Trump Has McSweeney's Phone

 

Over the last 24 hours the official Twitter account of The White House has posted several heavily pixelated images of Trump and co holding a mobile phone, and a cryptic video (which if run backwards you can hear the phrase "exciting announcement tomorrow").

🤫 pic.twitter.com/suWOUeiXF6

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) March 27, 2026

What does this mean?

It means that they have Morgan McSweeney's phone! 

Starmer thought he could get away with the cover up, but Trump does not forgive or forget and he is gunning for Starmer following the Diego Garcia snub.

In truth, Trump doesn't need the physical phone; he already has the transcripts! 

The Media is Wilfully Ignoring Trump's Nuanced Chagos Statement

 

Contrary to what the media and the traitors (Starmer, Hermer and Sands) would have us believe, Trump has not endorsed the Chagos surrender.

"I understand that the deal Prime Minster Starmer has made, according to many, the best deal he could make." 

Translation:

"Others may think that,  but I don't."

Moving on... 

"I retain the right to militarily secure.."

Translation:

"It's ours, no matter hat you might say or think." 

This despite the fact that Starmer literally begged Trump to publicly endorse the deal! 

Starmer's Gaza Hypocrisy Exposed: Lecturing Trump on Peace After Nearly Sabotaging the Deal Himself

 

In a world weary of endless Middle East drama, Donald Trump's breakthrough Gaza peace deal—announced just hours ago on October 9, 2025—should be a moment of unadulterated triumph. Israel and Hamas have inked the first phase, paving the way for hostage releases, partial withdrawals, and a fragile ceasefire that's already sparking "profound relief" across the globe. But leave it to Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer to swoop in like a sanctimonious uncle at a wedding, pontificating about "implementation in full" as if he had a hand in the heavy lifting. Oh, Keir—always the armchair quarterback, ready to critique the pros while nursing his pint on the sidelines.

Starmer's gushing statement today reeks of opportunistic back-patting. "I welcome the news that a deal has been reached on the first stage of President Trump's peace plan for Gaza," he declared, urging swift action as if his moral compass alone could grease the wheels. Profound relief? Spare us the theatre, Sir Keir. This is the same man whose meddlesome foreign policy moves just weeks ago nearly derailed the entire process, turning Britain into the diplomatic equivalent of that friend who shows up uninvited and rearranges the furniture.

The Sidelines Exile: Why Starmer Was Locked Out of Trump's Gaza Talks

Let's rewind the tape. While Trump was twisting arms in Cairo and Washington—brokering a 20-point masterplan that even sceptics are hailing as a "credible pathway" to Palestinian self-determination—where was Keir Starmer? Not at the table, that's for sure. Britain, once a pivotal player in Middle East peace (think Balfour Declaration vibes), has been firmly relegated to the nosebleeds. Why? Trust issues, plain and simple. Israel and the USA no longer see London as a reliable partner on Gaza; they're viewed as too eager to appease anti-Israel sentiments at home and abroad.

Enter Tony Blair—yes, that Tony Blair—as the unexpected star of Trump's "Board of Peace" overseeing post-war Gaza governance. The former PM, with his Teflon charm and unapologetic pro-Israel stance, is the one Trump trusts to steady the ship. Starmer? He's persona non grata. Whispers from diplomatic circles suggest his government's aggressive posturing—suspending free trade talks with Israel back in May 2025 over the Gaza war—sealed Britain's fate as an outsider. And don't get us started on the coordinated "recognition rush" with Canada and Australia, which piled fury on Israel and forced Trump to skirt the topic entirely during his UK visit.

It's almost comical: Starmer, the self-styled statesman, reduced to issuing press releases from Downing Street while Blair jets in for the real work. If this were a sitcom, it'd be called Keir's Gaza Gaffe: the PM who dreamed of brokering peace but ended up brokering his own irrelevance.

