Follow us on social

Jeremy Corbyn

Will UK's populist surge challenge support for Ukraine?

So far, discontent with Labour and the Tories is focused on immigration and inequality but foreign policy still looms large

Analysis | Europe

The rise of public support for the populist right, and in some cases also the populist left, has remodeled political competition in France, Germany, Italy, and Poland.

British politics is increasingly following this trend, although a general election is not due until 2029. The right populist Reform UK party, led by veteran Brexiteer Nigel Farage, has been leading in opinion polls since April, clearly sapping the remaining strength of Britain’s venerable Conservative (Tory) Party. The unpopular Labour administration of Prime Minister Keir Starmer now faces a left populist challenge from a new party led by the former Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

Farage’s Reform party has surged to first place in opinion polls with 31%, well ahead of the governing Labour Party at 21%. The Conservative Party, which ruled continuously from 2010 to 2024, trails at a miserable 17% voter support. Both establishment parties have been on a downward trajectory since the 2024 elections. Corbyn’s party is in its early phase of organization, with a founding conference planned for later this year.

As in the other cases in Europe where populist parties are on the rise, defense policy and coolness toward unconditional support for Ukraine are not the main drivers of Reform’s success nor of Corbyn’s aspirations. Reform UK wins support by decrying irregular migration, while the Corbyn left emphasizes inequality, inadequate social services, and a weak economy. Polls show “immigration and asylum” as leading public concerns, while defense and security hardly register by comparison.

The populists’ dissent from the mainstream on the war in Ukraine and on foreign policy more generally would presumably matter if and when these parties win a share of power.

Why the populist challenge matters for war and peace

Both populist right and populist left across Europe tend to prioritize domestic social and economic issues, but they differ radically on irregular immigration and on the impacts of ethnic and linguistic diversity. Both tend to be Euro-skeptic.

The avowedly nationalist Reform UK depicts the EU as encroaching on the prerogatives of democratically elected national leadership, while the left wing of the Labour Party has also been wary of the EU, which is seen as too wedded to neo-liberal economics. These attitudes helped produce the victory for the “leave” option in the 2016 Brexit referendum. One of the leading advocates of Brexit, Nigel Farage, poses a formidable challenge to the Conservative Party from the right.

The party program of Reform UK does not address foreign policy at all. However, Farage is close to the Trump administration and has said that NATO expansion contributed importantly to Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine. Returning from a visit to Mar-a-Lago after Trump’s election last November, Farage called for “concessions on both sides” to end the war in Ukraine.

On July 24, Corbyn and disaffected Labour MP Zarah Sultana announced plans to launch a new left-wing party, with the tentative name YourParty. This excited a surprising level of interest, garnering 600,000 registrations on social media. Initial polls indicate its support could range from 10% to 15% of the electorate.

Corbyn has mobilized protests against Israel’s war in Gaza and advocates a diplomatic solution in Ukraine. He has been closely associated with antiwar causes throughout his career and is a co-founder and leader of the activist network Stop the War, first formed in September 2001 to oppose the looming invasion of Afghanistan, and now very much absorbed in public protests against British support for Israel’s operations in Gaza. Banished by Starmer from Labour, Corbyn is an independent MP.

Corbyn’s party project draws on and courts support from younger voters, as well as from communities of color in Britain. This has close parallels with Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s party La France Insoumise (France Unbowed), as Mélenchon himself has acknowledged.

Can populists affect foreign and defense policy? 

Neither Farage nor Corbyn nor their supporters share the dislike and dread of Russia promoted by Britain’s mainstream parties and much of the media. This could be significant if Reform UK and/or Corbyn’s party attract substantial support from the Conservatives and Labour, respectively. A steadily decreasing majority of the population (now only about 53%) supports continuing to arm and finance Ukraine.

Because any success of Corbyn’s party harms Labour, it could inadvertently help Reform UK win the next election, because of the “first past the post” electoral rule. Corbyn insists his party would present stronger opposition to Farage’s party than is being offered by Starmer’s government.

In general, trends point to polarization and the “Europeanization” of Britain’s politics — a splintering of the party system as the center ceases to hold — and more zero-sum contestation in the country’s politics.

The ideal of a united Europe — including the UK — providing support to Ukraine for the indefinite future is very unlikely to be achieved in a more fractured political system in which the anti-establishment right and left exert greater influence.


Top image credit: Jeremy Corbyn, ex-Leader of the Labour Party seen protesting the starving of Gaza outside Downing Street. July 2025 (Lab Mo / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect)
Analysis | Europe
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Air sickness symptoms: Old nukes and the F-35

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.

keep readingShow less
Trump returns to a failed playbook in Africa
Top image credit: 3rd SFG Soldiers on the range with Republic of Mali Armed Forces during a training exercise. Fort Bragg, NC. 8/4/2009 US Army Special Operations Command

Trump returns to a failed playbook in Africa

Africa

The Trump administration is reportedly increasing its intelligence sharing and military support to military-ruled Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger — all as part of a transactional framework aimed at boosting American access to critical minerals while also contesting Russian and Chinese influence in Africa. The administration’s approach may well find a receptive audience in Bamako, Ouagadougou, and Niamey, as well as within hawkish elements of the national security bureaucracy back in Washington. Yet the enhanced support is unlikely to make a meaningful difference in combating insurgencies in the troubled Sahel region.

