Good news has a short shelf life these days. No sooner had Sir Keir Starmer been lauded for getting a mercurial US President to agree to a state visit, warming up continental relations by coining an Anglo-French peacekeeper plan and convening European leaders for talks in London, up popped the great party-spoiler, JD Vance.
The vice-president dismissed any prospective succour for Ukraine from across the pond in a caustic interview with Fox News, which effectively dissed the “backstop” plan to patrol any ceasefire as the vague notion of “some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 years”.
Outrage from across the political spectrum was guaranteed – but then outrage is a dish we devour frequently as the Trump administration disregards norms and niceties to pursue a “might is right” agenda.
Vance subsequently added that he did not mean the UK, which had “fought bravely alongside the US over the last 20 years and beyond”. But given that only the UK and France have pledged troops for any protection of Ukraine to date, that was a brusque, sorry-not-sorry sort of gesture.
The swipe behind it remains intact, and it reminds us that the veep, who doubled down on a belittling attack on President Zelensky, acts as outrider and amplifier of the President’s hardball doctrine.
That is aimed at forcing Kyiv into a peace deal, with a critical minerals deal imposed on terms which suit the US and weaken Ukraine’s ability to decide its own fate.
As if more proof was needed, a chastened Zelensky ate humble pie on Tuesday, saying that he regretted the fiery exchanges in Washington and conceded that his teams would now work “under President Trump’s strong leadership” to end the war – words that must have cost him dear to say.
It also serves to remind us that America’s President believes he wields the real power in this scenario.
If a changeable tone from Washington towards the UK tests nerves in Downing Street, the decision by the US to summarily announce an indefinite pause to military aid to Ukraine is a bigger challenge to the “Keir Charmer” stance. Standing firm alongside Ukraine, furnishing encounters with King Charles and acting in concert with France on pledges to police a fragile concord with boots on or near Ukrainian ground is looking tricky.
Starmer knows full well that he needs US backing to deter further Russian aggression. Without that it looks like the PM is exposing British soldiers to harm’s way and becoming more directly embroiled in a conflict with Moscow, or dissolving into a faux peace-keeping force – one which does not stop more war breaking out or which would require a clear mandate for a head-on clash with Russia.
One way or another, the relationship with the US President will become a Starmer drama. Already, it requires Downing Street to leap into action to respond to things megaphoned from the West Wing. On Tuesday, it required a spokesman to underline “admiration for British troops”, in part to protect easily dented British pride, but also because armed forces struggling with recruitment crises are hardly helped by confusion about the status of the transatlantic alliance and markedly off-hand comments about the UK’s role.
For now, Starmer has successfully managed to be on friendly terms with the Trump aspiration of ending the war, while holding firm to his support for Zelensky. But there are three of them in this tricky marriage (even without the interventions of Vice-President Vance).
The prospect of a state visit may hold relations with Washington together. Even that is not a guarantee. It was fashionable for a while for those dealing with the 47th President to take him “seriously. But not literally”. This does not look like a bullet-proof argument today: it might be better to take Trump literally than be surprised by his next moves.
square KITTY DONALDSON
After another Trump humiliation, Starmer’s plan is in jeopardy
Read MoreIf the commander-in-chief says that he intends to stop arming Ukraine, or flirts with leaving Nato or imposing onerous conditions on US participation in Europe’s security, he probably means it.
In truth, the UK and its Prime Minister occupy a place in the President’s worldview somewhere between being a pleasant place to spend time, meet royals and enjoy Scottish golf courses (for which he does have genuine affection). London political capital, he is not wholly averse to. Or as one leading German diplomat put it to me wryly: “You get away lightly because he doesn’t outright hate you.”
That sounds OK – as far as OK goes nowadays. The difficulty begins when being nice to a mercurial American leader butts up against the necessity to make decisions which cost money and require stretching military commitments.
Starmer also has an electorate to consider. Dismissive attitudes hurled at the UK are likely to harden opposition into aligning with a US which never seems pleased about much that Europeans do. That turns a mood of optimistic amity into a climate of jeopardy. And the risk barometer is rising in No 10.
Anne McElvoy is host of the Power Play podcast for POLITICO
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Trump and Starmer’s relationship is going one way: drama )
Also on site :
- Former Girlfriend of Elvis Presley Makes Super Rare Red Carpet Appearance
- Beloved '80s Rock Band 'Air Supply' Makes Exciting Announcement
- Mountain Dew and Papa Johns Drop ‘Tangy’ New Limited-Edition Collab