In today’s fast-paced political arena, positive news often feels fleeting. Just when Sir Keir Starmer was praised for orchestrating a state visit from a capricious US President, the political landscape shifted dramatically. He had not only warmed up relations with France through an innovative peacekeeping proposal but also gathered European leaders for crucial discussions in London. However, the arrival of JD Vance, the Vice President, disrupted this hopeful narrative. In a scathing interview on Fox News, Vance dismissed any potential support for Ukraine from the US, deriding the “backstop” plan aimed at patrolling a ceasefire as the vague idea of “some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 years.”
This sparked outrage across the political spectrum, a common occurrence as the Trump administration continues to flout norms and pursue a “might is right” approach. Vance later clarified that his comments were not directed at the UK, which he acknowledged had “fought bravely alongside the US over the last 20 years and beyond.” Yet, this clarification did little to soften the implications of his initial remarks, especially considering that only the UK and France have so far committed troops for the protection of Ukraine.
Vance’s comments serve as a reminder that he functions as both an outrider and an amplifier of the President’s hardline policies, which seem designed to coerce Kyiv into a peace agreement that favors US interests and undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty. The situation took a further turn when a subdued President Zelensky expressed regret over his recent heated exchanges in Washington, stating that his team would now work “under President Trump’s strong leadership” to resolve the conflict. These words, undoubtedly challenging for him to utter, signify a clear acknowledgment of the power dynamic at play.
If the fluctuating tone from Washington poses a challenge for Downing Street, the US’s abrupt announcement of an indefinite pause in military aid to Ukraine presents an even greater dilemma for Starmer’s government. Standing resolutely with Ukraine, engaging in discussions with King Charles, and collaborating with France to ensure a fragile peacekeeping presence is becoming increasingly complicated. Starmer is acutely aware that US support is crucial to deter further Russian aggression. Without it, he risks exposing British soldiers to unnecessary danger and becoming embroiled in a direct confrontation with Moscow, or worse, leading a peacekeeping force that lacks a clear mandate and fails to prevent escalating conflict.
Ultimately, the evolving relationship with the US President is bound to become a central narrative for Starmer. It compels Downing Street to respond swiftly to proclamations emanating from the West Wing. Recently, a spokesperson was required to express “admiration for British troops”, partly to safeguard national pride and also to bolster a military struggling with recruitment challenges amidst confusion regarding the transatlantic alliance and dismissive comments about the UK’s role.
For now, Starmer has adeptly navigated the complexities of maintaining amicable relations with the Trump administration while steadfastly supporting Zelensky. Nevertheless, this delicate balancing act involves more than just the two principal leaders, particularly with Vice President Vance’s interventions looming. The prospect of a state visit may temporarily stabilize relations with Washington, but that is no guarantee of lasting harmony.
It was once fashionable to interpret the 47th President’s statements as serious but not literal. Today, however, that approach seems increasingly precarious. If the President declares an intention to halt arms supplies to Ukraine, flirt with the idea of leaving NATO, or impose strict conditions on US involvement in European security, he likely means it.
In reality, the UK and its Prime Minister occupy a position in the President’s worldview that oscillates between being a charming destination for royal visits and golfing in Scotland, and a strategic ally whose political capital is only somewhat valued. As one astute German diplomat noted, “You get away lightly because he doesn’t outright hate you.”
This may sound acceptable, but the real difficulties arise when the need to maintain a friendly relationship with an unpredictable American leader clashes with the necessity of making costly decisions that stretch military commitments. Starmer must also consider his domestic electorate; derogatory remarks directed at the UK risk solidifying opposition and pushing the UK closer to a US administration that often seems dissatisfied with European actions. This shift from a mood of optimistic collaboration to a climate of uncertainty raises the risk barometer in Downing Street.
Anne McElvoy is the host of the Power Play podcast for POLITICO.
