The Labour government came into office promising to “use realist means to pursue progressive ends”. US president Donald Trump’s recent actions over Venezuela and Greenland have tested Keir Starmer’s ability to deliver on that promise.
When the prime minister said he had been “a lifelong advocate of international law” there was a reasonable expectation that he would condemn the US action in Venezuela. Some feared that his ambiguity on that issue was a betrayal of progressive values.
However, US action in Venezuela came at a sensitive moment in the UK’s efforts to achieve a progressive end to the war in Ukraine. US cooperation is vital if Russia is to be forced to negotiate a peace that respects the Ukrainian right to self-determination. That means persuading the US to put pressure on Russia – something that would be impossible if Starmer had alienated Trump by condemning his illegal action in Venezuela.
Starmer has shown that he is able to handle Trump’s unpredictable personality. His ambiguity on Venezuela immediately prior to the Paris meeting that agreed security guarantees for Ukraine can be interpreted in these terms. He knew that the progressive strategy on Ukraine was reliant on a delicate alignment of US power.
When it emerged that British forces had helped the US seize a Russian-flagged oil tanker linked to Venezuela the stakes were raised. Trump’s actions were certainly a grab for Venezuela’s oil but the consequences could work toward progressive ends if Russian investments in Venezuela’s oil industry are written off and Russia’s ability to avoid sanctions by operating a “shadow fleet” are weakened. For the progressive realist then, Starmer’s ambiguity on Trump’s illegal action in Venezuela could be a worthwhile, if regrettable, trade-off.
The word “regret” shouldn’t be lightly passed over. Progressive realists need not be “theological” in the application of international law, and Starmer knows that good legal prosecutors exercise political judgment. But there is a danger.
The risk of not properly condemning Trump on Venezuela was that it could set the world on a slippery slope. It could simply encourage Trump’s imperialist ambitions. That seems to have happened very quickly and Starmer’s speech on Greenland was designed to stop the slide.
Starmer reminded us that “Britain is a pragmatic country”. It will, in other words, compromise with the US to find solutions to problems like Russia. But as Starmer said, “being pragmatic does not mean being passive. And partnership does not mean abandoning principle”.
The principle at stake in Greenland is the same as Venezuela: national self-determination. So why is he drawing the line now?
As a realist, Starmer has shown his willingness to compromise on Venezuela. He has listened to Trump’s concerns on Ukraine and has made the case for greater defence spending across Europe. But as a progressive he has also shown there is a limit to how far he can compromise with the US, and he has drawn a line on Greenland.
This is because the argument that the US needs to annex Greenland to pressure Russia makes no sense. Greenland is already part of an anti-Russian alliance: Nato. No positive outcome can emerge from US pressure on Greenland.
European governments made that clear in Paris and Starmer’s speech reinforced the point. The pettiness of Trump’s statement linking the Greenland issue to Norway’s decision not to grant him the Nobel prize adds to the sense that US policy is now based on the personal ambitions of an imperial president. Against this backdrop, progressive realism means no longer compromising with the US.
A breach of trust
Another principle at stake in Greenland is multilateral cooperation based on respect. International relations academics have longed called the transatlantic region a “security community” because it goes beyond transactional deals. It is based on trust that comes from a sense of “we-ness”. Starmer is trying to maintain that community by speaking over Trump and appealing to the narrative of transatlantic solidarity that existed through the second world war, the cold war and the war on terror.
The question, though, is whether that narrative still has power in the US. Trump is intent on putting “America first” and is not concerned about niceties like respect, trust and gratitude. It might seem hard to imagine that the rest of his country will follow him, but recall that America’s founding father, Alexander Hamilton, famously dismissed Thomas Jefferson’s argument that the US owed France a debt of gratitude for its support during the revolutionary wars. When it came to matters of war and peace, Hamilton argued, former allies were on their own.
The UK has aligned itself with the US for decades because it shared values and could leverage US power in the service of its moral as well as material interests. If the Trump administration and the wider Maga movement in Congress continues to undermine the transatlantic security community, and international society more generally, then this relationship may no longer serve Britain’s interests. Progressive realism may have justified strategic ambiguity on Venezuela, but the opposite now appears to be true when it comes to US imperialism towards Greenland.
