Turkey-Russia Relations: Friend or Foe or Just Pragmatism

A Russian military vehicle in the countryside of Qamishli, northeastern Syria (File Photo/AFP)
A Russian military vehicle in the countryside of Qamishli, northeastern Syria (File Photo/AFP)
TT

Turkey-Russia Relations: Friend or Foe or Just Pragmatism

A Russian military vehicle in the countryside of Qamishli, northeastern Syria (File Photo/AFP)
A Russian military vehicle in the countryside of Qamishli, northeastern Syria (File Photo/AFP)

Turkish-Russian relations have historical depth, marked mostly by conflict. Ottoman Empire and Tsarist Russia fought a dozen wars. During the First World War, they were on opposite sides. The two enjoyed fair to good relations during the Turkish War of Independence but even then, things were not as good as they looked. After the Second World War, the Soviets claimed some Turkish territories in eastern Anatolia and questioned Turkish sovereignty over the Turkish Straits. Turkey joined NATO in 1952 serving as the Alliance’s southern flank nation throughout the Cold War. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Turkey and Russia were in competition for what some like to call the new great game over the Caucasus and Central Asia.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, Crimean Tatars, Circassians, Nogais ( Turkish ethnic group who live in the North Caucasus region), and many others of a shrinking Ottoman Empire had to flee their ancestral homes due to Russian advances. These people who found their new homes in Anatolia have also been a factor in Turkey-Russia relations.

Against this background, within the framework of the new strategic environment and developments in the international arena, Turkish-Russian relations gained a new momentum in the 2000s.

Presidents Erdoğan and Putin are regarded by many, as look-alike in their way of doing politics in general. They may not be the best of friends, (friendship defined by common ideals, lifestyles and pleasures) but they have established a kind of working relationship, based on mutual interest and benefit. This relationship plays a major and even central role in the present-day conduct of Turkey-Russia relations.

Bilateral relations between the two countries are quite active.

Trade volume is at an average of 25 billion dollars. At one point it was around 30 billion dollars. Despite a decline in its share, Russia is still Turkey’s main energy supplier, providing 34 per cent of its natural gas and 11 per cent of its oil. On the other side, Turkey’s exports to Russia are mainly agricultural products, machinery, land vehicles and textiles. All in all, around 80 per cent of bilateral trade volume is in favor of Russia.

But Turkey makes up for this deficit in the fields of services and construction. Turkey continues to be the major destination for Russians who adore its moderately priced all-inclusive five star resorts. The record was in 2019 with seven million Russian visitors. As to construction sector, up-to date, Turkey has completed around 1980 projects in Russia with a total value of around 75 billion dollars.

Turkey also serves as the transit carrier of Russian natural gas. The most recent joint project in this area is the TurkStream which has been officially inaugurated in 2020. This project connects Russia and Turkey with two 930 kilometers long offshore pipelines running under the Blacksea, one of which brings natural gas to Turkey. The other one is for gas destined for Europe.

Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant, with a total project cost estimated at 20 billion dollars, is another strategic value cooperation. Its first reactor is planned to be operational in 2023.

On the world stage, Russia and Turkey keep running into each other in different theaters, such as Syria, Ukraine, Libya, south Caucasus, They are mostly on opposing sides and occasionally, they physically hurt each other. But on the whole, the two countries have managed to establish some sort of a dialogue and cooperation module in all these theaters.

Russia is a major actor in Syria and militarily active in the field. Astana Process has paved the way for cooperation between Turkey and Russia. But the potential for a rift is still very much present, especially in Idlib. Despite a 2018 agreement, half of the province has been captured by the regime and Russia. In the opposition-held and frequently targeted by the regime part of Idlib, thousands of armed militants of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other mostly radical groups are present.

At a press conference in Moscow on September 9 with Israeli Foreign Minister Lapid, in response to a question Minister Lavrov said: “Turkish colleagues need to fulfill the agreements reached by Presidents of Russia and Turkey in September 2018. These agreements provide for the separation of the normal, reasonable opposition from the terrorists, primarily from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. This work is underway but, unfortunately, it is far from complete”. In the context of recent developments in Deraa, Lavrov stated that “in Deraa and on a broader plane, in Syria, no territories should be controlled by armed units other than the Syrian army.” What Lavrov said can be taken as a message as to what can be expected in the future.

