Can the Ukrainian crisis do for Keir Starmer what the Falklands war did for Margaret Thatcher over forty years ago and help him to escape his domestic travails and win a meaningful role on the world stage. She was said to have had a “good war” in 1982. Can he do the same today?
It’s not all that daft a question, as the parallels are, at times, quite eerie. If we substitute General Galtieri, the fascist dictator who ran Argentina and invaded the Falkland Islands by claiming his country owned them, for Vladimir Putin, the vicious autocrat who invaded Ukraine by claiming it was part of Russia, the similarity becomes clear.
According to the opinion polls at the time, Thatcher was the most unpopular prime minister that Britain ever had when, less than three years after winning a general election, the Falklands were invaded. Starmer is not far off that record after only nine months in power.
In Maggie’s case, aided and abetted by some real warriors in her military and naval entourage – especially the latter – she sent a task force 7000 miles to the South Atlantic, recaptured the islands and freed the British subjects who lived there and wished to remain British subjects. Her action cemented, once and for all, her image that she wasn’t a Brit to be trifled with.
And so she began to show the world that she really was the Iron Lady – a supposed insulting nickname bestowed on her by the Soviet Union, which she gladly accepted and revelled in for the rest of her life. She won back a British dependency by force of arms but also saw off the faint hearts in both her own government and in the international community. These included, it must be said, senior voices in the US government.
Starmer’s case is very different but there are clear signs that he, too, has the opportunity to improve his reputation as a statesman in spite of the apparent shortcomings in his perhaps over hasty pledges – like not enough troops to send to Ukraine as peacekeepers and not much diplomatic clout to act as a transatlantic go-between.
But his latest moves have been made in the correct direction and have surprised many. Not only that but he has also been denounced by the Kremlin – “unacceptable” they’ve called his interventions – which is worth any number of “Brownie points” in the international insults league table.
In addition, while much of the rest of Europe has looked dumbstruck, the British premier has hardly stopped moving and appearing wholly business-like in seeking to find a way of bolstering President Zelensky’s confidence and by seeking to take the sting out of the disgraceful attacks on him by President Trump.
In a three-pronged note of defiance before his meeting with Trump on Thursday, Starmer is to outline what’s being called a “triple whammy” against Vladimir Putin. The Ministry of Defence is to announce more military aid for Ukraine, the Foreign Office plans more sanctions against Russia and the Home Office is considering a crackdown on the so-called “dirty money” of Russian oligarchs.
But now we’re getting to the difficult bit for Starmer. It’s one thing to disagree with “The Donald” while you’re thousands of miles away on the other side of the Atlantic; entirely another to tell him to his face.
The diplomatic world reckon there are many pitfalls looming as he prepares for his Thursday face to face with Trump, who thus far has made complimentary remarks about the British premier. He’s said to like Britain, his mother was a MacLeod from Lewis, and he’s made nothing like the same amount of threats against the UK that he’s fired at others.
But for his part, Starmer is winning plaudits at home and abroad for, defiantly standing up to Trump then and for visibly and verbally disagreeing with him in public and fully supporting Ukraine, its brave people and its brave president who is not a dictator but a democratically elected leader. And its determination not to be excluded from the decisions about its future.
British leaders have too often avoided arguments with US presidents for fear of endangering the supposed “special relationship”. But it is Trump who appears keen to cast it aside while Starmer appears ready to argue for its continuance … but not at any price.
His aim this week should be to encourage Trump to help Ukraine avoid Putin’s blood soaked embrace. A tall order, perhaps, but one well worth the effort.
Can the Ukrainian crisis do for Keir Starmer what the Falklands war did for Margaret Thatcher over forty years ago and help him to escape his domestic travails and win a meaningful role on the world stage. She was said to have had a “good war” in 1982. Can he do the same today?
It’s not all that daft a question, as the parallels are, at times, quite eerie. If we substitute General Galtieri, the fascist dictator who ran Argentina and invaded the Falkland Islands by claiming his country owned them, for Vladimir Putin, the vicious autocrat who invaded Ukraine by claiming it was part of Russia, the similarity becomes clear.
According to the opinion polls at the time, Thatcher was the most unpopular prime minister that Britain ever had when, less than three years after winning a general election, the Falklands were invaded. Starmer is not far off that record after only nine months in power.
In Maggie’s case, aided and abetted by some real warriors in her military and naval entourage – especially the latter – she sent a task force 7000 miles to the South Atlantic, recaptured the islands and freed the British subjects who lived there and wished to remain British subjects. Her action cemented, once and for all, her image that she wasn’t a Brit to be trifled with.
And so she began to show the world that she really was the Iron Lady – a supposed insulting nickname bestowed on her by the Soviet Union, which she gladly accepted and revelled in for the rest of her life. She won back a British dependency by force of arms but also saw off the faint hearts in both her own government and in the international community. These included, it must be said, senior voices in the US government.
Starmer’s case is very different but there are clear signs that he, too, has the opportunity to improve his reputation as a statesman in spite of the apparent shortcomings in his perhaps over hasty pledges – like not enough troops to send to Ukraine as peacekeepers and not much diplomatic clout to act as a transatlantic go-between.
But his latest moves have been made in the correct direction and have surprised many. Not only that but he has also been denounced by the Kremlin – “unacceptable” they’ve called his interventions – which is worth any number of “Brownie points” in the international insults league table.
In addition, while much of the rest of Europe has looked dumbstruck, the British premier has hardly stopped moving and appearing wholly business-like in seeking to find a way of bolstering President Zelensky’s confidence and by seeking to take the sting out of the disgraceful attacks on him by President Trump.
In a three-pronged note of defiance before his meeting with Trump on Thursday, Starmer is to outline what’s being called a “triple whammy” against Vladimir Putin. The Ministry of Defence is to announce more military aid for Ukraine, the Foreign Office plans more sanctions against Russia and the Home Office is considering a crackdown on the so-called “dirty money” of Russian oligarchs.
But now we’re getting to the difficult bit for Starmer. It’s one thing to disagree with “The Donald” while you’re thousands of miles away on the other side of the Atlantic; entirely another to tell him to his face.
The diplomatic world reckon there are many pitfalls looming as he prepares for his Thursday face to face with Trump, who thus far has made complimentary remarks about the British premier. He’s said to like Britain, his mother was a MacLeod from Lewis, and he’s made nothing like the same amount of threats against the UK that he’s fired at others.
But for his part, Starmer is winning plaudits at home and abroad for, defiantly standing up to Trump then and for visibly and verbally disagreeing with him in public and fully supporting Ukraine, its brave people and its brave president who is not a dictator but a democratically elected leader. And its determination not to be excluded from the decisions about its future.
British leaders have too often avoided arguments with US presidents for fear of endangering the supposed “special relationship”. But it is Trump who appears keen to cast it aside while Starmer appears ready to argue for its continuance … but not at any price.
His aim this week should be to encourage Trump to help Ukraine avoid Putin’s blood soaked embrace. A tall order, perhaps, but one well worth the effort.