'He should apologise': Anger of veterans and relatives at Trump Nato remarks
13 hours ago Michael Sheils McNamee and Joe Inwood
Andy Reid had been in Afghanistan for three months when the incident happened that would change his life forever.
Out on a routine patrol in the Helmand Province, he stood on a Taliban improvised explosive device, resulting in him losing both legs and an arm.
"I was there on the floor on my back, a big dust cloud all around me. I couldn't hear anything," he says.
"I wasn't really in any pain at the time, but I felt some numbness throughout my body."
"I knew something bad had happened to me. I looked down and I couldn't see my legs at that stage."
He was one of thousands of British troops injured in Afghanistan. A further 457 British service personnel were killed in the conflict.
For the injured and the families of the deceased, many are deeply offended at US President Donald Trump's claim in an interview that America's Nato allies sent "some troops" to Afghanistan, but "stayed a little back, a little off the front lines".
"I remember working with some American soldiers in an Explosive Ordnance Disposal team," says Reid.
"If they were on the front line, and we were stood next to them, then clearly we were on the front line as well."
He's called on Trump to make a formal apology for the "disrespectful, inappropriate and unexpected" remarks.
'I'll write to the White House'
In 2001, in the wake of the 9/11 attack, the United States became the first, and so far only country to invoke Article 5 of Nato - the clause which states that "an armed attack against one Nato member shall be considered an attack against them all".
British troops served in the country between 2001 through to 2014, and were among a number of America's allies to support it in the conflict. Other countries that sent troops included Denmark, Estonia and Canada.
The UK had the second largest deployment after the United States - with the number of troops it had in the country at one time peaking at about 11,000 in 2011.
Some of the heaviest fighting British troops were involved in took place in the Helmand province in the south of the country.
Initially deployed there in 2006 with the purpose of securing redevelopment projects, they quickly saw themselves caught in intense fighting against a resurgent Taliban.
Some of the worst fatalities came as a result of attacks on British foot and vehicle patrols by Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).
Andy Allen, a Ulster Unionist member of Northern Ireland's assembly, was among those injured in an IED attack.
The 19-year-old had been in Afghanistan for two months when he had his right leg blown off and left leg shredded by a makeshift bomb during an early morning patrol in Helmand province in 2008.
"It was the front line in which I was injured, and it was the front line of the battle in Afghanistan in which my mates and comrades put themselves in harm's way to extract me to safety," he says.
Allen says he plans to write to the White House to emphasise that Nato members were on the front line "very much serving with our American comrades and counterparts".
Despite the injuries and deaths, Trump's comments are not the first time his administration has been critical of the support of its allies.
Speaking before a Senate committee last year, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth - who served in Afghanistan - said the Nato ISAF badge soldiers wore in the conflict, which stands for International Security Assistance Force, really stood for "I saw Americans fighting".
Diane Dernie, whose son Ben Parkinson is regarded as the most severely injured British soldier to survive in Afghanistan, says he was "stunned" by Trump's comments.
"Ben wore the ISAF badge, the Nato badge, he went as part of that international security force."
The Doncaster soldier was injured when an Army Land Rover hit a mine near Musa Qala in the Helmand province in 2006.
"How on earth can this be acceptable," says Diane.
She says her son served out of forward operating bases in Afghanistan, which are secured military positions close to the front lines.
"To have this man say that they played about behind the front lines, of course he's angry. Of course we all are."
Her comments echo those of survivors and relatives of British servicemen killed in the conflict.
Fourteen years ago, Monica Kershaw's 19-year-old son Christopher was killed just three weeks into his first ever active deployment.
He was one of six British soldiers who died when their Warrior armoured vehicle drove over an improvised explosive device in Helmand Province.
"He was on the front line," she says. "There were six lads who all got killed.
"I think they should put Donald Trump in a uniform and put him on the front line, instead of pushing a pen behind a desk, he should go out there and do it himself."
Also killed were Cpl Jake Hartley, 20, Pte Anthony Frampton, 20, Pte Daniel Wade, 20, Sgt Nigel Coupe, 33, and Pte Daniel Wilford, 21.
She says the fact they were there at the request of a US president makes Trump's comments all the more hurtful.
"They've all been killed for nothing, if he says they weren't there helping. Why were they coming back in wooden boxes?"
US Navy veteran Shawn VanDiver says his message to Nato troops is: "We see you. We know you were right there with us."
VanDiver, who served off the coast of Iraq and now leads a group that helps Afghan wartime allies resettle, tells the BBC the president's comments are "just not true".
"We could not have accomplished what we did without them," he says.
