March 3, 2025 - 7:00am
Ahead of the proposed state visit, Sadiq Khan was asked by LBC whether he would welcome Donald Trump to London. Khan stated that his views on Trump were well known, but that he thought it was “important to engage”. He then invited him to a checklist of must-see modern, multicultural London’s events: Trafalgar Square on St Patrick’s Day, the New Lunar New Year, Eid and Diwali in the Square, and a curry on Brick Lane.
Given the notorious hygiene ratings of many of the Brick Lane curry houses, it is questionable whether the Secret Service would allow the President to expose himself to that level of risk. Regardless, Khan is far from the only liberal to offer up inanities in reaction to Trump’s visit. The SNP has called for the visit to be cancelled, with Westminster leader Stephen Flynn calling for Keir Starmer to “get off his knees” instead of “[rolling] out the red carpet”. And this attitude is far from being exclusive to the Left, either. Although later slapped down by Kemi Badenoch, Conservative Shadow Home Affairs minister Alicia Kearns also called for Trump’s visit to be blocked “until the steadfastness of the US’s commitment to her allies is assured.”
The mainstream status of this view says as much about Britain as it does about America. It points to our preference for virtue signals over legitimate diplomacy, inadvertently highlighting Britain’s long-standing irrelevance on the world stage. Those who advocate for the removal of Trump’s invitation have never had to think seriously about geo-strategic issues. Since the Americans made it clear during the Suez Crisis that Britain’s interests could no longer be pursued independently — or at least, without American pre-approval — we have subsumed ours to those of the US, hitching our wagon completely to the rules-based order they built.
The reality is that the UK relies on the US. Our military is hollowed out, and it is questionable what our military could achieve without their help (just look at where systems like the F-35 and Starlink come from). Aside from the military, there are also the economic ramifications: Trump has, so far, spared Britain from his ongoing trade dispute with Europe. Meanwhile, Starmer has managed to avoid the pitfalls that so many were worried about, working hard to smooth over his party’s previous anti-Trump comments — including his now-Foreign Secretary.
But it will be a difficult position to hold if politicians from all stripes try to get under his skin. A bilateral agreement is not a sure thing, and the stakes of a trade deal — particularly with Trump’s focus on ensuring America is not “ripped off” — may hand him convenient personal leverage. The shoddy treatment at his last state visit may linger long in his memory, too.
Whatever the ramifications, the UK’s tendency to virtue signal is a sign of impotence, if nothing else. Until Britain can reduce its dependency on the US — a decades-long process that involves serious trade-offs — perhaps this kind of grandstanding will be the only armament we can rely on.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeBoy oh boy do we live in interesting times. Here comes a decade in which we’re all going to find out what we’re really made of.
I agree! For some reason i remain optimistic, and especially so since the US public had the good sense to bring Trump back into the White House… just in time. Time is the biggest factor in changing our leaders, as well as finding some with the requisite qualities.
We are in interesting times indeed! Never a dull moment, on the edge of our seats here in US, waking up every day. We have not given up on our country, economy, or our children especially. DJT and his entire cabinet of white hats give me hope. As well as these comments on Unherd. Prior, I had no idea there were so many like minded Brits and Europeans and it’s very encouraging. I anxiously read your comments every morning and appreciate them and also make me giggle, because we truly see the same evil ridiculousness of these globalists/leftists delusional tyrants here. We are facing all the same problems you describe, of our own baddies making, other than getting Trump back in, thank goodness. Fight, fight fight! Best to you ❤️
And to you ….
More power to our collective elbows!
”the UK’s tendency to virtue signal is a sign of impotence, if nothing else”
This is so true. Hence why almost our entire political and media class do nothing but virtue signal.
Same thing happening in Canada. Impotent politicians playing to their base – some suggesting he should be banned from coming here. Sadly, this has played well for the Liberals, who have risen from the grave in recent polls.
The Conservatives have been punished for their indolence and virtue signalling. Labour are finding it easy to signal their brand of virtue but finding tougher to square it with the real world. Both parties worry about Reform who (perhaps) are less hypocritical.
