A sharp horn echoed through the control room of the H.M.S. Vanguard, signaling the crew of the nuclear-armed Royal Navy submarine to prepare for action. The commanding officer’s voice crackled through the intercom. “Set condition 1SQ,” he instructed, directing the crew to get the ballistic missiles ready for launch.
It was merely a drill conducted last Monday for a visiting VIP, Prime Minister Keir Starmer. However, Mr. Starmer had reason to be attentive when he was shown the location of the submarine’s launch key: He is the only individual in the United Kingdom with the authority to initiate a nuclear strike.
“Are you searching for the ideal conditions?” Mr. Starmer inquired softly while the captain detailed how the Vanguard must be positioned to the correct depth to launch its Trident missiles. Leaning forward in the captain’s chair, the blue glow from a series of screens glinted off his eyeglasses.
Later, after ascending a 32-foot ladder to the submarine’s deck, Mr. Starmer reflected on its nearly seven-month deployment. Quietly cruising in the depths of the Atlantic Ocean, it is designed to deter nuclear conflict with Russia (one of the four Vanguard-class submarines is always on patrol). At a time when Europe’s defense capabilities have been scrutinized, notably by President Trump, Mr. Starmer asserted that these formidable vessels represent an unyielding commitment to NATO.
“Twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year, year after year for 55 years,” Mr. Starmer shared with me after we departed, the Vanguard heading back to its home port in Scotland. “It has maintained peace for an extended period.”
Back on a tugboat making its way to the shore in the Firth of Clyde, Mr. Starmer sat alone, gazing out the window at the approaching clouds. The past few weeks have been defining, albeit sobering, for the 62-year-old British leader: He rose to power eight months ago amid widespread dissatisfaction over the cost of living and now finds himself striving to prevent a fracture in the post-World War II alliance between Europe and the United States.
“Deep down, we’ve anticipated this moment since just over three years ago when Russian tanks crossed into Ukraine,” Mr. Starmer remarked regarding Europe’s increased vulnerability and the tensions in the NATO alliance. “We must view this as a motivational moment and take the initiative.”
The crisis has transformed Mr. Starmer, evolving him from a methodical, unshowy human rights lawyer and Labour Party politician into a figure resembling a wartime leader. With issues concerning welfare reform and the economy now overshadowed by urgent national security concerns, Mr. Starmer referenced Winston Churchill and acknowledged Clement Attlee, the first postwar Labour prime minister, as he articulated Britain’s distinct role in an increasingly divided West.
“Many are urging us to choose between the U.S. and Europe,” he expressed in one of three discussions last week. “Churchill didn’t do it. Attlee didn’t do it. It would be a significant mistake, in my opinion, to choose now.”
Mr. Starmer added after a pause, “I believe President Trump has a valid point when he emphasizes that European nations need to assume a larger share of the burden for collective self-defense in Europe.”
The pressing question is whether Britain and Europe will have a substantial role in Mr. Trump’s negotiations with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. To ensure that they do, Mr. Starmer is attempting to assemble a multinational military coalition, which he refers to as a coalition of the willing. The goal, he states, is to protect Ukraine’s skies, ports, and borders following any peace agreement.
“I don’t trust Putin,” Mr. Starmer asserted. “I’m certain Putin would attempt to enforce that Ukraine remains defenseless after an agreement since that would provide him the opportunity to invade again.”
Britain encounters challenges on all fronts: Russia has dismissed the idea of a NATO peacekeeping force. Mr. Trump has not yet provided security guarantees, which Mr. Starmer claims are essential before nations are willing to deploy troops. Aside from Britain and France, no other European nation has stepped forward, even as Mr. Starmer led the inaugural military planning meeting for the coalition on Thursday.
Senior British military and defense officials anticipated that, ultimately, multiple nations would contribute planes, ships, or troops to this effort. However, despite the political and diplomatic uncertainties, Mr. Starmer expressed a sense of urgency to be proactive.
“If we only proceed at the pace of the most cautious,” he remarked, “then we’re going to advance very slowly and find ourselves unprepared.”
Behind Mr. Starmer’s flurry of diplomacy lies a more elusive objective: convincing Mr. Trump of NATO’s worth, the seven-decade-old alliance the president has criticized as a consortium of free riders, sheltered beneath an American security shield while failing to contribute fairly.
In contrast to President Emmanuel Macron of France or Germany’s incoming chancellor, Friedrich Merz, Mr. Starmer has refrained from suggesting that Europe chart an independent security course from the United States. He insists that the “special relationship” remains strong and that, regardless, British and American forces are closely interconnected (the United States provides the Trident missiles utilized by British submarines).
Mr. Starmer has methodically nurtured a rapport with Mr. Trump, calling him every few days and visiting the White House last month with an invitation from King Charles III for a state visit to Britain. The Prime Minister mentioned that Mr. Trump expressed how much he valued his interactions with Queen Elizabeth II.
