When Prime Minister Keir Starmer swept out the Conservative government in July, he promised a new era for British politics and a reset of its relations with the European Union. One thing hasn’t changed: Britain’s bitter dealings with an aggressive Russia. If anything, the bad blood has gotten worse.
Tensions between London and Moscow spiked this week over signs that the United States, prodded by Britain, is moving toward allowing Ukraine to use Western-supplied missiles to strike military targets deep inside Russian territory.
As Mr. Starmer arrived in Washington on Friday for potentially decisive talks with President Biden, he and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia traded harsh words, while Russia said it had expelled six British diplomats.
The missiles are becoming the first major foreign policy test of Mr. Starmer’s premiership — one with security implications for all of Europe. Britain’s diplomatic offensive has put it at the vanguard of a broader European campaign for support of Ukraine, at a moment of deep political uncertainty in the United States, which could limit a future American role in resisting an advancing Russia.
Mr. Starmer and Mr. Biden are expected to discuss the terms under which Ukraine would get a green light to use Britain’s “Storm Shadow” long-range missiles inside Russia. Getting Mr. Biden to sign off on such strikes is critical, analysts said, for symbolic and operational reasons: the missiles use satellite data and other technology supplied by the United States.
“We want to move with the Americans on this,” said Peter Ricketts, a former British national security adviser. “We’re now in a period where Biden isn’t running for office, so he can focus completely on his legacy. Starmer wants to play into that to encourage him to go as far as he can on Ukraine.”
British officials played down the likelihood of an announcement immediately after the meeting. But a drumbeat of statements this week by Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and the British foreign secretary, David Lammy — who traveled together to Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, to meet with President Volodymyr Zelensky — suggested that a shift in the policy was in the offing.
That, in turn, drew a threat from Mr. Putin, who seemed to suggest that he would view this step as a de facto declaration of war. “This will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia,” he said, according to state media.
Hours later, en route to Washington, Mr. Starmer shot back, facing down Mr. Putin’s threat while saying he was not seeking war. “Russia started this conflict. Russia illegally invaded Ukraine. Russia can end this conflict straight away,” he told reporters. “Ukraine has the right to self-defense.”
On Friday, Russia announced it had revoked the accreditation of six British diplomats in Moscow — an act it carried out a month ago — on the grounds that they were involved in espionage and sabotage. Britain’s Foreign Office dismissed the charges as “completely baseless,” and added, “We are unapologetic about protecting our national interests.”
In May, Britain expelled a senior Russian diplomat in London, claiming that he was an “undeclared” military intelligence officer, and shut down several Russian diplomatic facilities in the country.
Bolstering Ukraine ahead of an uncertain U.S. election
Britain has long viewed itself as a catalyst for military support of Ukraine by its allies. Its shipment of Storm Shadow missiles in 2023 paved the way for the United States to send surface-to-surface Army Tactical Missile Systems — known as ATACMS. Its decision that same year to send Challenger tanks opened the door for the United States and Germany to send their own tanks.
Unlike in the United States, where former President Donald J. Trump has vowed a very different approach to Russia than Mr. Biden, there is remarkable continuity on the war between Mr. Starmer’s Labour Party and the Conservatives.
Mr. Starmer threw his support behind the last government when it pledged to increase military aid in January. “We will remain united across our political parties in defense of Ukraine against that aggression from Putin,” he said, warning of the problems that fester “when politics goes soft on Putin.”
It is the prospect of a dramatic change in the White House, analysts said, that drove Mr. Starmer to get into a room with Mr. Biden now. He opted to make the 24-hour visit to Washington, even though he plans to travel to New York in two weeks for the United Nations General Assembly. Busy schedules would have made it difficult for Mr. Starmer and Mr. Biden to get this much one-on-one time at the United Nations, according to a British diplomat.
With long-term American support no longer something the West can take for granted, diplomats and analysts said, Britain’s ultimate goal is to give Ukraine the best chance to hold its own in a future peace negotiation with Russia.
“People in the U.K. are very nervous about what Trump will do,” said Malcolm Chalmers, the deputy director general of the Royal United Services Institute, a research organization in London. “What does it mean when he says he wants a settlement? Maybe even he doesn’t know.”
Those fears — that Mr. Trump could promote a peace deal with Russia that would leave large parts of Ukraine in Russian hands — have also fueled Britain’s diplomatic outreach to France and Germany. Mr. Lammy’s first stop after becoming foreign secretary in July was Berlin, and Mr. Starmer traveled to meet President Emmanuel Macron of France and Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany.
France collaborates with Britain in building the Storm Shadow system, so its support is also viewed as important. In the run-up to the war, Mr. Macron worked harder than Boris Johnson, Britain’s prime minister at the time, to find a diplomatic solution with Mr. Putin. But France has become increasingly robust in its support of Ukraine as the conflict has dragged on.
“One of the reasons for the U.K. to have good relations with Europe is that it will have to rely on them if the Americans are absent,” Mr. Chalmers said.
A long history of distrust
For all his support of Ukraine, Mr. Starmer has also made it clear Britain is not seeking a conflict with Russia. “That’s not our intention in the slightest,” he said to reporters on his plane Thursday.
And Britain’s defense secretary, John Healey, has stressed the need for Ukrainians to adhere to international humanitarian law in using British-supplied weapons. That is in keeping with the Labour government’s broader emphasis on international law in conflict. It recently announced it would suspend the shipment of some weapons to Israel, citing a legal review.
“We’re providing weapons to Ukraine for their defense of their sovereign country,” Mr. Healey said in July. “That does not preclude them hitting targets in Russia, but that must be done by the Ukrainians. It must be done within the parameters and the bounds of international humanitarian law.”
Mr. Starmer is the first Labour prime minister in decades to face a Cold War-style freeze with Russia. One of his predecessors, Tony Blair, once spoke of his desire to give Mr. Putin a seat at the “top table,” reflecting a widely held view that Russia could play a constructive role in counterterrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Still, Britain has instinctively taken a hard line toward Russia, ever since Winston Churchill warned of an “Iron Curtain” after World War II. Recent relations never recovered from 2018, when a former Russian intelligence agent and his daughter were poisoned with a nerve agent in Salisbury, England. Britain blamed the operation on Russia’s military intelligence.
Given that rancorous history, foreign policy experts brushed off Russia’s latest expulsion of British diplomats.
“This is just punishment treatment for the U.K. being cheerleaders in the supplying of weapons to Ukraine,” said Mr. Ricketts, who also served as Britain’s representative to NATO. “It’s a typical example of Russian intimidation tactics.”
The post Biden Hasn’t Let Kyiv Strike Deep Into Russia. Could Britain Change That? appeared first on New York Times.