Starmer's Palestinian State Stunt: A Self-Inflicted Delay That Nearly Torpedoed the Deal

But the real kicker? Starmer's ill-timed recognition of a Palestinian state on September 21, 2025—a move announced with fanfare alongside allies, explicitly to "revive the hope of peace." Sound noble? Try reckless. This wasn't some organic evolution; it was a calculated pivot, signalled only if Israel agreed to a ceasefire—conditions unmet at the time. Coming hot on the heels of Trump's plan rollout on September 30, it injected chaos into delicate negotiations, infuriating Israel and complicating Hamas's calculus.

Sources close to the talks confirm the timing was disastrous: just as momentum built for phase one, Starmer's unilateral declaration—framed as pressure on Israel—stalled progress for weeks. Israeli officials fumed, viewing it as a betrayal that undermined trust and emboldened hardliners on both sides. Could it have wrecked the deal entirely? Absolutely. Hamas's initial "yes, but" response to Trump's proposal dragged on, with some insiders blaming the Western recognition wave for hardening positions. Starmer didn't just delay peace; he dangled a premature statehood carrot that nearly turned the whole basket sour.

Imagine the chutzpah: After this blunder boxes Britain out of the room, Starmer emerges today to claim credit for the "relief" his own actions postponed. It's like the arsonist complimenting the firefighters on a job well done—while posing for selfies amid the ashes.

Pontificating from the Pews: Starmer's Tone-Deaf Gaza Sermon

Fast-forward to this morning's statement, and the ridicule writes itself. "This is a moment of profound relief that will be felt around the world," Starmer intoned, as if his exclusionary exile granted him prophetic insight. Urging "immediate lifting" of restrictions and full implementation? Darling, you weren't even invited to the drafting session. Britain's Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper might preach "no military solution," but actions speak louder—and Starmer's have screamed unreliability.

This isn't leadership; it's Labour's latest virtue-signalling flop. Starmer, ever the lawyer-turned-politician, loves a good closing argument—but when it comes to Gaza, his briefs are as flimsy as his foreign policy gravitas. Trump, for all his bombast, delivered the goods without the sanctimony. Starmer? He's just the echo in the chamber, amplifying his own irrelevance.

Time for Starmer to Swallow His Humility Pill on Gaza Peace

Keir Starmer's Gaza commentary today isn't just hypocritical—it's a masterclass in missing the point. By recognising Palestine at the worst possible juncture, he didn't advance peace; he endangered it, eroding Britain's credibility with Israel and the US in the process. Sidelined and sidelined deservedly, his "welcome" rings hollow, a desperate bid to glom onto Trump's triumph.

For SEO-savvy Brits googling "Starmer Gaza hypocrisy" or "Trump peace deal UK role," the verdict is clear: Step aside, Keir. Let the adults—Blair included—handle the peace. Your pontifications? About as effective as a chocolate teapot in a heatwave. If Britain wants back in the game, start with accountability, not applause. The world’s watching—and wincing.

New Series of The Apprentice Launched

 

Trump Used Starmer as Chaff

 

In a stunning display of geopolitical manoeuvring, U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly used U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer as a decoy—akin to chaff deployed to confuse radar—in the lead-up to the U.S. B-2 stealth bomber strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025. The operation, which targeted key sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, was a bold escalation in the Middle East, catching many allies, including Starmer, off guard. This article explores how Trump leveraged Starmer’s public statements and diplomatic posturing to create a smokescreen for the attack, while highlighting Starmer’s perceived weakness and the apparent lack of regard Trump holds for the British leader.

The Chaff Strategy: Trump’s Deceptive Play

Chaff, in military terms, is a countermeasure used to confuse enemy radar by scattering false signals. In the context of the U.S. bombing of Iran, Trump’s interactions with Starmer served a similar purpose: to project an image of restraint and diplomacy while secretly preparing for a decisive military strike. At the G7 summit in Canada, just days before the attack, Starmer sat next to Trump during a dinner and emerged with the impression that the U.S. would not intervene militarily in the Iran-Israel conflict. Starmer’s subsequent public statements reflected this belief, emphasising de-escalation and diplomacy as the path forward.

