SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
keir starmer
If We Want Peace in Ukraine: What Now?
Sometimes it is okay to say what's obvious: a stable peace settlement must be one that meets enough of Russia’s, and Ukraine’s, essential conditions. If they cannot be made minimally compatible, there will be no settlement.
Mar 03, 2025
Full details are yet to emerge of the “peace plan” that the UK, EU and Ukrainian leaders worked out in London on Sunday, and are to present to the Trump administration. But from what they have said so far, while one part is necessary and even essential, another is obstructive and potentially disastrous.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said after the summit that the following four points were agreed: To keep providing military aid to Ukraine; that Ukraine must participate in all peace talks; that European states will aim to deter any future Russian invasion of Ukraine; and that they will form a "coalition of the willing" to defend Ukraine and guarantee peace there in future.
This, Starmer said, would mean a European “peacekeeping” force including British troops. However, he has previously said that it would be essential for the U.S. to provide a security “backstop” for such a force. In other words, after all the talk of Europe “stepping up” and the need for European security “independence” from the Washington, this would in fact make Europe even more dependent on Washington, because it would put European troops in an extremely dangerous situation from which (not for the first time) they would expect the U.S. to save them in case of trouble.
While negotiations continue, so should existing levels of Western military aid, for otherwise the Russian government may be emboldened to reject any reasonable compromise. The Russian government has however repeatedly rejected any peacekeeping force including troops from NATO countries, which for Moscow is simply the equivalent of NATO membership. Trying to insert this into a proposed peace settlement is therefore either pointless or a deliberate attempt to derail the negotiations.
There is also a risk that the Ukrainian leadership (which, as Friday’s clash with Trump demonstrated, is prey to some very serious illusions about its position) may be emboldened to reject a compromise peace, and thereby end up with a very much worse one.
The idea that a powerful Western military force is also necessary to “guarantee” a peace settlement against future Russian aggression is moreover based on the fundamental misconception that there can be in international affairs any such thing as an absolute and permanent “guarantee.”
My colleagues George Beebe, Mark Episkopos and I discuss the actual terms of a settlement in a new brief, “Peace Through Strength: Sources of US Leverage in Negotiations.”
Those terms that Russia could accept and that would provide reasonable hope of enduring peace are the following: Firstly, that Ukraine should continue to receive from the West and help to produce the defensive weapons with which they have so far fought the Russian army almost to a standstill and inflicted very heavy casualties: drones, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, landmines, 155 mm howitzers and the ammunition for them. Long-range missiles capable of striking deep into Russian territory should be excluded as part of the peace settlement, but with the proviso that the West would of course provide them if Russia resumed the war.
Secondly, there should be a United Nations peacekeeping force with soldiers drawn from genuinely neutral states from the “Global South.” Russia calls these countries “the Global Majority” and has made reaching out to them a central part of its international strategy. Several are also fellow members of the BRICS group. Indian, Brazilian and South African peacekeepers would not be able to defeat a new Russian invasion (or a Ukrainian resumption of the war) — but Moscow would be deeply unwilling to risk killing them.
Finally, and obviously, a stable peace settlement must be one that meets enough of Russia’s, and Ukraine’s, essential conditions. If they cannot be made minimally compatible, there will be no settlement. It is however utterly pointless for European leaders to go on imagining that a peace can somehow be imposed on the Russian government, and not negotiated with it. They should pay heed when Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that peace can only come to Ukraine if Putin is involved in the negotiations, and that Trump "is the only person on Earth who has any chance whatsoever of bringing him to a table to see what it is he would be willing to end the war on."
The behavior of the European governments is shaped by a belief in limitless Russian territorial ambition, hostility to the West, and reckless aggression that if genuinely held, would seem to make any pursuit of peace utterly pointless. The only sensible Western strategy would be to cripple or destroy Russia as a state — the only problem being, as Trump has stated, that this would probably lead to World War III and the end of civilization.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Starmer Condemned for Pushing 'Cringeworthy' Trade Deal With Lax Tech Regulations
"A tech trade deal with Trump would roll out the red carpet to tech billionaire oligarchy," said one critic.
