# Transatlantic Alliance Restructuring and Supply Chain Security

**Podcast:** Bloomberg Daybreak: Asia Edition
**Published:** 2026-02-14

## Transcript

Hello, I'm Stephen Carroll.
I'm in Brussels, where many of Europe's biggest decisions get made.
And I'm Caroline Hepke in London with the hosts of the Blueberg Daybreak Europe podcast.
We're up early every weekday, keeping an eye on what's happening across Europe and around the world.
We do it early so the news is fresh, not recycled, and so you know what actually matters as the day gets going.
From Brussels, I'm following the politics, policy, and the people shaping the European Union right now.
And from London, I'm looking at what all that means for markets, money, and the wider economy.
We've got reporters across Europe and around the globe feeding in as stories break.
So whether it's geopolitics, energy, tech, or markets, you're hearing it while it happens.
It's smart, calm, and to the point.
And it fits into your morning.
You can find new episodes of the Bloomberg Daybreak Europe podcast by 7 a.m.
in Dublin or 8 a.m.
in Brussels, Berlin, and Paris.
On Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Bloomberg Audio Studios.
Podcasts, radio news.
Welcome to special coverage from the Munich Security Conference.
I'm Francine Lacroix.
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 McCoy.
Thank you, Francine.
Mary Rubio.
Secretary 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.
The first, I suspect, for a Secretary of 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 things together, which was slightly different from the vice president last year.
Were you kind of offering a carrot 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 had 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, uh 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 his 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 in a 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 uh 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.
You've as people say you've often been a hawk on that subject.
You're in a struggle with China.
You do you think you absolutely need Europe to be able to do that?
Yeah, I would say two things.
The first, that the mentions of the Cold War were 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 60s and 70s, even that at a minimum we had reached a stalemate, and worse, that perhaps Soviet expansion was uh inevitable and that we needed to come to accept it.
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 uh euphoria that led us to make some terrible decisions that have now left us vulnerable and deindustrialized the West.
It allowed it it left us uh increasingly dependent on others, including China, uh, 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 aside China, anybody else.
We should never have to uh we should never be in a situation where our alliance and our respective countries um are uh vulnerable to extortion or blackmail because someone controls 99% 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, not in that China's the new Soviet Union, but that in our future, collectively, we'll 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 Carney 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 I serve under a president that's willing to meet with anybody.
Yes.
I mean, uh to be frank, I'm pretty confident in saying that if the Ayatollah said tomorrow he wanted to meet with President Trump, the president would meet him.
Not because he agrees with the Ayatollah, 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 intends to travel to Beijing and has already met once with President Ji.
And in this very forum yesterday, I met with my counterpart, uh 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.
Um I don't think that is exclude that that in, you know, 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 um, I don't think visiting Beijing or meeting with the Chinese is on the contrary.
I think it would be irresponsible for great powers not to have relationships and talk through things and to the extent possible and void 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 I think we have to understand that we want to reinvigorate 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 21st century are different than the challenges of the 20th.
The world has changed and the alliance has to change.
But 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 as 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 we're allies in the first place, can we then build out all the mechanics of that alliance?
And then all everything else we do together makes more sense.
Um, you see all these numbers from the front where the Ukrainians do seem to be doing better in terms of what's happening to the Russians.
Do you think Ukraine or do you think Russia is still winning that war, or where do you where do you place it militarily?
I think that's a difficult war to say anyone is winning.
Uh the Russians are losing seven to eight thousand soldiers a week.
A week.
Not wounded, dead.
Uh, Ukraine has suffered extraordinary damage, including, you know, overnight.
And again, to its in uh energy infrastructure, and it will take billions of dollars and years and years to rebuild that country.
So I don't think anyone can claim to be winning it.
I think that uh both sides are suffering tremendous damage, and we'd like to see the war come to an end.
It's a senseless war, in our view.
The president believes that very deeply.
He believes the war would have never happened had he been president at the time.
So we're doing two things.
So obviously we continue.
Look, we don't 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 on negotiated terms.
