FoR Member Lee Marsden shares his perspectives on how special the special relationship is
Special Relationship Myths and Peace in Ukraine
When President Trump was berating Volodymyr Zelensky for playing his cards poorly in the Oval Office, the British media were full of admiration for Keir Starmer playing the Special Relationship card. The ‘Special Relationship’ between the United States and the United Kingdom claims that this relationship is special because the two countries have shared values, a shared history, and have formed the closest economic and security ties of any two nations. UK ministers have traditionally enjoyed privileged access to policy makers in Washington DC. Through joint membership of NATO, Five Eyes intelligence sharing, trilateral defence agreements with Australia, US military bases in the UK and its overseas territories, and UK dependence on US military technology, including for its nuclear weapons, British reliance on America is obvious. What is not so clear is that this relationship, rather than dependency, is ‘special’.
The reality, made explicit, under this Trump presidency, is that the only special relationship America has is with itself. Keir Starmer’s attempt to position himself as a bridge between Europe and the United States makes for great headlines but Britain’s role in this asymmetric relationship is as a junior partner with limited ability to influence the United States or Europe. The Starmer 4-part peace plan negotiated with European and Canadian leaders, predicated on a US backstop, has already been rejected by Trump. Without US security guarantees the threat from a revanchist Russia remains. Starmer’s willingness to commit British troops to defend Ukraine in the event of any peace deal is the outworking of a militarist mindset, which believes in prolonging the war to negotiate from a position of strength. The added incentive for Starmer is his stated intention of increasing military expenditure and arms manufacture to drive growth and jobs in the British economy.
There is a peace deal to be had based on US/Russian terms, which cedes Ukrainian territory to Russia, raw earth minerals to the United States, and ends the fighting. Such a peace is a negative peace without justice. Enabling the aggressor to gain territory without repercussions serves as an incentive for Russia and other nations to pursue imperial ambitions with impunity. The United States’ own ambitions regarding Greenland, Gaza, Panama and Canada; China’s ambitions in Taiwan; Israel’s in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; and Russia’s in Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine will be emboldened.
In this scenario, Starmer’s encouragement of other European nations to Increase military expenditure at the expense of international aid and domestic welfare, is not so much a bridge between Europe and the United States but more a conduit for US foreign policy. Unlike when Tony Blair employed the same tactics in tying UK foreign policy to US interests, under George W. Bush, the United States are no longer a reliable partner or ally.
The primary responsibility, under the United Nations Charter, for the maintenance of international peace and security lies with the UN Security Council, of which Britain, France, Russia and the United States are permanent members. This body has the ability to adopt a resolution, formulate a precise mandate and establish a peace operation in Ukraine. If the British Prime Minister seeks a role in promoting a positive peace in Ukraine then it is best served through dialogue within the UN Security Council, involving Ukraine, and defending international law rather than facilitating a Trump-Putin stitch-up.