Feb 27, 2025
Rights campaigners in the United Kingdom on Thursday greeted the news that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had formally invited U.S. President Donald Trump to the U.K. for a state visit with a call for critics to "take to the streets" as they did during Trump's first term, as advocates condemned Starmer for "cozying up to a dangerous and megalomaniac U.S. president."
"This is the latest embarrassing step in Starmer's attempts to toady to Trump and provide a cloak of respectability to Trumpism," said the Stop Trump Coalition. "The British people reject Trumpism and all those in power who appease Trump. History will not be kind to this club of Trumpism cheerleaders."
Nick Dearden, director of the anti-poverty campaign group Global Justice Now, added that critics plan to "welcome" the U.S. president "in the traditional manner" after Starmer presented Trump with an official invitation from King Charles.
Starmer invited the president during his first meeting at the White House since Trump was elected to serve a second term in November, which came as a bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers introduced legislation to authorize comprehensive trade talks between the two countries regarding "tariff and nontariff barriers affecting any industry, product, or service sector."
Ahead of the meeting, Starmer told reporters that his message to Trump would be "really simple, that there is no more important relationship for the United Kingdom [than the U.S.], in defense, in security, in trade, in tech, in finance, and so much more."
"We are reforming permitting, getting things built, reducing barriers to investment and growth. And we're open for business, open for investment, and we're determined to help U.S. innovators thrive in the United Kingdom," said Starmer. "So my message is we want to work with you, we want to welcome you to Britain, we want a new partnership, because our history shows that when we work together, great things happen."
The comments were indicative of Starmer's push for cooperation with the U.S. on artificial intelligence and other "advanced technologies," which the new British ambassador to the U.S., Peter Mandelson, has dubbed a plan to "Make Our Economies Great Again," or MEGA.
Dearden called the proposal "cringeworthy" ahead of Starmer's meeting.
"We need to stop this," he said. "A tech trade deal with Trump would roll out the red carpet to tech billionaire oligarchy."
Global Justice Now earlier this month denounced Starmer and Trump for refusing to join 60 international signatories in supporting a declaration backing "inclusive and sustainable" AI at a summit in Paris, with U.S. Vice President JD Vance saying the Trump administration objected to "excessive regulation" of technology and critics suggesting the U.K. Labour government was attempting to curry favor with Trump.
Dearden said last week that any trade negotiations with the U.S. were likely to see Trump "pushing the demands of Big Tech oligarchs who want to avoid tax and regulation in the U.K."
"People in the U.K. don't want to see a wrecking ball taken to our regulations, standards, and public services, especially when we'e talking about new technologies like AI where we're only just beginning to get to grips with the dangers," said Dearden.
The U.K. is pushing to avoid the tariffs Trump has threatened for Canadian, Mexican, and E.U. imports. Trump said earlier this month that he believed differences with the U.K. on trade "can be worked out." He said Thursday that the tariffs targeting Canada and Mexico are set to take effect next week.
Dearden warned last week that with trade talks taking place behind closed doors, "tech titans" will be empowered "to make their demands away from the public gaze."
"Any potential for a Trump trade deal," he said, "must be taken off the table immediately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'To Appease Trump,' UK Labour Government Cuts Foreign Aid and Boosts Military Spending
"It is a day of shame for Britain," said Global Justice Now.
Feb 25, 2025
Ahead of his first meeting at the White House since U.S. President Donald Trump began a second term in office, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Tuesday announced that the U.K. government would significantly boost military spending—and pay for the increase by cutting foreign aid—following repeated demands from Trump that European countries pay more for the defense of the continent.
The announcement, said human rights group Global Justice Now, represented "politics at its most base," with Starmer apparently bowing to pressure from the U.S. president—a move that is likely to lead to increased suffering in the Global South as developing countries are projected to lose millions of dollars in assistance.
