In an interview with Sean Hannity on Monday night, Vice President JD Vance riled European allies in an answer related to security guarantees in Ukraine. Unlike the Germans' meltdown over Vance's important Munich address on free speech and uncontrolled migration, harsh reaction from the British at least appeared to be more justified this time around. Vance was touting the benefits of a yet-unsigned rare earth minerals deal between the United States and Ukraine, which was supposed to have been signed last Friday, but was derailed by the Oval Office debacle. Since then, President Zelensky made more comments about the war and American support that prompted the Trump administration to temporarily freeze US military aid to Ukraine. In making the case for why getting the minerals pact inked would be in both countries' interest, he seemed to denigrate the contribution of European nations' troops on the ground as part of a security guarantee component to a possible peace deal that ends Russia's war in Ukraine:
Bad news for Starmer and Macron. Vance confirms the only US security guarantee in Ukraine will be the mineral deal. He also plays down British & French peacekeeping troops as “20k troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”.pic.twitter.com/6bujpsjygX
— Antonello Guerrera (@antoguerrera) March 4, 2025
Quite a few Brits took umbrage at this, including longtime Trump ally and major right-populist star Nigel Farage:
Wow, Nigel Farage hits out at JD Vance in a way Kemi Badenoch wouldn't.
— Tom Harwood (@tomhfh) March 4, 2025
Farage: "JD Vance is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
For 20 years in Afghanistan pro rata our size against America's we spent the same amount of money, we put the same number of men and women in. We suffered the… https://t.co/vQDL7h2YiF
The Conservative Party's leader urged caution, suggesting that her fellow countrymen not jump the gun and get 'carried away' in ascribing a message to Vance that he didn't actually make. She has a point. If you listen to Vance's comments on this subject in the embedded video, he does not mention the UK or France, though it's somewhat understandable why British ears might hear his remark as disrespectful because their Prime Minister just very recently made news by offering troops on the ground as part of an enforcement mechanism supporting a peace agreement. I suggested that Vance clarify that he was not talking about allies like France and especially Britain, whose soldiers have fought and died alongside ours for many decades -- including after 9/11. Indeed, Vance had done exactly that, directly denying that he was talking about either nation, and praising their military's heroism. He also added another note:
Recommended
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.
— JD Vance (@JDVance) March 4, 2025
Let me first say that I was glad to see Vance not only deny that he was referring to some of our most important allies in the world, but also offering warm words about both countries. Close friends should be treated as such. Given Prime Minister Starmer's recent announcement about the UK's willingness to put troops in Ukraine to help deter future Russian aggression after a potential peace accord, Vance should probably have been more mindful about how his words might be perceived, thus avoiding the walk-back or clarification. Also, even if he's talking about 'random' other European countries' hypothetical contributions to a security guarantee scenario, diminishing the value of that is a puzzling choice. European nations and militaries taking more responsibility for securing the peace in Europe would be a very good thing that America should strongly support. It would actually be a very 'America First' outcome. Preemptively dismissing the value of some nations' participation in such an arrangement is counter-productive on its own merits, setting aside the miscommunication and flare-up with the Brits.
Meanwhile, Zelensky published a carefully-constructed statement this morning, a clear attempt to clean up the mess that he had a large hand in making last week, in addition to climbing down from the comments that spurred the temporary pause mentioned above:
I would like to reiterate Ukraine’s commitment to peace. None of us wants an endless war. Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer. Nobody wants peace more than Ukrainians. My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts. We are ready to work fast to end the war, and the first stages could be the release of prisoners and truce in the sky — ban on missiles, long-ranged drones, bombs on energy and other civilian infrastructure — and truce in the sea immediately, if Russia will do the same. Then we want to move very fast through all next stages and to work with the US to agree a strong final deal. We do really value how much America has done to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty and independence. And we remember the moment when things changed when President Trump provided Ukraine with Javelins. We are grateful for this. Our meeting in Washington, at the White House on Friday, did not go the way it was supposed to be. It is regrettable that it happened this way. It is time to make things right. We would like future cooperation and communication to be constructive.Regarding the agreement on minerals and security, Ukraine is ready to sign it in any time and in any convenient format. We see this agreement as a step toward greater security and solid security guarantees, and I truly hope it will work effectively.
This is the first truly constructive thing he's said in days, hitting on multiple key points. The Trump administration should take the win, sign the minerals deal, and get President Trump's peace process back on track.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member