And it's an obligation we we haven't 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 gonna 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.
We'd like to see that happen as soon as possible.
If Ukraine loses the war, it's gonna 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 meeting in the White House and Zelensky and Trump, and they will claim the.
That would ignore reality.
Look, Ukraine, first of all, they deserve a lot of credit.
They fought very bravely.
They've ex received extraordinary amount of support from the United States to the tune of billions of dollars that pre-exist the tank force.
I wasn't saying it was fair.
I was just saying there's a possibility that we're going to be able to do that.
But I'm not worried about that because I can tell you that I think history will be will 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 20% of Donets that they don't currently possess.
And uh 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.
Um and so that's kind of where this thing is narrowed.
And um, 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 and that Russia will also accept.
And it may not work out, but we are gonna do everything we can to see if we can find uh a deal there are 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 to to feel that it's been worth the work.
But we're gonna keep trying, and our negotiators, Steve Woodkoff, now Jared Kushner's involved, have dedicated a tremendous amount of time to this, and they they they'll have meetings again on Tuesday with regards to this.
What about a country with which you've had a long interest, Cuba?
You mentioned it obliquely in the speech talking about the Cuban missile crisis.
How long do you think the regime can last without the people?
Yeah, I think the regime in Cuba's are looking the revolution in Cuba ended 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.
Uh it just it doesn't have a real economic uh 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 of these, 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 of Cuba to control anything.
So they they don't know how to get themselves out of this.
And and to the extent that they they've been offered opportunities to do it, they they don't seem to be able to comprehend it or 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 off-ramp for the regime?
I mean, previous ones when you negotiated with Venezuela, you said if if they agreed with various things, it would be possible to continue.
There is.
I mean, look, I think you have to.
What could the Cuban regime do?
Well, I'm not gonna 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 the people of Cuba, and and that's what this regime has not been willing to give them, because they're afraid that if 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, and 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 Hugo 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 helped with the problem is that you you lose money in Cuba.
They never pay their bills.
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 is one potential way forward.
I would also say, and 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 at after the hurricane.
Marco Rubio, thank you very much for talking to Bloomberg.
Thank you.
Great and substantial interview there.
The Secretary of State, Marco Rubio speaking to our very own editor in chief, John Mickle Thwaite, now Secretary Rubio, really seeking to reassure some of the allies, but also seeking to reassure Europe of the U.S.
commitment to the continent, whilst at the same time criticizing Western leaders for what he calls a dangerous delusion of open borders, free trade, and punishing energy policies.
Now, they also talked about Ukraine, 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.
I'm Francine Lacwa, and this is Bloomberg.
Including breaking news from Bloomberg's reporters and in-depth conversations with lawmakers and administration officials that you won't hear anywhere else.
What are the policy changes the Trump administration is making that affect Washington and Wall Street and drive your investment decisions?
From tariffs to taxes, the rules are constantly changing, which is why you need to listen every day.
We do it all live each weekday, then bring you the best conversations in the daily podcast.
Catch up on the headlines you missed while you were at work.
Listen on your way home for the top news of the day, straight from our nation's capital and around the world.
That's the Balance of Power Podcast with me, Joe Matthew, and Kaylee Lines.
Listen on Apple, Spotify, and wherever you get your podcasts.
This is Tom Keene inviting you to join us for the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.
It's about making you smarter every business day.
I'm Paul Sweeney.
We bring you complete coverage of the U.S.
Market Open.
We cover stocks, bonds, commodities, even crypto.
All the information you need to excel.
And I'm Alexis Christophorus.
Bloomberg Surveillance also brings you the analysis behind the headlines.
We do that through conversations with the smartest names in economics, finance, investment, and international relations.
We do all this live each and every weekday, then bring you the best analysis in our daily podcast.
Search for Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or anywhere else you listen.
On the East Coast, listen at lunch.
And on the West Coast, listen as soon as you wake up.
That's the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast with Tom Keene, Paul Sweeney, and me, Alexis Christophoris.
Subscribe today wherever you get your podcasts.
Bloomberg Surveillance, essential listening, each and every business day.