 

Unbeknownst to Starmer, Trump was orchestrating a complex operation involving B-2 stealth bombers flying 18-hour missions from Missouri, supported by decoy deployments to Guam and a carefully timed barrage of cruise missiles. The Pentagon later revealed that the Guam deployment was a deliberate ruse to divert attention from the Atlantic-bound bombers. Meanwhile, Trump’s team reportedly used Starmer’s vocal calls for restraint—amplified through media and diplomatic channels—as a way to lull Iran into a false sense of security. Posts on X suggest that Trump intentionally fed Starmer the impression of inaction, with one user claiming the operation was nicknamed “Operation Starmer” to mock the U.K. leader’s unwitting role in the deception.

 

This calculated move was further underscored by Trump’s public silence on the matter until the strikes were underway, when he announced on Truth Social that the nuclear sites were “completely and fully obliterated.” Starmer, left blindsided, was forced to issue a statement hours later, balancing support for the U.S. goal of preventing Iran’s nuclear ambitions with warnings about escalation risks. The contrast between Trump’s decisive action and Starmer’s reactive diplomacy painted a picture of a U.K. leader outmanoeuvred and out of the loop.

Starmer’s Weakness: A Diplomatic Tightrope Unravelled

Keir Starmer’s response to the U.S. strikes highlighted his precarious position on the global stage. Throughout the week leading up to the bombing, Starmer had been vocal about the need for de-escalation, urging Iran to return to negotiations and warning of the broader risks of conflict. His statements aligned with the E3 (U.K., France, and Germany) joint position, which emphasised preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons through diplomatic means. Yet, when Trump authorised the strikes, Starmer’s calls for restraint were rendered irrelevant, exposing his limited influence over U.S. policy.

 

Starmer’s diplomatic tightrope was further complicated by domestic pressures. Reports suggest he declined a U.S. request to participate in the strikes, possibly due to concerns about the Muslim vote in the U.K. and internal government debates about the legality of involvement. This decision, while consistent with his push for diplomacy, left the U.K. sidelined in a major military operation by its closest ally. Social media sentiment on X was scathing, with users describing Starmer as “humiliated” and “cut out of decision-making” by both the U.S. and Israel. One post even suggested Starmer’s naivety in believing Trump’s assurances was “dangerously naive,” pointing to his failure to anticipate the U.S. president’s true intentions.

 

Starmer’s post-strike response did little to restore confidence in his leadership. His statement acknowledged the threat of Iran’s nuclear program but stopped short of endorsing the U.S. methods, a careful wording that avoided direct criticism of Trump while reiterating the need for negotiations. This balancing act, while diplomatically prudent, underscored his inability to shape events, leaving the U.K. trailing behind the U.S. and even European allies like France and Germany, who also backed the goal but not the means.

Trump’s Disregard: A Friendship Without Influence

Despite Starmer’s efforts to build a rapport with Trump—highlighted by an early White House visit in February 2025 and Trump’s warm remarks about their G7 interactions—the U.S. president’s actions suggest a profound lack of regard for the U.K. leader. Trump’s reported description of Starmer as a “friend” at the G7 summit was a superficial gesture, as the subsequent bombing operation demonstrated. Starmer’s belief that he had insight into Trump’s plans was shattered when the U.S. proceeded without consulting or informing the U.K., leaving Starmer to learn of the strikes after the fact.

 

Social media posts on X amplified this narrative, with users claiming Trump “trolled” Starmer by feeding him false assurances, knowing the U.K. leader would broadcast them publicly. Others suggested Trump viewed Starmer as a useful pawn, leveraging his diplomatic posturing to mask U.S. intentions. The fact that Trump did not involve the U.K.—despite speculation that U.S. bombers might have used the British-controlled Diego Garcia airbase as a waypoint—further underscored Starmer’s marginalisation.

