British commentators reacted with seething fury over a perceived insult against the Army by JD Vance overnight, prompting the Vice President to reassure his remarks about “random country” militaries was in fact about Europe’s selection of small states with close-to ceremonial defence forces.
The sudden hot flash of outrage was pinned on an interpretation of Vance’s words when the VP had remarked, to Fox News on Monday night that:
…the very best security guarantee is to give Americans economic upside in the future of Ukraine, 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.
Because at this moment in time Britain and France are the only European countries that have definitely said they will contribute to a Ukraine peace force, some interpreted this remark as having been pointed specifically at London and Paris. Yet such a peacekeeping force couldn’t realistically happen without wider European buy-in, and the continent has plenty of very small forces that haven’t been meaningfully deployed in decades.
Britain and France on the other hand have been fighting wars of varying intensity very nearly non-stop for the whole post-Cold War era and beyond. Given the UK was a major contributor to the Iraq war and Vance was deployed as a U.S. Marine military journalist to that conflict it does seem, on balance, unlikely that he would be aware of the British Army’s combat record.
Clarifying his position — although some reports characterised it as a “backtrack” — Vance responded to one journalist who had observed it as “Bad news for Starmer and Macron”, and stated: “This is absurdly dishonest. I don’t even mention the UK or France in the clip, both of whom have fought bravely alongside the US over the last 20 years, and beyond.”
Making clear he really had meant what he said, though, Vance doubled down on his doubting the effectiveness of Europe’s small militaries. He continued: “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.”
Indeed, some NATO states spend remarkably little on defence. While the United States is clearly way out in front, with a defence budget approaching one trillion dollars a year, European leaders like Britain, France, and Germany spend up to $100 billion a year each on their militaries. The spend of some European states which enjoy the full benefit of NATO membership without pulling their weight compares poorly.
Among them are Spain spending $21 billion, equivalent to just 1.2 per cent of their GDP, Slovenia spending less than $1 billion a year or 1.3 per cent of GDP, or Belgium — home to NATO headquarters — spending $8.5 billion, again at 1.3 per cent of their economy.
Based on the interpretation that Vance was dinging the British military with his “random country” comment, several politicians reacted with spite on Tuesday morning, the Daily Telegraph relates. Among them were a former head of the British Army during the Iraq war era who asked, rhetorically, “What planet is this guy on”, and a former Conservative Party defence minister who called a “clown”.
French armed forces minister Sébastien Lecornu railed against the perceived insult in their Parliament, stating: “We respect the veterans of all the allied countries, we want our own veterans respected”.
Read the full article here