Trump (for all his faults) doesn’t signal virtue he speaks plainly and takes action. It explains why traditional politicians hate him.
The biggest problem for the current crop of UK (and most European) “leaders” and politicians is that they went all-in on the “get Ukraine into NATO at any cost!” project (as pushed by previous US administrations)
But the people that now have access of the levers of US foreign policy consider this a major strategic blunder; they adhere more to the Mearsheimer line, which is that China is the real threat to US hegemony, and driving Russia into her arms makes China pretty much unbeatable.
So, yes, they not only wish to “appease” Russia, but actually make her an ally (or, at least, neutral) in their pivot to APAC.
But twerps like Starmer, Macron, Bareback et al are far too heavily invested in talking points like Unprovoked Invasion, Brave Sir Zelenskiy, Must Keep Ukraine “Free”, etc to be able to about-turn along with the US.
I genuinely think their current “peace” treaty – which Russia will never sign up to because it involves NATO boots on the ground – is a bluff intended to drag the US away from detente with Russia. I doubt it will work, so here we are: dangerous (and ruinous) escalation of UK/Europe involvement in Ukraine (which has the added bonus of distracting the electorates from the dire financial situation the West has put itself into)… or wholesale replacement of the political class.
Guess which of those options “our” leaders would be more happy with?
The author is right about these virtue signalling idiots but he gets to the wrong conclusion. Britain’s military weakness is not due to buying US equipment. The problem is that we cannot stick to a strategy. 3% of GDP is perfectly adequate for British defence so long as we are clear-eyed about what it is for. We need to protect our islands, infrastructure and shipping. That means air defences, navy, intelligence and nukes. Not armoured divisions built to fight on the continent. This focus is not helped by journalists parroting the views of generals and admirals arguing the case for their particular service in the press.
Absolutely.
Hear! Hear!
Starmer handled his ‘ambush’ far better than the unfortunate President Zelensky.
Trump said to Starmer in their public meeting, “You couldn’t take on Russia yourself, could you?” Starmer looked sheepish.
That was the only discomfort he had to bear in not challenging the USA’s denial of the UK’s right to have ‘agency’, a right that British and European leaders have applied to Ukraine in the ‘as long as it takes’.
The only thing that Starmer could have added would have been to say, “But Mr President, we have Trident.”
The Mayor of London wants the visit of Trump just so the President’s nose can be ‘rubbed in diversity’, as a New Labour apparatchik once described the multicultural cure for the Right. While Europe hugs, America shrugs.
Starmer’s and the European leader’s plan for their Blair-inspired ‘coalition of the willing’ (aka the half-hearted and the not-yet-arrived) is a declaration that they accept their lack of agency but is an appeal to a USA that now has a different foreign policy. Has Starmer persuaded Zelensky to be ‘willing’?
The Europeans still read the moral scriptures of the Second World War. But as with all scriptures, one reads black and another white.
But USA did not deny uk and Europe agency.
Stupid European leaders did this by not spending money on defence and expecting USA to bail them out.
Even now they keep saying that they will support Ukraine if final backstop is USA.
Why is Europe unable to stand up to Russia which economy is size of Italy?
You need a pair of balls and not feather up your bum.
Well, now there are powerful voices in the US talking about the US leaving NATO. I think that would be great. Let Europe fend for itself.
British culture and its political class are utterly crippled by the legacy of the Second World War as won by an indefatigable island people. They have transposed this mythos on to the Ukraine in a bizarre maneouvre to justify their continued global relevance.
Indeed! The myth of Britain having won WW2 is modern Britain’s “founding myth”.
The fact it was won by Soviet blood and US money/industrial might is ignored. It doesn’t make for popular reading.
Unfortunately ‘appeasement’ is part of that myth and has corrupted policy ever since. The Molotov pact was what prompted Hitler to kick it off, not Chamberlain’s weakness.
Hitler’s military Keynesianism is what made that war inevitable. Germany’s finances couldn’t fund the imports of raw materials his munitions-based economy depended upon, and Hitler would either have had to revert to a normal import/export model… or invade his neighbours to take what Germany’s factories required.
