In a swift turn of events, Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain displaced the Conservative government in July, introducing a fresh phase in British politics and a new trajectory in its relationship with the European Union. Yet, one element remained stubbornly unchanged – the acrimonious interactions with an increasingly assertive Russia. Not only has the animosity persisted, it appears to be deepening. The dynamics between London and Moscow experienced new frictions this week as the United States, seemingly nudged by Britain, indicated a potential move to permit Ukraine to employ Western-provided missiles to target military locations within the depths of Russian territory.
These missiles are emerging as an initial boiling point in the foreign policy waters of Starmer’s sovereignty, carrying implications for the security of Europe at large. The UK, leading a diplomatic strike, is positioning itself at the frontline of a wider European force rallying behind Ukraine, right in the midst of considerable political instability in the US. This could in part obstruct any prospective American involvement in countering Russia’s expanding influence.
Starmer is set to negotiate with Biden about the conditions that would enable Ukraine to maneuver the UK’s ‘Storm Shadow’ long-range missiles within Russia. It’s imperative for Biden to approve such strikes, analysts have noted, for symbolic and practical reasons alike, considering the missiles operate off satellite data and additional technology the US provides. While the British officials have tried to moderate expectations around an immediate announcement post-dialogue, ongoing chatter from Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State, and the British foreign secretary, David Lammy, hint at changes in policy looming on the horizon.
Both Blinken and Lammy visited Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, to sit down with President Volodymyr Zelensky. Their statements this week drew a stark threat from Putin, essentially insinuating that he would interpret these movements as a virtual declaration of war. ‘This suggests that NATO nations – the United States and European countries – are initiating war with Russia,’ he announced via state media. In retaliation to Putin’s invocation of war, while denying a quest for armed conflict, Starmer countered robustly en route to Washington.
‘The conflict initiated by Russia. Russia enacted an illegitimate invasion of Ukraine. Russia has the power to diffuse the conflict.’ Starmer spoke to journalists. He highlighted that ‘Ukraine reserves the right to defend itself.’ Following these developments, Russia claimed to have withdrawn the accreditation of six British diplomats sited in Moscow — an occurrence that originally took place a month prior — asserting that they had participated in espionage activities and sabotage.
The British Foreign Office dismissed these allegations as ‘entirely baseless,’ adding that, ‘we make no apologies for safeguarding our national interests.’ Britain’s longstanding self-perception as an igniter for Ukraine’s military support from its allies has been crucial. The UK’s 2023 delivery of Storm Shadow missiles paved a path for the US to dispatch surface-to-surface Army Tactical Missile Systems, labelled as ATACMS.
In that same year, the UK’s choice to send Challenger tanks enabled both the US and Germany to follow suit and forward their tanks. Unlike in the US, where the former President Donald J. Trump has pledged a starkly different approach to Russia compared to Biden, a sense of continuity marks the war between Starmer’s Labour Party and the Conservatives.
Starmer demonstrated his endorsement for the previous government when it committed to increase military aid earlier in January. ‘We stand united across all political parties in defense of Ukraine against Putin’s aggression,’ he said, cautioning against the issues that arise ‘when politics goes easy on Putin.’ Analysts suggest that it was the prospect of a significant alteration in the White House that propelled Starmer to secure a dialogue with Biden at this juncture.
Despite planning to visit New York for the United Nations General Assembly in a fortnight, Starmer chose to take the day-long trip to Washington. Cramped schedules would not likely have allowed for Starmer and Biden to engage in such comprehensive one-on-one dialogue at the UN, as per the views of a British diplomat.
With the West no longer being able to assume enduring American support as a given, analysts and diplomats both remark, Britain’s ultimate objective is to provide Ukraine with the most effective chance in any eventual peace negotiation with Russia. Fear surrounding the possibility of Trump advocating a peace agreement that leaves substantial parts of Ukraine under Russian control has also spurred Britain’s diplomatic communications with both France and Germany.
Upon stepping into the role of Foreign Secretary in July, Lammy’s first destination was Berlin and Starmer visited France to engage President Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Britain’s Storm Shadow missile system is a joint effort with France, adding significance to its support.
Despite the conflict dragging on, France’s support of Ukraine has grown increasingly strong, even while Macron had made more substantial efforts compared to Boris Johnson, the then British prime minister, to reach a diplomatic resolution with Putin before the war.
One of the drivers behind the U.K’s effort to maintain good relations with Europe is the awareness that they may have to rely on them if the Americans withdraw,’ Malcolm Chalmers, the deputy director general of the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based research organization, stated.
While providing unwavering support to Ukraine, Starmer assures that Britain does not aim to instigate a conflict with Russia. ‘That is not our intention at all,’ he told journalists aboard his plane. Concurrently, Britain’s Defense Secretary, John Healey, stresses the need for Ukraine to abide by international humanitarian law when utilizing British-supplied weaponry.
In alignment with the Labour government’s broader emphasis on the rule of international law in conflict, Healey stated, ‘We’re supplying weapons to Ukraine for the defense of their sovereign nation. That does not prohibit them from targeting locations in Russia, however, this must be undertaken by the Ukrainians and within the limitations of international humanitarian law.’ Amid the tumultuous past, foreign policy experts have dismissed Russia’s recent expulsion of British diplomats as mere bluster. ‘This is the U.K. being penalized for spearheading the supply of weaponry to Ukraine,’ said Mr. Ricketts, who also served as Britain’s representative to NATO. ‘It’s a classic example of Russian scare-mongering techniques.’