 

Trump’s broader approach to the Iran crisis reinforces this dynamic. His decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, described as a “textbook operation” by the Washington Examiner, was a unilateral move that ignored allied calls for restraint, including Starmer’s. Even after brokering a fragile ceasefire on June 23, 2025, Trump expressed frustration when both Iran and Israel violated it, accusing them of betraying his efforts. Starmer’s absence from these high-stakes negotiations, despite his earlier conversations with Trump, further highlighted his lack of influence.

Conclusion: A Lesson in Power Dynamics

The U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, executed with precision and secrecy, was a geopolitical masterstroke by Donald Trump, who used Keir Starmer’s diplomatic overtures as a distraction to mask his intentions. By allowing Starmer to project an image of de-escalation, Trump created a false narrative that kept Iran and the international community off balance until the B-2 bombers struck. This operation not only exposed Starmer’s weakness as a leader unable to sway U.S. policy but also revealed Trump’s willingness to sideline even a supposed ally to achieve his objectives.

 

Starmer’s reactive and cautious response, coupled with his exclusion from U.S. and Israeli decision-making, has damaged his credibility on the world stage. Posts on X reflect a public perception of Starmer as outmanoeuvred and irrelevant, with some even suggesting he was complicit in Trump’s deception, whether knowingly or not. Meanwhile, Trump’s disregard for Starmer—evident in his failure to consult or inform the U.K. leader—underscores a broader truth: in the high-stakes game of international power, Starmer is a lightweight, easily used and quickly discarded. As the Middle East teeters on the edge of further escalation, Starmer’s challenge will be to regain relevance in a world where Trump’s bold actions set the agenda.

Reeves Blames Trump For Shite GDP Figures

 

In a move that would make a toddler proud, Reeves has tried to dodge accountability for the 0.1% fall in GDP by pointing across the Atlantic. “The world has changed,” she whined during a Scotland visit, hinting that Trump’s January 2025 inauguration and his promised tariffs—particularly a 25% levy on steel imports—are somehow tanking the UK economy. 

 

This is nonsense on stilts. Trump’s tariffs, while a potential future headache, have barely kicked in by January. The UK’s steel exports to the US accounted for just 5% of the total in 2023, hardly a linchpin of GDP. 

 

The NIESR think tank estimates a mere 0.2% GDP hit in the first year of tariffs—nothing to justify January’s flop.

 

Reeves’ Trump excuse is a desperate pivot from her earlier “blame the Tories” playbook. It’s as if she’s rifling through a Rolodex of scapegoats, hoping one sticks. 

 

Newsflash, Rachel: the economy didn’t shrink because of a guy in Washington—it shrank because your budget kneecapped British businesses. The FTSE 100’s 0.3% bounce today despite the GDP figures shows markets aren’t buying your sob story either. Maybe it’s time to stop finger-pointing and start owning the mess you’ve made!

I Hear You're a Nazi Sympathiser Now David

 

Delighted to be back in Washington DC, supporting @Keir_Starmer.

There is no relationship closer than that of the UK and the US. Together we will continue to do great things for our shared security and growth.

Thank you @POTUS, @JDVance for your gracious hospitality. pic.twitter.com/MJa2B90IfB

— David Lammy (@DavidLammy) February 27, 2025

Starmer’s Defence Spending Deception: A Masterclass in Creative Accounting

Prime Minister Keir Starmer strode into the House of Commons on February 25, 2025, with the swagger of a man who thought he could pull the wool over the nation’s eyes. In a grand announcement, he pledged to boost UK defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, trumpeting an eye-watering £13.4 billion annual increase starting that year. 

 

It was a figure designed to dazzle, to signal resolve ahead of his White House meeting with President Donald Trump, and to placate a public and military increasingly jittery about Britain’s security posture. But peel back the layers of this shiny promise, and what emerges is a tapestry of half-truths, inflated figures, and outright misdirection that should leave every taxpayer—and every soldier—fuming.

