Why Pete Hegseth’s remarks on Nato’s Afghanistan role have drawn UK rebuke and raised fresh questions over US-Europe relations

A clash involving Nato forces' sacrifice in Afghanistan is highlighting new rifts between the US and its allies in Europe after US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth raised questions about the involvement of coalition partners in operations there. The British government has taken issue with his comments, claiming that his statements undermine the sacrifice of British and other allied forces. More than 450 Britons have been killed in Afghanistan, while numerous other nations also saw their soldiers lose their lives in the NATO-led campaign.

This is a delicate period for relations between Europe and the United States. US President Donald Trump has launched new accusations against Ukraine’s leadership, imposed some sanctions against Russia and limited the sharing of information which allows Kyiv to defend itself from Russian attacks. This policy has alarmed European governments about the future of Western aid to Ukraine.

As stated by The Guardian, the position of the UK concerning Hegseth's remarks is the attempt to justify NATO's position and stress the fact that the commitment of Britain to Ukraine has not changed.


There are three main issues in this dispute: what were the comments of Hegseth about Afghanistan, why Britain considers them unfounded, and how may this dispute affect the relationship between Washington and Europe?

What did Pete Hegseth say about Nato troops in Afghanistan?

These statements were made by Hegseth in an address made on Saturday using his experiences as an Army National Guard instructor in Afghanistan.

In his narration, he talked about his visit to the headquarters of the coalition in Kabul, where the flags of about 50 countries that were part of the operation were hoisted.

Though he found the international support impressive, he felt that the number of countries involved does not mean how many were actually engaged in fighting.

According to The Guardian, only a few NATO members were contributing in any way to the fighting.

He also mentioned that there is a running joke among some of the American personnel that the ISAF acronym, which stands for International Security Assistance Force, actually meant “I Saw Americans Fighting”. The impression that America had been doing most of the work was quite demoralising.

His main point of discussion was that of burden sharing; whether the NATO allies had been putting in the same efforts in the joint military exercise.

The remarks made by him were criticised as they seemed to ignore the efforts of the allied forces in the combat. While America had lost the maximum number of soldiers in Afghanistan, the same applied to the other forces in the alliance.

Why Britain says the remarks overlook the sacrifices of its troops

The UK government came up with an immediate reaction in which they argued that the contribution of the British and allied troops should not be ignored.

A spokesman of the prime minister explained that many thousands of people from Britain and allied countries made great sacrifices during the war. The spokesman pointed out that more than 450 British soldiers died when fighting in Afghanistan; their sacrifice was made in defence of collective security after an attack on a Nato ally.

The government termed the comments of Hegseth as erroneous because they undermined the contribution of those troops.

The magnitude of the loss of life is part of what makes these statements so politically charged. Approximately 2,500 American troops died in Afghanistan, making up about two-thirds of the military fatalities documented in the report.

However, the other fatalities included hundreds of Britons as well as soldiers from over 30 other countries.

The reaction from Britain was in keeping with an earlier clash between Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Trump. In January, Starmer accused President Trump of being offensive when he said that NATO troops had not participated in the fighting on the front lines of the Afghanistan War. The Guardian reports.

These incidents demonstrate that disputes over the level of participation in military endeavours can easily become arguments about dignity and the strength of NATO.

How the Afghanistan dispute connects to tensions over Ukraine

The debate around Afghanistan comes amidst another but related debate concerning the security of Europe, namely the war in Ukraine.

Trump has just revived his criticisms of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, while lifting sanctions against Russia and cutting off intelligence assistance that enables Ukraine to counter attacks by Russian missiles and drones.

This policy has increased worries within Europe that Washington might step back from its support for Kyiv.

Speculations over Trump’s attempt to arrange a peace summit, including the US, Russia and China, but excluding Ukraine, have further added to these worries. Asked to comment on this meeting, Downing Street refused to make any remarks regarding this but emphasised that Ukraine should be able to voice its own opinion.

Once again, the British government maintained that its ultimate aim was just and durable peace, emphasising that its solidarity with Ukraine was firm. In this context, the spokesperson referred to the recent visit of Starmer to Zelenskyy, as The Guardian noted.

For the United Kingdom and other European Nato members, both disputes focus on one problem, namely, whether the US will see its alliances as a permanent security commitment.

The Afghanistan dispute, however, does not automatically signal problems in the Nato relationship. Moreover, it does not clarify the age-old dispute regarding the distribution of military duties among members. Still, public attacks on the sacrifices of allies may create barriers in cooperation, especially in light of controversies over Russia and Ukraine.

From the perspective of European political leaders, their immediate goal is to defend the performance of their armed forces while retaining contacts with the United States.

From the point of view of Washington, the main challenge is to put pressure on allies to shoulder more responsibility without offending countries where their troops have been fighting and dying together with Americans.