Starmer-Biden meeting: key takeaways for Ukraine

The author of the Resurgam Telegram channel highlighted three key takeaways he sees in the Starmer-Biden meeting.

According to the author, Starmer hasn't even arrived in the U.S. yet, but there's already speculation about the results. This situation is reminiscent of when former UK Prime Minister Cameron traveled to Trump's estate for negotiations on Ukraine. At that time, there were pre-meeting reports about a “failure,” but the actual outcome was quite different.

“It makes more sense to draw conclusions about an event after it has actually taken place, don't you think? Additionally, consider the first ATACMS supply: it’s unlikely that there will be a straightforward answer about the clearance post-meeting because such specifics are typically not disclosed,” the author commented.

Another point is that Putin's threats did not sway the British Prime Minister. Prior to boarding the plane to meet Biden, Starmer made his stance clear: “Russia started this conflict [...] Ukraine has a right to self-defense.”

There's also an intriguing connection between Israel and Ukraine, the author believes. "Reflecting on the meeting between Burns and Moore on September 8, I previously suggested: ‘It’s possible that this is an attempt to formalize an agreement where MI6's head might persuade the British government to soften its stance on Israel, while the CIA would try to convince the White House to ease its objections to Ukraine's requests,’” they added.

Several recent developments seem to support this theory:

• First, Blinken's unannounced visit to the UK, followed by his trip to Kyiv with his British counterpart, is noteworthy. As Secretary of State, Blinken recently returned from a Middle East tour where he dealt with Israel and Palestine, likely working towards a resolution.
• Second, before departing for his meeting with Biden, Prime Minister Starmer, while discussing Ukraine, also mentioned Israel, “There are really important developments likely in the next few weeks and months, both in Ukraine and the Middle East, and therefore a number of tactical decisions ought to be taken.”

Although none of these events individually confirm the theory, together they create a coherent picture:

• Burns and Moore may have formalized the agreement outline based on intelligence and risk assessments.
• Blinken and Foreign Minister Lammy likely transferred this information into the political sphere.
• Therefore, Biden and Starmer are expected to finalize the processes prepared by intelligence and diplomacy.

“This suggests that if Biden resists on Ukraine, he might face a lack of British support in the U.S. strategy regarding Israel and Palestine. The White House is keen to finalize an agreement on Israel and Palestine before the elections to boost Harris' chances and slow down Saudi cooperation with China, as Riyadh seeks stability in the region,” the author concluded.