Starmer’s tenuous balancing act with the US

Diplomatically, Starmer’s personal relationship with Trump has thus far been surprisingly smooth.  

His first Oval Office meeting with the President was ostentatiously friendly, with Trump expressing an uncannily warm gratitude for the formal invitation of a second state visit. Lauding Starmer’s negotiating prowess, he glorified the UK-US Special Relationship, even playfully flirting with the British PM over his accent. As Starmer headed back across the Atlantic following the friendly encounter, optimism was running high – many believed a new era of Anglo-American relations was upon us, with the prospect of a long-sought trade deal on the horizon.  

Yet, within 24 hours, Trump and Vice-President JD Vance publicly lambasted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a core UK ally. Since then, despite attempts to seek out an exemption from US-imposed tariffs, the UK remains exposed to a 25% levy on steel from the United States. Starmer has suggested: “all options [are] on the table” in response, although no immediate counter-tariffs have been imposed. Despite his more than admirable diplomatic efforts, he has become another victim in the pendulum-like behaviour of the US’ newly re-elected populist head of state. 

As Prime Minister, Starmer has the difficult responsibility of rebuilding the UK’s waning international and economic significance. Brexit no doubt harmed our geopolitical significance, stripping Britannia of her access to the pooled sovereignty and strength of the European Parliament, as well as the liberal trade available within the EU single market. Despite fleeting sparks, the UK-US Special Relationship has steadily declined. Due to this, it has been suggested that Britain can no longer serve as America’s voice in continental Europe.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has served as a thorn in the side of the notion of coherent European security

Yet, the UK’s exit from the EU provides Starmer with a unique amount of mobility in dealing with international affairs. Britain is no longer tied to the EU, no longer tethered to its policies. In an era of populist economics and the looming spectre of trans-Atlantic trade wars, we could theoretically serve as a safe haven for American trade in tumultuous times. 

But how can we betray our traditional European allegiances? Even if we are the most politically separate from Europe, as we have been since before we acceded to the European Economic Community, we remain committed to the interests of core European allies, namely France, Germany, and most recently, Ukraine. 

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has served as a thorn in the side of the notion of coherent European security. The prospect of surrounding Western Russia with NATO is now seemingly a long-gone facade. Supporting Ukraine has been a pillar of domestic politics in the UK since the invasion began, with our efforts widely espoused in the name of protecting democratic values and the broader stability of the international system. Meanwhile, in addressing the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, Trump has built rapport with Vladimir Putin, shaming Volodymyr Zelenskyy by labelling him ‘a dictator,’ verbally attacking him for supposedly standing in the way of a peace deal while simultaneously chastising him for his lack of gratitude for American support. 

Attempting to navigate these positions is unenviable. In Britain, Zelenskyy is heralded as a war hero, while in Washington, there appears to be complete disillusionment with the Ukrainian struggle for sovereignty and its wider implications for European security. Starmer is attempting to retain the political value of full Ukrainian support, both within the domestic sphere and with our continental allies, whilst hoping to minimise economic disruption resulting from unnecessary jousting with American protectionism. 

Starmer is playing a poor hand commendably, attempting to extract geopolitical and monetary value from both sides

Ideally, the White House would be populated with individuals who understand the unilaterally damaging consequences of both a lack of European security and petty trade wars. Foreign policy must, however, pragmatically fixate on reality: Trump is here and shall remain in office until the beginning of 2029. As the leader of the UK, Starmer must attempt to make the most out of a bleak picture, regardless of the many contrasting elements between the leaders. The establishment centre-left needs to coalesce with the populist anti-establishment right. 

In these turbulent times of trade conflict, the shores of Britain may well be an isle of stability for US trade, and vice-versa. Seizing a potential opportunity, Starmer is trying to utilise pragmatic, composed, stately UK-US relations in the hope that an Anglo-American trade deal may finally materialise, all while holding firm on its European alliances by hard-lining on its support of Ukrainian sovereignty. Starmer is playing a poor hand commendably, attempting to extract geopolitical and monetary value from both sides of the clashing superpower divide.

Whilst the long-term viability of such a strategy can be called into question, especially given the skittish nature of Trump’s behaviour (as has already been observed with the steel tariffs), it must be said how admirable the attempted balancing act is. He is going all-or-nothing, playing for maximum returns, and only time will tell whether he can pull such a remarkable feat off.