As he readies himself for his talks with Donald Trump next week, Sir Keir Starmer has shown commendable courage in standing up for Ukraine, its brave citizens and its leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, whose own bravery and skill during a pitiless war have won international admiration.
It is, of course, incredible that a British prime minister should even need to point out that, contrary to views expressed by President Trump, President Zelensky is not “a dictator”, and that the postponement of free elections is because the country is at war and at least one-fifth of its territory is occupied by a foreign power, Russia. Yet Mr Trump’s repetition of Kremlin propaganda about the popularity and legitimacy of the democratically elected leader of Ukraine has made such an extraordinary move necessary.
It is, of course, the case that it is Vladimir Putin who is the “murderous dictator”, as Joe Biden rightly called him. It is President Putin who refuses to hold fair elections, and who disposes of his opponents and rivals, from Alexei Navalny to Yevgeny Prigozhin to Boris Nemtsov. It was Putin who ordered the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine three years ago, the “special military operation” designed to take over the whole of that country. Where is the evidence that Ukraine had any intention of attacking its vastly larger neighbour, Russia? Or that the US plotted such a thing?
No doubt there have been war crimes on all sides, but it is Putin who has presided over well-documented atrocities, starting with the massacre at Bucha and continuing with routine bombings of civilians, energy infrastructure and water supplies – even, insanely, the concrete shield over the Chernobyl site. It is Putin who has imported hapless North Koreans to fight and die in his war, and he who has allowed his troops to murder, rape and loot their way across the occupied territories.
It is all because, as Putin explains periodically and at interminable length on the Russian state media he controls, he does not regard Ukraine as a legitimate country, or its culture and identity as worthy of respect.
If what Russia has done doesn’t technically qualify for the description of “genocide”, then it is still close enough for Putin and his cronies to be placed on trial at the International Criminal Court for conducting a war of aggression and wider crimes against humanity. All of these terrible truths seem to have passed Mr Trump by, his mind filled with the “talking points” fed to him during his chummy telephone conversations with his Russian counterpart. No wonder Putin is wearing an uncharacteristic smile on his face these days.
In diplomatic terms, it is neither desirable nor necessary for Sir Keir to dwell publicly on the gruesome and distressing details of the war; indeed it would be counterproductive. However, in the privacy of his conversations with the American president, he must gently remind everyone in the room of the realities of what has happened.
More pertinently, and powerfully, Sir Keir also has to make the case for why it would not be in the United States’ own interests, in either the short or the long term, to abandon Ukraine entirely. Mr Trump, whose isolationist attitude appears to be instinctive, needs to see what is in this “deal” for him and his country – and why the deal therefore has to be permanent.
Sir Keir can point to the mineral resources that can be extracted to the mutual advantage of both parties – and all the more securely if the territory is controlled by Ukraine in partnership with the US, rather than the unreliable Russians.
Sir Keir should offer, on behalf of European allies, a much greater commitment to Nato and the defence of continental Europe than has been the case hitherto. The British, French, Germans and others should accept, and be heard to accept, what Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, told them at the Munich Security Conference: that America is de-prioritising the Atlantic alliance in favour of the Indo-Pacific region. In truth, the Europeans have no choice other than to adjust to this new reality.
In that wider geopolitical context, Sir Keir can share European concerns about an emerging axis comprising Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and an assortment of other terrorist groups and proxies. The absence of senior US representation at the G20 summit in South Africa may be understandable, Sir Keir might argue, but the world is too dangerous a place to allow regional powers such as South Africa, Turkey and Brazil to gravitate further towards the Moscow-Beijing axis.
Handing Putin everything he desires in Ukraine, and a “free hand” in Europe, would only strengthen that axis of evil, to the great detriment of America’s interests and those of its allies, not least Israel. Does Mr Trump want to be seen by the world as having been outmanoeuvred, defeated and humiliated by Putin? Or does he want “peace with honour” in a durable settlement freely accepted by Russia and by Ukraine, guaranteed by the US and European allies – an achievement surely worthy of a lavish treaty ceremony on the White House lawn followed by a Nobel Prize?
Sir Keir, as we have seen, is no mirror image of Mr Trump. The pair could hardly be more different in style, outlook and background. A former human rights lawyer heading a “woke” progressive government is not, on the face of it, an ideal candidate to gain the confidence of Mr Trump. They are an odd couple. Yet Mr Trump respects Sir Keir’s unassailable political position at home – he will be around for the course of Mr Trump’s presidency – and finds him personally amenable.
Sir Keir is obviously a well-practised barrister, able to press a case through unshowy, quiet persuasion and full possession of the facts. He has met Mr Trump before and, to borrow a phrase, each seems to think that the other is a man he can do business with. In the most unpromising of circumstances, there is at least some hope that the “special relationship” could be reborn.
