‘Keir Starmer Must Accept These Hard Truths Before Meeting Donald Trump’

There is opportunity, but also great risk, for Keir Starmer, as he heads to Washington for his first meeting with Donald Trump as President next week.  

As the transatlantic relationship faces its biggest test since World War 2, with Trump’s administration casting doubt on its commitment to NATO, sidelining Europe from negotiations with Russia over the war with Ukraine, and threatening tariffs across the continent, the UK under Starmer is misguidedly pitching itself as a country which can act as a “bridge” between the EU and US.  

This is both presumptuous, since there is no evidence that either side wants the UK to play such a role, and a foolish conceit, since it over-estimates the influence the UK can bring to bear on either party. Now that the UK is out of the EU, it has no standing to speak on behalf of the EU, and its value as a dialogue partner for the US is also greatly reduced.

Moreover, there is no evidence that Trump is actually interested in building bridges with the EU. To the contrary, his administration seems more interested in stoking up divisions within and between European countries, including by stirring up domestic politics across the continent, and trying to prise the UK further away from the EU. 

The challenge for Starmer is actually quite different — not to build bridges between the US and EU, but to avoid the UK burning its own bridges with both.

The risk with Brexit was always that the UK would find itself bobbing alone somewhere in the mid-Atlantic, while the US and EU forged closer relations without it. Now, there is a different risk, that as relations between the US and EU sour completely, the UK will be forced to make an unpalatable choice between them, or be swamped by the tidal wash of their fallout.    

The UK is not in a position to go it alone. For reasons of geography, economics, shared values and interests, the UK needs to stay close to Europe. For reasons of security, given the depth of its dependence on the US for its military and intelligence capabilities, the UK has to try to keep its relationship with the US sweet as well.  

The question is, how to do so, without annoying either side. If Starmer kowtows too much to Trump, in the hope of being spared the worst of Trump’s vengeful actions, this will be seen as a betrayal by European partners, and harm Starmer’s efforts to reset relations with the EU. But, if Starmer aligns himself too strongly with the EU, or speaks out too forcefully against current US policy, the UK will find itself painfully in Trump’s sights as well.  

Nevertheless, the balance of interests for the UK is rapidly moving in favour of closer rapprochement with the EU.  Trump’s actions call into question whether the US can still be trusted as the UK’s most reliable security partner.

Indeed, it’s also fair to ask whether even our interests and values align any more, as Trump seeks rapprochement with Russia, despite its manifold violations of international law, and gross human rights abuses, whilst blaming Ukraine for the war, and slandering its leader, President Volodymyr Zelensky, as a dictator. 

This means the UK needs to start weaning itself off dependence on the US. This requires both building up its own defence capacity, and strengthening security, military and foreign policy cooperation with other partners independently from the US, especially members of the EU, and the Five Eyes intelligence group — Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.  

Ideally, this would include establishing a structured dialogue with the EU on foreign policy and security — something which Boris Johnson rejected during the Brexit negotiations, but now appears essential.

Ad hoc cooperation, as has happened over Ukraine, is no longer sufficient. Cooperation under the umbrella of NATO or the G7 are no longer viable alternatives, as US commitment to these bodies is also in doubt.  

Both the EU and the UK need to understand that the geopolitical context in which they consider their relations has changed. There is a strategic imperative to solidify UK-EU cooperation in the face of efforts by both Russia, and now sadly, the US, to weaken and divide them. Neither side should let technocratic details, bureaucratic quibbles and lingering resentments over Brexit get in the way of this process.  

To that end, the UK should drop some of its redlines over projects where there is mutual benefit in cooperation — such as establishing a youth mobility scheme (as is reportedly under consideration) rejoining Erasmus, agreeing to dynamic alignment on EU regulations in order to facilitate cross border trade, and dropping objections to the role of the European Court of Justice in such matters.  

In return, the EU, which will itself benefit from better relations with the UK, particularly in the defence and security realm, should drop some of its hesitations, eg about letting the UK participate in EU defence procurement, research and development projects, or attend Foreign Affairs Councils on a regular basis. It is absurd for the EU to keep up the pretence that the UK is just any normal third country, to be given no preferential treatment. 

The UK and EU should work better together to tackle illegal immigration, since this is a source of instability across the continent, and a divisive wedge issue which both Russia and the US seek to exploit.  

Above all, the UK and EU should come up fast with a joint plan for providing more support for Ukraine, as US assistance declines.  This has to include the option of deploying peacekeeping forces to Ukraine to buttress any peace deal. Europe is outraged at the idea that the US and Russia might negotiate a peace deal over the heads of Ukraine, and without any European presence. But if Europe wants to be at the table, it has to bring assets to the table, and become a force to be reckoned with. 

Unfortunately, judging from the outcome of urgent European Foreign Minister discussions convened by President Emmanuel Macron in France this week, European agreement on this is far from certain.

Germany is weak and divided domestically. Countries such as Poland, which are otherwise strongly supportive of Ukraine, don’t want to commit any forces to Ukraine in the absence of any US back-up. Many European countries simply don’t have the defence capability to contribute anything meaningful.

There is even a question mark over whether the UK, which alongside France, has already indicated willingness to deploy troops, can actually muster the resources to do so, given the depleted state of its armed forces.  

If the EU cannot agree collectively, then European countries must form a coalition of the willing.  

In fact, the one potential benefit of Trump’s actions so far is if it at last jolts European nations out of their complacency, into spending more on their own defence. Europe has only itself to blame for becoming so weak. It risks become irrelevant altogether if it cannot respond decisively to this moment.  

Through rebuilding cooperation with Europe, not only can the UK contribute constructively to European security, it can also strengthen its position vis a vis the US. Starmer can come to his meetings with Trump next week, not as a supplicant, but with tangible ideas in hand as to how the UK, working with European partners, can help deliver sustainable peace in Ukraine.  

In these meetings, Starmer would be wise to let the President do the bulk of the talking. Trump does not like to be lectured, challenged or contradicted. Nor can he be trusted to stick to the agreed agenda. He could very easily veer off on some tangent, if Starmer says something to trigger him.

Instead, Starmer should set out his position, highlight the ways in which the US and UK still have an interest in working together, and otherwise largely stick to asking probing questions about Trump’s approach.  

This should include broadening discussion beyond security in Europe, to include how to contain the threat from China and Iran, in the process reminding Trump that the US will be more successful if it works with the UK and EU to confront these common challenges.  

At this pivotal moment in transatlantic relations, Starmer needs to act with courage and conviction. He cannot be perceived as a pushover. He must not allow the US to drive a wedge between the UK and the EU. He must not abandon UK positions of principle, including its strong support for Ukraine.

But he can try to show that the UK and Europe heed US concerns about taking more responsibility for their defence, and remain keen to work with the US on common security challenges, with the expectation that they are treated with respect in return.  

Even so, a difficult path lies ahead. Ever since Brexit, the UK has been trying to avoid having to make a hard choice between the US and the EU. If the Trump administration continues on its current trajectory, with no meaningful pushback even from traditional security hawks in Congress, a rupture may become inevitable, whether we like it or not.

British leaders should no longer console themselves with the hope that this is only a “phase” in American foreign policy, and that things will go back to normal once Trump has left office. Hope is not a strategy.  

The UK needs to start preparing itself now, by reducing its dependence upon the US, investing more in its own capabilities, and increasing its options by strengthening partnerships with other democratic countries.