Asked how British families who lost loved ones in Afghanistan might be feeling, VanDiver says they would likely feel "betrayed", adding: "What I would say to those families is I'm sorry."
Michael Akpata is among the more than 40,000 Canadian soldiers who served in Afghanistan. Canada lost 158 soldiers and six civilians in the war, the third highest casualty number after the US and Britain.
Akpata, who was in Afghanistan in 2007 and is now the deputy mayor of LaSalle, Ontario, says Trump's comments "belittle" the sacrifices Canada made.
"We lost 22 young Canadians on my tour," he says. "Their blood, their sweat, and their tears is emblematic of Canada's contribution to world, peace and stabilisation."
"It is disheartening to hear the president of United States, who himself has never put on a uniform… speak ill of young Canadians from BC, from Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario, that gave their lives in support of an ally," he says.
Prince Harry says sacrifices by Nato troops in Afghanistan deserve 'respect'
12 hours ago Thomas Mackintosh
The Duke of Sussex has called for the sacrifices of Nato troops to be "spoken about truthfully and with respect", after the US president claimed allies stayed "a little back" from the front lines in Afghanistan.
"I served there. I made lifelong friends there. And I lost friends there," Prince Harry, who was twice deployed to the country, said on Friday as he paid tribute to Nato troops killed in the conflict, including 457 UK service personnel.
The prince was reacting to controversial comments made by Donald Trump in an interview on Thursday.
Trump's words have drawn condemnation from international allies, with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer calling them "insulting and frankly appalling" .
The UK and other nations joined the US in Afghanistan after Nato's collective security clause was invoked following the 9/11 attacks.
Prince Harry said: "In 2001, Nato invoked Article 5 for the first - and only - time in history. It meant that every allied nation was obliged to stand with the United States in Afghanistan, in pursuit of our shared security. Allies answered that call."
He added: "Thousands of lives were changed forever. Mothers and fathers buried sons and daughters. Children were left without a parent. Families are left carrying the cost.
"Those sacrifices deserve to be spoken about truthfully and with respect, as we all remain united and loyal to the defence of diplomacy and peace."
The duke's comments follow Trump's Fox News interview in which he said: "We've never needed them. We have never really asked anything of them.
"They'll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan... and they did, they stayed a little back, a little off the front lines."
The president also said he was "not sure" the military alliance would be there for the US "if we ever needed them".
In the UK, Trump's remarks were condemned across the UK's political divide.
Shortly before the prince's statement, Sir Keir gave his own reaction saying if he himself had "misspoken in that way" he would "certainly apologise".
Sir Keir said: "I will never forget their courage, their bravery and the sacrifice they made for their country.
"There were many also who were injured, some with life-changing injuries.
"I consider President Trump's remarks to be insulting and frankly appalling and I am not surprised they have caused such hurt to the loved ones of those who were killed or injured and, in fact, across the country."
Outside the UK, ministers from foreign governments also criticised Trump's remarks.
Poland's foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who was among 33,000 Polish troops who served on the frontline in Afghanistan, said: "No one has the right to mock the service of our soldiers".
Canada's Minister of National Defence David J McGuinty said that Canadian "men and women were on the ground from the beginning, not because we had to, but because it was the right thing to do."
He said 158 of their troops "paid the ultimate price" for leading allied efforts in the Kandahar Province.
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, former secretary general of Nato during the Afghanistan War, told the BBC World Service: "No American president should have the liberty to belittle their legacy and to insult the ones who are still grieving the fact that they didn't come back alive from Afghanistan.
"What I would expect is a sincere apology from the president of the United States."
In October 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan to oust the Taliban, whom they said were harbouring Osama Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda figures linked to the 9/11 attacks. Nato nations contributed troops and military equipment to the US-led war.
More than 3,500 coalition soldiers had died, about two-thirds of them Americans, as of 2021 when the US withdrew from the country. The UK suffered the second-highest number of military deaths in the conflict behind the US, which saw 2,461 fatalities.
Most of the 457 British troops who died serving in Afghanistan over a period of nearly 20 years were killed in Helmand - the scene of the heaviest fighting.
Hundreds more suffered injuries and lost limbs - including Cpl Andy Reid who lost both his legs and his right arm after stepping on an improvised explosive device (IED) in Afghanistan.
"Not a day goes by when we're not in some kind of pain, physically or mentally reflecting on that conflict," he told BBC Breakfast.
Reid recalled working with American soldiers during his time in Afghanistan, adding: "If they were on the front line and I was stood next to them, clearly we were on the front line as well."
