Keir Starmer, relatively new in his role, has taken on a significant challenge.
He aims to establish a European security plan, potentially replacing some American influence.
Transcript:
Lewis Goodall
Date as to what we think had happened and what was in Agents. And it was an extraordinary moment. Easy to forget how little time Keir Starmer has been in this job, way short of a year. And yet already this quite unlikely figure has basically been asked to pick up the mantle of European security and being asked to prove, to do something that European leaders have essentially Not done for 80 years, security to try and replace at least some, perhaps not all, but some of the American strength which has dominated the European continent for 80 years and prove To a very, very sceptical Donald Trump that Europeans are serious about their own security and can be a reliable partner for him? (Time 0:01:28)
US and NATO's Future
The key question is whether NATO and US involvement in Europe is ending.
Starmer and Macron believe America can be persuaded to remain involved, despite Trump's stance.
Transcript:
Jon Sopel
Yeah, I think this is the key to it. I mean, there is the sort of micro question of what happens in Ukraine, which is not such a micro question. It's a huge question, what happens in Ukraine. But there is the much bigger question of whether, frankly, NATO is done, whether the US is about to say, OK, we're out of NATO, we're out of the United Nations, we're on our own, you know, Goodbye, everybody, we don't want any of this any longer. And Keir Starmer is the man who is clinging to the belief that America can be brought on side and Macron as well. And that was their kind of pincer movement, if you like, at the White House last week, which was to encourage the deal, which then got blown up by the madness of Friday's scenes in the White House between Zelensky and Donald Trump, when arguably Zelensky misjudged the way he was going to talk to Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. And J.D. Vance and Donald Trump, frankly, were monstrous in the way that they treated him. But they were playing to the MAGA crowd. And the striking thing for me today has been the MAGA crowd is not pushing back and saying, come on, Ukraine was invaded by Russia. (Time 0:02:23)
Starmer's Four-Point Plan
Starmer presented a four-point plan at Lancaster House, focusing on strengthening Ukraine's negotiating position.
The plan involves financial aid, military support, and learning from past mistakes like the Minsk agreement.
Transcript:
Jon Sopel
Russia is our enemy. They're falling in behind Donald Trump for the most part.
Lewis Goodall
Stalmer unveiled what he said was a four-point plan that he had agreed with the other leaders of Lancaster House.
Speaker 3
And I think it might just be worth listening to that plan in some length. Our starting point must be to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position now so that they can negotiate from a position of strength. And we are doubling down in our support. Yesterday evening, the UK signed a £2.2 billion loan to provide more military aid to Ukraine, backed not by the British taxpayer, but by the profits from frozen Russian assets. And today I'm announcing a new deal which allows Ukraine to use £1.6 billion of UK export finance to buy more than 5,000 air defence missiles, which will be made in Belfast, creating Jobs in our brilliant defence sector. This will be vital for protecting critical infrastructure now and strengthen Ukraine in securing the peace when it comes. Because we have to learn from the mistakes of the past. We cannot accept a weak deal like Minsk, which Russia can breach with ease. Instead, any deal must be backed by strength. Every nation must contribute to that in the best way that it can bringing different capabilities and support to the table but all taking responsibility to act all (Time 0:03:40)
Starmer's Confidence Trick
Starmer's plan involves persuading Trump and Putin that Europe is serious about security.
This involves demonstrating a strong deterrent force and convincing Trump that a deal can work without extensive US involvement.
