Following the tumultuous scenes in the Oval Office last Friday, there were immediate calls for swift action and the turning of new pages in history. Keir Starmer now finds himself in the position of having to temper such sentiments with a more nuanced approach.
The impromptu gathering of leaders at London’s Lancaster House on Sunday was undeniably significant, with the UK Prime Minister at the center of it all—seen prominently in the group photo standing between Emmanuel Macron and Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Amidst this, there was a palpable sense of Europe revising its defense and diplomatic priorities following the public rebuke of Ukraine’s president by Donald Trump and JD Vance, with Starmer emphasizing that the continent is at “a crossroads in history”.
Other countries had signaled a readiness to join the Anglo-French “coalition of the willing” to craft their own peace plan for Ukraine, Starmer confirmed. He acknowledged that this marks Europe stepping up but not in response to a US absence. “I do not accept that the US is an unreliable ally,” he asserted in the press conference.
There are easier political avenues to take, especially considering that many British voices, including right-wing papers previously critical of Starmer, agree that Trump and Vance’s treatment of their guest was abominable. MPs across the political spectrum and voters would likely take pleasure in Starmer highlighting this issue.
Starmer’s embrace of the Ukrainian president outside Downing Street on Saturday spoke volumes, symbolizing a deeper diplomatic strategy.
Significantly, Zelenskyy’s follow-up meeting with King Charles was not held at a royal palace but at the more intimate setting of Sandringham. This nuance in diplomacy underscores the value Starmer places on personal and substantial connections. It is a delicate balancing act, one Nuanced by the unpredictability and rapid shifts in the US’s engagement, as evidenced by the quick turn of events from Charm to controversy following Trump’s and Zelenskyy‘s meeting.
Starmer continues to walk a fine line, mainly driven by hope that maintaining a cooperative stance could aid in the pursuit of peace in Ukraine, leveraging the US’s military and diplomatic capabilities. This pragmatic approach is rooted in the understanding that a peace deal without US security assurances might falter. Beyond political strategy, this stance reflects Starmer’s character as a leader who preaches pragmatism over the “politics of protest,” regardless of the pressures to take a more confrontational stance.