Diane Dernie, whose son Ben Parkinson suffered severe injuries when an Army Land Rover hit a mine near Musa Qala in 2006, said Trump's words were "so insulting" and hard to hear.
The 41-year-old is currently recuperating after another operation, but Dernie told the BBC that Trump's comments showed "a childish man trying to deflect from his own actions".
Dernie called on Starmer to "stand up for his own armed forces" and call out the US president.
Her comments were put to the prime minister who replied: "I've made my position clear, and what I say to Diane is, if I had misspoken in that way or said those words, I would certainly apologise and I'd apologise to her."
Giving a second interview to the BBC moments after Starmer's statement, Dernie said the prime minister's words were strong enough - but said he should go further.
"His words were exactly what we wanted to hear, but we need those words to be addressed directly to the president," Dernie said. "I appreciate what Starmer has said, but they need to be said to Donald Trump."
Throughout Friday, the leaders of the main Westminster political parties gave their reaction to Trump's comments.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: "I spoke to parents of young men who have lost their lives. It is a disgrace to denigrate their memory like that.
"There is too much careless talk from President Trump. He clearly doesn't know the history of what happened. We must not have these sorts of throwaway remarks."
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey criticised the US president's remarks and said: "Trump avoided military service five times. How dare he question their sacrifice."
Trump received five deferments from a military draft during the Vietnam War - four for academic reasons and one for bone spurs, a calcium build-up in the heels.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said: "Donald Trump is wrong. For 20 years our armed forces fought bravely alongside America's in Afghanistan."
American political and military figures have also expressed their anger and frustration over Trump's Nato comments.
Former national security adviser Herbert Raymond McMaster, who served as senior US officer in Afghanistan, said British forces were engaged in counter-insurgency operations every day.
"I think it's insulting to those who were fighting alongside of us," McMaster told the BBC.
"What I would like him to say is to make amends by affirming our gratitude for our allies who fought alongside us, and especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice in a war that I think was important, obviously, to the future of all humanity."
During his second term in office, Trump has repeatedly criticised Nato, often accusing its member states of not spending enough on defence.
In the last few weeks, Trump has made comments about acquiring Greenland - a semi-autonomous territory of fellow Nato ally Denmark.
Trump's repeated remarks over ownership, threats of military action and tariffs against traditional European allies have rattled the transatlantic treaty.
The White House has remained pretty quiet on the outrage being expressed in Britain - partly because the story has not played big in the US, and because Trump has been otherwise occupied, not making his usual appearances in front of cameras to have questions thrown at him.
On Friday - before Starmer called on the US president to apologise - the White House released a statement sticking by Trump's long-held view on Nato.
The White House said: "President Trump is right – America's contributions to Nato dwarf that of other countries, and his success in delivering a 5% spending pledge from Nato allies is helping Europe take greater responsibility for its own defense.
"The United States is the only Nato partner who can protect Greenland, and the president is advancing Nato interests in doing so."
The White House is yet to comment on Starmer's suggestion for an apology.
Sir Keir Starmer has said Donald Trump's claim that British troops did not serve on the frontline in Afghanistan was "insulting and frankly appalling".
He suggested that the US president should apologise.
Angry Sir Keir Starmer loses patience with Donald Trump over 'insulting' NATO troops remarks
The prime minister demands an apology from the US president for his "frankly appalling" comments about the role of non-US troops in Afghanistan.
Saturday 24 January 2026
I have rarely seen Sir Keir Starmer angry.
He is a politician who keeps his emotions buttoned up - in public, at least.
But he was clearly brimming with anger as he called US President Donald Trump out for his "insulting and frankly appalling" remarks over non-US troops that served in Afghanistan.
Sir Keir had been in Chequers overnight after hosting his Danish counterpart, Mette Frederiksen, for bilateral talks over Greenland and NATO, coming back to Downing Street on Friday morning amid growing national fury over Mr Trump's disgraceful slur about NATO troops.
The prime minister, in his strongest rebuke yet to Mr Trump, was highly critical of his claim that NATO troops in Afghanistan "stayed a little off the front lines".
For the record, 1,160 non-US coalition soldiers were killed in Afghanistan, and thousands more were wounded, some suffering life-changing injuries.
A total of 457 British troops died in combat alongside US forces.
That Mr Trump casually belittled those sacrifices has provoked an outpouring of anger and universal condemnation.
It is an insult not just to our forces, but to a relationship forged from common language, and exceptionally close cultural, political, military and economic ties over decades.
In making such offensive remarks, on the heels of threats over sanctions and invasions of a Nato ally, the so-called special relationship is fast becoming a toxic one.