Transcript:
Lewis Goodall
Look, I think what, I've got to think, what was Starmer trying to achieve here, right? And it seems to me that he had two audiences and there are two stages to it. So the two audiences, it seems to me he's trying to pull off, to some extent, a little bit of a confidence trick, right? As you say, John, it was clear what the plan was last week. The plan last week was for Macron to go in, Starmer to go in, to kind of warm it up for Zelensky, try and persuade, softly, softly, persuade Trump that it was still worth backing Ukraine, Backing the minerals deal, that there was something in it for him, keep the aid flowing, etc, etc. All going terribly well until Thursday. And then, of course, the meltdown, the showdown takes place in the Oval Office. We all know what happened next. So what's Starmer trying to do is a kind of try and compensate for that. Well, the confidence trick, I think, is that he's trying to persuade both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at very, very short notice that Europe and European nations are serious about Their own security and would be able to corral a force that would be strong enough to be a deterrent for Putin, big, big ask, and secondly, be convincing enough for Trump to make him think That a deal could actually work without the Americans getting too involved, right? That is a big, big ask to try and create the impression, create the space that those things can be achieved. And that is just stage one, right? So if you can convince Putin that you've got a big enough deterrent to actually make it worth him coming to the table and not do anything else in terms of invading other parts of Europe And persuade Donald Trump that the Europeans are actually serious about their own security, if you can just do that in principle, then you actually have to get to the second bit, which Is actually work out the details of how any deal would work. (Time 0:05:59)
Vibes vs. Reality
Starmer's approach has been impressive, showing strong leadership within Europe.
However, concrete achievements are needed beyond the positive image.
Transcript:
Lewis Goodall
Look, John, as you say, I think Stammer in many ways, certainly in terms of the presentation of this, of stepping into the void where America might once have been, has been very impressive. In fact, I think he's played a blinder. I think he's got his own style, which is unshowy, which, you know, many people have tried to pressure him to be more vituperative towards Trump and so on. And that can seem a bit stodgy and frustrating that he's not. But I think he's playing it exactly rightly, which is to at least try, try to maintain an open dialogue with the White House, whilst at the same time, making it very clear, not being merely Mad about it, and very clear in terms of his actions with his proximity to Zelensky, meeting him on the downing street, not just on the steps, but walking down the street, down the street To meet Zelensky. It was very powerful. And in some ways was actually quite emotional. And particularly in the last few years, many people have felt for lots and lots of different reasons that Britain has been rather absent from its leadership role, particularly within Europe. It has not felt like that over the course of the last 48 hours. On the contrary, it's felt that Starmer has been at the heart of European response. And I think, you know, that has to be much commended. (Time 0:10:14)
MAGA Support
Despite the Oval Office showdown, MAGA Republicans continue to support Trump's stance.
Tulsi Gabbard highlighted diverging values between the US and Europe, echoing calls for Zelensky to change course or resign.
Transcript:
Jon Sopel
And if you were looking for some signs that maybe the Republican MAGA crowd thought that Trump and Vance had gone too far in Friday's showdown at the Oval Office, forget it. You know, you had Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, talking about how Europe and America's values were diverging.
Lewis Goodall
Have a listen. Well, I want to focus, first of all, on President Trump's goal and the reality that's on the ground. And that's the thing that seems to be getting lost in in what we're seeing in President Zelensky's statements in the White House and the European leaders response to this. President Trump recognizes the urgent need to end this war after three long bloody years and has proven that he is the only person that can do this. President Zelensky has different aims in mind. He has said that he wants to end this war, but he will only accept an end, apparently, that leads to what he views as Ukraine's victory, even if it comes at an incredibly high cost of potentially World War III or even a nuclear war. President Trump is committed to peace and to freedom. We're seeing this big divergence here. Yeah, and that was echoed by Trump's national security advisor, Waltz as well, going on the morning shows and reiterating some of the calls that we'd heard from Senator Lindsey Graham, A staunch Trump ally, but also the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, all basically suggesting in one form or another that Zelensky had to, quote, change course, whatever that means, Or resign. (Time 0:15:06)
Trump, Putin, and Vance
Trump's rant comparing himself to Putin as a victim of a witch hunt reveals his deep personal feelings.
Vance's aggressive stance on Zelensky indicates a trend of out-Trumping Trump for political gain.
