Keir Starmer flies out this week to a turbulent Washington DC for a Nato summit aiming to emphasise the UK’s commitment to Ukraine at a time when the forthcoming US election puts the medium-term American position in question.
It is the new prime minister’s first international visit, four days after the election, and Starmer can expect to be feted by fellow leaders who are facing either, in the case of Joe Biden, an uncertain future or, in the case of France’s Emmanuel Macron or Germany’s Olaf Scholz, unpopularity at home.
A montage video of the Starmer’s first day in office pointedly included a segment where he told Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskiy that the change to a Labour government “makes no difference to the support you will see” from the UK in response to the Russian invasion.
To underline the point, John Healey, Labour’s new defence secretary announced a fresh package of military aid, consisting of high calibre ammunition, AS 90 artillery, and Brimstone ground attack missiles on an impromptu visit to Ukraine’s southern port of Odesa on his second working day in the job.
Starmer will have time for bilateral meetings with Biden, Zelenskiy and other western leaders at a two-day summit that formally opens on Wednesday morning and includes a dinner that evening at the White House. A special Nato-Ukraine meeting follows on Thursday before closing press conferences are held.
Starmer’s first meeting with Biden as prime minister would normally be a highlight but with questions raging about the US president’s age and health, some careful choreography may be needed. On Friday the White House said it fully expected “the leaders will interact at some point”, without offering further details.
Labour spent the election campaign repeatedly emphasising its commitment to a relatively traditional concept of national security, in contrast to the previous leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, with Starmer saying he would be prepared to use the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons if necessary.
The party also heavily emphasised its historical connection with Nato, set up in the aftermath of the second world war largely at the urging of the party’s then foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, a point that was referenced by Nato’s outgoing secretary general on Friday.
“It was actually the United Kingdom, the present government, back in 1949 in London, that was a driving force for the establishment of Nato,” Jens Stoltenberg said. “I therefore welcome also the strong commitment of Keir Starmer to continue that path.”
But Labour did not match a Conservative commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by a specific date – 2030 – and experts said that if it was not necessary to do so during the election campaign, it would not obviously be necessary to do so at the summit, when such spending pledges are often made.
“I don’t think Starmer will be in a hurry,” said Peter Ricketts, a former UK national security adviser. “He’ll want to open the government’s books and look at the overall picture, and there is no pressure to make a commitment immediately after the campaign.”
The Conservatives committed Britain to spending £3bn a year to provide military aid for Ukraine, which Stoltenberg wants to form part of a minimum commitment of €40bn a year of assistance for Kyiv from members of the 32-country alliance.
The reality is that Britain is the third largest donor to Ukraine among Nato members behind Germany, which is contributing €7bn, and the US, which is by far the largest. This spring, Congress agreed a fresh funding package worth $61bn, although it had been held up so long by Donald Trump-aligned Republicans during the winter and spring that Russia gained ground on the battlefield, particularly on the border near Kharkiv.
The other issue for the UK is that it is somewhat absent from the current round of discussions on how to help Ukraine as it does not have the weapons that Kyiv is desperately seeking. Ukraine wants seven more Patriot air defence systems to protect its cities, infrastructure and aviation and other key military assets.
It is likely to be offered at least four, from the US, Germany, Romania and another assembled from various countries including the Netherlands, but Britain traditionally does not have air defence systems it can supply. Nor has the UK been able to help with combat jets, beyond providing some initial training, as Britain does not use F-16s.
Ukraine is dependent on US support to keep Russia from gaining ground, and it is hard to imagine an extra level of UK and European cooperation that could replace Washington’s contribution, not least given Starmer’s cautiousness on public spending overall.
But the most important task for Starmer may not be financial. In four months’ time he may have to deal with the more challenging prospect of Trump in the White House, whose commitment to helping Ukraine and Nato is uncertain. As a prime minister in a relatively secure position, it may well fall to Starmer and others like him to maintain the long-term integrity of the alliance his party helped create.