For a prime minister, whose first job is the security of this nation and people, a fellow leader insulting his armed forces is a low blow, and I'm told that Mr Starmer wanted to make his position very clear and to speak up for the UK's armed forces.
Up until now, he has only ever condemned Mr Trump's comments or actions as wrong.
The spell has been broken
His comments on Friday were a clear step change as he strongly criticised Mr Trump personally and suggested the US president should apologise.
As for the fallout, Downing Street's approach will be to try to continue along as it was, sticking to Britain's principles and values and co-operating with the US on defence, security and intelligence.
But there is no doubt that this past week has broken the spell.
An increasingly toxic partner
Mr Trump's increasingly erratic and outlandish behaviour has left Sir Keir with no other option than to shift away from an approach of 'Trump containment' to calling him out.
In other circumstances, a prime minister who has made a great play of Trump management only to see relations sour so badly could be in the firing line.
Where he has cover is in the universal condemnation of Mr Trump from all political leaders.
If anything, Sir Keir will come under more pressure to increase his hostility towards our increasingly toxic partner, the US.
Allies of his were at pains to stress this is not the beginning of the end of the special relationship, but it is equally true that the events of the past week have made that bond feel far less stable.
Sir Keir was already looking to deepen and tighten ties with Europe.
After the behaviour of the Trump White House this week, he perhaps wants to turbocharge it.
From Gun-Blazing to Partners: Appraising President Tinubu’s Diplomatic Masterclass Over US Threats.
By Dada Olusegun
In the volatile theater of international relations, where a single tweet or a misplaced word can trigger a diplomatic meltdown, the hallmark of true leadership is the ability to maintain composure under fire. Recently, Nigeria found itself at the center of such a storm.
Following a period of intense pressure, United States President Donald Trump designated Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) in November 2025. This designation, rooted in allegations of "Christian persecution," was accompanied by a characteristically blunt threat: to enter Nigeria "guns-a-blazing" to resolve the security crisis.
For many, this was a moment for panic. And for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, however, it was an opportunity for a diplomatic masterclass—a strategic pivot that transformed a threat of violation into a triumph of partnership.
The Calm Amidst the Storm
The timing of the US designation was particularly "bleep," coming on the heels of the tragic Kwara church attack in mid-November 2025. During a live-streamed worship session at a Christ Apostolic Church branch in Eruku, terrorists abducted dozens of worshippers, providing fuel for a narrative that Nigeria was undergoing religious cleansing.
While critics clamored for a combative response to Washington's accusations, President Tinubu chose the path of intellectual honesty and fact-based engagement. He recognized that while attacks in Christian-dominated areas like Yelwata and Jos are devastating, they are often the result of complex factors like resource competition, ethnic friction, and farmer-herder clashes rather than state-sanctioned religious cleansing. Crucially, the administration pointed to the equal, if not greater, suffering in Muslim-dominated enclaves in Zamfara, Borno, and Katsina, where terrorism knows no faith.
The Ribadu Mission: Dismantling Misconceptions
Instead of engaging in a public war of words, Tinubu deployed his National Security Adviser, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, to Washington. This move was a calculated "chess move" in diplomacy. Ribadu’s mandate was clear: dismantle the misconceptions brick by brick. By meeting with the US Secretary of War and members of Congress, the Nigerian delegation presented the reality of the government’s efforts, including:
* Record-Breaking Security Spending: N3.85 trillion in 2024 and an unprecedented N4.9 trillion in the 2025 budget.
* Improved Coordination: The centralization of intelligence under the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA).
* Sovereign Transparency: Inviting US delegations for fact-finding missions to see the ground reality beyond the headlines.
From Threats to Tactical Success.
The results of this "cool-headed" approach were swift and significant. The "guns-blazing" rhetoric was replaced by the first-ever joint intelligence-led operation between the US and Nigeria. In late December 2025, US-led intelligence and air support resulted in the successful bombing of terrorist enclaves in Sokoto state, neutralizing hundreds of Lakurawa terrorists—a group that had been terrorizing the North West.
This collaboration did not stop at kinetic operations. By Tuesday, January 13, 2026, the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) confirmed the delivery of critical military supplies to Abuja.
Furthermore, the US has moved to fast-track the sale of advanced military aircraft to Nigeria, a move that would have been unthinkable just months prior during the height of the CPC tensions.
A Master Strategist at the Helm
President Tinubu has demonstrated that he is a leader who knows when to be firm and when to be flexible. By refusing to be baited into a defensive crouch, he forced the "almighty" USA to move from a position of judgment to one of active participation.
