Starmer’s Call for European Leadership in a Shifting Global Landscape
In a rare moment of rhetoric, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s news conference on Sunday resonated with echoes of Winston Churchill. He stated emphatically, “I do think the United Kingdom should step up and lead. We have done that historically as a nation, and we need to do it again.” This declaration followed the introduction of a comprehensive four-step plan aimed at ensuring lasting peace in Ukraine. Starmer continued, “We are at a crossroads in history today. This is not a moment for more talk. It’s time to act, time to step up and lead and to unite around a new plan for a just and enduring peace.”
Starmer’s invocation of Churchill is significant; Europe is confronting a daunting reality: the prospect of engaging in combat against Putin without the safety net of U.S. support. This scenario, once deemed far-fetched, is increasingly plausible. The European nations are beginning to realize that they may need to assume responsibility for their own security, a shift not seen in nearly eight decades. Attempts to solicit a U.S. “backstop” or aerial support for European forces in Ukraine have largely gone unacknowledged by the current administration in Washington.
The West is experiencing a monumental change in its geopolitical landscape. No longer can Europe operate under the assumption that the U.S. shares the foundational trust and values that have united the continents since World War II ended. Despite various personal dynamics, the principles of a rules-based international order had remained relatively unchanged over the decades.
It was, after all, a Republican president, Ronald Reagan, who famously urged his Soviet counterpart in 1987 to “tear down this wall!” in a bid to dismantle Communism in East Germany. Remarkably, within months of that wall’s collapse, East Germany welcomed its first McDonald’s, entranced by the allure of American culture.
Shifting Values and New Challenges
However, the established rules have now been supplanted by a more Trumpian ideology, one that prioritizes the strong over the weak, the wealthy over the impoverished, and the attractive over the ordinary. This philosophy is underscored by the sentiment articulated by Trump and his deputy, JD Vance, that Americans have been misled into accepting inequitable trade practices and financing foreign conflicts.
Even prior to Trump’s controversial meeting with Zelensky in the Oval Office last Friday, the global order was beginning to wobble, with the U.S. standing alongside Russia and North Korea to oppose a United Nations resolution condemning the invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. has transitioned into an unpredictable ally, and the worst-case scenario suggests that Trump may be cultivating a new axis of hard power.
Alternatively, it could be interpreted that Trump seeks to establish a series of bilateral relationships grounded in economics and personal connections. This translates to a dynamic where the UK and Starmer are viewed favorably, while Canada and Prime Minister Trudeau are not.
By asserting that Russia would hesitate to invade a Ukraine populated by U.S. business interests seeking minerals, we see Trumpism in its clearest form. The optimistic interpretation is that Trump is pressuring Putin to reach a settlement. Starmer has placed his trust in Trump. But does the Prime Minister have any other viable options?
“I do not accept that the U.S. is an unreliable ally,” Starmer asserted. “The U.S. has been a reliable ally to the UK for many, many decades, and continues to be. There are no two countries as closely aligned as our two countries, and our defense, our security, and intelligence are intertwined in a way no two other countries are.”
There is potential for Trump to leverage America’s substantial military might for positive outcomes. Thus, it would be a grave mistake to cancel the proposed state visit by the King to the U.S. However, British diplomats are acutely aware that Windsor Castle, where the King is anticipated to host Trump, could become a target for protests, particularly as the ramifications of the U.S. cutting foreign aid devastate the world’s poorest nations. Growing calls to withdraw the UK invitation are likely.
Ironically, Starmer’s success in Washington has also forged a closer relationship between the UK and Europe, following years of discord. He envisions a “coalition of the willing” comprising other nations contributing to Ukraine’s defense efforts. Following his Sunday discussions, the news conference focused on the possibility of increased European military presence on the ground. However, the Prime Minister was circumspect in his responses, stating, “A number indicated today that they wanted to be part of the more forward-looking element.” In Kyiv, anticipation hangs in the air. This is not the first time a U.S. president has admonished Europe to take charge, but it is the first occasion in 80 years that Europe has taken this admonition seriously. Perhaps it is time for the bust of Winston Churchill to leave the Oval Office and return home.
