The War of the Vances: Ukraine War Vet and Cousin of The Vice President Nate Vance Speaks Out

In a war defined by shifting alliances and political posturing, Nate Vance stands out. A former U.S. Marine and Texas oil field worker, he left behind a stable life to join Ukrainian forces on the front lines. His decision to fight Russian agression came with an added layer of tension—his cousin is U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, a vocal critic of American support for Ukraine. Their opposing stances turn a family connection into a striking example of America’s divided response to the war. It must have made for some awkward holiday dinner table talk.

From Texas Oil to Ukrainian Soil

Nate Vance’s trajectory is anything but conventional. Before the drums of war called him to service, he carved out a life amid the sprawling oil fields of Texas, a world where the scent of crude is as familiar as the Lone Star flag. Yet, the siren call of history in the making proved irresistible. In March 2022, as Russian forces unleashed hell upon Ukraine, Vance found himself unable to remain a mere spectator. Compelled by a potent blend of curiosity and a thirst for adventure, the forty-six-year-old left the US on a three-year journey that would see him entrenched in some of the most ferocious battles of the Russo-Ukrainian War. ​

Aligning with the Da Vinci Wolves First Motorized Battalion—a unit renowned for its valor and resilience—Vance’s baptism by fire included skirmishes in Kupiansk, Bakhmut, Avdiivka, and Pokrovsk. These were more than footnotes in the annals of war; they were blood-soaked chapters where the reality of death loomed large, and survival hinged on a cocktail of grit, grim determination, and a bit of old-fashioned luck. 

Bloodlines Versus Battle Lines: The Vance Dichotomy

The Vance family narrative took a Shakespearean twist with Nate’s cousin, J.D. Vance, ascending the political ladder to become the Vice President of the United States. While one Vance waded through the muck and mire of Eastern European battlefields, the other navigated the equally treacherous corridors of power in Washington, D.C. The ideological rift between the two became glaringly evident during a contentious Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky in February 2025.​

In that particular high-stakes diplomatic dance, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky found himself on the receiving end of what can only be described as a political mugging. President Donald Trump and Vice President Vance, in a display that blurred the lines between diplomacy and debasement, accused Zelensky of ingratitude and audacity. Zelensky, for his part, seemed to be ungrateful despite the fact the US was working so hard to end the bloodshed in his nation. The aftermath saw a chilling pause in military aid to Ukraine—a move that reeked of appeasement and left many questioning America’s commitment to its beleaguered and increasingly distanced ally. ​

Nate Vance, observing this geopolitical theater from the sidelines, was neither amused nor silent. In an interview with French publication Le Figaro, he lambasted the Trump administration’s approach, branding his cousin and the President as “Vladimir Putin’s useful idiots.”

Familial Bonds Frayed by Political Barbs

The dust-up between Nate Vance and his cousin, J.D., is more than a family squabble—it’s a window into America’s fractured stance on Ukraine.

Nate didn’t hold back when commenting about the February 2025 Oval Office meeting with Zelensky. He accused the Vice President and Trump of staging what he called an “ambush of absolute dishonesty,” all because Zelensky supposedly didn’t say “thank you” loud enough. Never mind the fact that Zelensky routinely praises U.S. support in nearly every speech he gives. According to Nate, the problem wasn’t gratitude—it was a political stunt aimed at justifying a shift away from supporting Ukraine’s fight for survival.

But what stung Nate the most wasn’t the public showboating. It was personal. Despite being on the ground in Ukraine, risking his neck for a cause his cousin criticizes from the safety of Capitol Hill, Nate says J.D. never once reached out to ask for his perspective. He even left voicemails at J.D.’s Senate office. Crickets.

J.D. Vance, for his part, tried to play it cool. He claimed he kept quiet about Nate’s service to avoid compromising his cousin’s safety. Fair enough. But he also questioned why Nate didn’t just pick up the phone and call a family member directly instead of going through his Senate staff. J.D. framed Nate’s criticism as more of a misunderstanding than anything else—then doubled down on his own skepticism about Ukraine. He defended the Oval Office meeting, saying Zelensky crossed the line by airing sensitive issues in public, which, according to J.D., was disrespectful to the presidency.

The Vance family issues are a sharp example of the broader divide in American politics over foreign policy. One man fought in the trenches. The other delivers talking points in a suit (and yes, to be fair to J.D., he did his share of warfighting, just not in Ukraine). Between the two men is a war, both literal and ideological, over what the United States stands for in the world.

The Road Ahead: Divergent Paths and Unanswered Questions

As the dust settles on this familial and political drama, Nate Vance has chosen a path of reflection and distance. Trading battlefields for the open road, he is traveling the American West in a camper van—a rolling metaphor for a man seeking solace and clarity amidst the endless clatter of war and politics. His departure from Ukraine was both a physical relocation and a strategic retreat from becoming a potential pawn in the grand chess game of international relations, especially given his cousin’s prominent political position. ​

The Vance saga is emblematic of the broader American dichotomy—a nation perpetually wrestling with its identity, torn between interventionist impulses and isolationist tendencies. Nate and J.D. Vance personify this schism, their lives a reflection of the complex interplay of personal convictions, familial bonds, and the inexorable pull of political ideologies.​