Keir Starmer

Subterms

    More stories

    • 238 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The founding fathers baked reason, truth and free speech into the US. That’s all gone now | Will Hutton

      by

      The founding fathers of the USA – James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin and more – were quintessential disciples of the European Enlightenment. Their intent was to embed Enlightenment values into the government and culture of the New World. America would be a republic of laws. Its constitution would ensure governance of the people, by the people, for the people. Through checked and balanced branches of government, it would expunge the possibility of monarchical discretionary power and inaugurate proper democracy.It would celebrate all liberties, from freedom of speech to freedom of worship. Their belief in science “for the benefit of mankind in general”, in Franklin’s words, would imbue the republic’s commitment to reason, the scientific method and the pursuit of truth. The dynamic economy and society that emerged, however imperfect, reflected those values. It has inspired billions and, for all its falls from grace, has been a force for good.Donald Trump’s presidency is widely deplored for everything from his unilateral imposition of swingeing tariffs to his public humiliation of Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and siding with Russia over the war. He is guilty of all those things, and of an impulsiveness and unpredictability as he seeks retribution, respect and, as he would put it, reciprocity. But this misses the larger point: he draws not only on a constituency that shares his views but also on a well-developed body of thought that wants a decisive rupture with those Enlightenment values and all that spring from them.There is now genuine fear in US civil society – in business, finance, academia, the media and the Republican party – that to speak out will bring cruel retribution or even personal harm: this from the apostles of “free speech”. The US has gone mute. Its Enlightenment-based constitution and the accompanying values once held to be universal are being torched in near silence. Only fealty to Making America Great Again, by repudiating its notable traditions, is permitted – at home and abroad. The profundity of this is beginning to be recognised. Canada finds itself fighting for its life. Friedrich Merz, the incoming German chancellor, says for Europe it is “five to midnight”. He is driving through an extraordinary €1tn commitment to raise German defence and infrastructure spending over the next 10 years. The EU is bracing itself for attacks on its trade and its capacity to set standards and regulations for all goods EU citizens buy – so-called non tariff barriers – that Trump plans to launch “soon”. The EU’s high product standards, he argues, discriminate against lesser-regulated US exports. Even VAT is anti-American. The EU’s very being as a self-governing, multinational organisation is under threat.Multilateral organisations like the EU and the UN, expressing the same Enlightenment values as the US constitution, are in Trump’s crosshairs. The unashamed project is to reshape the world economic and political order so it serves only the interests of the US – as if it did not already. Can Britain really be a bridge between this vision and Europe, as Keir Starmer wants? These differences are unbridgeable.Trump’s court at Mar-a-Lago, high on power and much else, has reportedly worked on a draft contract for countries to sign that reverses the alleged rip-off of the US. Instead, they will have to agree to boost US industry by accepting one-sided trade deals and appreciating their currencies. In return, they will be offered degrees of US security. Countries are said to be colour coded green, yellow and red, depending on the degree to which they might wholly accept vassalage, bargain for a compromise or are deemed to be enemies – with China the number-one target, and also including Canada, Mexico and the EU. Nato and the World Trade Organization be damned.Stephen Miran, the new chair of the US Council of Economic Advisers, won his job as the author of an extraordinary paper – A User’s Guide to Restructuring the World Trading System. Trump can reshape the global economic and trade order, he argues, through creating targeted tariff policies aimed at countries to which the US objects. The tariff regime must be designed to maximise fear and uncertainty; last week’s imposition, then withdrawal, of car tariffs on Mexico and Canada was a prime example. The bulk of any economic costs will be displaced on to the countries at the receiving end by forcing them to raise their currencies against the dollar. He writes approvingly of Scott Bessent, now Trump’s treasury secretary, last year publicly arguing for putting countries into varying Mar-a-Lago style buckets corresponding to their readiness to comply with Washington’s will.Self-pity at the US’s alleged victimhood pervades Trumpite thinking. Even on Miran’s own numbers, the US still accounts for the same 25% of world GDP now as it did in 1980 – a phenomenal achievement. America is as great as it ever was. Only 19% of its GDP is imports, but these are blamed entirely for the fall in manufacturing employment as if robotisation, automation and the emergence of a service-based economy were irrelevant. Many working-class Americans have certainly suffered from these changes – but that needed an enlightened domestic policy response. China has re-industrialised by electrifying and decarbonising its economy. This is dismissed as woke.Adam Smith, the great Enlightenment economist, inspired the founding fathers as much as Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Paine. He praised the invisible hand of the market and open trade as pathways to the common good of greater prosperity – but none of that is for the Trumpites. They come from the mobster, cowboy, might-is-right, make-a-deal-on-my-terms strain of US culture and society. The humbling of Zelenskyy is the tip of this anti-Enlightenment iceberg. They are the masters now, and will gladly bend the US electoral system to stay that way. As some judges stir themselves, and political dissenters start to be braver, it’s an open question if they will succeed – but going back, if at all, is likely to be only partial.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionStarmer’s tactics so far have been hard to fault. His level-headedness, decency and pragmatism have been assets. But he faces an unavoidable choice: Britain cannot achieve economic growth by remaining a vassal state to the US while abjuring closer trade relations with Europe. Trump does not want Britain to grow US-competitor great tech companies, which are essential to economic growth. Nor does he want to defend Ukraine and Europe. It is brutally stark. The UK must make common cause with Europe to defend not only our economic and defence interests but, more importantly, our values. They live only in Europe now. More

