Filenews 5 March 2025 - by Rosa Prince
"The kaleidoscope has rotated. The pieces are in motion. Soon, they will settle down again. Before that happens, let's rearrange this world around us." These were the words of Britain's then prime minister, Tony Blair, a few weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.
After the events of the last week or so, culminating in the clash in the White House between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, we feel that the kaleidoscope has been shaken again. And the current occupant of No 10 Downing Street, Keir Starmer, needs to take action in a more constructive way than Blair, who followed George W. Bush on his disastrous military adventures in the Middle East.
While much remains uncertain, one thing is clear: the U.S. will no longer foot the bill for protecting Europe. This is both worrying and an opportunity for Europe's big three – Britain, France and Germany – to forge a new relationship. Of the three, Starmer's Britain is best suited to take on the dominant role in this strange, transformed world.
Like Blair, Starmer's instinct in the face of crisis was to reach out to the US, the only remaining superpower under whose umbrella Britain has found refuge since at least 1941. He won praise internationally and at home for his diplomatic skills as he appeared to tame the Trump beast where Zelensky annoyed.
Starmer left his own visit to the Oval Office with victories over tariffs – from which Britain can now escape the worst – and the Chagos Islands, the subject of a controversial deal to pay billions to hand over the former British colony to Mauritius, despite the presence of a US naval base. The fact that good words were spoken, but no concrete promises to provide security support for Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire, is not due to a lack of effort.
Starmer's reward at home was a six-point rise in opinion polls – globally, it gave him the power to convene Sunday's summit of European leaders in Lancaster House, where a new deal involving a "coalition of the willing" was discussed and will soon be put to the Americans.
Rising to the occasion, the former human rights lawyer, who began his government career hesitantly and often seemed uncomfortable in the position, found a role that suited him, as is often the case with political leaders fighting at home: that of a key global player.
Responding to the escalation between Presidents Trump and Zelensky last week, EU foreign policy chief Kaya Callas wrote on social media: "Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It is up to us, Europeans, to take on this challenge."
Is there anyone left besides Starmer who could answer the call? Trump is not interested; both France's Emmanuel Macron and Canada's Justin Trudeau are heading for the exit; Germany's Friedrich Merz has not yet taken office, and Ursula von der Leyen's EU is too rigid and stuck in bureaucratic procedures to play a meaningful global role.
Starmer himself insists that proximity to either the US or Europe is the wrong choice. But it quickly becomes clear that the choice is not his. Remember Trump's joke during their conversation: "Can you face Russia on your own?" "Well..." The Prime Minister replied bitterly, with the "no" remaining unsaid but obvious.
The truth is that the UK has no appetite for getting involved in a war with Russia, even with a Moscow economically and militarily weakened after three years of conflict. Neither does Europe. Therefore, if America leaves the field, new and closer alliances will have to be formed and capacities built to ensure a deterrence substantial enough to guarantee that Ukraine's fate will not be shared with its neighbours.
This will not be simple. The extent to which neither side could imagine a scenario in which the UK would be forced to operate independently of the US is reflected in how intertwined the two nations' defence capabilities are. Britain is not alone. About 80% of Europe's arms and other defence equipment comes from countries outside its borders, mainly the US. Europe's defences are fragmented and dispersed, unable to function on the scale needed to protect a continent. Solving these problems is a long-term challenge – one that can't come fast enough.
As former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen recently wrote: "... Faced with a revisionist Russia waging war on our borders and an American president openly hostile to the transatlantic alliance, Europe must come to terms with the fact that we are not only existentially vulnerable but also seemingly alone.
Merz, Germany's incoming chancellor, has also questioned NATO's future and suggested that Europe's nuclear powers, France and the United Kingdom, may be persuaded to bring Berlin into orbit.
Reaching out to Europe and even taking the lead would be contradictory for the UK, which has spent the past decade trying to walk away, an act of economic self-harm that at the time of the Brexit vote in 2016 seemed inevitable. But Britain may now find that, if it wants to avoid insignificance, it will have no choice but to embrace its old friends.
The main obstacles to closer relations – an EU demand for greater access to Britain's fishing waters and Starmer's reluctance of a youth mobility scheme because he fears it could open the door to free movement – seem insignificant, as Europe now faces alone threats in the form of Putin, Xi and now Trump.
The answer must be that of a reborn Europe, particularly in defence, that goes beyond and possibly replaces both the EU and NATO. It is the only logical place in which they can "settle" the pieces in the kaleidoscope.
Performance – Editing: Lydia Roumpopoulou
