Mission impossible for Starmer: convince Trump to guarantee Ukraine's security

LondonIt seems like an impossible mission, worthy of Tom Cruise. But the hero who is not very much of a hero is called Keir Starmer and not Ethan Hunt. Will the British Prime Minister be able to convince Donald Trump not to abandon Ukraine and Europe to their fate, and not to leave Kiev and Brussels and the rest of the European capitals at the mercy of Vladimir Putin?

A couple of hours before boarding the plane to Washington on Wednesday afternoon to meet Trump at the White House on Thursday, the British Prime Minister is convinced that he will not be able to leave Ukraine and Europe to their fate, and not to leave Kiev and Brussels and the rest of the European capitals at the mercy of Vladimir Putin. premier He said during the weekly control session in the Commons that "the United Kingdom has long acted as a bridge between the United States and Europe, and it is vital that we continue to play this role." And he continued: "That is why my message to President Trump is that the relationship between our two countries must be strengthened. This is crucial, but at the same time we must also work closely with our European allies." Why does he not trust the businessman president?

Starmer's words will be wrapped in a bow: the commitment, made this week, that London will invest more in defense, in exchange for cutting foreign aid. It remains to be seen whether the gift, which by 2030 will be equivalent to 3% of the country's GDP, will be enough to seduce Trump. What's more, it will have been of no use. The call made by Emmanuel Macron, Monday, that the United States would offer security guarantees in Ukraine and logistical assistance and cover to hypothetical Western peacekeeping forces, if a ceasefire is reached?

But if Trump's latest statements on the subject are taken into account, Starmer's mission is more than impossible. During the appearance with a group of journalists on Wednesday, at the first meeting of his government, asked about the matter, the tycoon said: "I am not going to give security guarantees ... We will make Europe take care of it, because Europe is the next door neighbor." Clearer, crystal clear. However, Zelensky is traveling to Washington on Friday to try to get some kind of commitment, once the obstacles to Kiev signing the treaty on the exploitation of rare earths and other minerals have been overcome.

A bridge too far

If peace seems far away – among other reasons because, at the moment, there is no clarity on security guarantees on the table and because Moscow does not accept the presence of Western troops in Ukraine–, what is also very far away, in historical terms, is the bridge between Europe and the United States that Starmer referred to in Parliament. A bridge that was traditionally built on the foundations of what Winston Churchill called, In a famous speech in Fulton, Missouri, in March 1946, the "special relationship" between Washington and the United Kingdom.

It was the same intervention that left the concept of the Iron Curtain for history. With ups and downs, this special relationship has been maintained since the Second World War. But the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House a month and a half ago has turned the game board upside down and set off alarm bells in London, Brussels, Paris and Berlin.

The United States no longer trusts a Europe whose values it seems not to understand, as staged by the American vice president, JD Vance, in his provocative speech at the Munich Conference. And Europe's sin has been to rely too much on the American military umbrella without questioning the direction of a policy that served, above all, American interests. Now, the umbrella could close from one day to the next. Or perhaps it has already begun to close. Or it has many holes.

As the professor of history James Ellison, of Queen Mary University of London, says, "uncertainty presides at this moment", because the president of the United States "seems to be the first since the Second World War who does not place unquestioning faith in the liberal world order that Washington and London, together with their allies," together with their allies, have created.

Meanwhile, the analyst Evie Aspinall, director of the think tank British Foreign Policy Group, maintains an optimistic tone, since "in the long term" he believes "that the relationship will continue to endure." He admits, however, that "the next four years will not be easy, neither on the bilateral nor global level." And he adds a realistic element. "No matter how many disagreements there may be, the United Kingdom will not have much choice but to accept and manage the relationship with Donald Trump during the next four years." "And although it will not be a particularly friendly relationship," he continues, "I do not think he will use the same language that he uses against the European Union, which he has described as very, very bad," as a result of what Trump considers to be an imbalance in the trade balance.

Shortly before boarding the plane, in the media lobby that daily hosts the meeting with Starmer's spokesman, a fundamental idea about the trip to the United States was spread. The most important objective "is to build a solid personal relationship" between the premier and the president, because this can mark the next four years between London and Washington.

A relationship that has the same level of joke The same as the one displayed between Trump and Macron last Monday, both holding hands, making jokes and even, in the case of the Frenchman, putting his left hand on the right knee of his American counterpart. The British press has pointed out their trip as a success, although neither of them made much of a fuss when it came to showing their disagreements in public: on financing and aid in Ukraine and on the necessary US involvement in the security guarantees that Zelensky is asking for, and that the White House is not willing to offer.

The personnel issue, in fact, is key, says Evie Aspinall, who argues that "Trump does not particularly value traditional alliances, but prefers to deal with strong leaders and make individual agreements, which makes cooperation with the United Kingdom more difficult."