Posted by 
The US-EU relationship is at its most fragile point since the build-up to the Iraq war in 2003. While President Donald Trump openly questions Nato and President Volodymyr Zelensky’s desire for peace, EU leaders have continued to voice their unequivocal support for Ukraine against Russian aggression.
Between the two lies Britain. In a flurry of diplomacy, Keir Starmer has attempted to navigate the country’s tricky position: close to the US diplomatically, while staying aligned with the EU’s Ukraine policy.
I argue that Starmer could use Britain’s island identity – separated from its closest neighbours just enough to allow a global outlook – to his advantage. Acting as an effective link between the US and the EU could turn this time of crisis into an opportunity. What Britain may lack in material capabilities, it can make up for in skilful diplomacy.
Britain’s position as a “geopolitical bridge” stretches far back into the last century. As Britain was decolonising and reckoning with the growing power of the US and a uniting European continent, acting as a bridge was an effective way of ensuring relevance and maintaining alliances while its status as an imperial great power waned.
This position was especially favoured by Labour politicians keen to emphasise how a socialist Britain could act as a link between the capitalist and communist worlds. In (sometimes reluctantly) arguing for Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community, some Conservatives posited membership as allowing Britain to bridge the Atlantic, given the UK’s strong postwar ties with the US.
Even older is the idea of Britain as an “offshore balancer”. The UK’s proximity to the European continent meant it has always had an eye on political developments there. It has thus sought to maintain alliances in order to prevent Europe being dominated by one power (Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union) who could threaten the island sanctuary.
With Britain no longer in the EU, this time of heightened transatlantic tensions provides an opportunity to reclaim these geopolitical stances (and some lost relevance) as a vital interlocutor between America and Europe.
Nato on the brink
Trump is notoriously erratic and unpredictable, yet one of his most consistent motifs has been to question Nato and “free-riding” allies. Herein lies the spectre of the most terrifying British nightmare: an American withdrawal from Nato.
Britain and the US have, historically, both articulated their role as that of offshore balancer in relation to continental Europe. The threat against which they have been balancing since the end of the second world war is the Soviet Union and then Russia.
If the Trump administration ceases to regard Russia as a threat or sees no utility in acting in its historic balancing role, the UK-US relationship will be placed under serious threat. For all of the importance of Anglo-Saxon identity tropes, kith and kin and the special relationship, alliances are best nurtured in conditions of shared interests.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.
Nato has been the real cornerstone of UK foreign, defence and security policy since the North Atlantic treaty’s inking in 1949, and is beloved of both Labour and Conservative politicians. US abandonment would be devastating. Thus it is Starmer’s greatest challenge and opportunity.
The reality is that Nato is centred on continental Europe and always has been. Starmer can gain common ground with Trump at this critical juncture by emphasising Britain’s islandness, and the US’s similar separation from the continent.
Starmer could position Britain as a mid-Atlantic interlocutor, close to Europe but not of Europe – appealing to the antipathy of some in the Trump administration about the continent. And his government has already gained Trump’s approval by increasing defence spending, an act that will also please nervous European governments.
Global Britain?
At this moment, Britain seems closer to the EU than it has been since 2016. Foreign and defence policy remain, to some extent, unfulfilled gaps in the EU’s portfolio. If Starmer can forge a close relationship around these issues, he can undercut some of the disappointments around Brexit, such as Britain being viewed as less relevant internationally and losing a seat at European security discussions.
Notwithstanding the latest increase in defence spending, the British Army is smaller than it has been for several hundred years. Cuts to foreign aid, along with the merging of international development with the Foreign Office have prompted questions around Britain’s international clout.
Yet its leaders remain high profile and listened to, with Starmer managing to cut a dignified figure in an era of posturing strongmen. He will need to convince Trump and his team that Europe (and Nato) is worthy of their time and attention. He must emphasise their common ground as offshore balancers, capable of providing a counterweight to Russia.
EU leaders will also need to be reassured of Britain’s commitment to the continent after Brexit. Pressing harder for a UK-EU security pact is one way Starmer could signal this.
Trump repeatedly emphasises the personal aspect of politics, seeing states and alliances through a prism of which leaders are willing to flatter him or, at the very least, be “respectful”. Starmer grasped this early on and thus has a shot at forging a productive relationship with Trump, however painful it might be for some in his party.
Yet the stakes are much higher than disgruntled backbenchers. The Labour party, with its internationalist roots, is deeply proud of the foreign policies of Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin (although less so of Tony Blair’s). Although it may be stressed in different terms to their Conservative opponents, the party is just as concerned with retaining relevance and influence on the world stage.
If this Labour government can find a way to successfully act as a bridge – by interesting Trump in Europe and convincing the EU that they are a reliable partner – then this not only salves some of the wounds of Brexit, it also potentially keeps Nato alive, for now.
Nick Whittaker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