    • 238 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      If Britain must rearm, how to pay for it? Stiffen the sinews; summon up the taxes | Polly Toynbee

      by

      “A new era is upon us.” Ursula von der Leyen was not holding back. This is a world turned upside down, changed beyond recognition. Leaders across Europe are echoing the alarm sent out by the European Commission president, and rippling across the continent, Canada and elsewhere: that we face a “clear and present danger on a scale that none of us has seen in our adult lifetime”. She has proposed a plan that would offer €800bn (£660bn) for immediate rearming, with a European sky shield to protect Ukraine.The hooligan Russian asset in the White House has changed everything so profoundly that it is hard to keep track. The US, whose coat-tails we clung to, whose culture we revelled in, whose cleverness dazzled and stupidity confounded, is now the enemy. The shock feels viscerally personal because American culture is deep in our veins at all ages, from Sesame Street to Marvel, from Philip Roth to Philip Glass, the Oscars to Silicon Valley, like it or not. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we obediently followed their blunders, and 642 British soldiers died, as Keir Starmer adroitly reminded JD Vance in parliament. Our glamorous friend has turned fiend. How do we cauterise that off us? Or reconfigure the map of the world in terms of friends and foes?Former UK ambassadors to Washington ruminated over this “seismic” shift, which has shaken every norm from their Foreign Office days. “This is not a blip in the relationship, something fundamental is going on,” one old knight warned a Lords select committee, while another cautioned that the US giving up on Europe in favour of Russia was likely a “current reality”. Sir David Manning pinpointed Britain’s specific anguish at this moment, the downside of the so-called special relationship: as Europe galvanises to rearm, unlike our continental neighbours, we depend on the US for our defence.With every new shock wave, Britain feels this trauma in its marrow. Yet there is hesitancy in government about addressing the nation with a call to arms, as French president Emmanuel Macron has done, warning: “the innocence of these 30 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall is over.”Look at the remarkable response of Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting, Friedrich Merz, lifetime financial conservative and fiscal dogmatist, as he grasps the severity of the times: he will reverse all his previous fiscal policies and his nation’s usual dread over borrowing, breaking their “basic law” with a huge €500bn loosening of debt rules to rearm. This amounts to “one of the most historic paradigm shifts in German postwar history”, according to Deutsche Bank. German borrowing costs shot up, but so have predictions of German growth from a sluggish 0.8% to 2%, with investors sending industrial stocks soaring. But note this: in his fiscal sea change, rearming will not be accompanied by any cuts to German social spending.How about Britain? Our government has announced no change to fiscal policy. Living within our self-imposed straitjacket, our rearming will be paid for by cuts to aid, benefits and most departments, as Rachel Reeves this week sends her plans to the Office for Budget Responsibility to prove the books are balanced. Yet the promises the government has made are impossible to keep: no more borrowing, no more tax rises and no return to austerity. These are terrible choices – the aid cut already breaks a manifesto pledge – destroying trust whichever way Labour turns. But which is the least bad?A copy of Duncan Grant’s portrait of John Maynard Keynes hangs by my desk, a reminder to reach for his 1940 prescription How to Pay for the War, a book that spelled out the necessary financial sacrifices of the time. Emergency action needed then was draconian, rapidly increasing production while drastically reducing consumption, introducing rationing and diverting everything to the war effort. In comparison, what’s needed in this new emergency is a pinprick, to raise the 3% of GDP for defence spending that Starmer is aiming for. Take just this one measure: in a disgraceful (and failed) act of crude election bribery, Jeremy Hunt cut 4p off employees’ national insurance. Restoring that would cover the cost of this extra defence spending alone, says Ben Zaranko of the Institute for Fiscal Studies; so would 2p more on income tax for all.Labour’s Treasury team winces at the very thought of any further tax rises, after the walloping Reeves got for the £40bn tax rise in October’s budget. They are jumpy: remember Liz Truss’s mini-budget, maxi-catastrophe, they say. Look how even small tax changes such as the farmers’ inheritance tax can create a storm; some policies make absolute sense in economic and fairness terms, but crash politically. Besides, tax rises that cut people’s spending money risk stunting growth, they say – but then so do cuts to public spending. Borrow more? That adds to the mammoth £100bn a year we spend servicing existing debt, they say. But we are now on the hunt for the least-worst option – and Britain still pays less tax than similar countries.Starmer has risen to the needs of the hour. But he has yet to address his citizens on what rearming means, and what it requires of them. We like to think of ourselves as warlike, and at the ready. We are good at displays of national pride and national parades, with a four-day celebration planned for the 80th anniversary of VE day in May. But tax and financial sacrifice were essential parts of that victory. The alternative – miserable cuts to benefits for the weakest, and stripping yet more from threadbare stricken public services – is the worst of all the bad options. In our finest hour, Britain shed its traditional tax-phobia. If ever there was a moment to stiffen the sinews and summon up the taxes, it is now: for the defence of the realm.

      Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist More

    • 288 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Starmer is at his best right now – but he must accept there is no going back with Trump’s US | Martin Kettle

