Donald Trump's decision to pause military aid to Ukraine has deepened the diplomatic crisis that followed Volodymyr Zelensky's hasty departure from the White House on Friday.
The chaotic meeting saw Donald Trump and JD Vance accuse the Ukrainian President of being ungrateful and risking World War Three.
Zelensky was then asked to leave without a minerals deal or any security guarantees from the President.
Hovering over the subsequent emergency meeting that was held with Nato allies and Zelensky on Sunday night was the very real prospect of Trump pulling the plug on sending military aid to the war-torn country.
That nightmare for Ukraine has now become a reality.
However, this dramatic development also puts Keir Starmer in a tight spot days after meeting Trump.
Amid the fallout, here are three ways the PM could now be left with little room for manoeuvre.
Stretched too thin
Starmer has just signed a £1.6billion missile deal for Ukraine and has overall committed around £7billion in military aid since the war began.
This is not insignificant, but it's dwarfed by the US, which has allocated around £53billion towards the war effort.
America's support has covered everything from air-defence missiles to artillery and Bradley fighting vehicles.
Starmer's £1.6billion missile package for Ukraine now seems less meaty without America's largesse.
The PM will face pressure to commit more military aid to Ukraine, potentially requiring cuts in other areas or tax hikes.
However, last month, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) warned that UK defense spending is already stretched, with “no fiscal headroom” for unplanned increases without cuts or tax rises.
Meanwhile, the PM come under fire from within his party and aid organisations over his decision to reduce foreign aid from 0.5 per cent to 0.3 per cent by 2027 to boost defence spending.
Former Labour foreign secretary David Miliband, who is now the president of the International Rescue Committee, said the cut to aid funding was a “blow to Britain’s proud reputation as a global humanitarian and development leader”.
A Scottish Labour MP is also leading a campaign for Starmer to hike taxes for defence spending instead of slashing aid.
Trump's pause on military aid means he's now caught between appeasing his party on the one hand and making up the shortfall in defence aid to Ukraine. He could be forced to make difficult decisions.
Donald Trump's decision to pause military aid to Ukraine could leave Starmer with little room for manoeuvre
Getty Images
Diplomatic bridge
Trump's decision to pause aid to Ukraine underscores the challenge Starmer now faces as the diplomatic bridge between the EU and America. He has sought to reaffirm the alliance's commitment to Ukraine while keeping Trump on side.
However, the President appeared to take a swipe at European leaders including Starmer after their emergency meeting on Sunday.
Hours before Trump paused all military aid to Ukraine, the president said in a fiery social media post: “In the meeting they had with Zelensky, [they] stated flatly that they cannot do the job without the US – probably not a great statement to have been made in terms of a show of strength against Russia. What are they thinking?”
As this unfolded, Starmer told Parliament: “The mineral deal is not enough on its own. But can I just remind [Trump]; Russia is the aggressor, Zelensky is a war leader whose country has been invaded and we should all be supporting him and not fawning over Putin!”
Meanwhile, divisions appear to be opening elsewhere.
US vice president JD Vance sparked a backlash this morning by referring to a potential British and French peacekeeping force as "20,000 troops from some random country that hasn't fought a war in 30 or 40 years".
Starmer's challenge lies in reconciling these differing strategies to maintain transatlantic unity.
As an article in Chatham House puts it, Starmer must "now marry the long-standing need for a remaking of the Euro Atlantic security order in the medium-term with the urgent requirement to secure Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence".
LATEST MEMBERSHIP DEVELOPMENTS
- Can Reform UK survive tactical voting? Poll delivers shock for the party after honeymoon period
- Labour is getting nervous about Reform UK's rise in London...does the party have a point? We investigate
- Is Europe on the brink of war? Three scenarios that could spark the next global conflict as tensions skyrocket
New compromises and partnerships with the EU could be hard to play domestically for Starmer
PAPost-Brexit world
With the US stepping back, there's an expectation for the UK to take a more prominent role in European security. How this all works in a post-Brexit world remains to be seen.
This could require new compromises and partnerships with the EU at a time when die-hard Brexiteers favour greater decoupling, not a closer relationship.
In fact, British Social Attitudes data suggest that scepticism about the EU is widespread even among remainers – nearly half of those who would vote to be part of the EU would like the institution to be less powerful than it is at present.
As polling guru John Curtice previously told GB News, this is potentially a "rich seam" for the pro-Brexit side to mine.
This needs to be squared with a recent analysis by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which stressed that "to effectively tackle shared geopolitical challenges, the EU and Britain must forge a deeper foreign policy partnership".
The body notes that achieving this "will require overcoming political mistrust and resolving thorny issues through compromise".
An inward-looking America could make this close cooperation more necessary, but it could backfire domestically for Starmer.
The million dollar question will be whether Britons will stomach a closer union if it means a united front against Russia.
However, there is another perspective on Britain's role in a post-Brexit world as geopolitics shift.
Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Nigel Farage wrote that Starmer can "stand tall on the world stage thanks to Brexit Britain", suggesting it has given the PM "total freedom in the area of foreign policy".
