Starmer’s stark choice on Ukraine

It is true that Prime Minister Keir Starmer seems to have, in just a few moves, put the UK back on the world stage as a “bridge” between the US and the EU over Ukraine. But be under no illusion that the events of the last week could be a double-edged sword that carry the ire of an impatient Donald Trump, who represents himself as the sole owner of any deal vis-a-vis Ukraine, US-European relations, NATO, world trade or anything else that seem to move him domestically or internationally.

London now appears to be at the heart of Europe again. While this is unlikely to induce a reversal of Brexit, the UK is looking to become central to the continent’s defense and security rebuilding project — and that could be at the expense of its so-called special relationship with the US.

Starmer is right in his efforts to mediate the US’ neo-maximalist posturing under the new administration to try to smooth its sharp edges, which have primarily been hurting America’s allies. But in doing so he could be, to his detriment, on the receiving end of a power that prefers its allies to be compliant.

Until recently, Starmer had little foreign policy experience. But he is now enjoying his moment as an international statesman, spearheading efforts to bridge the differences between Europe and America over Russia’s war in Ukraine. However, the odds are against him.

During a blitz of meetings last weekend at a London-EU-NATO summit, Starmer walked a tightrope between US President Trump and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky. He has put the UK firmly back into the international diplomacy game and spearheaded efforts to reassure a shaken Ukraine and a wobbling EU.

But is this really a post-Brexit turning point? And is the UK back at the heart of the action, having become accustomed since 2016 to following European decisions from afar?

No one can be certain at this stage, but clearly Starmer has made it a personal mission to place his country in the role of a bridge between Europe and Trump’s America, driven by his interest in securing a fair peace deal to end the Russia-Ukraine war.

One point that is in Starmer’s favor is his sincere effort to keep a peace plan involving the US on track, while also pushing ahead with the Europeans to forge more consolidated and better-financed defense policies to support Ukraine.

This could constitute a prelude to something more permanent with the EU and lead to a softening of attitudes in Brussels toward British demands to ease post-Brexit ties with the bloc. But let us not forget that Starmer’s recent rapprochement was a question of circumstance, as the EU is clearly not best placed to play the bridging role with a US administration that is increasingly aligned with Russia over Ukraine, regardless of EU interests.

It is true that Brexit did not stop London collaborating with the EU over Ukraine, but it remains to be seen if the UK will become part of the EU-wide defense planning and if it will potentially receive European cash for any joint military procurement and manufacturing, which is usually limited to members of the single market.

Starmer’s trademark pragmatism might yet pay off, at least domestically. This cautious, restrained and thoughtful lawyer is quickly refining his political philosophy and diplomatic skills, raising his popularity, which had sunk dramatically since his party’s landslide election victory last summer. A More in Common survey released on Monday found that Starmer’s rating on who would make a better prime minister had risen six points over the weekend, showing that the Ukraine negotiations had boosted his credentials.

The four-point plan to secure a sustainable peace in Ukraine — including forming a “coalition of the willing” that is prepared to play a role in protecting any ceasefire — announced at the end of the summit of European leaders surprised many. Those four steps are arguably the most concrete path to peace in Ukraine yet written down and came after Trump last month stunned America’s allies by opening unilateral talks with Russia in a bid to end the three-year-old war.

Caution, however, should also prevail as, despite his successes, Starmer last week returned from the US capital with no security guarantee from Trump that would deter Russia from violating any ceasefire agreement. He also did not come back with any evidence that Trump was firmly onside for a UK-US trade agreement.

He is enjoying his moment as an international statesman, spearheading efforts to bridge the differences between Europe and America.

Mohamed Chebaro

Major questions remain over what a truce might look like, while it is also unclear how many European countries will sign up to the so-called coalition of the willing and commit to sending troops to Ukraine to enforce any ceasefire. We should be wary of getting ahead of ourselves, as the new resident of the White House is unpredictable to say the least.

Starmer so far seems to be shielded despite taking the UK back into the heart of Europe and potentially daring to propose a rival initiative to Trump’s plan for Ukraine. To suggest it is a post-Brexit turning point toward Europe is unrealistic, as Trump could still change his mind a number of times. The risk is that he might turn his guns on Starmer and the UK’s role in Europe is always there.

Starmer and Europe could quickly wake up to the new reality in front of them: that the old world has changed. While there remains a need to keep the US in alliance with both Europe and the UK as a means to protect the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, the sooner the serious work can start for the UK to recalibrate its military, political, intelligence and foreign policy work to align more with the EU, the better.

At some stage, London might have to make the stark choice between being at the heart of Europe or being associated with a White House that is promoting what is seen in Europe as a subjugation, not a peace deal in Ukraine.

• Mohamed Chebaro is a British-Lebanese journalist with more than 25 years of experience covering war, terrorism, defense, current affairs and diplomacy.