The central Sahelian countries have been troubled by jihadist activity since the 2000s, and a rebellion in northern Mali in 2012 provided jihadists an even greater role in the region. Intensive French counterterrorism operations from 2013 to 2022 initially knocked jihadists back. Yet from 2015 onwards, insurgency spread from northern Mali into central zones of that country and into Burkina Faso and Niger, eventually spilling over into Benin, Togo, and Cote d’Ivoire as well (although Cote d’Ivoire has achieved some tenuous success in blunting jihadists’ momentum there).

keep readingShow less
Ursula von der Leyen Benjamin Netanyahu
Top image credit: miss.cabul and noamgalai via shutterstock.com

Europe finally stands up to Israel — but only halfway

Europe

In a significant and long-overdue shift, the European Commission has finally moved to recalibrate its relationship with Israel. Its proposed package of measures — sanctioning extremist Israeli ministers and violent settlers and suspending valuable trade concessions — marks the most substantive attempt by the EU to impose consequences for the Netanyahu government’s conduct in Gaza and the West Bank.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who once stood accused of a pronounced pro-Israeli bias, now states unequivocally that “the horrific events taking place in Gaza on a daily basis must stop.” Her declaration that the EU remains an “unwavering champion of the two-state solution” being “undermined by the Israeli government’s recent settlement actions” is a stark admission that Brussels can no longer ignore the chasm between its stated principles and its enabling actions.

These steps are important. They signal a breaking point with an Israeli government that has dismissed, with increasing contempt, the concerns of its European partners. The proposed tariffs, reinstating Most Favored Nation rates on €5.8 billion of Israeli exports, are not merely symbolic; they are a tangible economic pressure designed to get Jerusalem’s attention. The targeted sanctions against ministers responsible for inflammatory rhetoric and policies add a necessary layer of personal accountability.

Yet, for all its heft, this package suffers from critical flaws: it is horribly late, it remains dangerously incomplete, and it is a crisis, to a large degree, of Europe’s own making.

First, the delay. For almost two years since Hamas’ attack on Israel and Israel’s military campaign in Gaza leading to the killing of more than 60,000 people the world has watched the devastating conflict unfold. The EU, “the biggest donor of humanitarian aid,” has been forced to react to a catastrophe its own trade and political support helped underwrite. This response, only now materializing after immense public and diplomatic pressure, feels less like proactive statecraft and more like a belated attempt to catch up to reality — and to the moral courage already shown by several of its own member states.

Second, and most glaringly, the package omits the most logical and legally sound measure: a full ban on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. This is a profound failure of principle and policy. The settlements are universally recognized under international law as illegal. They are the very engine of the occupation that von der Leyen now claims is undermining the two-state solution.

While the Commission hesitates, what the Brussels-based head of the European Middle East Project Martin Konecny calls “a domino effect” is taking hold at the national level. The Dutch government has just announced it will ban imports from Israeli settlements, becoming the fifth EU member state to do so, following recent and decisive moves by Ireland, Slovenia, Belgium, and Spain. This growing coalition underscores both the moral imperative and the political feasibility of such a measure that the Commission continues to avoid.

Furthermore, this is not merely a political choice; it is a legal obligation. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its landmark opinion last year, made clear that all states are required to cease trade and support that facilitates Israel’s illegal settlement regime. As a matter of EU law, a union-wide ban could — and should — be implemented by a qualified majority vote as a necessary trade measure to uphold fundamental legal principles. The continued failure to do so renders the EU complicit in perpetuating the very system it now claims to oppose.

Third, the Commission’s entire approach suffers from a crippling legal and moral loophole: its proposed measures are framed purely through a humanitarian lens, deliberately sidestepping the EU’s explicit legal obligations to prevent genocide. By focusing solely on suspending parts of the Association Agreement, the proposal ignores the most direct form of complicity — the continued flow of arms from member states to Israel.

These lethal transfers, which fall outside the Agreement’s scope, are the subject of Nicaragua’s landmark case against Germany at the ICJ, which argues that providing weapons to a state plausibly committing genocide is a violation of the Genocide Convention. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Germany alone accounted for 30% of Israel’s major arms imports in 2019-2023. Berlin continued licensing the arms exports after the outbreak of war in 2023. The Commission’s failure to even address, let alone propose to halt, this pipeline of weapons from the member states while invoking “horrific events” reveals a strategic timidity that undermines the very rule of law it claims to defend.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.