 

Let’s start with the headline number: £13.4 billion. 

 

It sounds impressive, doesn’t it? 

 

A hefty injection of cash to bolster Britain’s armed forces in what Starmer calls a “dangerous new era.” But the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), a bastion of economic clarity, swiftly called foul. Strip out inflation and account for the fact that defence spending was never going to stay frozen in nominal terms, and the real increase shrinks to a far less glamorous £6 billion annually by 2027. 

 

That’s right—less than half of what Starmer boasted about from the dispatch box. The £13.4 billion figure assumes a bizarre counterfactual where defence spending wouldn’t have risen at all without his intervention, a scenario so detached from reality it’s laughable. This isn’t a boost; it’s a sleight of hand, a classic case of a politician juicing the numbers to look tougher than he is.

 

But Starmer didn’t stop there. To pad out his 2.5% of GDP target, he’s quietly redefined what counts as “defence spending.” For the first time, contributions from MI6 and the security services—previously excluded—are being rolled into the pot. This accounting trick bumps the figure up to 2.6% by 2027, a convenient little flourish that lets him claim extra credit without actually finding new money for tanks, ships, or troops. It’s the equivalent of a student claiming extra credit for homework they were already doing—except here, the stakes are national security, not a gold star.

 

And then there’s the Chagos Islands deal, the cherry on this cake of deception. Starmer’s government is reportedly shelling out £18 billion to Mauritius to cede sovereignty over the archipelago while leasing back the Diego Garcia military base for 99 years. This is a staggering sum, dwarfing the supposed £6 billion “increase” in real defence spending. 

 

Yet whispers persist—unconfirmed but suspiciously plausible—that these payments might be folded into the defence budget to artificially inflate the numbers. If true, this isn’t just creative accounting; it’s borderline scandalous. The Chagos deal, already a contentious surrender of British territory, could end up eating the entire real-terms defence uplift and then some, leaving the actual armed forces no better off—or worse. Instead of strengthening Britain’s military, Starmer might be funnelling billions into a diplomatic giveaway, all while dressing it up as a commitment to security.

 

Even if we take the 2.5% target at face value, it’s a pitiful offering. Britain’s current spending sits at 2.3% of GDP, so this much-vaunted increase amounts to a measly 0.2% bump over two years. In a world where threats are escalating—Russia’s war in Ukraine, China’s sabre-rattling, and an unpredictable Middle East—this is a drop in the bucket. Military chiefs have been clamouring for far more, with former British Army head Lord Richard Dannatt arguing for 3.4% to match US levels. 

 

And then there’s Trump, the man Starmer is so keen to impress. The US President has repeatedly demanded NATO allies spend 5% of GDP on defence, a threshold last seen during the Cold War. Against that yardstick, Starmer’s 2.5% by 2027 isn’t just too little; it’s too late. Trump, a man not known for subtlety, is likely to scoff at this timid gesture when they meet, seeing it for the window dressing it is.

 

The insult is compounded by how Starmer plans to fund this so-called boost: slashing the foreign aid budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of national income. That’s a £6 billion cut, conveniently matching the real-terms defence increase—a neat little swap that exposes the lie of any grand “generational response.” Starmer’s not finding new money; he’s just shuffling it around, robbing Peter to pay Paul, all while claiming a victory he hasn’t earned. Labour backbenchers and charities have decried this as shortsighted, a betrayal of Britain’s global humanitarian role. They’re right, but the real betrayal is to the public, fed a narrative of strength that crumbles under scrutiny.

