Analysis of: Starmer tells MPs he ‘will not yield’ over Greenland despite US pressure – UK politics live
The Guardian | January 21, 2026
The parliamentary exchange reveals a profound contradiction facing the British state: how to maintain its privileged position within the US-led imperial order while that very order's hegemon makes increasingly naked territorial demands. Starmer's repeated insistence that he 'will not yield' on Greenland's sovereignty, while simultaneously refusing to commit to retaliatory tariffs or meaningful opposition, exposes the limited sovereignty of junior partners in imperial alliances. The material basis of this contradiction lies in Britain's dependent position. As Starmer himself acknowledged, the UK relies on the US for 'defence, security and intelligence, on nuclear capability, also on trade and prosperity.' This dependency—built over decades of deindustrialization and financialization—means the British ruling class cannot meaningfully oppose US demands without threatening the economic and military foundations of their own power. Chancellor Reeves' statement that 'Britain is not here to be buffeted around' rings hollow when followed immediately by her refusal to consider retaliatory measures. The debate also reveals fractures within British capital over how to manage declining imperial status. The Conservative opposition attempts to weaponize the Chagos Islands deal—itself a colonial holdover—to undermine Starmer, while Labour MP Witherden's call to 'close ranks with European allies' against the 'thug in the White House' represents a minority position favoring European realignment. Starmer's attack on the Green Party for proposing NATO withdrawal demonstrates the narrow bounds of acceptable discourse: the fundamental alliance with US imperialism cannot be questioned, only its terms negotiated.
Class Dynamics
Actors: British state managers (Starmer government), British capitalist class (represented via Davos attendance, trade concerns), US ruling class (Trump administration), European ruling classes (Denmark, EU allies), British working class (invoked rhetorically as those who would be 'hurt' by trade wars), Conservative opposition seeking electoral advantage, Reform UK representing nationalist-populist capital faction
Beneficiaries: US capital seeking expanded Arctic resource access, British financial and defense sectors maintaining US ties, Arms manufacturers benefiting from increased defense spending rhetoric
Harmed Parties: British workers facing potential tariff-induced price increases, Greenlandic and Danish populations whose sovereignty is treated as negotiable, Working people across NATO countries bearing costs of imperial competition
The exchange demonstrates the hierarchical nature of the US-led alliance system. Britain occupies a subordinate position, with Starmer explicitly acknowledging dependence on US military and intelligence infrastructure. His 'constructive engagement' approach represents an attempt to maintain influence through compliance rather than confrontation. The opposition parties lack alternative frameworks—Conservatives attack from the right on the Chagos deal while Reform UK's Farage operates as a Trump ally. Only marginal voices (one Labour backbencher, the Greens) suggest genuine opposition to the US position.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Arctic resource competition (oil, gas, minerals, shipping routes), US-UK trade relationship and tariff threats, British defense industry dependence on US technology, Post-Brexit Britain's need for trade deals, Financialized British economy vulnerable to trade disruption
Britain's productive base has been hollowed out through decades of deindustrialization, leaving a financialized economy dependent on service exports and the City of London's role in global capital flows. This structural position—maintained by both Labour and Conservative governments—creates the material basis for Britain's subordination to US demands. The country cannot credibly threaten economic retaliation because its ruling class benefits from and depends upon the dollar-dominated financial system. Defense production is increasingly integrated with US contractors, making military independence impossible.
Resources at Stake: Greenland's rare earth minerals and Arctic resources, Control of Arctic shipping routes, UK-US trade flows worth billions annually, British access to US intelligence sharing (Five Eyes), Nuclear weapons technology and maintenance
Historical Context
Precedents: 1956 Suez Crisis demonstrating US power over British imperial ambitions, Britain's post-WWII role as junior partner in US-led order, Tony Blair's alignment with Bush on Iraq War, Monroe Doctrine's historical precedent for US hemispheric dominance, 19th century scramble for colonial territories
This episode represents a crisis point in the post-WWII liberal international order, as the hegemonic power (US) openly abandons the multilateral frameworks it created. The demand for Greenland echoes earlier phases of imperial expansion—direct territorial acquisition rather than the indirect control mechanisms (trade agreements, international institutions, debt) characteristic of post-1945 US hegemony. Britain's dilemma reflects the contradictions facing all declining imperial powers: how to maintain privilege when the system guaranteeing that privilege begins to fracture. This marks a potential transition from neoliberal globalization toward a more openly contested multi-polar imperialism.
Contradictions
Primary: Britain claims to defend sovereignty and international law while remaining structurally dependent on an ally openly violating those principles. Starmer cannot 'yield' on Greenland without abandoning stated principles, but cannot meaningfully oppose without threatening the material basis of British ruling class power.
Secondary: Labour attacks Greens for proposing NATO withdrawal while NATO's leading member threatens allies, Starmer invokes protecting 'working people' from trade war costs while refusing policies that might actually protect them, Opposition demands toughness on Trump while their own policies deepened US dependence, Britain claims to support Ukraine against territorial aggression while allied to a power demanding territorial annexation
The contradictions are likely to intensify rather than resolve. If Trump imposes tariffs, Starmer faces choosing between humiliating capitulation or economic retaliation that harms British workers and capital. The most probable outcome is continued rhetorical opposition combined with practical accommodation—maintaining the appearance of principled stance while making material concessions. This may temporarily manage the contradiction but deepens Britain's subordinate position and erodes the legitimacy of claims to defend international law. A more fundamental resolution would require either European strategic autonomy (which Britain has excluded itself from via Brexit) or a transformation in class power that could pursue genuinely independent foreign policy.
Global Interconnections
This crisis connects to the broader unraveling of the post-Cold War liberal order under pressure from inter-imperialist competition and capitalist crisis. The Arctic, with its newly accessible resources due to climate change, represents a new frontier for great power competition—the Greenland dispute cannot be separated from the ecological catastrophe making Arctic resources accessible. China's growing presence in Greenland (referenced implicitly in 'security in the Arctic' discussions) adds another dimension to US demands. The episode also reveals how Brexit has weakened Britain's position—unable to participate in coordinated EU responses, yet too small to negotiate independently with the US. Reeves' meetings with 'European, Gulf partners, Canadians' at Davos represents an attempt to build alternative coalitions, but these lack the institutional framework the EU provides. The fundamental dynamic is the reassertion of naked imperial competition after decades of institutionally-mediated hegemony, forcing subordinate powers to choose sides or risk isolation.
Conclusion
The Greenland crisis exposes the limits of social democratic governance within imperialist structures. Starmer's Labour cannot pursue an independent foreign policy because the British ruling class's interests are intertwined with US-led global capitalism. For working people, this means their interests in peace, sovereignty, and international cooperation will be consistently subordinated to maintaining elite access to US markets, technology, and military protection. The contradiction creates potential openings: the Greens' position, however marginal, represents a class interest in breaking from imperial alliances, while Witherden's intervention shows cracks in Labour discipline. Any genuine resolution requires building working-class power capable of challenging the material structures—the defense contracts, financial dependencies, and trade relationships—that bind Britain to US imperialism regardless of which party holds office.
Editorial Note: This analysis applies a dialectical materialist framework to news events. It represents one interpretive perspective and should not be considered objective reporting.
AI-Assisted Analysis | Confidence: 91%