"To appease Trump, he will cut aid to its lowest level in a generation, forcing the poorest to pay so he can push taxpayer money into the coffers of arms corporations," said Nick Dearden, director of the group.
In order to increase military spending, he pointed out, the Labour government could introduce policies such as a wealth tax—supported by nearly two-thirds of Britons—or "scrapping white elephants like Trident," the U.K. nuclear program.
"Instead, Starmer has taken it from the mouths of the hungriest people in the world," said Dearden. "It is a day of shame for Britain."
Under the new spending plan, Starmer said military spending will be increased to 2.5% of economic output by 2027, rising to 3% by the next government's term, which would begin in 2034 at the latest.
The country will spend £13.4 billion ($17 billion) more per year on defense between now and 2027, while overseas development aid spending will be reduced to 0.3% of gross domestic product (GDP), down from 0.5%.
In 2023, the U.K. spent £15.34 billion ($19.4 billion) on foreign aid.
"It will damage efforts to tackle global health needs and pandemics. It will add to economic instability internationally. The impacts will have direct consequences for children and families in the U.K. as well as around the world."
Starmer said he was not "happy to make" the decision, but stressed that "the defense and security of the British people must always come first."
But in addition to being "a betrayal of the world's most vulnerable children," saidMoazzam Malik, CEO of Save the Children, the aid cuts will also harm "the U.K.'s national interest."
"By jeopardizing the U.K.'s partnership with countries across the world and international organizations, it signals a withdrawal from efforts to tackle climate change, global poverty and inequality, and conflict and humanitarian needs," said Malik. "It will damage efforts to tackle global health needs and pandemics. It will add to economic instability internationally. The impacts will have direct consequences for children and families in the U.K. as well as around the world."
"This decision comes at a time when global solidarity has never been more important," Malik added. "Other countries will watch the U.K.'s decision and are likely to follow suit in reducing commitments to international collaboration. It will undermine aspirations to build a 'rules-based order' that is so essential for the U.K.'s long-term security and prosperity. It will make the world a more dangerous place for children now and in the future."
Trump has frequently, falsely claimed that the U.S. has provided the majority of international support to Ukraine as it faces Russia's war on the Eastern European country. European countries have provided more than €132 billion ($138 billion) to Ukraine since January 2022 while the U.S. has provided just over €114 billion ($119 billion).
Malik noted that Starmer pledged to "stand with Ukraine" earlier this week.
"Now he's serving notice on the support needed by the country's children, who have been forced from their homes, seen their schools bombed and lived in fear for three years," he said. "Through U.K. aid, we all help protect children facing the worst the world has to offer. We have every reason to be proud of it and the government should fearlessly protect it."
Since Trump took office again, his billionaire backer, tech mogul Elon Musk, has used his Department of Government Efficiency to make massive cuts to federal agencies, effectively dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Romilly Greenhill, chief executive of Bond, a network of international aid groups in the U.K., called the Labour government's announcement "a shortsighted and appalling move by both the prime minister and Treasury," noting that former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson already cut foreign aid down from 0.7% of the GDP.
"Slashing the already diminished U.K. aid budget to fund an uplift in defense is a reckless decision that will have devastating consequences for millions of marginalized people worldwide," said Greenhill. "Following in the U.S.'s footsteps will not only undermine the U.K.'s global commitments and credibility, but also weaken our own national security interests. Instead of stepping up, the U.K. is turning its back on communities facing poverty, conflict, and insecurity, further damaging its credibility on the global stage."
Former U.K. International Development Secretary Clare Short toldLabourList that cutting foreign aid to fund the military could irrevocably damage Starmer's center-left party.
"I am afraid that, in many respects, this is simply not a Labour government," said Short. "The coalition of voters that have supported Labour since its foundation, low-income people, the morally concerned middle class, internationalists and supporters of the United Nations and international law, will splinter and the traditional Labour Party will be destroyed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular