Terri Bloore: Starmer needs a lessons on managing international relations. He should ask Zelensky

Terri Bloore is the Conservative candidate for Mayor of Newham.

Keir Starmer is no Churchill, that is something Trump and I can agree on. In moments of international crisis, indeed war, national leadership needs to be strong and decisive. Certainly not dithering.

Starmer in the space of 48 hours managed to not just upset the President of the United States, our most important ally, but also Iran – a state not known for measured responses in relation to opposition. Over the course of a few days, his government first signalled that Britain would not back the United States in its escalating confrontation with Iran, only to reverse course within a day and allow the United States access to British military bases.

He is a joke, and making Britain – once known for our diplomacy, level-headed intelligence and insight – a joke with him.

Britain now appears hesitant at precisely the moment when clarity is needed. Allies question our reliability while adversaries see uncertainty. The damage is not simply reputational. It strikes at the heart of Britain’s long standing claim to be one of the West’s most dependable partners in matters of security and defence.

Churchill understood that alliances require visible commitment. When Britain stands with its allies, it must do so decisively. Hesitation only weakens collective resolve.

The irony is that recent history offers a powerful example of the very resilience Starmer now seems unable to demonstrate. Since the beginning of Russia’s full scale invasion, Ukraine under the leadership of Volodymyr Zelenskyy has shown extraordinary discipline in managing its relationships with Western partners.

Ukraine has endured immense frustration. Weapons deliveries have been delayed. Financial packages have been debated and watered down. Political winds in Western capitals have shifted repeatedly. Yet throughout this ordeal, the Ukrainian government has remained committed to its allies.

It has come to negotiations ready to compromise. It has accepted difficult realities. Above all, it has understood a fundamental strategic truth: survival requires patience. Ukraine knows it needs the West more than it needs pride.

Zelenskyy and his government are playing the long game. That approach has required immense restraint. Ukrainian leaders have learned that diplomacy often means absorbing disappointment while maintaining unity with those whose support is indispensable. They have demonstrated strength through consistency, not theatrical gestures. Starmer’s government should learn from that example.

Over the years working with Ukraine, dating back before annexation of Crimea, I have seen how  hard Ukraine has worked to preserve relations with the West. Yes, it has been slow, yes faltering at times and yes, the power has sometimes been in the form of soft power – but support flowed from Europe and North America because Kyiv has proved itself a serious partner that can be trusted.

Today we stand in surreal reality where Ukraine has responded to the USA’s requests for help and “reacted immediately” sending interceptor drones and a team of drone experts to protect U.S. military bases in Jordan. “Of course, we will send our experts,” he said, that is a far cry from our indecisive leader.

Ukraine understands the strategic stakes. Compromises are painful but Ukraine has proved itself to be a trustworthy, brave partner. Trust that Starmer is now squandering. How can we be trusted as trusted partner when we cannot be trusted to make a decision one way or the other.

The emerging confrontation involving Israel, the United States and Iran presents difficult choices. No responsible government should treat them lightly. Yet the handling of such crises matters as much as the decision itself. By first signalling distance from Washington and then hurriedly opening British bases to American forces, Starmer has managed to offend almost everyone involved.

Yet today the image projected from Downing Street is not one of confidence or resolve. It is hesitant, it is indecisive and it is weak. Starmer has proved again that he would rather stare at his shoes than confront the consequences of leadership. That perception matters politically as well as strategically.