JD Vance’s Comments Ignite Outrage Across UK – Veterans, MPs Speak Out Loud

When JD Vance recently remarked that a proposed European peacekeeping force might come from “some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years,” the backlash was swift — and fierce.

Several UK military veterans, alongside leading politicians, condemned the comments as deeply disrespectful to thousands of British service members who fought alongside American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What Vance Said — And Why It Hit a Nerve

In a 2025 interview, Vance argued that European manpower wouldn’t guarantee security for Ukraine post-war. He described some contributing nations as inexperienced, saying:

“20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years.”

Although he later clarified he did not explicitly mention the UK or France, many interpreted the statement as a dig at NATO’s key European allies.

The timing — during critical discussions about a Ukraine peace deal — amplified the reaction.

UK Response: Veterans & Officials Stress the Cost of Sacrifice

Johnny Mercer – former UK Armed Forces Minister and veteran — didn’t mince words: he labeled Vance a “clown,” criticizing the perceived ignorance of British troops’ sacrifices.

James Cartlidge, UK Shadow Defence Secretary, called the comments “deeply disrespectful,” reminding the public of the 636 British troops who died alongside U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Keir Starmer, the UK Prime Minister, also weighed in with a quiet but firm tribute to British soldiers — highlighting their shared history with American troops.

Several former senior military officials and public figures added their voices, calling the perceived insult “hurtful” and “tone-deaf.”

Many MPs and veterans described Vance’s remarks as an attempt to “erase” decades of joint efforts and losses — a notion sharply rejected by families of fallen soldiers.

🔎 Why This Matters — And What It Reflects

Allied history matters. UK and US troops have fought side by side in multiple conflicts during the past two decades. Remarks that seem to dismiss that history provoke deep emotional and political backlash.

Diplomacy vs. blunt rhetoric. As the world watches potential peace deals and NATO cooperation, tone and respect in international dialogue are under scrutiny — especially by former service members and allied governments.

Politics has consequences. Comments like Vance’s don’t just stay in interviews. They impact diplomatic trust, veterans’ morale, and public opinion on international alliances.

Even if Vance intended to refer broadly to “less experienced” nations, the perceived slight to Britain highlights how delicate statements about military history and cooperation can be — especially when lives and sacrifices are involved.