After Trump Starm’s meeting: What awaits us in Europe and the United Kingdom?

In the White House world, Donald Trump, personal chemistry often determines political results. For British Prime Minister Kiir Starmer, his first meeting with Trump was related to the materials that were about the irregular deportation management of the transactions of the American President. From the start, the meeting was framework between Starmer and Trump by the scene.

King Charles’s invitation to grant Trump was the unprecedented visit of the second state, a clear diplomatic step to hit the ego. Trump, no one reduces its own importance, at the present time: “It is a great honor, because it has not happened before,” he declared in his joint press conference. However, under warm words and diplomatic compliments, sharp political differences in Ukraine, trade and the future of the Atlantic alliance are looming on the horizon.

Starmer has arrived in Washington with high classes: the future of relations between the United States of America, the ongoing war in Ukraine and the prospects for a trade agreement with America. The British Prime Minister had an unenviable task of treating the White House, which works less on alliances and more on Trump’s personal whims.

It was a clear Starmer strategy: Trump is skilled in a skillful conversation towards British and European priorities. He praised Trump for his creation, which is supposed to create conditions for the ceasefire on Ukraine – despite doubt about both London and Kiev about whether this deal will really serve peace or just hand over Russian President Vladimir Putin the breathing space he is looking for.

While Trump declared confidence in Putin’s promises, Starmer was more cautious, stressing the need for any implementation truce and durable. But for all the ingenuity of diplomatic Starmer, the result was largely predictable. Trump did not provide any clear guarantees to pay more American security guarantees to Ukraine after a peace agreement, leaving Europe again in a state of strategic forgetfulness. Trump’s insistence that Putin’s “trust” to honor the ceasefire is in a sharp contradiction with the microscopic diplomacy of Starmer, which is rooted in NATO’s strategic priorities.

However, one of the few areas where Starmer seemed progress in trade. Trump hinted that the UK may avoid new definitions, noting that Starmer “earns everything entitled to pay there” in negotiations. This was a small but tangible victory for Britain. However, Trump’s history of treatment policy indicates that any of the definitions likely to come with continuous chains.

The United Kingdom may find itself forced to a broader trade agreement with the highly deviant conditions for Washington. “You are a very difficult negotiator … I am not sure that I love it, but well,” Trump said, just half of it. While Trump suggested that the commercial deal may reduce the need for definitions on UK exports, negotiations are still far from completing.

While Starmer refrained from Trump’s challenging views of the public, his visit was about the call to the security of Europe as much as it was about relations between the United Kingdom and the United States. For Europe, the biggest anxiety is Trump’s continuous approach to “America First” in economic policy. While Starmer made a convincing argument for the UK’s role as a better investment destination, Trump’s view of international partnerships is still transactions at best.

His priority is still benefiting from the economic power to extract concessions, not to strengthen long alliances. Trump’s informal rejection of European security concerns explains – telling his government that “we will take care of Europe” – the wider gap between Washington and its traditional allies.

The European Union is now scrambling to build its collective defense mechanisms, while realizing that it can no longer rely on the White House “America first”. However, the cruel reality is that any European deterrent force will take years to achieve, and without our support, it risk being more symbolic than objectivity.

However, Starmer’s visit confirmed a realistic fact: the so -called “special relationship” between the United Kingdom and the United States is no longer what it was before. While Trump Starmer described as a “private man”, the same relationship felt the transactions instead of the roots in deep mutual trust. Unlike Emmanuel Macron, who publicly corrected Trump during his own visit earlier in the week, Starmer chose an approach that fits the risks, avoiding direct criticism even on controversial topics such as Trump’s threats towards Canada, a colleague of the Commonwealth nation.

But the price of this caution may be the diminishing effect in the UK in forming American policy on critical global issues. For Britain, the challenge is two parts: maintaining a special relationship with the United States while realizing that this relationship has changed. If Starmer’s performance in Washington is any indicator, it understands this new reality. A pragmatic diplomacy may not be the size of any major concessions from Trump, but it has kept the door open to future negotiations – an achievement in itself when dealing with a administration that views traditional alliances as burdens instead of assets.

Trump is not able to predict anything in the stone. But if Starmer’s visit reveals anything, Europe and the United Kingdom must prepare for a future in which America’s participation is no longer a foreground. The European Union must accelerate efforts to enhance its defense capabilities and reduce its dependence on Washington.

The Starmer challenge, along with their European counterparts, will be to create a security framework that can withstand the inability to predict TROMP 2.0. Indeed, Starmer’s visit was not related to Trump’s approval. It was related to adapting to the changing global system.

If Europe will remain safe and relevant, it must do this on its own conditions, with the realization that America’s role in the world has changed. This is the truth of the advanced Atlantic relationship with Trump 2.0 in the White House.

Imran Khaled is a doctor and has a master’s degree in international relations.