 

Starmer’s defenders might argue he’s making tough choices in tough times. But tough choices don’t justify dishonesty. He stood before Parliament and the nation, peddling a £13.4 billion figure he knew—or should have known—was inflated, banking on the fact that most wouldn’t check the maths. His own Defence Secretary, John Healey, squirmed on BBC Breakfast the next day, reluctantly conceding the IFS’s £6 billion estimate was closer to the mark. The Prime Minister’s credibility shouldn’t hinge on such flimsy spin, especially on an issue as grave as defence.

 

This isn’t leadership; it’s legerdemain. Britain deserves a PM who levels with the public, not one who cooks the books to impress a foreign leader who’ll see through the ruse in seconds. Starmer’s 2.5% pledge is too little, too late, and too dishonest to stand as the “biggest sustained increase since the Cold War” he claims. The armed forces won’t be cheering—they’ll be crying. And Trump? He’ll probably just laugh.

Starmer: The Wrong Man in the Wrong Job at the Wrong Time to Handle Trump on Ukraine

---

As the war in Ukraine grinds into its thousandth day and Donald Trump’s re-ascendance to the White House looms large,Starmer, finds himself at a pivotal crossroads. Tasked with navigating an increasingly volatile transatlantic relationship and securing a stable future for Ukraine, Starmer’s leadership is under scrutiny. Yet, a closer examination of his personal traits, political instincts, and strategic missteps reveals a troubling reality: Starmer is the wrong man, in the wrong job, at precisely the wrong time to handle Trump and the Ukraine crisis effectively.

 

A Question of Empathy and Personality

Leadership in times of geopolitical upheaval demands not just intellect but charisma, emotional intelligence, and an ability to connect with unpredictable counterparts like Donald Trump. Starmer, however, is often described as wooden, technocratic, and lacking the personal dynamism needed to sway a figure known for his bombast and deal-making flair. Critics have long pointed to his stiff demeanour—evident in his measured speeches and reluctance to engage in the theatricality of modern politics—as a liability. Where Trump thrives on brashness and gut instinct, Starmer’s reserved style risks leaving him outmanoeuvred in face-to-face negotiations.

 

Some have speculated that Starmer’s interpersonal challenges might stem from a neurodivergent condition, such as autism, which could explain his perceived lack of empathy and discomfort in unscripted settings. While there is no public evidence to confirm this, his meticulous, legalistic approach—honed during his years as Director of Public Prosecutions—lends credence to the idea that he prioritises process over people. In dealing with Trump, a man who famously values loyalty and personal rapport over policy details, this could prove disastrous. Trump’s recent attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, branding him a “dictator,” underscore the need for a UK leader who can bridge emotional divides and counter Trump’s narrative with persuasive force—qualities Starmer struggles to muster.

 

Slow Decision-Making in a Fast-Moving Crisis

The Ukraine conflict, now entangled with Trump’s unilateral peace overtures, demands rapid, decisive action. Starmer’s track record, however, suggests a propensity for deliberation that borders on paralysis. His handling of domestic issues—like the contentious decision to cut winter fuel payments for pensioners—reveals a leader who often backtracks or delays under pressure, only acting after internal party revolts or public outcry force his hand. This hesitancy is ill-suited to the breakneck pace of Trump’s foreign policy, where decisions—like his reported plans to sideline European leaders in Ukraine peace talks—are made swiftly and without consultation.

 

Starmer’s proposal for a European-led “reassurance force” of fewer than 30,000 troops to monitor a potential Ukraine ceasefire exemplifies this sluggishness. Unveiled ahead of his Washington visit on February 20, 2025, the plan lacks clarity on objectives and has failed to unify European allies, with nations like Poland and Sweden demanding more detail before committing. In contrast, Trump’s team, led by envoy Keith Kellogg, has already dismissed European involvement as “unrealistic,” signalling a preference for bilateral talks with Russia. Starmer’s inability to anticipate this rebuff and adapt quickly leaves the UK—and Europe—scrambling to catch up.

