View from Russia: How Ukraine buried Keir Starmer

Keir Starmer’s resignation exposes a deeper British crisis: voters no longer accept Ukraine posturing as a substitute for competence at home Britain has lost yet another prime minister, its fourth since 2022, after Keir Starmer, the latest occupant of 10 Downing Street, announced his resignation after less than two years in office. The drama has unfolded almost exactly as it did with Boris Johnson. Four years ago, Johnson’s own party colleagues removed him from office in the hope that his departure might save the Conservatives from electoral disaster. It didn’t but it merely hastened the collapse. Now Labour, with its own ratings falling sharply, is attempting the same trick. Unlike the Conservatives, however, it does at least have a plausible saviour waiting in the wings, the still relatively popular mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham. Whether he can succeed where his predecessors failed is another matter because Britain isn’t suffering from a passing bout of political bad luck, it’s in the grip of a deep systemic crisis. Starmer and Johnson, for all their differences, shared one fatal instinct. Both tried to legitimize themselves through the conflict in Ukraine and both reached for the mantle of war leader. In the end, it crushed them. Read more The Starmer legacy the mainstream media won’t tell you: Celebrity sex crimes, imprisoning Assange and torture terror By the time Russia’s military operation began, Johnson was already in trouble at home. A plot against him was gathering strength inside his own party, but Ukraine offered him a lifeline, and he seized it. Johnson wrapped himself in Kiev’s flag and briefly managed to turn foreign policy theatre into domestic survival. Starmer copied the tactic, but without Johnson’s theatrical instincts or timing and his foreign policy soon became a kind of running joke as Euro-Atlantic commentators praised his supposedly powerful performances on the international stage.

British voters, however, had a more basic question wondering why was their prime minister spending so much time away from the country he was supposed to govern? By some estimates, Starmer spent more than two months abroad during his short premiership, roughly one-sixth of his time in office. Even Johnson, not exactly a model of administrative seriousness, spent only 18 days abroad over a comparable period. When voters start looking back on Boris Johnson as a more domestically attentive prime minister, something has gone badly wrong. Throughout this period, Starmer’s approval ratings kept hitting new lows, buy he appeared not to notice. He continued his tours of summits and photo opportunities. Here lies the central lesson, that Ukraine no longer works as a magic wand for Western politicians. For a time, it did. Johnson used Ukraine as a shield against domestic failure, and for a while it worked. Read more Arsongate’s missing piece: Before you blame Russia, read this But that political spell has worn off as voters are no longer willing to treat enthusiasm for Kiev as a substitute for competence at home. Inflation, migration, energy costs, public services, housing, wages and collapsing trust in institutions cannot be solved by another summit speech about defending democracy somewhere else. Starmer is not alone in discovering this, given Germany’s Friedrich Merz fell into the same trap. He came to office styling himself as a foreign policy chancellor, only to see his standing decline as his obsession with Ukraine became more obvious. In less than a year, his ratings have fallen sharply, while Alternative for Germany has surged to the point where it is approaching the combined support of the ruling coalition parties meaning Merz, too, is already looking politically vulnerable. Western Europeans haven’t suddenly fallen out of love with Ukraine and nor have they become admirers of Russia overnight. T