ํ•ต ๋ฌธ์ œ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๊ธฐ๋Œ€๋‚˜ ์ „๋žต์ด ์žˆ์œผ์‹ ๊ฐ€์š”?
JD ๋ฐด์Šค:
โ€ข ๊ธฐ์กด JCPOA(ํ•ตํ•ฉ์˜)๋Š” ๊ฐ์‹œ ์ฒด๊ณ„๊ฐ€ ํ—ˆ์ˆ ํ–ˆ๊ณ , ์ด๋ž€์ด ํ•ต๋ฌด๊ธฐ ๊ฐœ๋ฐœ ๊ฐ€๋Šฅ์„ฑ์„ ์—ด์–ด๋‘” ๊ตฌ์กฐ์˜€์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ๋ฏผ๊ฐ„ ์›์ž๋ ฅ์€ ํ—ˆ์šฉํ•˜๋˜, ํ•ต๋ฌด๊ธฐ์šฉ ๊ณ ๋†์ถ• ์šฐ๋ผ๋Š„ ์ƒ์‚ฐ์€ ๊ธˆ์ง€๋˜์–ด์•ผ ํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข โ€œA์•ˆโ€์€ ์ด๋ž€์ด ํ•ต์„ ํฌ๊ธฐํ•˜๊ณ  ๊ธ€๋กœ๋ฒŒ ๊ฒฝ์ œ์— ๋ณต๊ท€ํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ.
โ€ข โ€œB์•ˆโ€์€ ์••๋ฐ•์ด์ง€๋งŒ, โ€œC์•ˆ(์ด๋ž€์˜ ํ•ต๋ฌด์žฅ)โ€๋ณด๋‹ค๋Š” ํ›จ์”ฌ ๋‚ซ์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ๋งŒ์•ฝ ์ด๋ž€์ด ํ•ต์„ ๊ฐ–๊ฒŒ ๋˜๋ฉด ์ค‘๋™ ์ „์—ญ์— ํ•ต ํ™•์‚ฐ ๋„๋ฏธ๋…ธ ํ˜„์ƒ์ด ์ผ์–ด๋‚ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ์šฐ๋ฆฌ๋Š” ํ˜„์žฌ ๊ธ์ •์ ์ธ ๋ฐ˜์‘์„ ๋ฐ›๊ณ  ์žˆ์œผ๋ฉฐ, ํŠนํžˆ ์˜ค๋งŒ์˜ ์ค‘์žฌ ์—ญํ• ์— ๊ฐ์‚ฌํ•˜๊ณ  ์žˆ์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.

๐ŸŒ NATO์™€ ๊ตญ๋ฐฉ๋น„ ๋ถ„๋‹ด
27:07
์‚ฌํšŒ์ž: NATO ์ •์ƒํšŒ์˜๊ฐ€ ๊ณง ์—ด๋ฆฝ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ๋ฏธ๊ตญ์ด ๊ธฐ๋Œ€ํ•˜๋Š” ์œ ๋Ÿฝ์˜ ๋ฐฉ์œ„ ๊ธฐ์—ฌ ์ˆ˜์ค€์€?
JD ๋ฐด์Šค:
โ€ข ํŠธ๋Ÿผํ”„ ๋Œ€ํ†ต๋ น์€ GDP์˜ 5% ๊ตญ๋ฐฉ๋น„ ์ง€์ถœ์„ ํฌ๋งํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ์œ ๋Ÿฝ์€ ๊ตฐ์‚ฌ๋ ฅ๋ฟ ์•„๋‹ˆ๋ผ ์‚ฐ์—… ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ์ž์ฒด๋„ ์žฌ๊ฑดํ•ด์•ผ ํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ๋‹จ์ˆœํ•œ ์ง€์ถœ ์ฆ๊ฐ€๋ณด๋‹ค, ์‹ค์งˆ์  ๊ตญ๋ฐฉ๋ ฅ์„ ๊ตฌ์ถ•ํ•˜๋Š” ๋ฐฉํ–ฅ์œผ๋กœ ๊ฐ€์•ผ ํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ์œ ๋Ÿฝ์˜ ์ž๋ฆฝ์  ๋ฐฉ์œ„์ฒด๊ณ„ ๊ตฌ์ถ•์€ ๋ฏธ๊ตญ๋„ ๋ฐ”๋ผ๋Š” ๋ฐ”์ž…๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.

๐Ÿง  ๋งˆ๋ฌด๋ฆฌ ๋ฐœ์–ธ
32:22
JD ๋ฐด์Šค (๊ฒฐ๋ก ):
โ€ข ๋‹ค์‹œ ์ดˆ๋Œ€ํ•ด ์ฃผ์…”์„œ ๊ฐ์‚ฌํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. 2์›” ์ดํ›„ ์žฌ์ดˆ์ฒญ์€ ๊ธฐ๋Œ€ ๋ชปํ–ˆ์ง€๋งŒ, ์˜๊ด‘์ž…๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ๋…์ผ ๋ฉ”๋ฅด์ธ  ์ด๋ฆฌ์—๊ฒŒ๋„ ์ถ•ํ•˜ ์ธ์‚ฌ๋ฅผ ์ „ํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ๋งˆ์ง€๋ง‰์œผ๋กœ, ๋ฏผ์ฃผ์  ํ† ๋ก ์˜ ์ž์œ ๋ฅผ ์ œํ•œํ•จ์œผ๋กœ์จ ๊ตญ๋ฏผ ์‹ ๋ขฐ๋ฅผ ํ•ด์น˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์€ ๋ฏธ๊ตญ, ์œ ๋Ÿฝ ๋ชจ๋‘ ํ”ผํ•ด์•ผ ํ•  ์ผ์ž…๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.
โ€ข ๋ฏธ๊ตญ๊ณผ ์œ ๋Ÿฝ์€ ํ•จ๊ป˜ ๋‹ค์‹œ ์˜ฌ๋ฐ”๋ฅธ ๋ฐฉํ–ฅ์œผ๋กœ ๋‚˜์•„๊ฐ€์•ผ ํ•ฉ๋‹ˆ๋‹ค. ์šฐ๋ฆฌ๋Š” ๊ทธ ๋Œ€ํ™”์— ์ฐธ์—ฌํ•  ์ค€๋น„๊ฐ€ ๋˜์–ด ์žˆ์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Enhance Your English with U.S. Government News โ€“ A Brief Summary of the White House Digital Assets Summit 2025. 3. 7.Enhance Your English with U.S. Government News โ€“ A Brief Summary of the White House Digital Assets Summit 2025. 3. 7.

President Trump Delivers Remarks at the White House Digital Assets Summit The White House YouTube Timestamp & New Words Scripts Scripts 0:03 The President: Thank you very much. 0:06 (Applause.)