      by

      Keir Starmer, it turns out, is at his best in a crisis. He has faced two since he became prime minister last year, one domestic, the other international. The first came with the riots that followed the Southport killings, when Starmer’s response was impressive and effective. The second is Donald Trump’s attempt to stitch up Ukraine, where Starmer has been surefooted in trying to hold the line against a sellout to Russia. In both cases, he has looked like the right person in the right place at the right time.There was another example of this deftness on Wednesday in the Commons, when Starmer went out of his way to mark the anniversaries of the deaths of UK service personnel in 2007 and 2012. A total of 642 died in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars alongside their US allies. They would not be forgotten, he said. The name of JD Vance was not mentioned. Nor was the US vice-president’s contemptuous “some random country” insult this week. But Starmer’s reprimand was unerring.It is far too soon to say whether Starmer’s response to Trump’s embrace of Russia and to the US administration’s denunciations of Europe will be effective in the long run. What can be said is that, in public and private, the prime minister has so far led with tact and clarity and has scored one or two apparent successes against the run of play. Nevertheless, these are very early days. Trump boasted to Congress on Tuesday night that he was “just getting started”.Starmer’s ability in a crisis is an unexpected contrast with his leadership in the ordinary business of politics. Since July 2024, Starmer’s calm, methodical, long-game approach has succeeded only in squandering much of Labour’s election-winning goodwill, and in making him seem out of his political depth. But his deployment of these same unflashy tactics at moments of acute crisis, as in the case of Ukraine, could be gold dust. It has at least given the prime minister’s ratings a boost. There are echoes here of the rallying around Boris Johnson at the start of Covid. But remember where that ended up.It is useful to note that this low-key approach marks a notable break. Throughout the postwar period, British leaders faced with international crisis modelled themselves on Winston Churchill in 1940. Margaret Thatcher saw herself this way during the Falklands war. Tony Blair echoed it after 9/11 and over Iraq. Johnson pretended he was Churchill when Russia invaded Ukraine. Starmer’s calm approach evokes Clement Attlee more than Churchill. In every way he is unTrump.Yet Starmer has not got much to be calm about. The world of 2024 no longer exists. Trump has triggered a crisis in the North Atlantic alliance. At stake are two epochal things. First, whether Russia’s main western border will henceforward be with Ukraine, with Poland or with Germany. Second, whether the US accepts any role in ensuring future European stability. These are not small questions.There are three levels on which Starmer can try to deal with Trump, both now and for the coming four years. All of them tacitly and sometimes openly recognise the vast seriousness of the moment. All of them are predicated on the undesirability of what Trump is doing and the need to create alternatives. All of them, however, also rest on a determination not to make an enemy of the US.The first is to firefight the immediate problems that Trump creates. This involves constantly engaging with the US administration by whatever means are available to prevent or mitigate crises. It means building up defence spending. It means working with allies and so-called coalitions of the willing. It means using any leverage to earn a hearing. Essentially, it is an attempt to manoeuvre Trump to follow a different or less extreme course, while avoiding confrontation or denunciation. But it is all done under the pretence that nothing fundamental has changed.View image in fullscreenThis is essentially the strategy that Starmer is now pursuing on Ukraine. It is why he keeps talking to Trump – three times in the past week, perhaps contributing to Trump’s relatively polite mention of Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the speech to Congress. It is why he deploys King Charles’s soft power. It is why, perhaps, he will soon return to Washington with Zelenskyy and Emmanuel Macron in an overwhelmingly important effort to restore military aid and intelligence support to Ukraine.The second approach is to decide to suck it all up for four years, in the hope that things will then get easier. This means accepting the likelihood, though never saying so publicly, that Trump is always going to be destructive and mean-spirited. At the same time, it means working to keep US links – especially military and intelligence links – strong enough to be revived more effectively after 2028, when Trump is due to step down.For Starmer, this could mean a lot of firefighting over the next four years, without any certainty of a post-Trump dividend or British public approval. Such fires could break out on any number of issues, including not just Ukraine but also the Middle East, bilateral trade, Nato, US-EU relations and, judging by this week’s speech, Canada, Greenland and the Panama canal. Much will depend on Friedrich Merz and on Macron’s 2027 successor, too. Starmer and his national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, are also likely to have an intense under-the-radar interest in the candidates vying to succeed Trump.Which leaves the third strategy. This is to accept that Trump’s approach is now the US’s new normal and that there will be no comforting return to past arrangements. Whoever comes after Trump may be friendlier, more rational and less rude. Either way, US exceptionalism, isolationism and disengagement from Europe are likely to be here to stay. So too are the immensely tough consequences for countries like Britain, which can no longer rely on a US security and intelligence shield against Russia or any other hostile states. Rearmament is back. This will require something close to a war economy, and it cannot be created overnight.At present, Starmer has one foot in the first approach and another in the second. But it is the third approach that will loom largest as an option as the next four years unfold. None of these is a soft option, and all of them overlap. Starmer is right, for example, to oppose false binary choices between Europe and the US.Nevertheless, if Trump’s speech to Congress is to be taken seriously, this is a president who has changed sides in the battle of values between democracy and authoritarianism. Starmer may feel he has to tell Europe that Trump will still “have our backs”. But Trump could just as soon stab Europe in the back too. After all, that’s exactly what he just did.

      Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      What Trump did during week 6: Gaza AI video and Zelenskyy meeting meltdown

      by

      During his sixth week back in office, Donald Trump and the vice-president, JD Vance, hosted Ukrainian president for what devolved into a shocking and explosive meeting.Trump accused Volodymyr Zelenskyy of “gambling with world war three” while Vance berated the Ukrainian president in a storm of accusations and falsehoods about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.Elsewhere in the Trump administration, Elon Musk again demanded that federal workers send an email detailing their recent accomplishments.Here’s what else happened last week.2 March 2025Day 42The fallout continued from Trump and Zelenskyy’s disastrous Oval Office meeting, as the Ukrainian leader sought to recalibrate and insisted a minerals deal was ready to be signed during a diplomatic visit to London. While Europe rallies behind Ukraine, Trump’s Republican allies, including the House speaker, Mike Johnson, said Zelenskyy may have to resign, a suggestion Senator Bernie Sanders called “horrific”. The Democratic senator Chris Murphy said Trump’s White House had in effect become “an arm of the Kremlin”.Also on Sunday:

