Trumpworld is a simplistic place. The leader of the free world thinks the whole world, free or not, exists simply to bend to his will.
And so far it has. Colombia wouldn’t let military planes full of its shackled undocumented migrants land. How about 25 per cent tariffs, amigos? The planes landed.
Hamas last week threatened to halt the release of Israeli hostages. How about some hellfire, brothers? The hostages were freed.
Being a simpleton has its advantages, especially when backed by America’s might. Donald Trump has no need of the delicate diplomatic speak US government officials learn at Harvard or Princeton. He simply has to tell a world leader to jump and they ask how high.
Keir Starmer is not simple. He thinks through all aspects of an issue before making a decision. I have sat down with him many times and getting a definitive answer out of him can be tortuous.
The two men are like chalk and cheesecake. And next week the PM flies into a Trumpworld more fantastical than anything Disney could create, a White House theme park where Trump makes up the themes as he goes along.
I imagine there will be a lot of “yes, but...Mr President”, “up to a point, Mr President” and “could we possibly look at this another way, Mr President.” Like, ya'know, Mr President, this idea of yours that Ukraine started the war with Russia rather than it began because Russia invaded a sovereign European country.
Keir Starmer will have to maintain support for Ukraine despite Donald Trump's comments about Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Getty Images
But the PM's trickiest job will be continuing to have Volodymyr Zelensky's back while not putting up Trump's following the US president's extraordinary claim the Ukrainian leader has turned himself into an unelected dictator. Starmer has already pointed out that Britain didn't have an election during World War Two and Zelensky could hardly be expected to have one either while his country is being pummeled into dust. That might be a rational counter-argument but rationality is not Trump's strongest point.
Not now we are in the era of the strongman, and Trump thinks he’s the strongest of the lot. The US president may not feel inclined to arm wrestle with his mate Vladimir Putin but China’s not-so-matey Xi Jinping is a tough nut, too.
Starmer goes to Washington as the emissary of Europe, ostensibly to get it in on the negotiations to end the Ukraine war but also to persuade the president not to abandon America's European allies.
It was right for Starmer to offer British troops for a peacekeeping force should a ceasefire be agreed, although how many our depleted army could realistically muster is in some dispute.
But it’s the thought that counts, and shows the UK’s willingness to have at least a few flakes of skin in the game.
Trump makes an argument about NATO so simple that it is hard to refute. The US spends more on the North Atlantic defence alliance than all the 31 other countries put together. And Trump, not unreasonably, wants everyone else to spend more...or else.
Or else what? This is where Trump’s simplicity begins to unravel in the face of complexity.
The UK has already said it will raise defence spending from 2.3 to 2.5 per cent of national wealth though Starmer is vague about when. That increase will cost £5billion, the equivalent of 1p on the basic rate of income tax.
Xi Jinping will be emboldened by any weakening of America's worldwide military presence.
Getty Images
If we raise spending to the 2.65 per cent military chiefs say is necessary, then we are looking at £10billion. Up that to 3 per cent as NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte wants and that would cost more than £50billion over two years, trumping Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ 2024 “one-off” £40billion tax raising budget.
And, of course, the US president is not satisfied with that and says it should be 5 per cent, which would take our defence spending into the stratosphere.
That would require an extra £70billion a year on top of the £60billion our armed forces already cost - equivalent to almost all the money we give to the NHS and twice the education budget.
Starmer will need to be even more evasive with Trump than he was with me if he’s going to bat that one away. But this cash is too much to find.
The question then is what does Trump do if Europe won’t, or can’t, increase defence spending to the level he demands? Does he walk away from using Britain as America’s aircraft carrier and withdraw his seven military bases here, including his intelligence hub at Mildenhall and the USAF’s 48th Fighter Wing from Lakenheath?
Does he pull out the 100,000 US troops he has stationed in Europe opening the door to a Russian takeover of the continent? Disarmament leads to invasions. Think 1939 Poland.
And any weakening of America’s worldwide nuclear shield could embolden the Chinese to move against Taiwan.
President Xi has set 2049 as the date by which he wants to annex it, the centenary of the founding of the People’s Republic. And he would be delighted to advance that timescale.
Any false move by Trump will have unpredictable geopolitical consequences. Simples.
