Keir Starmer has finally said that Britain would be willing to put troops on the ground in a peacekeeping role, if Donald Trump manages to negotiate a peace deal for Ukraine.
Writing in The Daily Telegraph, the Prime Minister says: “The UK is ready to play a leading role in accelerating work on security guarantees for Ukraine. This includes further support for Ukraine’s military, where the UK has already committed £3bn a year until at least 2030. But it also means being ready and willing to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary.”
Critics might say that committing troops to defend Trump’s peace deal would confirm Britain’s place as a US proxy, when we should be looking to ally ourselves more closely with our European partners.
But Starmer’s sudden hawkishness looks more like a pitch for Britain to lead Europe back into the arms of America at a critical moment for the transatlantic relationship – which has been fracturing for years.
Of course, there are questions on what risks this could pose to British troops, what exact role they would play under a Trump peace deal and what state our Armed Forces are in, after decades of underfunding.
There will be cheap shots taken at Starmer along these lines in the coming days. But in reality, this moment had been inevitable ever since Trump won his second term in November.
As The i Paper reported in late November, Nato officials were clear that any credible peacekeeping force would require Britain’s involvement by process of elimination. Trump had been clear throughout his election campaign that he would not put American troops on the ground to protect Ukraine. However, any deal will require policing by third-party peacekeepers – including Nato allies. For those peacekeepers to have any credibility, they would need at least one nuclear power. With the US out, that leaves Nato’s other two full nuclear powers: Britain and France.
No matter how chaotic you might think Starmer’s first months of Government have been, things are a lot worse in France. Emmanuel Macron, a hawk who probably likes the idea of France leading a European army in Ukraine, is not politically stable enough to lead the charge, Nato officials believe. His disastrous election gamble last summer left him exposed to factions on the left and right, many of whom have pro-Kremlin sympathies.
Europe doesn't need to dance to Trump's tune
Read MoreThat leaves Britain, with its relatively stable Government commanding a parliamentary majority for another four years, as the only viable European power standing able to lead a coalition of peacekeepers.
Even if this moment was inevitable, Starmer should be applauded for making clear that Britain is ready to play a leading role in European defence. Because someone needs to.
Existential questions about the continent’s security had been put off for far too long. Even after Russia’s full-scale land invasion of Ukraine nearly three years ago, increases in defence spending and urgency of policy across the continent had been slow and gradual – including among Nato allies.
Without wishing to oversimplify the past three years, European governments could be reasonably accused of accepting that the conflict continued to rage, providing it stayed contained within Ukraine’s borders. While lots of European money has been spent assisting Kyiv’s efforts, far more military support has come from the US. Furthermore, without that American support, the war would almost certainly have spilled beyond Ukraine’s borders.
The prospect of Trump pulling American support from Ukraine and Europe more broadly has forced Europeans to confront their failings and inadequacies.
Europeans have undeniably used the massive American security umbrella to save money on their own defences. Americans, not just Trump supporters, are, reasonably, irritated by this and want to see Europeans take responsibility for their own security. If they do, the case for America retaining its historic role within Nato is easier.
In his Telegraph article, Starmer makes clear that he wants to keep America at the table: “Europe and the United States must continue to work closely together – and I believe the UK can play a unique role in helping to make this happen.”
It’s uncomfortable for European leaders to admit, but they do need a bridge to America right now. Trump has gone clean over their heads to negotiate the end of a war on their continent with the conflict’s chief antagonist.
Starmer may or may not be the person to build that bridge – and to do so Britain will have to accept its diplomatic role as a junior partner to America and possibly the EU. But Europe still needs America, no matter how distasteful they find the occupant of the White House.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Starmer’s sudden hawkishness has shown up EU leaders )
Also on site :
- Spain hosts European, Arab nations to pressure Israel on Gaza
- Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce break cover after being spotted on date night close to $20 million love bunker
- '90s 'Dawson's Creek' Heartthrob, 53, Nearly Unrecognizable in 'Van Life' Video