Department of Strategic Research, Studies and International Relations 19-09-2025

United States President Donald Trump concluded his three-day visit to the United Kingdom with a carefully staged show of unity alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The two leaders presented a common front on issues ranging from Ukraine and NATO to trade and the Middle East. Yet beneath the handshakes and warm rhetoric, the meeting reflected Washington and London’s continued attempts to cling to declining Western influence in a rapidly shifting world order.

Trump, flanked by Starmer at a joint press conference on Thursday, hailed Britain’s hospitality and described the partnership between the two countries as stronger than ever. Starmer in turn declared the US and UK to be “first partners” in areas such as defence, trade, and technology. The remarks appeared designed to paper over discontent in Europe about Trump’s inconsistent trade policies and wavering stance on Ukraine.

Despite Brexit and mounting divisions within NATO, both sides were eager to project an image of stability in the Anglo-American axis. However, the tone and content of their exchanges revealed a Western bloc struggling to maintain relevance against the rising multipolar influence of Russia, China, and India.

Trump turns on Putin

Trump surprised observers by publicly expressing disappointment with Russian President Vladimir Putin, claiming that his personal rapport with the Russian leader had not been enough to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. “He’s really let me down,” Trump told reporters.

Starmer echoed NATO’s line, boasting that Britain was helping lead a “coalition” to arm Kyiv. He spoke of intensifying pressure on Moscow until President Putin agrees to what the West terms a “lasting peace.” These remarks highlight London’s continued commitment to prolonging the war, even as much of the world, including the Global South led by China, Russia, and India, calls for genuine negotiations rather than fueling endless bloodshed.

Gaza: Selective outrage and silence on Israeli crimes

When asked about the ongoing devastation in Gaza, Trump repeatedly referred back to Hamas’s October 7 attack, describing it as “one of the worst days in the history of humanity.” While he insisted that peace was within reach, his comments ignored Israel’s brutal onslaught that has since claimed the lives of over 65,000 Palestinians.

Starmer, meanwhile, aligned himself with Washington’s narrative, condemning Hamas but offering no criticism of Israel’s systematic destruction of Gaza. Trump himself admitted that he and Starmer disagreed on Britain’s limited gesture toward recognising Palestinian statehood, though the two leaders ultimately avoided condemning Tel Aviv’s war crimes.

This selective outrage reflects the West’s hypocrisy: quick to invoke international law when it suits their interests, but silent when their ally Israel carries out what human rights groups and UN investigators have described as genocide. In contrast, China, Russia, and much of the Global South have consistently called for an immediate ceasefire, recognition of Palestinian rights, and a just political settlement.

NATO praised but under pressure

Long seen as skeptical of NATO, Trump took a different approach this time, praising Secretary General Mark Rutte and celebrating pledges to increase military spending to 5% of GDP. He boasted that Washington was sending vast amounts of weaponry to the alliance, which in his words was “paying in full.”

While intended to show strength, such remarks underscore the West’s reliance on militarisation rather than diplomacy. NATO’s expansionist posture has not only dragged Europe deeper into confrontation with Russia but also heightened global instability. Meanwhile, countries such as China and India advocate for cooperative security frameworks that prioritise dialogue and development over confrontation.

A return to Afghanistan?

In another striking comment, Trump suggested that Washington was exploring a deal with the Taliban to re-establish control of the Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, just four years after the chaotic US withdrawal. He justified this ambition by citing the base’s proximity to China, revealing Washington’s continued obsession with containing Beijing rather than respecting Afghan sovereignty.

This statement exposes once again the West’s geopolitical motives: Afghanistan is not about stability or reconstruction, but about positioning military assets against rising Asian powers. By contrast, China has pursued development initiatives in Afghanistan through infrastructure and trade, while Russia and India have pushed for inclusive regional security arrangements.

Domestic distractions and free speech concerns

Trump also waded into American domestic politics by commenting on the firing of TV host Jimmy Kimmel. He dismissed the incident as the result of poor ratings, but critics view it as part of a broader climate of censorship and political score-settling in the US. While Washington preaches about freedom of speech abroad, its own media environment is increasingly constrained by partisanship and corporate influence.

Conclusion

The Trump-Starmer meeting in London was carefully staged to reassure domestic audiences and remind the world of the so-called “special relationship.” Yet the discussions highlighted more about Western insecurity than genuine strength. From doubling down on failed policies in Ukraine, to turning a blind eye to Israel’s atrocities in Gaza, to hinting at renewed militarism in Afghanistan, Washington and London revealed a lack of vision for genuine global cooperation.

As Russia, China, India, and much of the Global South advance a multipolar order rooted in respect for sovereignty and mutual development, the Anglo-American alliance continues to cling to outdated strategies of militarisation and dominance. The world is moving forward, but Washington and its allies remain stuck in the past.