Vance’s Remarks on Ukraine Peacekeeping Spark Outrage in Britain and France
JD Vance, the U.S. Vice President, has ignited a firestorm of controversy across the Atlantic with comments he made regarding potential security guarantees for a peace deal in Ukraine. His remarks, initially aired during an interview on Fox News with Sean Hannity, have been widely interpreted as dismissive of the contributions and sacrifices made by British and French troops in past conflicts.
The uproar began when Vance suggested that an American economic deal in Ukraine would be a more effective security measure than deploying 20,000 troops from "some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years." While Vance has since claimed that he did not specifically mention the U.K. or France, and asserted that both nations had "fought bravely alongside the U.S. over the last 20 years, and beyond," the damage appears to have been done.
British tabloid newspapers, known for their sensationalist style, wasted no time in condemning Vance’s statements. Headlines such as "A Disgrace," "A Clown Whose Slur Was Disrespectful to War Heroes," and "JD Dunce" dominated newsstands on Wednesday, reflecting the deep anger and offense felt by many in the U.K.
The political fallout has been swift and severe. Nigel Farage, the leader of the right-wing Reform U.K. party and a staunch ally of President Donald Trump, denounced Vance’s comments as "wrong, wrong, wrong." Farage emphasized the unwavering support Britain had provided to the U.S. over the past two decades, stating, "We stood by America all through those 20 years putting in exactly the same contribution."
James Cartlidge, the shadow defense secretary for Britain’s opposition Conservative Party, echoed Farage’s sentiments, describing Vance’s remarks as "deeply disrespectful" to the militaries of both Britain and France. Cartlidge highlighted the significance of NATO’s Article 5, which was invoked for the first time in the alliance’s history after the September 11, 2001 attacks. He reminded the public that Britain and France had immediately come to America’s aid, deploying thousands of personnel to Afghanistan, including his own brother and numerous parliamentary colleagues.
Across the English Channel, in Paris, the reaction was equally strong. French Defense Minister Sébastien Lecornu received applause from lawmakers when he addressed the controversy. While acknowledging Vance’s subsequent clarification, Lecornu emphasized that the approximately 600 French soldiers who had died while serving their country over the past 60 years deserved respect from their allies.
Michel Goya, a former colonel in the French army, took to social media platform X to express his outrage directly to Vance. In a blunt message, Goya stated that "British and French soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside the Americans are giving you s**t from where they are."
The controversy comes at a sensitive time, as the Trump administration has paused military aid to Ukraine amid ongoing political tensions. President Trump’s recent address to Congress included a reference to a letter from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressing gratitude for U.S. support, as well as an indication that Russia was willing to negotiate an end to the war. Zelenskyy has also suggested a deal to allow American access to Ukrainian natural resources as a potential step toward peace.
The historical context of British and French military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq further underscores the depth of the offense caused by Vance’s remarks. Approximately 150,000 British military personnel served in Afghanistan over a 20-year period, with 457 losing their lives. The U.K. also played a significant role in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, deploying forces that peaked at around 46,000. France, for its part, deployed more than 70,000 soldiers to Afghanistan.
While the U.K. and France are the only two nations to have publicly committed troops to safeguard any potential Ukraine peace deal, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has indicated that a "number of countries" have also agreed to participate, although he has not disclosed their identities.
Neither Starmer nor French President Emmanuel Macron have directly addressed Vance’s "random country" comments, perhaps reflecting the diplomatic challenges they face in persuading Washington to provide U.S. military support for a plan involving European peacekeeping troops in Ukraine. Both leaders have argued that a U.S. military "backstop" is essential to deter future Russian attacks on Ukraine.
The Trump administration has yet to commit to such a backstop. Meanwhile, Britain, France, and other non-U.S. NATO countries have pledged to increase their defense budgets, partly in response to pressure from President Trump. However, a recent report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies highlighted that these militaries still lack "critical enablers" such as intelligence, surveillance, and air-to-air refueling capabilities.
Amidst the widespread criticism, Kemi Badenoch, a prominent figure in Britain’s Conservative Party, has attempted to downplay the controversy. Badenoch argued that Vance did not specifically call Britain a "random country" and urged for a more measured response, stating, "People are getting carried away. They’re saying loads of things. Getting quite animated. Let’s keep cool heads."
However, the prevailing sentiment in Britain and France remains one of anger and disappointment. Vance’s remarks have touched a raw nerve, raising questions about the level of respect and appreciation within the U.S. administration for the sacrifices made by its allies in past conflicts. The incident serves as a reminder of the importance of careful diplomacy and the potential for even seemingly offhand comments to have significant repercussions on international relations.