      The health and human services secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, urged Americans to get the MMR vaccine in response to a growing measles epidemic in Texas, days after Kennedy, who has long sowed skepticism with his endorsement of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, downplayed the situation as “not unusual”.
      1 March 2025Day 41A federal judge in Washington blocked Trump from ousting the leader of a federal watchdog agency, ruling that the effort to terminate the official without cause was “unlawful”. The decision by the US district judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington allows Hampton Dellinger to remain the head of the office of special counsel, which protects federal whistleblowers. In her ruling, Jackson wrote that upholding the president’s ability to fire Dellinger would give him “a constitutional license to bully officials in the executive branch into doing his will”. The case is likely to be decided by the supreme court. View image in fullscreenAlso on Saturday: 

      Musk renewed his demand that every federal employee send an email detailing their recent accomplishments, a week after the original demand sparked chaos and confusion across the government workforce.

      Trump signed an executive order establishing English as the official language of the US.

      Supporters of Ukraine protested against the Trump administration across the US, including a Vermont ski resort where Vance was vacationing with his family.
      28 February 2025Day 40In an explosive Oval Office meeting, Trump and his vice-president, JD Vance, assailed and berated Zelenskyy in a storm of accusations and falsehoods about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The tense exchange ended with Zelenskyy leaving the White House early, without signing a controversial minerals deal that was seen as key to unlocking US security guarantees for European peacekeepers in Ukraine. During the exchange, which played out publicly on live TV, Trump said Zelenskyy was “gambling with world war three” and told the Ukrainian president to come back “when he is ready for peace”. Hours later, Zelenskyy sought to de-escalate the situation in an interview on Fox News, but Trump appeared unmoved as he departed Washington for his Mar-a-Lago resort. View image in fullscreenAlso on Friday: 

      European leaders and Democrats rallied around Zelenskyy, voicing continued support for Ukraine, while Trump’s Republican allies demand the Ukrainian leader apologize.

      The White House said that classified documents seized by the FBI from Mar-a-Lago in 2022 had been returned to Trump.

      The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said that Trump had “asked Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians to depart the White House” after their contentious exchange in the Oval Office. 

      The Democratic party sued Trump over a recent executive order it says violates federal election law by giving him too much power over the independent federal election commission.
      27 February 2025Day 39Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, arrived at the White House bearing a letter from King Charles as he quietly appealed to Trump not to abandon Ukraine as the US president searches for a speedy end to Russia’s brutal invasion of the country. In remarks, Starmer praised Trump for “changing the conversation” and making peace possible in Ukraine while Trump denied calling Zelenskyy a dictator, despite having done so, and suggested Vladimir Putin could be trusted. En route to Washington, Starmer pledged to raise the country’s defense spending, a commitment seen as a way to persuade Trump to provide a “backstop” for European security in Ukraine. And in a major relief for the British premier, Trump indicated that he would not slap harsh tariffs on the UK. View image in fullscreenAlso on Thursday: 

      A federal judge found that the mass firings of probationary employees as part of the Trump administration’s government downsizing effort were likely unlawful.

      The ruling came on the same day that the Trump administration moved to terminate hundreds of workers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), the US’s pre-eminent climate research agency housed within the Department of Commerce.

      Senate Democrats publicly – and some Republicans privately – raised concerns over the Trump administration’s freeze on foreign aid and cuts to USAid. 
      26 February 2025Day 38Donald Trump used the first full cabinet meeting of his second term to heap praise on Elon Musk and his billionaire ally’s mission to dramatically reduce the size of the federal government. Though not a member of Trump’s cabinet, Musk attended and took center stage as the secretaries sat mostly silently for the hourlong meeting. The tech mogul defended Doge’s actions, which have stoked confusion and backlash, but conceded that the team would make mistakes, citing a decision to cancel an Ebola prevention effort that was “quickly” reinstated. During the summit, Trump also threatened to slap 25% tariffs on the European Union and announced that the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, would visit the White House to sign a minerals deal with the US.View image in fullscreenAlso on Wednesday: 

      A new White House memo instructed federal agencies to submit plans for “a significant reduction” in their staff by 13 March, potentially setting the stage to shrink the government workforce by tens of thousands more in the coming weeks. A top Senate Democrat warned that Trump may be pursuing a mineral rights deal with Vladimir Putin and Russia as well as Zelenskyy and Ukraine.

      A Pentagon memo filed in court on Wednesday said transgender service members would be separated from the US military unless they receive an exemption.

      The supreme court handed the president his first victory, granting the Trump administration’s request to pause a lower court’s deadline for the government to resume nearly $2bn in foreign aid payments.
      25 February 2025Day 37In a dramatic vote, House Republicans unified behind a budget blueprint, taking a major step toward advancing Donald Trump’s “big BEAUTIFUL” tax cut and immigration agenda. But vulnerable Republicans face a brewing backlash over the plan, which would almost certainly require significant reductions to social safety net programs that serve the poor. House Democrats plan to hammer Republicans over their support for the measure and the potential cuts to Medicaid required to pay for it as they plot a return to power in next year’s midterms. But Trump’s fiscal plan is far from guaranteed: Republican negotiators from both the House and Senate must now reconcile their competing budget blueprints to move forward.Also on Tuesday: 

      The White House said it would pick which media outlets are allowed to participate in the presidential press pool, drawing sharp condemnation from the White House Correspondents’ Association, which warned: “In a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps.”