On top of that you had FDR urging Poland’s leadership not to negotiate with the Nazis re the Danzig corridor, and the likelihood that Stalin was planning to soon start conquering westward.
Let’s not forget Budapest memorandum when usa, britain, france and Russia guaranteed Ukraine independence and territorial integrity.
That really worked, did not it?
Munich part 2.
Now we are waiting for Munich part 3.
Maybe we should write opera about it?
We had Nixon in China.
What success that turned out to be both musically and politically.
Trump in Moscov, anyone?
Libretto by Vance and music by Putin and scenography based on Katyn.
Unfortunately, the Budapest Memorandum started going out of the window when NATO talked about integrating Ukraine into the anti-Russian alliance in 2007, and the defenestration was completed by the MI6/CIA-orchestrated Maidan Coup in 2014.
People keep going on about the sacred Budapest Memorandum, but seem to forget who abrogated it first: the West.
Who’s ignored it? Perhaps you could name the book, film or TV program? Or are you just thinking of chants by some football fans?
I don’t recall Russia being invited to the Auschwitz liberation ceremony, despite their troops being part of the Red Army which liberated it (not a single “Western” soldier at that…).
I wonder what will happen with the VE day celebrations…
the Soviets and US who without the War would never have occured, no conspiracy theory, the USSR allowed Germany to get out of Restrictions on them by training pilots etc in Russia pre 39 and US companies like IBM, Ford supplied and armed Germany
US and Russia both attacked, the UK was’nt it had an out, Hitler had no interest in fighting us.France was always gonna be attacked.
the UK in Day 1 to VJ day, the 1st to beat the German, Army, Navy,Airforce. Without the UK you don’t have a War, Germany just wins, and lets not forget that the UK was far ahead of any of them in technology, be it the computer, sonar, radar, intellgience
The Soviets get points for being bad at war and losing many unneeded people, hardly a glowing review
Had the UK fell in 1940, all alone, then Russia would have Fell (1 front war) and the US would never been attacked.
Considering the size of the UK compared to Russia/US we did amazingly
It wasn’t the UK which was fighting, it was the British Empire, the greatest power on the planet.
The surprising thing is not that it was finally “on the winning side”, but that it did so badly at the start. But that was mainly due to the French collapse.
The simple fact is that Britain didn’t “lose”, i.e. capitulate against the German forces massing on the French coastline and in the air. That was the game-changer that allowed the US to head the re-taking of the European mainland from Britain, and without which the Red Army to the east wouldn’t have been able to succeed either. Without D-Day, Russia might well have succumbed too.
You know very little history my boy. Just stick to what you’re good at. ‘Oh what a lovely article. Thank you Unherd.’
That is nonsense re Russia, sorry.
I am not pro Russian at all.
By D-day, Russian troops were on the borders of current Poland and would had defeated Germany and conquered whole of Europe.
So Roosevelt and Churchill had to act.
Allies already wasted troops and resources invading Italy so far south.
Just one look at the map would tell you that would be hard fight going north.
…..and our war debt finally repaid 2006
But not the WW1 war debt which remains unpaid.
Fact is though, that Britain not surrendering to Hitler in 1940, unlike France, made victory possible.
While Soviet blood is relevant, let’s not forget that Russia started ww2 with Germany by invading Poland.
If Russia (actually, the USSR… which included Ukraine, BTW) really had “started” WW2 by invading Poland alongside Germany, why didn’t France and Britain declare war on “Russia” as well?
In fact France and Britain “started” WWII by declaring war on Germany for invading Poland, because up until that point, it was a regional conflict. Only once the French and British empires were involved – of their own free will, it should be remembered – did it become a “world war”.
France invaded Germany with Operation Saar in September 1939, thus ensuring the Germans were (reluctantly) obliged to divert troops from their genocidal conquest East to secure their Western flank by invading Western Europe. Nice work, Paris and London! With “leaders” like these, who needs enemies?
I wonder if their modern successors have some similar act of mass suicide lined up for us in a doomed attempt to keep Ukraine “free”
Interesting times.
Well Chamberlain did his best to avoid war but was pushed into the Polish Guarantee.
But yes your points are correct.