The two leaders could hardly be more different: Mr. Starmer, disciplined and reserved, with left-leaning political roots; Mr. Trump, spontaneous and expansive, with habits and instincts bordering on the regal. Yet, they appear to have built a rapport. According to one of Mr. Starmer’s aides, Mr. Trump occasionally calls him on his cellphone to discuss shared interests like his golf resorts in Scotland.
“On a personal level, I believe we share a good relationship,” Mr. Starmer said of Mr. Trump, whom he first met at a dinner in Trump Tower last fall. “I like and respect him. I comprehend his objectives.”
Regarding Mr. Trump’s actions — such as imposing a 25 percent tariff on British steel and admonishing President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine — Mr. Starmer acknowledged that the president had created “a fair amount of confusion.” However, he maintained that the appropriate response was to avoid being provoked.
“On the day that the meeting in the Oval Office between President Trump and President Zelensky did not go particularly smoothly, we faced pressure to respond with overtly critical remarks,” Mr. Starmer recalled. “I decided it was preferable to reach out to both sides to try and facilitate a resolution.”
Mr. Starmer sent his national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, to Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, to guide Mr. Zelensky in mending his relationship with Mr. Trump. In several meetings, two senior British officials reported, they crafted language aimed at easing Mr. Zelensky’s concerns regarding a cease-fire that allows the Russians to continue their aggression.
Subsequently, Mr. Starmer contacted Mr. Trump to share updates about the progress in Kyiv and establish a foundation for a conversation between him and Mr. Zelensky. When the presidents communicated again, Mr. Zelensky expressed his support for Mr. Trump’s efforts towards peace.
By positioning himself as a bridge, Mr. Starmer is attempting to reclaim a role that Britain held for decades before voting to leave the European Union in 2016. He remarked that after a phase during which Britain seemed “disinterested” and “absent” on the global stage, “we’re back, if you will.”
However, there are limitations to Britain’s role in a post-Brexit landscape: The EU announced it would exclude British arms manufacturers from a defense fund worth 150 billion euros ($162 billion), unless Britain enters into a security partnership agreement with Brussels. Analysts suggest that Britain will find it challenging to function as a bridge if Mr. Trump unleashes more extensive tariffs, which he has vowed to impose on the European Union.
Currently, Mr. Starmer’s statesmanship has elevated his poll ratings and garnered him praise from across the political spectrum. After a rocky beginning fraught with economic struggles, Mr. Starmer stated the crisis “had instilled a sense of urgency” within his government.
How enduring that support will be is uncertain. Britain’s economy remains sluggish, and Mr. Starmer has encountered backlash over decisions such as reducing payments to assist retirees with winter heating costs. Analysts suggest that the advantages of being perceived as a statesman can evaporate swiftly if domestic challenges continue to mount.
Even the recent fire at an electrical substation in London, which disrupted operations at Heathrow Airport and upended travel plans for thousands, serves as a stark reminder of how unforeseen events can derail a government’s agenda.
Difficult trade-offs loom on the horizon. Mr. Starmer has committed to raising military expenditure to 2.5 percent of Britain’s GDP by 2027, funded by reductions in overseas development aid. It remains unclear how Britain will accommodate a future increase to 3 percent of GDP within a decade.
“We’ve all enjoyed the peace dividend,” Mr. Starmer noted, acknowledging that Europe is entering a more challenging era. “I don’t want to resort to scaremongering,” he remarked, but added, “We must consider defense and security more immediately.”
Three days post the submarine visit, Mr. Starmer attended a keel-laying ceremony for a new fleet of ballistic missile submarines, currently under construction at a shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness, northwest England. Four Dreadnought-class vessels, each nearly as long as St. Paul’s Cathedral, are expected to be operational in the early 2030s, at an estimated cost of 41 billion pounds ($53 billion).
Standing in the vast factory, with the rear section of a submarine towering over him, Mr. Starmer conveyed pride in this emblem of British strength. Yet, it was also a stark reminder of the pressures facing its military.
The Vanguard-class submarines that will be replaced by the Dreadnoughts are nearing 30 years of service — “quite dated,” in Mr. Starmer’s terms — necessitating extensive maintenance periods. This situation has prolonged the patrols for the remaining vessels in the fleet and imposed acute strain on their approximately 130-person crews.
This strain was evident during Mr. Starmer’s visit to the Vanguard, which established a Royal Navy record for the longest patrol. Sailors reported that although the food was excellent initially, it worsened as supplies dwindled. Four were returning to spouses who had given birth while they were away, and others learned of family losses from the captain just before their return.
“It is with immense respect for the team,” he remarked as he gingerly disembarked from the submarine’s timeworn deck, “that they managed to endure seven months at sea. But we shouldn’t be celebrating this.”
“This has intensified my determination to accelerate our capabilities,” he stated, “to ensure they are not placed in that situation again.”
