Trump regime dismisses Starmer's Posturing!

You would need a heart of stone not to laugh at the news that Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump’s special envoy, has dismissed UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s plan to form an international coalition to support a ceasefire in Ukraine, calling it “a posture and a pose” rooted in a “simplistic” notion.

Poor Keir and his salty tears!

Here’s why Witkoff’s dismissal holds such merit.

Starmer’s proposal hinges on rallying a “coalition of the willing” (France and the UK) to provide military security guarantees for Ukraine post-war, evoking historical parallels with Winston Churchill’s leadership. Witkoff RIGHTLY argues this is outdated and theatrical. The world simply isn’t facing a 1940s-style Russian march across Europe—NATO already exists as a robust deterrent, unlike in Churchill’s era. Russia’s actions in Ukraine don’t signal an intent to conquer the continent.

Witkoff’s point is that Starmer’s plan over-dramatises the threat, inflating it beyond what’s practical or necessary.

Witkoff’s dismissal also aligns with a focus on immediate results over prolonged posturing. He’s spearheading Trump’s push for a quick ceasefire, claiming Russia is satisfied with its gains—Crimea and four other regions—and doesn’t seek more.

Starmer’s plan, by contrast, looks to a long-term framework, potentially delaying peace with complex multilateral negotiations.

I also think that Witkoff’s approach prioritises de-escalation right now, leveraging direct talks with Putin, whom he describes as “super smart” in the Tucker interview and open to deals.

Starmer’s coalition risks bogging down in bureaucracy, as coalition-building often involves conflicting interests and slow consensus—hardly conducive to ending a war swiftly.

Witkoff also questions the necessity of Starmer’s vision given Russia’s current stance. He argues that Putin’s goals are limited, not imperialistic, and that NATO’s existing framework already checks further aggression.

Starmer’s plan assumes a need for extra layers of security that might not match the reality on the ground. If Russia’s ambitions are indeed contained, as Witkoff suggests and as I believe, then piling on new alliances could be seen as provocative rather than stabilising—poking a bear that’s already settled rather than calming it.

Witkoff sees the UK’s proposal as more about projecting faux moral leadership than solving the problem efficiently. Starmer’s pseudo Churchillian rhetoric might boost his PR rating but Witkoff knows it’s light on substance—more about optics than outcomes. His own track record, like brokering a US-Russia prisoner swap, shows he values tangible progress over grand gestures.

In a war-weary world, his call for practicality over pageantry works best.

It will be interesting to watch Starmer respond to this overt rejection by the USA of his “Coalition of the Willing’! Will he go mute on it OR keep on pushing the pretence?

****If you enjoy all the content that I put out here every day, can I ask you to consider to becoming a PAID subscriber, it’s only £5 a month, you can cancel if you don’t enjoy it but I know you will. I want to thank the kind people who already do this, without your help this becomes impossible. Thank you in anticipation****