Words: Ruby Morgan (She/Her)
‘In 1949, Europe anchored itself to the bald eagle, never imagining it would one day become a losing bet.’
As Trump turns USAID to dust with a flick of his finger, our supposedly solid institutional pillars continue to crumble in his wake. Starmer closely follows in his footsteps – cutting the humanitarian aid budget to satisfy Trump’s demand that Europe fill the US-shaped hole in Ukrainian military aid. As the UK engages in an obedient game of Simon Says, Ukraine’s future is left dangling in the hands of a sadist and his lapdog. Ultimately, tangible aid hinges on either a miraculous U-turn in Washington or breaking it off with our toxic ex.
The fiery exchange between Trump and Zelenskyy at the Oval Office revealed the extreme volatility of military support and aid funding. Trump’s tiff stemmed from Zelenskyy’s refusal to prostrate in praise in front of himself and Vance. In retaliation, Trump halted all aid to Ukraine, involving billions of dollars of military assistance already on their way.
With the world’s largest economic and military power now at the mercy of annoying orange, international leaders must stop putting all their eggs in one basket (case). As Trump hacks away at the foundations of NATO – laid by the US itself – Europe remains bricked in. In 1949, Europe anchored itself to the bald eagle, never imagining it would one day become a losing bet. Starmer is particularly hesitant to let go, resting on his laurels for the US to join his ‘coalition of the willing’, basking in warm memories after being ghosted by his once ‘special relationship’.
Starmer’s peacekeeping coalition resonates with nostalgia, echoing Bush’s coalition of the willing, which resulted in the death of over 1 million Iraqis. Just as Blair viewed Iraq as his own Falklands, Sir Keir should tread lightly before using military aid as a bid for fleeting validation. In the past, unanimous and hasty aid interventions have often been miscalculated. Once marketed as unlosable missions, British citizens are still advised against travelling to Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo, where peacekeepers failed to consider how they would practically facilitate peace post-conflict. The invasion of Iraq created a power vacuum. As support for the war at home waned, the US withdrew its troops – exacerbating the instability it had already caused. Failing to address the needs of the Iraqi people and beating to the drum of WMDs, the human toll of short-sighted military aid was deep.
Declaring ‘boots on the ground and planes in the air’ to anyone who’ll listen, Starmer has little idea of what an EU-only security guarantee could even look like. The UK military has grown staked to the US. Our intelligence is automatically shared, our nuclear weapons leased from the states and like most of NATO, our ‘planes in the air’ are US-made F-35s, whose recorded data and software are inherently American-owned. With Trump and Putin cosying up, what can the Europeans truly promise Ukraine?
In the wake of Tariffgate, reliance on airy US assurances for a ceasefire is fatal. It’s clear that Putin’s current peace negotiations with Trump are part of a long-term play for a detrimental Minsk 3.0. And it looks likely that Trump will play into Putin’s hands, obliging Ukraine to surrender with little guarantees – so both leaders can claim credit at home. As Trump continues to leverage aid for minerals, threatening to cut Musk-owed Ukrainian WiFi, it’s blatant he’ll wag his tail for anyone who feeds him. Trump is grasping for any fleeting chance to say he’s fixed it; military aid serves as a gambling chip whilst insecurity in Eastern Europe deepens – coincidentally pushing countries to stock up on expensive US weapons, quick.
At this point, Starmer’s only concrete assurance should be a steady break-up with the US. As the world goes multipolar, it’s time the Prime Minister stopped crying into his pillow and joined the crowd. Strengthening our EU-relationship is a start, ideally unravelling our military from the US’s hold. The Ukrainian army has successfully used drones as a substitute to the F-35, whose small print comes with dependence on the states – and rumours of a US-controlled kill switch. Before pledging British boots on the ground, Starmer should consider how it plans to remove the US stake from its soil.
Working from muscle memory, the British government and media often reach for the US playbook, pursuing fleeting emotional appeals and bulldozing military aid interventions. However, our approach to Ukrainian aid requires strategic, intelligent, and rational thinking. Starmer may remember that in 1999, Kosovars famously began calling their children ‘Bler’ to honour Blair. Perhaps he’s hoping that a Ukrainian version of Kir may emerge. In Ukraine, however, mothers are naming their daughters ‘Orysia’ – ‘peace’. Fundamentally, that’s all we should be working towards. Before pledging transient promises and volatile aid, Starmer should consider what waiting around for Washington to call back can truly do for the security of Ukraine.
References:
2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/04/us-military-aid-ukraine-pause-trump-zelenskyy-updates\
3.
4. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-end-of-the-uk-us-special-relationship/
5. https://www.trtworld.com/americas/twelve-times-the-un-has-failed-the-world-21666
6.
8. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/27/britain-defend-itself-us-military
9.
12.
13. https://www.thenational.scot/news/25067342.ukrainian-mother-raising-child-russias-war/
