You would be forgiven for thinking that Keir Starmer had restored the “special relationship” of legend. He’d just finished his remarks in the White House’s grand East Room, when Donald Trump turned to him and praised his “beautiful accent”. It was already going well and then Trump made warm noises about a UK-US trade deal – Boris Johnson’s great chimera. The threat of tariffs was talked down, and Trump blessed Starmer’s return of the Chagos Islands. He had only belittled the Prime Minister once by saying Starmer earned his keep when negotiating hard over lunch. An invitation from King Charles for an unprecedented second state visit had left Trump cooing. He even genuinely seemed to like the Labour leader. The British delegation looked thrilled.
This trip is being hailed in the press as a diplomatic masterclass. Indeed, Trump lavished praise on both the UK and Starmer himself. No diplomatic faux pas materialised. Elon Musk’s cyber-bullying became a forgotten quarrel.
But before No 10 commissions a triumphal arch on the Mall, remember the Prime Minister was there to get a security guarantee for Ukraine. What happened? As expected, Trump dismissed the idea of even providing air cover, and instead said the presence of American workers, presumably mining Ukraine’s rare-earth minerals, will deter any “playing around”. Trump does not want American troops in danger on Europe’s eastern flank.
Starmer’s failure to get this guarantee suggests the British establishment was never fully serious about a proper peacekeeping mission in Ukraine. The reality is that Britain’s armed forces have been built to serve as a single spoke of the US’s vast military wheel. Without the Americans, there is next to no chance of Britain deploying a force capable of deterring Russia’s rapacious war machine. As the Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin has pointed out, any mission in Ukraine would uproot British forces deterring Russia in places such as the Baltics. Hard power matters more than soft words. In the Oval Office, Trump mocked the Prime Minister with the jibe: “Could you take on Russia by yourselves?” To which Starmer mustered an awkward laugh, not a battle-ready army.
The real story of Starmer’s trip was, therefore, British weakness. Look at what was done, not what was said. Flattery occluded the material realities; diplomatic procedure papered over uncouth power imbalances. Those taken in by the sweet words Trump offered to the Prime Minister should remember that the US president once wrote love letters to Kim Jong Un; that the US voted with Russia, North Korea and Belarus against Ukraine at the UN; and that JD Vance has said attacks on free speech in the UK meant the US was questioning whether it was even worth protecting its allies.
Even the trip’s diplomatic successes revealed British vulnerability. Why were the British paying billions of pounds to lease a US-UK military base from the Mauritian government in the first place? If the UK does get a free-trade deal with the US, who do you think will get better terms: an economic behemoth or an isolated, stagnant economy? If Washington extracts concessions on Big Tech, agricultural trade and service access in exchange for not imposing non-existent tariffs – is that a victory for the UK? Would extending the onslaught that London’s legal firms currently face from their American cousins to other financial services be something to celebrate? What happened to Labour’s commitment to a Palestinian state? The flattery turns bitter once you realise that Britain is doing as the White House commands.
Beneath Trump’s personal affection for Britain, there is an animosity towards the UK within his administration. The Prime Minister began his trip at the British embassy on Wednesday evening for a reception to welcome the new ambassador, Peter Mandelson. Senator Lindsey Graham held forth on the terrace. Kash Patel, the new FBI director, sauntered around the grand reception rooms. (Patel’s ally, Steve Bannon, told me for this week’s magazine that Starmer’s plan to deploy troops to Ukraine is “irrational” and “insanity”.) What did one top US administration official make of Starmer’s speech at the embassy? That the American government could take even more from Europe.
Those hoping to wait out Trump should peek at what lurks behind him: ideological ultra-nationalists who don’t go weak-kneed at a picture of the late Queen. JD Vance, who is odds-on to win the Republican nomination in 2028, does not fantasise about summer nights at Balmoral. And if such a president comes to office, how long can Britain subsist on a plummy accent?
[See also: Trump’s mob boss geopolitics]
Content from our partners
