Will Starmer’s defence hike win over Trump on Ukraine?
Sir Keir Starmer’s commitment to increase defence spending will have some consequences. In fact, one day it may strengthen Britain’s ability to defend itself. Immediately, this means billions of dollars spent on foreign aid.
But what about it buying a diplomatic prime minister in Washington?
Among the guests and guests from the past, gifts and tributes were given to the emperor. Now, Starmer will appear at the White House on Thursday, with one of the big candy bags marked “More Defensive Spend.”
Donald Trump is just the latest row of the U.S. president urges European powers to spend more on their own defense.
The Prime Minister will be able to tell the President that he has heard the phone and acted. He may not want Trump to ask too many detailed questions: What does an increase in GDP of 0.2% mean in real money? When will the UK actually cost 3%?
But Starmer will want to come up with the idea that Britain is responding to Trump’s agenda.
Early signs are positive. U.S. Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth said he had spoken with his British counterpart John Healey and described the growth as a “strong step from a lasting partner” .
Therefore, Starmer’s announcement is likely to step into the White House gate and hear the president’s hearing.
But would this help him make a case for the security of Ukraine and Europe? Will Trump be more suitable to sit at the negotiating table now? Will Trump be more open about the idea that the United States should play a role in post-war Ukraine security, providing air, logistical and intelligence cover to European forces to help keep peace on the ground?
The answer to these questions is not yet clear. The Prime Minister may suggest that Britain demonstrate leadership and follow the path for other European allies.
He may also think that the defense rate hike shows that Britain does not have to make what he calls “historical mistakes” and must choose between Europe and the United States, which is more difficult in the U.S. decision to vote against Russia against Ukraine and Europe at the United Nations on Monday.
The problem is that Trump and his administration have made it clear that their security priorities are that China and Europe only need to do more to take care of themselves.
Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director of the Royal Joint Services Institute, told the BBC: “The reality is that everything we do with defense, the United States will be hubs elsewhere, it will not be in Europe’s security.” Played as the lead role. It has been more than half a century.”
In this case, the increased government promised defense spending could be seen as a short-term tactical move ahead of Starmer’s visit to Washington, rather than a historic response to the geopolitical changes that existed as Trump’s election.
European diplomats told me they were upset about the UK’s defense offer, saying it wasn’t enough to have a real impact. They say the UK will have to spend at least 3% of its national wealth as soon as possible to give itself the opportunity to develop the required capabilities.
To this end, the government needs to do more than just raid the development budget. Aid charities point out that their spending is a soft target compared to large spending sectors such as welfare, health and education.
But few politicians with any political qualities seem ready to start arguing about the post-war shift in Europe’s welfare model and prepare voters for a massive change in defense spending.
At present, the government is reducing foreign aid and international charities are angry.
Reducing from 0.5% of national income to 0.3% means £6 billion will be spent annually. Given that this budget still pays for hotels for asylum seekers in the UK, the actual amount spent on overseas aid is about 0.15%.
The Prime Minister said the UK will use the remaining aid funds to help Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza, address climate change and support global health multinational corporations.
Aid charities were stunned. Saving the child says it is the betrayal of the most vulnerable child in the world. This will create huge problems for providing important humanitarian assistance, one campaign said. Aid Network Bonds say it will have devastating consequences for millions of people marginalized.
All this after Donald Trump freezes the U.S. development spending division.
By reducing foreign aid, the government has broken the declaration’s commitment to protecting the budget. It also undermines its policy of using aid to get closer contact with countries around the globe.
David Miliband, head of the International Rescue Commission and former Labor Foreign Secretary, said the cut was a “fight against Britain’s pride as a global leader in humanitarian and development”.