Transcript:
Lewis Goodall
And I don't think, John, that that pressure on Zelensky, American distaste for Ukraine, is going to get any better. I mean, this is where I think that Starmer and Macron, one of the many reasons they're going to struggle. What was so revealing about that exchange on Friday? There were many things about it. One, there was this extraordinary rant that Trump went on at one point where he basically compared himself to Putin. He basically said that he and Putin together had been victims of a witch hunt, referring back to the Russia hoax, as he put it, in 2016-17. He invited the entire audience to pity Vladimir Putin, to say that he had been a victim of this terrible thing, that this was an orchestration of Hillary Clinton and of the DNC and the Democrats, etc, etc, etc. He still feels this deeply, personally, and indeed has extended this kind of shared suffering between him and Putin. That's going to be very, very hard to dislodge. Another element is Vance himself. People have noted, I think entirely rightly, it was Vance who was most on the attack on Friday. He was the kind of collective crab and goyle to Donald Trump's Malfoy. That's a Harry Potter reference, John, just so you know. But you know, and he, he, and why is he doing that? Something we've learned in the last six weeks, right? Vance spent the transition period, didn't he, being a bit of a kind of bit part to Elon Musk and to Trump, RFK and the cast of characters that were around during the transition. But he's emerged since, clearly perhaps aware of that, made two massive interventions. Munich, basically saying loads of stuff about freedom of speech and Europe and Russia that I'm sure he doesn't believe. And then on Friday in the Omerville office, gunning for Zelensky more aggressively than Trump. This is going to be a constant of the next four years. Vance and all of the heirs apparent to Trump, basically tying to out Trump Trump and out Maga Maga at every single opportunity. Vance knew what he was doing on Friday. He knew that that was going to get played a million times, a million, million times, and he'll be talking about it for the next four years. Feels to me very unlikely that he's going to turn around and say to Trump, oh no, let's stick with it. (Time 0:19:44)
Vance's Ideology
J.D. Vance provides the intellectual framework for Trump's instincts, making him a more dangerous prospect.
European policymakers view Vance as a potential accelerator of Trump's isolationist policies.
Transcript:
Jon Sopel
Know, on Friday's episode, I said, look, if you want to compare it to a TV dramas, this is not the West Wing. This is the Sopranos, which would make J.D. Vance the henchman. J.D. Vance ain't just Knuckles. He's not just the guy spoiling for the fight. J.D. Vance is the intellectual underpinning of a lot of this. He is the ideologue who has kind of intellectually worked this out. I think Donald Trump works a lot on instincts. Oh, America's being ripped off by NATO. Why are we doing this? America first. We should be at home worrying about our own people, not what's going on in Europe. I think those are all instincts. I think J.D. Vance has a pretty worked out ideology of how he sees America in the future and its very much more isolationist role. And someone said to me, the only thing more terrifying than Trump having the presidency again is the idea that J.D. Vance is a heartbeat away from it. And I think that J.D. Vance will accelerate. You know, if anything happened to Donald Trump, you know, he shuffled off his mortal coil, J.D. Vance would be Trump times five. And I'm sure European policymakers are looking at that and thinking it is a very scary prospect, not just now, but could be even scarier. (Time 0:21:48)
Trust and Reliability
The core disagreement between Trump and Zelensky revolves around trust in Putin and America's reliability.
Starmer acknowledges America's importance as an ally but recognizes the need for a European plan with US backing.
Transcript:
Lewis Goodall
And that is what is at the heart of what Starmer is working on at the moment and what the trick, sort of circle he's trying to square because what was the sort of center of the conflagration On Friday actually all really erupted and kicked off because of a disagreement between Zelensky and Trump and Vance basically about two things about whether you could trust Putin And about whether America would be a guarantor And for Ukraine and for Europe to believe that the US would be an effective security guarantor, you have to trust them and you have to believe That they'll be there for you, that when push comes to shove, if the bullets start firing, that America will be there for you. And that was a question that in one way or another put to Keir Starmer at that press conference, whether we can trust President Trump. Given that the US has become an unreliable ally, did you as European leaders discuss the prospect of actually going it alone? And actually what the reality of a US pulling out of this, all of this would mean. Do you think you really do need the US? And if you do, do you think the coalition of the willing will be enough to bring President Trump back around? Thank you.
Speaker 3
I do not accept that the US is an unreliable ally. The US has been a reliable ally to the UK for many, many decades and continues to be. There are no two countries as closely aligned as our two countries. And our defence, our security and intelligence is intertwined in a way no two other countries are. So it's an important and reliable ally for us. The discussions we've had today, particularly the coalition of the willing, is on the basis that this is a plan that we will work with, with the US, and that it will have US backing. So that is the purpose of the plan. And that is why I spoke to President Trump last night, we developed the work on this plan. (Time 0:23:00)