The emerging British caliphate is not going to be a smooth evolution.
Who cares as long as there’s a plenitude of curry houses?
Trump may be obnoxious, but he’s necessary. Since Clinton/Blair we’ve had thirty years of hand-wringing, halo-polishing politicians terrified to speak plainly and the consequences have been catastrophic. Please, no more girly men.
Trump obnoxious? I don’t think he’s that grim. But then I’m a Highlander who lived in Yorkshire for 30 odd years, Some of us have thicker skins, appreciate a straight talker (and bullshitter) and have a different sense of humour I guess.
Oh and we do like to see a good troll wind up our “betters” 🙂
It’s not enough to stop virtue signalling. We also need to renounce the luxury beliefs behind the virtue signalling.
I find it bizarre that Khan puts his personal animosity before his representative role as Mayor.
Clearly his idea of democracy is to only represent the views of 1/6 of the London population that voted him into power. Power to the few, not the many.
Khan also seems to think decent curries are unavailable to the (billionaire) POTUS; presumably because the US is just too monocultural.
People keep voting for the little twerp tho, so he must be doing something right
We couldn’t even hold Kabul airport without American support and now our politicians tell us we are to garrison the Eastern Marches of Europe against the Russian – alone and unaided.
to be fair, the US unlike the UK and other European countries could’nt even get their people out of Afganistan.
So not sure referencing it is useful for you
also we did’nt hand over $80 billion worth of military equipment
The US armed forces are really weak , maybe Trump can change that but will take time, probaly longer than 4 years.
So Trump is wrong on this, as i doubt the US could handle Russia, Somalia right now
We don’t have $80 billion worth of military equipment to hand over
Trump would enjoy those events unlike the Racist Mayor of London
Since and including John Major’s premiership the UK has suffered a continuous succession of third rate leaders, the present incumbent of 10 Downing Street perhaps being the worst as he lacks charisma in addition to his multitude of other faults. These people have aspired to and secured power, not to lead the country and defined it; but to indulge in their self-centred political whims of the day – e.g. Net Zero, ‘Back To Basics’, mass immigration, DEI, etc. Any other leader who actually listens to the mass of the people and seeks to reflect their concerns in policy is pejoratively and sneeringly described as a ‘populist’.
I think there should be some kind of rule at UnHerd that rules-based order is always in scare-quotes
Without disagreeing with the thrust of this piece, Jones clearly doesn’t know much about defence matters. 15% of every F35, including those in the US orbat, comes from the UK and the British military doesn’t use Starlink. Or I deed it’s military version, Starshield.
It is amazing how little journalists know about defence – i read this sort of mistake repeatedly.
For journalists: Britain is the largest partner to the US in the F35 program with components being made in Preston, Bristol, Uxbridge, Cheltenham and Edinburgh.
Britain has its own independent, secure, military satellite system Skynet5 and is launching Skynet 6 this year.
…..and even though, as one of his last acts as PM, David Cameron signed the contract for vastly overpriced F-35 aircraft (50% > USAF) the RAF is denied access to it’s avionics/mission software….
Yep, here it comes, so the cretins have woken up now have they? What, the special relationship they’ve been deluding themselves with is over? Oh dear, now they’ve realised that a pathetic 2.5% on defence won’t be near enough? Well, that’s a good thing but not the most important, spending the money’s the easy bit. No, their problem is re-building our identity, British culture and convincing us that we’re the majority that they need to respect. If they think that their DEI atrocities, two tier law enforcement, NCHI , Islarmofogiest laws further restricting free speech will help convince the ethnic English, Scottish,Welsh recruitment to the military then they need to get a wiggle on. Can you see all the hate marchers protesting to free Gaza, the hate preachers in their mosks, the anti-Semitic Hamas supporters rallying behind the Union Jack? The DEI ethnic British hating brigade may just reap the rewards of their rotten multicultural seeds and, I for one, can’t wait for the show to begin….!
What do all the other irrelevant countries do? Or is it only the UK which is irrelevant. Perhaps it’s time to work on a new strategy for the UK in the World and let go of the miserable naval gazing. Any suggestions?