Not surprisingly, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is facing an extremely difficult political landscape in which he must manage a deeply complex balancing act. His backing of more EU defense expenditures demonstrates his commitment to European defense yet his cautious stance toward President Trump’s mercurial strategy reveals the problems in Britain’s transatlantic relationships.

From one perspective, he acknowledges the requirement to strengthen NATO deterrence because Europe remains at risk from Russian aggression. At the same time, he must realize that Trump's transactional foreign policy focuses more on economic leverage than on military commitments which could leave Europe vulnerable when it needs protection the most.

The choice for Starmer is not merely which side to take — Europe or the U.S. — but rather how to position Britain in the security architecture of the world after Brexit. Starmer knows that Ukraine cannot be defended by Europe on its own, especially with the deep fissures in the EU over how to share the financial and military burden. Yet, the Trump administration's plan to prevent Russian aggression in Ukraine through corporate interests fails to qualify as serious defense policy because it is “corporate pragmatism” and “economic opportunism” pretending to be strategic thinking.

Starmer’s situation is aggravated by the fact that he must work in an environment where his domestic agenda, including restoring the United Kingdom’s economy and........

© The Hill