      The Trump administration announced that immigrants in the US without authorization could face fines and prison time if they fail to submit their personal data to a government registry while the president floated the creation of a “gold card” visa that would give wealthy foreigners a pathway to citizenship for a $5m fee.
      24 February 2025Day 36The US office of personnel management told agency officials that federal workers were not required to respond to billionaire Elon Musk’s demand that they defend their recent accomplishments or risk being fired, even as Donald Trump indicated support for the ultimatum. The email sparked widespread chaos and confusion amid ongoing turmoil Musk’s Doge has inflicted on the federal workforce. After government departments gave their employees differing instructions as to whether they should respond to the message, OPM, which manages the federal workforce, announced that compliance with the email was voluntary and that failing to do so by midnight would not be considered a resignation, as Musk had warned.Also on Monday: 

      France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, warned Donald Trump against a “surrender” of Ukraine during a visit to the White House, as the US president said Vladimir Putin would accept European peacekeepers in Ukraine as part of a potential deal to end the conflict. (The Kremlin has pushed back on this.)

      Earlier in the day, the US joined Russia, Belarus and North Korea in voting against an EU-Ukrainian resolution condemning Russia on the third anniversary of its full-scale invasion, another sign of Trump’s sharp turn toward Putin.  
      The Guardian is tracking the presidency’s first 100 days. Find days 1-35 in our full guide. More

    • 250 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump has utterly changed the rules of engagement. World leaders must learn this – and quickly | Simon Tisdall

      by

      It’s not only about Donald Trump. It’s not just about saving Ukraine, or defeating Russia, or how to boost Europe’s security, or what to do about an America gone rogue. It’s about a world turned upside down – a dark, fretful, more dangerous place where treaties and laws are no longer respected, alliances are broken, trust is fungible, principles are negotiable and morality is a dirty word. It’s an ugly, disordered world of raw power, brute force, selfish arrogance, dodgy deals and brazen lies. It’s been coming for a while; the US president is its noisy harbinger.Take the issues one at a time. Trump is a toxic symptom of the wider malaise. For sure, he is an extraordinarily malign, unfeeling and irresponsible man. He cares nothing for the people he leads, seeing them merely as an audience for his vulgar showmanship. His undeserved humiliation of Ukraine’s valiant leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, was, he crowed, “great television”. As president, Trump wields enormous power and influence. But Potus is not omnipotent. America’s vanquished Democrats are slowly finding their voice. Connecticut senator Chris Murphy shows how it should be done. Don’t bite your lip. Don’t play by rules Trump ignores. When Trump tried to blame diversity hiring policies for January’s deadly Potomac midair collision, Murphy hit back fiercely.“Everybody in this country should be outraged that Donald Trump is standing up on that podium and lying to you – deliberately lying to you,” Murphy fumed. Trump was at it again when he mugged Zelenskyy last week. But it is not passing unchallenged. Street protests in Britain and the US followed. A campaign gathers pace to block Trump’s planned UK state visit. Opinion polls show growing opposition.It seems strange to talk about “resistance”, as if a Nazi-style wartime occupation is under way. Yet resisting Trump is what our leaders must do. The world’s most admired democracy is held hostage by a far-right clique of thugs and chancers. Its leader calls himself “king” and talks of a presidency for life. Elon Musk and Steve Bannon raise stiff-armed salutes. European neofascists drool adulation from afar.Trump’s minions attack or subvert the agencies of government, the judiciary and free press, terrorising and intimidating those whose loyalty they impugn. Their propagandists, so-called tech barons, have a reach Joseph Goebbels would envy. And just like Vladimir Putin, Russia’s dictator, JD Vance, Trump’s loudmouth hitman, fights a regressive, anti-democratic culture war for “Christian values” and a narrow, bigoted orthodoxy.Ukraine, despite Trump’s betrayal, remains the epitome of resistance. The Ukrainian people are fighting for freedom, sovereignty and democratic self-determination. The issue is simple. Since the US cannot any longer be relied upon, Europe’s leaders know what they must do: supply more and better weapons for Kyiv, such as Taurus missiles; provide more humanitarian aid and finance, obtained by seizing $300bn in frozen Russian funds; and collectively raise their defence spending. From leaders such as Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, we need less polite subservience and more honest defiance.To be effective, European leaders need to put concerted pressure on the US government to provide credible, long-term security guarantees for Ukraine and a backstop for any force that the UK and Europe deploy to monitor the ceasefire. It’s reasonable to expect the US to support a European peace initiative. If it does not, an open rupture with Washington should not be dodged. Equally, they need to put more pressure on Russia, too, to halt its daily slaughter and bombing in Ukraine’s cities. Putin could stop this war today – after all, he alone started it. The fact he refuses to do so is proof, if it were needed, of Zelenskyy’s contention that he cannot be trusted in anything he says. He must be squeezed further.Right now, the opposite is happening. Military analysts warn that a gleeful Kremlin, encouraged by western discord, may step up its offensive in the east and try to capitalise on Ukraine’s demoralisation, perhaps even reinstating Putin’s original plan to seize the whole country. To deter such scenarios, EU leaders, meeting again in Brussels on Thursday after their London weekend talks, must finally bury their differences and draw a line.Starmer says that he and Macron are now developing a plan. Good. The leading European Nato powers should demand an immediate halt to all fighting in Ukraine and Kursk. They should launch a peace process inclusive of all interested parties, without preconditions or prior concessions. If Putin balks, they must withdraw their diplomats, close borders with Russia, move to interdict its exports, mobilise their armed forces – and set a deadline for providing defensive air cover for all unoccupied Ukrainian territory. Russia must be reminded that the west has teeth, too – and will, if forced, resist Putin’s unlawful aggression with everything it has got. Enough of Trump’s scaremongering nonsense about a third world war. Putin is a mass murderer, not a mad murderer. He’s also a coward.Given Trump’s treachery and threats to cut military aid, only a strong, united Europe stands a chance of preventing Ukraine’s defeat on the battlefield. Were Ukraine forced to capitulate to a Kremlin deal and lose its sovereignty, it would set a disastrous precedent for free people everywhere, from Taiwan and Tibet to Moldova, Estonia, Panama and Greenland.Marco Rubio, Trump’s obsequious secretary of state, spoke revealingly last month about his vision of a 21st-century world dominated by the US, Russia and China, and divided into 19th-century geopolitical spheres of influence. It was necessary to rebuild US relations with Moscow, Rubio argued, to maintain this imperious tripartite balance of power. This is the partitioned future that awaits if Trump’s surrender strategy prevails and he and Putin carve up Ukraine.Such a global catastrophe was foretold. In his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell describes a nightmare world divvied up between three great empires or superstates, Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia, which deliberately stoke unceasing hostilities. Their shared characteristics: totalitarianism, mass surveillance, repression, immorality, gross inhumanity. Sound familiar? Annalena Baerbock, foreign minister of Germany, a country that knows much about fascism, past and present, recently said that a “new era of wickedness has begun”. Ukrainians, under occupation, are only too familiar with the evil that has descended upon their heads. This is the violent, lawless dystopia towards which the Americans in the Oval Office are leading us. Unless they are stopped. Unless we fight. Unless Europe resists.

      Simon Tisdall is the Observer’s foreign affairs commentator More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Starmer struggles to remain upright under the weight of his contradictions | Zoe Williams

      by

      If I were Volodymyr Zelenskyy, I’d be thinking, either Keir Starmer has a fiendishly intelligent and subtle mind, or he is bananas. Starmer channelled the giants of British history (everyone we’re not embarrassed of; basically, Winston Churchill) on Sunday. He said we were at a “crossroads in history”.He used the phrase “we are gathered here today”, which I suppose was literally true, as they were, but also had a strange church-y overtone, as if he were trying to borrow the actual authority of God, and he explicitly yoked together the peace and security of Ukraine with that of everyone – all of Europe, but also “us” – Justin Trudeau was there, so presumably Canada’s, too. Pictures of him hugging Zelenskyy ahead were almost tear-jerkingly sincere.He was then asked by journalists following Saturday afternoon’s statement – who came at the question from many directions – whether he considered the US to be inside or outside his plan for a durable peace, and he was trenchant.“Europe and the US have to stand together and that position must be strong”; “I do not accept that the US is an unreliable ally”. It was an absolute head-scratcher – because the US does not seek a sovereign Ukraine, safe in perpetuity from Russian aggression.Donald Trump and JD Vance showed the world what they think of this war on Friday, and they are in an opposite world, Zelenskyy is the one risking the lives of ordinary people, and the war is for him to end – while giving up his nation’s mineral rights to the US and thanking them for the privilege.That meeting in the White House was easily the most gruesome display of bullying and manipulation that televised geopolitics has ever put on. So in what world does the guy you just hugged get to walk away proud and sovereign, with US backing? In what conceivable world is Trump on the same team as these assembled leaders?Starmer was under considerable pressure in his short speech, which we have to hope was just because history had its eyes on him, and not because he’s overwhelmed by the weight of his own contradictions.Words were mangled into non-words, “step” became “stet”, “presume” got funked with “preserve”. And yet, his lawyerly clarity remained. He had five points, they were all different, they all made sense, he said them all in the right order.“We will keep the military aid flowing … to strengthen Ukraine now,” he said, adding that the £2.2bn loan to Zelenskyy would come from frozen Russian assets, and the £1.6bn of UK export finance would be channelled straight back into the UK economy via the air defence industry in Belfast.“Any lasting peace,” he continued, “must ensure Ukraine’s sovereignty and security and Ukraine must be at the table”. It’s a simple and defensible point, but it also goes head to head against Trump, who has argued throughout that all it’ll take for a peace deal is him, Putin, a copy of The Art of the Deal and a box of cigars.Third, “in the event of a peace deal, we will keep boosting Ukraine’s own defensive capabilities”, Starmer said, which, again, sounds fair enough and yet at the same time runs directly counter to any of the noises coming out of Washington.Fourth, he will assemble “a coalition of the willing, to defend a deal in Ukraine. Not every nation will feel able to contribute but that can’t mean that we sit back.” Here’s the kicker: “this effort must have US backing”.Well, OK, but who on earth would assume that backing? And what would it cost? Do we have to watch Zelenskyy get beaten up live on air, for the US to fall in with the crowd but still feel like it won?Peter Mandelson had told ABC News earlier that “President Zelenskyy [must give] his unequivocal backing to the initiative that President Trump is taking to end the war and to bring a just and lasting peace to Ukraine,” and seriously, all we can do in the face of that counter-messaging is hope that Mandelson’s forgotten he’s the UK’s diplomat to the US and thinks he’s just a guy on a podcast.Starmer’s fifth point was a bit muddled: “Leaders must meet again very soon. We are at a crossroads in history today. This is not a moment for more talk.” What are they going to do at the meeting, if not talk more? Never mind. Don’t pick holes. We need to believe there’s a grand plan behind all this, because the alternative is just horrendous. More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Starmer’s diplomatic flurry puts him at centre of attempts to shape Ukraine-Russia deal

      by

      As Keir Starmer and his aides huddled to discuss their response to Friday’s calamitous White House meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the prime minister’s team pondered whether to issue a statement on social media.Already messages of support were flooding in for the Ukrainian president from other European leaders, including Emmanuel Macron of France and the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen.But the prime minister decided to stay silent and instead display his backing with action rather than words. After a series of phone calls on Friday night, Starmer brought forward a planned visit by Zelenskyy to London, giving him the opportunity for a symbolic meeting at Downing Street followed by an audience with King Charles.“I picked up the phone to President Trump, and I picked up the phone to President Zelensky,” Starmer told the BBC on Sunday. “That was my response.”Starmer’s flurry of diplomatic activity has resulted in a Franco-British peace effort which puts the prime minister at the centre of European attempts to shape any deal between Moscow and Kyiv.“Starmer’s was a big gesture,” said Bronwen Maddox, the director of the Chatham House thinktank. “Having Zelenskyy here, having that meeting, mattered. There is no need to go rushing around tweeting. He’s now trying to be a bridge between the US and Zelenskyy and Europe, which is a reasonable ambition.”Some even believe this could be Starmer’s “Falklands moment”, referring to the way Margaret Thatcher took on Argentina over the Falkland Islands and in doing so rebooted her flagging premiership. By Sunday morning, Starmer was being backed by the leaders of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.“It’s really important that this summit the prime minister is having today goes well and we support him in that,” the Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch, said on Sunday.Starmer’s calls with Trump and Zelenskyy on Friday night focused on trying to get the minerals deal between the two countries back on track.One Downing Street official said: “We need to ensure there is a minerals agreement and there is a plan for stopping the fighting and giving Ukraine the security guarantees it needs. The minerals deal is still on the table.”View image in fullscreenOfficials rejected reports that Starmer’s call with Zelenskyy had been “emotional”, but said the Ukrainian president had clearly found his encounter with Trump “bruising”. The two men agreed that Zelenskyy would visit London 24 hours earlier than planned, allowing him time for a longer meeting in Downing Street before a trip to Sandringham on Sunday to meet King Charles.Officials said the visit to see the king was a deliberate message to Washington, where Trump is eagerly awaiting his own audience with the monarch, with US officials pushing for a state visit as soon as this year.Starmer then spent Saturday around the cabinet table in discussions with Jonathan Powell, his national security adviser, and other senior officials. They had come to the conclusion there was little they could do to restart US-Ukrainian talks, so decided to come up with an alternative plan to help shape the peace deal.The plan they hit upon was a separate set of discussions, this time involving Britain, France, Ukraine and potentially one or two others, to formulate their own prospective deal to present to the US. The talks would provide a counterbalance to those between the US and Russia which have excluded Ukraine and European countries.Starmer called Macron, who welcomed the idea. But there was one more hurdle to clear: the prime minister had to call the US president for the second time in two days to make sure he was not opposed.Officials briefed on the call would not say what Trump’s reaction to the idea was, or even whether he indicated he would not stand in the way. But the prime minister was sufficiently emboldened by the conversation that he decided to announce the talks on the BBC on Sunday morning.“The second Trump call was much more focused on not wanting to go back over what has happened, but saying, if we move forward with this other plan, would you be interested in us doing that?” said one British official. “There is no point in us doing this if the US didn’t feel there was space for that. Clearly we are doing it, so we thought it was a worthwhile exercise.”Saturday evening culminated with Starmer’s Downing Street talks with Zelenskyy. In front of the assembled press, the prime minister took the unusual step of leaving No 10 to greet Zelenskyy from his car, before walking him back down the street again after their meeting.View image in fullscreen“And as you heard from the cheers on the street outside, you have full backing across the United Kingdom,” Starmer told his Ukrainian counterpart. “We stand with you, with Ukraine, for as long as it may take.”Sunday was yet another intense day of diplomacy for the prime minister, who began by speaking to the leaders of all three Baltic states and then hosted the Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, at Downing Street. Meloni, who arguably has the best relations with Trump of any European leader, has called for an immediate summit between the US, EU and other allied countries to discuss Ukraine.From there, Starmer travelled to Lancaster House for his defence summit, which was attended by representatives from across Europe, as well as officials from Turkey and Nato.British officials are aware that all this activity may result in very little. They have yet to secure their main objective – a promise from Trump to offer military backing to any British and European troops posted to secure a new border between Russia and Ukraine.But for now, Downing Street is delighted that the prime minister has managed to navigate the turbulent geopolitics of a Trump-led US, and in doing so prove that post-Brexit Britain can still play a global leadership role.“It’s a testament to the relationship the prime minister has with the presidents of both America and Ukraine that he was able to host Zelenskyy and speak to Trump not once but twice over the days,” said one official.Additional reporting by Angela Giuffrida in Rome More

    • 238 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      In this dangerous age, Britain needs to exert soft power as well as the hard stuff | Andrew Rawnsley

      by

      Shortly before he flew to Washington, Sir Keir Starmer turned up in the Commons, put on his sombre voice and declared: “Everything has changed.” One of the more startling transformations has been to Sir Keir himself. The Labour leader came to office thinking, as did most of those who voted for him, that he was going to be a domestically orientated prime minister with primary ambitions to improve living standards, build lots of homes and rejuvenate public services. That’s what “change”, his one-word election slogan, was supposed to be about. When he originally selected his overriding “five missions”, the defence of the realm didn’t make the cut.His central definition today is as a geopolitically focused prime minister who is promising to spend more on guns, missiles and warplanes and less on international aid. More British bullets will be purchased at the expense of succour to the impoverished and desperate of the world. This shift gives a flintier profile to his leadership, but not in a way that either supporters or opponents anticipated during last summer’s election. Most Labour people don’t quarrel with the argument that Britain has to put up its guard, but a lot of them, including queasy members of the Starmer cabinet, are wriggling uncomfortably about taking the hatchet to the international development budget. In the days since the decision was announced, they have taken to wondering what manner of Labour government is this?The short explanation for this transmogrification is two words and an initial: Donald J Trump. The upheaval in the international order unleashed by the US president has shattered decades-old assumptions about the western alliance. This has had a more profound impact on Sir Keir than any other event. A prime minister who used to earn his living as a human rights lawyer has had a crash course in realpolitik from the nakedly transactional practitioner of great power games who resides on Pennsylvania Avenue.Sir Keir came away from his encounter at the White House on Thursday empty-handed when it came to securing a bankable guarantee that there will be US military cover for any British and French peacekeepers deployed to Ukraine. What the prime minister did win was an apparent blessing for the Chagos Islands deal, puncturing Nigel Farage’s repeated claims that the White House is opposed to it. There were encouraging noises that the UK may swerve US tariffs and pats on the head for Sir Keir from his host for being a “special man” and a “very tough negotiator”. The price was paid in the currency of ingratiation. This was at its most toe-curling when the prime minister delved into his jacket pocket to flourish an invite from the king for the US president to make an “unprecedented”, “truly historic” second state visit to the UK. Excuse me while I find something to retch into. The other tribute to the Maga King was setting a 2027 deadline for lifting British defence spending to 2.5% of GDP with 3% as the ultimate target.Boosting defence spending is both a response to Trump’s demands that Europe pulls its weight and an insurance policy against the withdrawal of American security guarantees. Downing Street reeled at the callous and chilling monstering of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a democratically elected leader fighting for his country’s freedom against tyranny, at the White House on Friday. The shocking ugliness of the televised scene amplified Number 10’s unspoken fears that the Trump regime poses an existential challenge to European security.I’ve been among those anticipating this pivot. Given how menacing the world looked even before Trump’s return to the Oval Office, it was not sustainable to leave Britain’s armed forces in such a parlous condition that our own defence secretary describes them as “hollowed out”. The intelligence chiefs and the top brass have become increasingly clamourous about the growing scale and intensity of threats from a spectrum of malevolent adversaries.The issue then becomes whether the money will be spent well or wastefully. The Ministry of Defence has a rotten record when it comes to equipping the armed forces in a timely and cost-effective way. The onus is now on John Healey and the service chiefs to prove that they can get the maximum bang from the taxpayers’ extra bucks.The pain inflicted on the international aid budget will be brutal. Sir Keir was all crocodile tears when he intoned that regrettably “hard choices” had to be made, as if more money for defence could only be found by stealing it from aid programmes. There were many other options for a government that spends in excess of £1tn a year. These included being less generous towards other demands for spending, bearing down on escalating costs in areas of welfare or raising more from taxation. Though the prime minister claims he did not take this decision “lightly”, the international development budget was targeted because Downing Street and the Treasury reckoned it was the politically least painful option.This is the superficially clever and unashamedly cynical choice when it comes to electoral calculations. Polling suggests that cutting aid is a popular option with around two-thirds of voters. There’s an assumption among Labour strategists that aid is particularly resented by the kind of voter who supported Labour at the election and is now flirting with Reform or has already switched to it. There’s some truth in this analysis, but it is not the whole truth. There’s danger for Labour among the significant wedge of voters who chose the party at the election partly on the basis that it was more compassionate, enlightened and internationalist than the Tories. They didn’t expect Labour to outdo the last Conservative government in slashing the development budget.The case for spending on aid is easily made. On top of the humanitarian good it does, there’s the mitigation against instability, conflict and extremism. It also helps win friends and influence people in other countries who can be useful to the UK in the projection and protection of our national interests. These arguments will be highly familiar to Sir Keir and his cabinet because it was precisely the case they used to make themselves when they berated the Conservatives for raiding the budget. As Labour’s election manifesto put it, international aid helps make “the world a safer, more prosperous place”.The UK used to be able to make the claim that its record on helping the poorer parts of the planet made us a soft power superpower. As recently as 2020, the UK was one of only seven wealthy countries that met the UN target to spend 0.7% of gross national income on aid. The Conservatives cut that to 0.5% under Boris Johnson and it will now be slashed down to just 0.3%. Since a hefty chunk of the budget is being spent on asylum-seekers within Britain, the net amount supporting international development will be even more miserly. Programmes threatened include those alleviating poverty, tackling disease, improving the education of young people and addressing the climate crisis.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThis was a humiliation for Annaliese Dodds who was presented with a fait accompli just 24 hours before the cuts were announced. Number 10 clearly reckoned there was a slight risk that she would resign as international development minister, or decided it wasn’t terribly bothered even if she did. She has quit with the warning that denuding the international development budget will only encourage Russia’s aggressive effort to increase its presence worldwide. Blood must be rushing to the head of David Lammy. Justifying the cut has obliged the foreign secretary to stand on his head. It is only very recently that he was wagging a finger at the Americans by telling them it was a “big strategic mistake” to let Elon Musk eviscerate the US development budget. He accompanied that with the warning that China would exploit the vacuum to further its influence.I am being generous when I say that it is disingenuous of Sir Keir and his loyalists to suggest that they were faced with an either/or choice between defence spending in the name of national security and non-defence spending in troubled and distressed places abroad. The UK is an affluent country that likes to think it can punch above its weight. Even when money is tight, this nation is wealthy enough to wield both hard power and soft power.The face of Britain that the Starmer government is now presenting to the world is one that aspires to be more muscular while also looking meaner. Muscular is necessary in the scary new world order. Meaner is a myopic mistake that will render Britain less safe. More