Starmer’s Diplomatic Meeting with Trump on Ukraine Security
Keir Starmer, the leader of the UK Labour Party, engaged in a significant dialogue with former President Donald Trump at the White House on Thursday. This meeting was strategically aimed at advocating for a US security “backstop” in relation to Ukraine. Starmer’s purpose was to secure a commitment from Washington that, should European peacekeeping forces be deployed to Ukraine and subsequently attacked by Russia, they would receive support from the United States.
In anticipation of this critical meeting, Starmer took steps to bolster UK defense spending, partially funded by reductions in foreign aid. This strategic move was intended to reassure President Trump that the UK was aligned with US defense priorities, thereby increasing the chances of obtaining a robust commitment from Washington to back Europe’s strategic framework in the event that peace talks with Russia progress.
This encounter followed a visit from French President Emmanuel Macron to the White House earlier that week, with analysts describing the combined British-French approach as a “good cop, bad cop” dynamic. Despite an underlying tension during Trump’s meeting with Macron, Starmer sought to flatter Trump by presenting him with a letter from King Charles. In return, Trump characterized Starmer as a “very, very special person.”
However, when pressed by reporters about the notion of a “backstop,” Trump indicated that American businesses operating in Ukraine could act as a deterrent against further Russian aggression. This response fell considerably short of the military assurances Starmer had hoped to secure for any UK and European peacekeeping forces deployed in Ukraine.
Experts suggest that Starmer’s ultimate aim is to obtain a guarantee that US air defense systems would be activated in the event of attacks on peacekeepers in Ukraine by Russian forces. Without explicit backing from the US, the European initiative to deploy troops may be at risk. In discussions with The i Paper, four experts asserted that European leaders must now weigh the options of proceeding with peacekeeping plans or reassessing their strategic approach entirely.
Continuing Arms Support for Ukraine
European nations have already stepped up their arms supplies to Kyiv, but a pressing question remains: Can they provide sufficient military resources to serve as a credible deterrent without US support? Jamie Shea, a former deputy assistant secretary general for emerging security challenges at NATO, emphasized to The i Paper that prioritizing funding and equipping Ukraine’s military is essential if Europe aims to deter Russia.
- “The Ukrainian army is 10 times larger than the 30,000 troops the UK and France are planning to send and has the battlefield experience of fighting the Russians,” Shea noted. “It makes more sense for European forces to focus on training, air defense, and intelligence support.”
This emphasis on support comes as Nordic and Baltic nations have pledged to enhance military aid to Ukraine, including training and weaponry, during recent visits to Kyiv. Denmark committed 2 billion Danish kroner (£139 million), while Sweden pledged 1.2 billion Swedish kronor (£56 million) for air defenses. Estonia has also vowed to increase its aid by 25 percent, which includes 10,000 mortar shells worth an extra £20 million, and Latvia has committed to supplying armored personnel carriers, drones, and other equipment. To compensate for the anticipated reduction in US aid, experts argue that the EU would only need to increase its spending by 0.12 percent of its GDP.
Rearming Europe for Enhanced Security
Regardless of the commitments made by the US, experts agree that Europe must rapidly accelerate its military preparedness. Professor Stefan Wolfe, an expert in International Security at the University of Birmingham, stated, “Ramping up defense spending is something Europe needs to do regardless of any deal. Europe must rethink what security guarantees mean for Ukraine, whether that’s better air defenses, high-tech drones, or cyber protections.”
In 2023, European defense spending reached a record €279 billion (£230 billion), reflecting a 10 percent increase from the previous year and marking the ninth consecutive year of growth. Nevertheless, analysts caution that this amount is still insufficient, estimating that spending must rise by approximately €250 billion (£20 billion) annually to reach 3.5 percent of GDP. Countries like Poland are already allocating 4.7 percent of their GDP to defense, while Germany’s prospective Chancellor Friedrich Merz is poised to endorse a constitutional amendment to boost military spending by around £85 billion. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has also called for collective EU defense spending to exceed 3 percent of GDP.
- “The increase in Ukrainian defense output combined with European assistance should be sufficient to maintain resistance to Russia,” asserted Dr. Mark Hilborne, a senior lecturer at King’s College London.
- “There is considerable analysis suggesting that Russia has little left to sustain this conflict beyond a year or so, as its finances and military stockpiles are being depleted.”
- “While this is also true for Ukraine, effectively they only need to outlast Russia, which would then be compelled to reassess its stance. The urgency for a ‘deal’ overlooks this critical point.”
Deploying Troops Without a US Backstop?
Some experts contend that European leaders should consider deploying troops to Ukraine even in the absence of a US guarantee. “They could and should do this – it would send a vital signal to the US, Ukraine, and Russia,” Wolfe remarked. However, any European peacekeeping force would encounter significant risks without US backing. Shea argued that Europe must commit to a Ukraine force to ensure its position at the negotiating table. They should leverage pressure on Trump to obtain military concessions from Moscow, including the withdrawal of some of the 700,000 Russian troops positioned along the front lines and the establishment of a rigorously monitored demilitarized buffer zone akin to that of North Korea. This would facilitate the mission of a European reassurance force.
Nonetheless, without US support, nations like Germany, Spain, or Italy may be reluctant to participate, placing the burden primarily on the UK and France. “But Trump is known for changing his mind frequently,” Shea cautioned. “Macron and Starmer must persist in advocating for a US backstop. Europe needs a military presence to secure its role in the negotiation process.”
Even in the absence of comprehensive US support, Europe could still manage air defenses, intelligence operations, and logistics effectively, according to Shea. “It would be beneficial if the US permitted NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) to assist with planning and troop generation for European forces,” he added. “Ideally, if the US could provide an extraction force, similar to its role in Bosnia during 1994-95, that would be optimal – but requesting such a commitment from Trump may be overly ambitious.”
The Risk of an Isolated Europe
Olena Borodyna, a senior geopolitical risks adviser at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), cautioned that Europe risks becoming marginalized in this geopolitical landscape. “For European nations, Ukraine’s security and the management of the Russian threat are intricately linked to their long-term security architecture,” she explained. “However, it remains ambiguous whether Europe possesses a cohesive vision for this architecture should a ceasefire or peace agreement be reached.”
She expressed concern that discussions surrounding European security had not been prioritized earlier, asserting that the continent still lacks a coherent strategy to counter Russian hybrid warfare. Without a solid security framework, she warned that any agreement could merely serve as a “temporary reprieve” rather than establishing a foundation for enduring peace.
Starmer is anticipated to return to London on Sunday to consult with European allies regarding the next steps, while Zelensky is scheduled to meet with Trump today. However, experts concur on one critical point: Europe can no longer depend on the US to guarantee its security.
Andrew Gilligan is head of transport at Policy Exchange and served as a transport adviser to No. 10 from 2019 to 2022.
