But Starmer got much more than that. Yes, the government's increased military spending was noted and appreciated by Trump, and the letter from the King inviting the Donald for an unprecedented second state visit went down very well indeed. No one does flattery quite like the Brits, and so Starmer will come home lugging two big bonuses: the possibility of a trade deal (hello again, chlorinated chicken!), and US backing of the Chagos Island plan. The very same one Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage have berated Starmer for because it serves China's interests or something. I look forward to the leader of the opposition rising at the next PMQs and taking credit for the negotiations she was against, until Trump supported them.
Trump also spoke approvingly of the Ukraine mineral deal that has been cooked up in double quick time. Asked by the BBC's Chris Mason about whether the President still thought Volodymyr Zelenskyy was still a dictator, Trump replied dead pan, "Did I say that? I can't believe I would say that". Some would take that as evidence of cognitive decline. Others as someone who enjoys toying with and discombobulating the press pack. Either way, the Ukrainian president is due to visit Washington, and while Trump refused to be drawn on security guarantees he's unlikely to begin digging without the threat of force backing US investments. However, knowing most of the resources he wants to dig up are in the Russian-occupied east, a partnership there with Putin's regime is unlikely to spark off a shooting war once the signatures are on the armistice. Therefore, the security guarantee isn't there in words but it's implied in the scheme the White House are drawing up for Ukraine after the war. In short, Starmer got all he wanted and then some.
The Prime Minister knows he had to walk a tricky tightrope with Trump. He knows how unpopular he is here (and undoubtedly there will be a large crowd welcoming Trump to London, just like last time), how toxic Tony Blair's relationship with George W Bush was, and would like to avoid similar problems. But while most don't like Trump, public opinion knows that Starmer cannot denounce the president from the roof tops and has to deal with him. The game of diplomacy must be played, and Starmer has so far managed this well. He had to avoid was looking like a supplicant, and for those watching at home this pit fall was side stepped. For now at least, where domestic politics are concerned, Labour is probably going to avoid any negative fall out from this meeting. But it won't always be as easy as this.
Image Credit
7 comments:
Many thanks for that. The mainstream media response to the visit was to hosannah the Second Coming so it’s good to read something more measured and informative, even if it does concede that Starmer was very successful. In the light of Starmer’s track record so far I’m extremely reluctant to grant the morally vacuous lair any credit for anything, but what you say is persuasive. How much weight should we give to the fact that with Trump, to speak is to lie - as re Zelensky? All Starmer got from him was words and “assurances”.
Something very off about the Chagos deal. Mauritius has never controlled the Chagos Islands, Chagossians are ethnically, culturally and linguistically distinct to Mauritians. Mauritius got a bung on independence to drop claims it inherited British Empire's (and before that French Empire's) imperialist claim to the territory (similar to Argentina claimed inheritance of Spanish imperialist claim to Falklands). Now the UK is going to pay Mauritius to take them (win for post-Imperial Imperialism) and allow them to settle Mauritians on them, not actual Chagossians, who can go swing (win for post-Colonial Colonialism). It puts Chagos Islands in Chinese imperialist orbit (win for non-Western/"right sort of"/Eastern Imperialism). Everybody knows some activist lawyer chums of Starmer are laughing all the way to the bank, but it can't be that simple? Okay, there was a non-binding ICJ ruling from a Chinese judge (a former CCP apparatchik), but I've a bridge to sell anyone who takes that seriously.
As for the mineral deal in Ukraine, that's a weird one too, reading people who actually know about the subject suggests it's incredibly speculative. It's true Ukraine has deposits of these things, but a lot of them are not 'reserves' in the technical sense (the term reserve is widely misunderstood), so the actual value could be very little or even nothing. Whether Trump knows this is moot, for him it's a 'deal' he can sell domestically as a win (and if his critics fall for this schtick too, then that's probably a bonus). Presumably Trump's actual advisors on this matter know the difference between deposits, potential reserves and actual reserves? But, does any of it matter? Trump now has a reason to continue supporting Ukraine financially on the back of a 'great deal' that's mostly smoke and mirrors.
you seem to be fully on message with the British msm in your analysis of the farcical Starmer Trump meeting Phil. A Trump trade deal with UK to avoid tariffs will involve fully opening up our dying NHS to US health care vultures, never mind chlorinated chicken.
Despite your claim, there will be no armistice in Ukraine, because , despite the continuous msm messaging, the war is not at a stalemate. The Russians are clearly winning big time, and will keep going , well beyond the Dneiper river , to ensure a rump Ukraine is no longer a NATO base for permanent war against Russia. Hungary, Poland, and Romania will probably eventually recover their various historic lands from remnant Ukraine.
ANY bogus NATO peacekeeping force intervention will be destroyed in days by overwhelming Russian firepower , and the US under Trump will do nothing. And bloody good too, as a US v Russia direct confrontation means global thermonuclear war. Time for Left blogs like yours to look beyond the msm for their source information on the Ukraine war methinks. Hint, everything the msm has said about the reasons for the war and its progress has been a lie.
The Left needs to deploy the same cynicism it correctly exhibits on msm reporting about Gaza to the NATO proxy war in Ukraine on Russia too. Clue, the Russian invasion of 2022 was very, very, far from unprovoked. And yes I do know Putin is a gangster oligarch , head of a oligarchy facade democracy, but then Biden and Trump are too, and Starmer, and his New Labour cronies are merely paid comprador creatures of the US hegemon in yet another facade democracy. The fact is that NATO caused the war, with the intent to destroy Russia as a unitary state and loot the broken up remnants.
And the meeting seems to have made no impact in the USA with no media oulets focusing on it. So Trump does not need to 'live up' to.
And Trump may say the opposite tomorrow of what he said today - and claim a completely different agreement was reached.
"Hint, everything the msm has said about the reasons for the war and its progress has been a lie."
Sounds like "all the people who disagree with me on matters of fact are lying". Now where have I heard that before?
I'm impressed with @Kamo's concern about the Chagos Islanders. I am sure he has been raising these over and again with previous governments, demanding that the islands be returned to the Chagossians and that they be allowed home from exile in...Crawley. Talk about the Gulag! Anyway, this solidarity with colonial liberation is clearly deep-rooted. So, Bravo! Not quite sure how he managed to lever in mention of China and a dig at the ICJ while sneering at the French, Mauritians, and lawyers, but a second Bravo for that neat piece of bigotry, stereotyping, anti-wokery and racism. It's not often you get so many intellectual Gammonite bingo hits in one para!
@Anonymouse 1 - most of eastern Europe is a complicated mix of people, lands and territorial claims. The idea that there are 'historic lands' is queasily reminiscent of a certain German gentleman. Germany, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, Russia, Romania, Hungary, Moldova, etc have all intermingled and exchanged people and land over the past couple of millenia and more. Trying to untangle that and establish a definitive set of boundaries is a fool's errand. Pretending that Putin has any better claim than anyone else, other than that of might, is even dafter. He was provoked, but he was always going to want more than the Ukrainians wanted to give him. Inches and miles spring to mind.
Post a Comment