The transition from being a target of US threats to being a "critical security partner" is no accident. This is the fruit of a deliberate, sophisticated foreign policy. Tinubu’s administration has successfully reasserted Nigeria’s sovereignty while leveraging international support to crush the enemies of the state.
"True power is not found in the loudness of one's voice, but in the effectiveness of one's strategy."
As the military supplies arrive and the jets prepare for take-off, the message is clear: President Tinubu remained unfazed by the threats from Washington, and in doing so, he turned a potential international pariah status into a formidable, result-oriented partnership. This is the mark of a strategist who has truly appraised the "guns-blazing" threat and emerged with a handshake of steel.
Joint Statement at the end of the First Session of the US-Nigeria Joint Working Group to address Nigeria’s Country of Particular Concern Designation
The Governments of the United States and the Federal Republic of Nigeria held the first meeting of the U.S.-Nigeria Working Group in Abuja on Thursday, January 22, 2026.
This Working Group was established in response to the designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern by President Donald J Trump under the International Religious Freedom Act. Working in close partnership, the objectives of the Working Group are to reduce violence against vulnerable groups in Nigeria, particularly Christians, and to create a conducive atmosphere for all Nigerians to freely practice their faith unimpeded by terrorists, separatists, bandits, and criminal militias, and those who otherwise wish to inflict harm on civilians regardless of faith.
National Security Advisor Nuhu Ribadu led the Nigerian delegation comprising 10 Ministries and agencies and Under Secretary of State Allison Hooker headed the U.S. delegation of eight federal agencies.
Strategic discussions at the Session focused on a wide range of issues and challenges where US-Nigeria cooperation will improve religious freedom and bolster security across the country.
Both sides acknowledged the long-standing relationship between their two countries, grounded on shared values of pluralism, respect for rule of law and sovereignty.
The US side welcomed an overview of Nigeria’s realignment of resources to address insecurity, particularly in the North Central states.
The two governments reiterated their strong and unflinching commitment to upholding the principles of religious freedom and the need, therefore, to take joint active, sustained measures to promote and protect the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and freedom of religion or belief for all in line with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Participants further emphasized the importance of protecting civilians, particularly members of vulnerable Christian communities, and holding perpetrators of violence accountable.
Both sides re-affirmed their commitment to further strengthen counter-terrorism cooperation, including by working together through operational cooperation, access to technology, anti-money laundering, countering the financing of terrorism and building law enforcement and investigative capacity.
The US delegation thanked Nigeria for their urgent actions to strengthen security for at risk Christian communities and Nigerians of all faiths whose safety is put in jeopardy by violence and terrorism.
It was decided that the next meeting of the Working Group should be held in the United States at a mutually convenient date to be arranged through diplomatic channels.
Issued in Abuja, Nigeria, this Thursday, January, 22, 2026
Lt. Gen. John Brennan joined senior leaders in Abuja today to launch the inaugural U.S.-Nigeria Working Group. This group establishes a new framework for coordination, accountability, and joint efforts to counter terrorism and protect the vulnerable.
Over the course of a two-day high-level Working Group engagement, I welcomed senior U.S. government officials and reaffirmed Nigeria’s appreciation for the strong partnership with the United States. These sustained engagements reflect a mature, trust-based relationship focused on… pic.twitter.com/YqUkKwHbSO
Over the course of a two-day high-level Working Group engagement, I welcomed senior U.S. government officials and reaffirmed Nigeria’s appreciation for the strong partnership with the United States. These sustained engagements reflect a mature, trust-based relationship focused on protecting civilians, promoting religious freedom, and addressing shared security challenges.
Nigeria approaches this platform as a practical, results-oriented partnership. Since late 2025, cooperation with the United States has moved beyond dialogue to tangible outcomes, strengthening coordination, accountability, and our collective capacity to counter violent threats while upholding the protection of civilians.
Under President @officialABAT’s leadership, Nigeria is taking decisive national action combining security ops, justice, early-warning systems, and data-driven accountability. Committed to frank dialogue, measurable progress, and a partnership focused on outcomes, trust, and protection for all communities
I read about NORAD in the mid-1980s. Basically there are ships and planes all along the coast of the US and Canada and they act as an early warning system in case the US or Canada come under attack. NORAD is the North American Air Defence Command.
The United States briefly did not have enough planes to carry out this function after the 9/11 attacks (because it invaded Afghanistan, etc). NATO planes (including German early warning aircraft (AEW) had to help out.
Foreign Affairs › Re: Keir Starmer, Kemi Badenoch Demand Apology From Trump by naptu2(op): 11:55am On Jan 24
