US Vice President JD Vance has sparked a political storm with comments dismissing the potential role of international forces in policing a Ukraine peace deal, drawing sharp criticism from British politicians.
Speaking to Fox News, Vance suggested that a US economic stake in Ukraine was a “better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years.”
His remarks were met with outrage in the UK, where opposition politicians accused him of disrespecting British and French forces. Both nations have publicly committed to deploying troops in Ukraine as part of a peace settlement.
Amid growing criticism, Vance later clarified that he “did not even mention the UK or France” and acknowledged that both had “fought bravely alongside the US over the last 20 years, and beyond.” However, he did not specify which countries he was referring to in his original statement.
In a social media post, he doubled down on his position, stating:
“But let’s be direct: there are many countries who are volunteering (privately or publicly) support who have neither the battlefield experience nor the military equipment to do anything meaningful.”
Despite this, only the UK and France have openly pledged troops for a Ukraine peacekeeping mission, with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer previously indicating that “several countries” had agreed to participate.
Vance’s comments drew strong reactions from British political figures, including Conservative Shadow Defence Secretary James Cartlidge, who highlighted the UK and France’s deployment alongside US forces in Afghanistan.
“It’s deeply disrespectful to ignore such service and sacrifice,” Cartlidge said.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch played down the row, noting that Vance did not explicitly call Britain a “random country.” Speaking to GB News, she urged calm, saying:
“A lot of people are getting carried away. They’re saying loads of things and getting quite animated. Let’s keep cool heads.”
However, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was more critical, declaring Vance was “wrong, wrong, wrong,” and insisting that Britain had “stood by America” for two decades in Afghanistan.
Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson Helen Maguire, a former Royal Military Police captain who served in Iraq, called on the UK’s ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson, to demand an apology from Vance.
“JD Vance is erasing from history the hundreds of British troops who gave their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Maguire said.
She added: “I saw firsthand how American and British soldiers fought bravely together shoulder to shoulder. Six of my own regiment, the Royal Military Police, didn’t return home from Iraq. This is a sinister attempt to deny that reality.”
Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, a former British Army officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, called Vance’s remarks “unacceptable” and demanded clarification.
“The disrespect shown by the new US vice-president to the sacrifices of our service personnel is unacceptable,” he told BBC Two’s Politics Live.
After Vance’s social media response, Obese-Jecty remained unconvinced, questioning who else he could have been referring to if not the UK and France.
“It’s difficult to see who he was talking about if he wasn’t talking about Britain and France,” he said, adding that Vance had caused “real offence.”
Downing Street declined to say whether Prime Minister Starmer found Vance’s comments offensive but reaffirmed his respect for British troops. A spokesperson stated that Starmer was “full of admiration for all British troops who have served, for instance, in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
The UK played a key role in the US-led invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. More than 150,000 British troops served in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021, while UK forces in Iraq peaked at 46,000.
Vance’s remarks come as the US halts military aid to Ukraine following a tense Oval Office exchange between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last week.
Zelensky left Washington before finalising a proposed agreement to grant American companies access to Ukraine’s mineral resources—a deal that Vance later referenced on Fox News.
“The very best security guarantee is to give Americans economic upside in the future of Ukraine,” Vance said. “That is a way better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years.”
Starmer has maintained that any Ukraine peace deal would require strong security assurances—potentially including US air cover—to deter future Russian aggression.
However, Trump has so far refused to provide such guarantees, instead arguing that economic partnerships between Ukraine and American businesses would serve as a sufficient deterrent.
With tensions rising, the fallout from Vance’s remarks has only added to concerns over the West’s long-term commitment to Ukraine’s security.
