US Vice-President JD Vance has ignited a political storm with remarks about a potential peacekeeping force in Ukraine, prompting backlash from UK opposition politicians who accused him of disrespecting British forces.
The controversy erupted after Vance dismissed the idea of an international peacekeeping force, arguing that American economic interests in Ukraine would be a “better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years.”
His comments came as the UK and France publicly declared their willingness to deploy troops to Ukraine as part of a peace deal. However, Vance later insisted he had not directly referenced the UK or France, stating that both had “fought bravely alongside the US over the last 20 years, and beyond.” He did not specify which countries he was referring to but added on social media that “many countries” offering support “have neither the battlefield experience nor the military equipment to do anything meaningful.”
Vance’s remarks drew sharp criticism from British politicians across the political spectrum. Conservative shadow defense secretary James Cartlidge highlighted the UK’s military contributions alongside the US in Afghanistan, calling Vance’s comments “deeply disrespectful.”
Liberal Democrat defense spokesperson Helen Maguire, a former Royal Military Police officer who served in Iraq, accused Vance of erasing the sacrifices of British troops. “I saw firsthand how American and British soldiers fought bravely together shoulder to shoulder. Six of my own regiment didn’t return home from Iraq. This is a sinister attempt to deny that reality,” she said.
Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, a former British Army officer, called on Vance to clarify which countries he was referring to and issue an apology, arguing that his comments had caused “real offence.”
Despite the mounting criticism, Downing Street declined to say whether Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer found Vance’s remarks insulting, but emphasized the UK’s “full admiration” for British troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Vance’s comments come amid shifting US policy on Ukraine. The Biden administration recently paused military aid following a tense meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House. Zelensky reportedly left the meeting before signing a proposed deal that would allow American companies to extract Ukrainian minerals—an initiative Trump has promoted as a key aspect of US involvement in Ukraine’s future security.
Starmer has emphasised the need for US security guarantees—such as air cover—to deter future Russian aggression if a peace deal is reached. However, Trump has so far resisted committing to this, instead arguing that US economic investments in Ukraine would serve as a stronger deterrent.
As diplomatic tensions rise, the fallout from Vance’s remarks underscores broader divisions over how best to secure peace in Ukraine—and what role the US and its allies should play in the process.
Follow us on:
