Keir Starmer strides into Washington next week a weakened figure, a Prime Minister whose roboust unpopularity at home casts a long shadow over his every move.
Starmer’s domestic agenda—cracking down on free speech, flinging borders wide open, doubling down on divisive DEI dogma, and racking up deficit spending—is a betrayal of Britain’s core values.
Add to that his foreign policy missteps, from the humiliating Chagos Islands handover to his latest posturing over Ukraine, and you’ve got a leader whose instincts seem diametrically opposed to the muscular, sovereignty-first ethos of Donald Trump’s MAGA movement.
Yet, curiously, Trump has so far been cordial towards Starmer, even greenlighting the appointment of Peter Mandelson—Labour’s “Prince of Darkness” and a man who once branded Trump a “danger to the world”—as Britain’s ambassador to the US.
Starmer has pledged to increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP
PAThat détente, however, is now crumbling, and Starmer’s high-stakes trip to DC could see him outplayed by a President who holds all the cards.
The Ukraine controversy has erupted like a grenade in the transatlantic relationship. Trump, fresh off his re-election, is flexing a strategic approach—dealing bilaterally with Russia, side-lining NATO allies, and leaving Ukraine twisting in the wind.
For British patriots, this might sting less than it does the liberal elite. Trump’s logic is both realistic and clear: Europe’s NATO members, including Britain, have been freeloading for decades, leaning on America’s military might while skimping on their own defence budgets.
Ukraine, too, has soaked up billions without offering much in return. You can debate the morality of it, but there’s a brutal rationality to Trump’s stance—why should American taxpayers foot the bill for a continent that won’t pull its weight?
Starmer, though, seems determined to defy him, pledging Britain’s unwavering support for Ukraine’s NATO ambitions. It’s a bold move, but against a backdrop of domestic frailty, it risks looking like grandstanding from a man with no chips left to play.
Donald Trump has said he would 'not object' to having British troops in Ukraine amid peace talksPOOLStarmer’s broader drift back towards the European Union only muddies the waters further. From the minimalist Brexit he inherited—a hard-won victory for British independence—he’s inching closer to Brussels, aligning with the EU’s hand-wringing over Ukraine.
This might shift as elections reshape the continent; Germany’s vote could tilt the balance. But Starmer’s stance feels less like pragmatism and more like principle—a stubborn refusal to bend to Trump’s America-first worldview.
In the current environment, this reeks of weakness: why cosy up to a faltering EU when Britain could stand tall, sovereign, and aligned with a resurgent US? Starmer’s not just playing a losing hand—he’s betting on the wrong table.
Yet, there might be a way out, a slim chance to turn Trump’s dominance into an opportunity. If Starmer’s serious about defying the US on Ukraine, he could pivot to what Trump’s long demanded: Europe stepping up its defence spending, taking responsibility instead of riding America’s coattails.
Imagine a Britain leading the charge, rallying European allies to meet Trump’s 5% GDP target—far beyond the measly 2% NATO baseline most still dodge. Poland’s already nearing that mark, driven by its proximity to Russia’s menace. Why not Britain?
Her current 2.3% is respectable, but hardly world-leading. Pushing to 2.5% or beyond could signal intent—a proud nation shouldering its burden, not begging for handouts. For nationalists, this resonates: a strong, self-reliant Britain, not a junior partner in Trump’s game or a supplicant to Brussels.
LATEST MEMBERSHIP OPINION:
Sir Keir Starmer meets with Ukraine's President Volodymyr ZelenskyGettyThe flip side? It buys Starmer room to diverge on Ukraine. If Britain and Europe prove they’re not freeloading, Trump might grudgingly tolerate a different tune—less abandonment of Kyiv, more burden-sharing.
It’s a tightrope act few could pull off. Starmer, with his wooden charisma and plummeting approval, hardly inspires confidence.
But here’s where the “Prince of Darkness” enters the frame. Peter Mandelson’s Machiavellian cunning—honed in the backrooms of New Labour, tested against global titans as EU trade commissioner—could be useful.
He’s already lunched with Trump’s envoy, General Keith Kellogg, and charmed Fox News viewers with a mea culpa for past insults. If anyone, Mandelson knows how to schmooze, how to deal. A big 'if.'
The stakes couldn’t be higher. Starmer’s weakness risks Britain being steamrolled—tariffs slapped on its steel, its voice drowned out in NATO, its sovereignty eroded by EU alignment.
Trump holds the cards: his mandate’s clear, his resolve ironclad. Starmer can’t bluff his way through DC.
He’ll either ante up—leading Europe to match Trump’s demands while carving out space for Britain’s principles—or he’ll lose his shirt, leaving the UK humiliated on the world stage.
Mandelson’s dark arts might come into play, but it’ll take more than charm to outplay a master dealmaker. Britain’s watching, and it’s not in the mood for another fold
