Donald Trump is an unpredictable president and his presidency gives emergence to unpredictable consequences for the White House. In Canada, constantly repeated slogans about “the politician Justin Trudeau“ and the “51st State” saved the Liberal organization from drowning, so far having fatal ratings, and could cost — inactive in early January considered almost certain — the triumph of Canadian Conservatives in this year’s elections. On our continent, Trump's presidency – a politician who late stated that the European Union was created to "swind the United States" in commercial relations – not only revived the discussion on the request for "strategic autonomy" of the Old Continent, but besides brought Britain closer to Europe.
It was in London that the summit took place on Sunday, 2 March with the leaders of key states of the Union, Canada, Turkey and Ukraine. Its participants wondered together what to do after the disastrous argument between the president of Ukraine and Trump and J. D. Vance In the Oval Office. British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer Together with French president Emmanuel Macron, he is at the head of a European “stakeholder coalition” to guarantee that Russia does not break the negotiated agreement. This commitment is in turn intended to convince the current American administration to include the European and Ukrainian viewpoint in its negotiations with Moscow.
Almost a decade after the brexit, Britain returns as a key actor of European politics. But before we announce the breturn, or even the fresh strategical turn of London towards the Continent, as Prime Minister Edward Heath made in the early 1970s, it is worth taking care of the way of European integration. The fresh course of the Starmer government is subject to a number of reservations.
The Last Atlantist
Firstly, Starmer in a day erstwhile more and more European leaders – including the erstwhile Atlantic as the leader of the German chade Friedrich Merz – are beginning to talk about the necessity of strategical autonomy of Europe, remains a convinced Atlanticist. At least in their authoritative statements. Among them, it is hard to find words akin to those of the head of EU diplomacy Kai Kallas, who on Friday She wrote on X: “Today it became clear that the free planet needs a fresh leader. We Europeans should take on this challenge."
Starmer's strategical goal present is to keep American guarantees for Europe, a tactical 1 – to rebuild the relation between Trump and Zelensk so that Washington will not leave Europe alone with the war in Ukraine.
Starmer was to talk to Trump and Zelenski shortly after the crash at the White House. Although he shook the president of Ukraine eloquently in front of his Downing Street headquarters, he clearly avoided any statements condemning Trump and Vance's behaviour of Friday. As the British media reported, on Sunday evening British time Starmer was to call Trump to reassure him that the gathering in London was not organized against him.
The British Prime Minister continues to publically convince Europeans that the United States remains their reliable ally. It is hard to say whether or not he believes it, but he knows that at least for now Europe must slow down the rapping of the American umbrella. due to the fact that if the U.S. picked it up besides quickly, Europe, if not London, has no military or industrial possibilities to replace it today.
Also, the British-American peace plan is dependent on US assistance, specifically intelligence and air support. Trump doesn't want to hear about it yet. He seems convinced that if American mining companies enter Ukraine – under a natural material agreement which after the London conference Zelenski is ready to sign again – that alone is adequate to halt another attack from Russia.
The UK so returns to European politics, but mostly to its conventional post-war function – a bridge between Europe and the States. The British press writes that Starmer alongside Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni present belongs to 3 European politicians with the best relations with Trump, which naturally claims him to be an intermediary. British media do not mention Andrzej Duda here – which may be due to British ignorance, but besides due to the fact that the relations of the Polish president with Trump are not as good and as crucial as the surrounding of Duda.
A Falkland Islands moment?
There have been reports in the British press for any time citing information from Downing Street that Starmer sees the current crisis around Ukraine as its possible "falkland moment". Let us recall: the war against the murderous right-wing military junta of Argentina over the Falkland Islands – small, inhabited by the British population of the island in the South Atlantic – proved to be the large political triumph of Margaret Thatcher, saving the unpopular chief of government from defeat in the 1983 election.
The triumph in the war, supported by opposition – the Labour Party, especially led by idealist extremist Michael Foot, could not stand on the side of the murdering activists left the junta – allowed to unite society around the flag and forget the country's economical and political problems. And these during the first word of office of Thatcher were as swollen as in the end of the government lstormers In the erstwhile decade. Thatcher’s “economic wonder” – occupied by large social harms and concentrated mainly in South-East England – did not happen until the second half of the 1980s. Starmer would hope that if he saved Ukraine from a disastrous peace for her, he would keep transatlantic relations despite all Trump's excesses, yet – he would supply Britain with a key function in the fresh hand, as 1 of the main guarantors of the Ukrainian-Russian agreement alongside France, he would escape interior problems.
However, he will not be able to number on specified support for his actions in Ukraine as Thatcher received in the Falkland Islands case. In that war, the British defended their countrymen and their overseas territory. Now they are engaged in the safety of a distant state, where there are no apparent interests, in addition to risking conflict with the atomic power. any part of Starmer's electoral base will now attack him for an “escalation policy” threatening “third planet war”. Russia has its ways to fuel akin sentiments in British society.
Wait out Trump?
The success of the "Starmer Plan" depends on a number of factors that the British government has no influence on. Firstly, from U.S. readiness to support him and from renewal of communication channels on the Kiev–Washington line. Secondly, the presence of troops of any NATO states in Ukraine does not agree with Moscow for the time being – without Trump's support London with Paris have no tools to force it.
Even if the plan had been successful, it would only have postponed in time the hard strategical decisions that Britain would have had to make if the United States had begun to retreat from Europe more and more, and this had made efforts to advance strategical autonomy. Starmer may inactive believe that he can someway wait out Trump. Of course, no 1 in London and Europe has any illusion that his successor from the ranks of democrats will gradually pull the American umbrella over Europe – due to the fact that the US must reduce its global commitments and Europe is little crucial to them than Indo-Pacific. But all of this could happen with the NATO framework, with basic allied commitments and a pace that allows Europe to gradually increase its work for its security.
But even in this optimistic scenario, the question remains how the UK should be in this fresh reality. How do you specify your relation with Washington and with the European capitals? Gradual NATO Europeanization would naturally bring London closer to the Continent. Europe's strategical autonomy makes small sense without Britain, its potential, its position on the UN safety Council, defence industry, etc. But how much will London be willing to engage in a fresh European safety system? Will she not, after all, search a privileged relation with the States and another Anglo-Saxon countries?
The road to the breturn is far away
Brexit hit Britain economically, limited trading opportunities with its key market. By Investigations YouGov of late January 2025 only 30% of the British believe that leaving the European Union was a good decision, the other is 55 percent. Even little respondents – only 11 percent – believe that what form the brexit has taken in practice can be considered a success.
55% of the British – although only 39% definitely – support the re-entry into the European Union – have greater support (64%) for closer relations with the Union, but without joining it. And that seems Starmer's policy today. His government is negotiating with the EU on common designation of professional qualifications, facilitations for British artists on the Continent, energy cooperation and the exchange of agricultural products, but all this outside the common market. The related issue of freedom of movement would one more time put the issue of "uncontrolled migration" at the heart of the public debate, giving fuel to the UK improvement organization Nigel Farage, which in many working constituency was second, behind the Labour Party.
The war on customs against Europe announced by Trump introduces additional uncertainty. It will be hard to sale economical approximation with Europe to voters erstwhile it becomes a victim of Trump customs and Britain is tempted by a more favourable trade arrangement. If not for brexit, then the Union and London would have a much stronger position today, as part of the common market, in negotiations with Trump – but the cards are what they are.
