The overlooked reason Starmer should go down in history

The choreography has become wearily familiar. The prime minister is entangled in turmoil; the public turns against them; their party panics, and MPs boot them out of power, despite having previously hailed them as national saviours. A successor arrives talking of change, hope and a new politics, promising bold reforms to sort out Britain’s problems but then failing to deliver. So now Sir Keir Starmer is slinking out of Downing Street, a decent man crushed by the job and despised by the public, while Andy Burnham assembles his team and gets feted by Westminster’s many sycophants. Yet there is one area where the departing leader deserves big credit and should be judged positively by the history books: as the man who helped save Ukraine from the dual threat of Russia and a patsy United States president. In recent weeks, it has been terrific to see how Kyiv has turned the tables on the Kremlin with a technology-led counterpunch after another terrible winter onslaught on its energy infrastructure. Mobile fleets of drones are crippling Russia’s crucial refineries 1,400 miles into the interior, extending their range fivefold in little more than a year, while striking tankers in Moscow’s shadow fleet in the Sea of Azov and severing transport links to occupied Crimea. This hampers Vladimir Putin’s ability to wage and fund his stupid war – even forcing his regime to start importing fuel – while infuriated citizens now spend up to 12 hours queuing to fill their vehicles. Meanwhile, there are at least 30,000 Russian casualties each month on the static frontline slicing through Ukraine. Optimism should be tempered: wars and desperate dictatorships are unpredictable beasts, while it was dispiriting last week to see Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, dismiss his innovative defence minister to appease the army’s old guard. Russia is exploiting holes in air defence created by the shameful US withdrawal of support to slaughter civilians with an intensified barrage of missile attacks on cities. But right now, Ukraine has the upper hand, having rapidly strengthened its defence capabilities aided by European allies. And this would have been impossible without the efforts of Starmer, who blew massive chunks of political capital and endured pathetic jibes about “Never Here Keir” to stop Donald Trump handing Putin victory on a plate. “I’m convinced that if Trump had lost the election, Keir would still be Prime Minister,” said one insider who witnessed his activities. Remember how Trump promised to end this war on his first day back in the White House? A fan of Putin and admirer of autocrats, he believed it was in his personal and political interests to bring Russia back into global trading networks while holding a grudge against Zelensky for failing to dig dirt on Joe Biden’s son. He wanted to win a Nobel Peace Prize, viewed Russia’s despot as a winner and repeatedly echoed Kremlin propaganda – even absurdly labelling the elected Ukrainian President a dictator and blaming him for starting the war. Then last February came the grotesque ambush in the Oval Office, when the draft-dodging US President and his dreadful deputy JD Vance accused the brave man who helped save his country at the start of an invasion of risking its destruction and being “disrespectful” to them. “This is going to be great television,” said Trump, sickeningly. Behind the scenes, Trump’s team was working with Russia to push a peace plan that delivered Putin’s aims. Later, it emerged that it was drawn up with help from a Kremlin insider who held covert meetings with his two key envoys. This appalling deal would have given Russia not only the entire Donbas – including the fortress belt held by Ukraine that protects the eastern half of their country – but also the unoccupied parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia being demanded by Putin. It was a capitulation filled with unacceptable conditions that would have left Kyiv weakened and at the permanent mercy of Moscow. And never forget this is the frontline of our continent’s fight for democracy and freedom, which Burnham cannot ignore, regardless of his intentions to focus on domestic issues. Starmer worked with French President Emmanuel Macron to stymie this pro-Russian sellout. They had to build a coalition in fractured Europe despite a weak German leader, protect Nato and persuade the infantile US President that their alternative peace plan was really his own. The Prime Minister had built a decent relationship with Trump despite their very different personalities and politics, leveraging the President’s fondness for Britain and the Royal Family while resisting pressure to lash out at an appalling White House that was betraying democracy. His former foreign secretary, David Lammy, developed a firm bond with Vance through their faith, fishing and impoverished backgrounds. Meanwhile, the Government had to rebuild relations in Europe after Brexit and Tory hostility while smoothing the tensions between Washington and Kyiv. “It was incredibly complicated to manipulate Trump while uniting the Europeans,” said one aide. “The public has no idea how close we came to another Munich.” These efforts led to “the coalition of the willing” with 30 nations agreeing to join any future peacekeeping force, which I saw firmed up in Kyiv after joining Starmer, Macron and new German leader Friedrich Merz on their overnight train into the country. This was gruelling diplomacy, soaked up huge amounts of his time and won no plaudits with voters, yet was crucial to the cause of freedom on our continent. This does not excuse his political failures at home, nor his flailing over Gaza. Yet it does explain why last week Starmer became the first British prime minister since Sir Winston Churchill to be awarded France’s Legion d’Honneur for helping protect European security, then given Ukraine’s Order of Freedom by Zelensky. And it should make Burnham realise that, like it or not, much of his time and political capital will be expended on foreign matters while walking the diplomatic tightrope of dealing with the US when it is led by an enemy of decency and democracy. This is, after all, a fight for all our futures.