 

Left-Wing Leanings in a Populist Age

Starmer’s political roots, despite his efforts to project a centrist image, remain tied to the progressive wing of the Labour Party. His early career defending human rights and his initial leadership pledges—later abandoned—aligned him with left-wing ideals that clash with Trump’s “America First” populism. This ideological divide is more than academic; it shapes Starmer’s worldview and his approach to Ukraine. Where Trump sees the conflict as a European burden to offload, Starmer clings to a multilateral vision rooted in NATO solidarity and collective responsibility—a stance that risks alienating a US president who views such frameworks with suspicion.

 

This left-leaning lens also fuels Starmer’s reliance on international law and institutions, a cornerstone of his career as a barrister. His impassioned UN Security Council speech in September 2024, condemning Russia’s violation of the UN Charter, reflects this faith in legal norms. Yet, in the Trump era, where power politics trumps treaties and international law is dismissed as irrelevant, this approach is woefully out of step. Trump’s ghastly warmth toward Vladimir Putin and his readiness to broker a Ukraine deal without European input signal a world where raw leverage, not legal arguments, dictates outcomes. Starmer’s insistence on playing by the rules of a system Trump ignores leaves him ill-equipped to influence the US president’s calculus.

 

A Misreading of America and Trump

Perhaps Starmer’s greatest failing is his apparent lack of understanding of the United States and its mercurial leader. Despite a brief dinner with Trump in New York in September 2024—which Starmer described as “constructive”—there’s little evidence he grasps the cultural and political forces driving Trump’s agenda. 

 

The UK’s “special relationship” with the US has historically thrived on personal chemistry, from Churchill and Roosevelt to Thatcher and Reagan. Starmer, however, lacks the instinctive feel for American sensibilities that his predecessors leveraged. His comparison of the Conservative Party to Trump in 2023—decrying their “divide, divide, divide” tactics—suggests a superficial reading of Trump as a mere partisan figure, rather than a disruptor of global norms.

 

This misjudgment is evident in Starmer’s Ukraine strategy. His push for a US “backstop” to bolster European troops—likely involving air support and intelligence rather than combat forces—assumes Trump can be persuaded to commit resources to a conflict he’s publicly distanced himself from. Yet Trump’s Truth Social tirades, accusing Zelensky of dragging the US into a $350 billion “unwinnable war,” reveal a leader intent on disengagement, not collaboration. Starmer’s failure to anticipate this isolationist streak—or to craft a Plan B—underscores his disconnect from the American political psyche.

 

The Stakes for Ukraine and Beyond

The consequences of Starmer’s mismatch with this moment extend far beyond personal failings. Ukraine’s future hangs in the balance as Trump’s team engages Russia in talks that could freeze the conflict on terms favourable to Moscow. Starmer’s sidelined peacekeeping plan, met with scepticism by European allies and outright rejection by Trump’s envoy, risks leaving the UK—and Europe—marginalised. Worse, his inability to sway Trump could embolden Putin, signalling that Western resolve is fracturing at a critical juncture.

 

In an ideal world, the UK would have a leader with the agility, empathy, and transatlantic savvy to counter Trump’s whims and secure Ukraine’s sovereignty. Starmer, with his legalistic rigidity, slow-footed decision-making, and left-wing instincts, is not that leader. As he heads to Washington on February 20, 2025, the stakes could not be higher—nor the odds of success more daunting. For Britain, for Europe, and for Ukraine, the wrong man in the wrong job at the wrong time could prove a costly misstep in an already perilous era.

Put Down The Bong Starmer!

 

US Senator John Kennedy urged on the Senate floor:

“We need to stop this deal. President Trump and and Secretary Rubio need to pick up the phone and and call Prime Minister Starmer in the United Kingdom and say to to the Prime Minister: ‘Mr Prime Minister with all due respect stop dipping into your ketamine stash! Put down the bong… Our struggle with China is serious. It’s serious as four heart attacks and a stroke, and it is bone deep down to the marrow stupid for us because of guilt over colonialism to bow to the wishes of the United Nations.”