.png)
4 hours ago
4
It is hard to set expectations ahead of a summit with no useful precedent. British prime ministers have visited the White House before and in a wide variety of geopolitical contexts, but never has the hosting president been hostile to the transatlantic alliance. Never before could it be said that Washington’s foreign policy regarding European security was closer to a Moscow line than a London one.
Conventional platitudes about a “special relationship” and common values are of little use to Sir Keir Starmer in handling Donald Trump. History is not irrelevant, but on matters of substance – most urgently, a settlement to end the war in Ukraine – Mr Trump is behaving more like a mafia boss than a statesman. His method is to demand tribute in exchange for protection.
Sir Keir’s challenge is to engage with the US president on his own terms, while cajoling him towards a more sophisticated understanding of events – one that includes the concept of an ongoing US interest in Nato and the security of European democracies. The prime minister’s pledge this week to raise UK defence spending, regrettably financed with an ill-judged transfer of resources from overseas development aid, is a key step in that tactical manoeuvre.
Mr Trump’s scorn for Nato comes from the view, shared to some degree by previous US administrations, that Europeans use the alliance to freeload on the Pentagon’s resources. Advertising Britain as a nation that is stepping up to pay its way might buy some traction in the conversation about Ukraine’s future. Sir Keir will also want to reinforce the message, delivered to the White House earlier this week by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, that Russia cannot be trusted to honour any deals that don’t include a significant deterrent against further aggression by Moscow.
This has to be framed in terms of American strength and Mr Trump’s personal glory. The president must see his own interests clearly illuminated in viable alternatives to a dirty deal struck in haste with Vladimir Putin, over the head of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, on terms that trade away Ukrainian sovereignty.
Sir Keir should argue that American prestige and commercial opportunity will only be available if a deal is sustainable. That means, in the short to medium term at least, security guarantees for Ukraine that Europe alone is not yet equipped to provide. He must find the angle where UK national interests and Mr Trump’s personal vanity coincide.
It is a grubby business. The US president often says things that are blatantly false. He is famously sensitive to contradiction. Sir Keir will not want to inflame the presidential temper, but he must also stand up for reality against wilful disinformation. He has rebutted Mr Trump’s misrepresentation of Mr Zelenskyy as a “dictator” and his denial of Russian responsibility for the war. That message is easier to deliver in statements from Downing Street than to the president’s face as a guest of the White House. It will require considerable tact.
Sir Keir has to be realistic about the new and dangerous character of US foreign policy, but realism doesn’t equate to cynical accommodation with Mr Trump’s caprice. Alongside the ethical imperative, the UK has a strategic interest in facts forming the basis of international diplomacy. Speaking truth to a superpower gone rogue, in public and in private, is an indispensable part of the prime minister’s mission.