What happens in Idlib and with its 3.4 million inhabitants in case of an all-out military campaign by the Assad regime and Russians, carries a potential for confrontation. In that regard, the attack on a Turkish patrol in Idlib on Saturday, killing two Turkish soldiers and wounding three, came at a critical time.

The 24 November 2015 incident, when Turkey shot down a Russian SU-24 military aircraft in Syria, was a clear example of how things could turn very sour between the two countries. Russia halted almost everything from Turkish businesses on its territories, to Russians visiting Turkey. Turkish military activities in Syria were also seriously affected. Russia enforced its position in Syria with sophisticated military hardware including air defense systems. It took a lot of effort and almost a year to straighten out relations.

In Libya, Turkey and Russia have faced each other with various fighting elements. Turkish involvement on behalf of the Government of National Accord changed the course of the war. Russia and its side did not end up on top. But neither seems discontent with the turn of events, at least for now.

In 2020, Azerbaijan, supported by Turkey, was able to liberate its territories under Armenian occupation. Turkey carved its mark in the Caucasus demonstrating that it is a force that counts. Turkey also further solidified its alliance with Azerbaijan and won points with its kin in the Caucasus and Central Asia. On part of Russia, not-so-Russia-friendly Prime Minister Pashinyan learned a lesson. Russia managed to engineer a ceasefire and under the terms of the ceasefire agreement, was back on the Azeri soil for the first time since 1990. In any case, both Turkey and Russia played it well in preventing things from taking a different shape and turn into a conflict between themselves.

Turkey and Russia are also on opposite sides on Ukraine. Turkey’s openly declared position is that it does not recognize the annexation of Crimea. Russia does not seem to mind this, as long as political positions are not turned into some sort of action. But the Russians follow with dissatisfaction and some concern, recent defense cooperation between Turkey and Ukraine, in particular, transfer of Turkish killer drones.

Afghanistan may become another file either for cooperation or confrontation between the two countries, depending on how things develop over there. The reasons are not entirely clear for everyone, but Turkey seems keen to assume a role in new Afghanistan. Russia regards Afghanistan basically from a security point of view, with particular reference to Central Asian countries. This region is crucial for Russia in terms of its strategic value, near abroad concept and the Russian-led Collective Security Organization.

One other issue of particular importance and with a strong NATO angle is the Black Sea and the Montreux Convention. Russia does not want NATO vessels in the Black Sea and is adamant about preserving the Convention as it is, which regulates the passage of warships through the Turkish Straits and limits their presence. The Turkish President’s most favored and politically advertised Canal Istanbul Project has raised some questions as to whether the Convention will have to be altered or not. Turkey’s position does not seem to be in contradiction to Russia’s.

The most important development in bilateral relations with far-reaching implications has been Turkey’s acquisition of S-400 air defense systems from Russia. The US and some other NATO Allies reacted strongly. The US went so far as imposing CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) sanctions on Turkey. Many in the West continue to present the S-400 issue as yet another proof of Turkey drifting away from NATO and the West.

Turkey’s side of the story is quite different. For some time now, Turkey has felt very unfairly treated by the EU or the West in general. It felt left out in the cold by its Allies on a number of occasions. Turkey’s EU accession negotiations are in deep freeze. Arms sales from many Allied countries including the USA, Canada, France and Germany are either restricted or in some cases, banned altogether. Turkey has argued that it had attempted to purchase air defense systems from the US and other western nations but was turned down. Russia, on the other hand, was more than ready to sell and Turkey opted for where it was possible to purchase the much-needed system.

Turks of different political convictions which rarely agree on anything, are of the same opinion that Turkey’s moves are not out of love for Russia but a consequence of the negative treatment of its Western Allies and partners.

In any case, Russia is happy. It managed to sell one of its multi-billion dollars weapons system, created a rift within NATO and further troubled the already strained relations between Turkey and the West.

Turkey is a member of an Alliance which identifies Russia as the main threat in a deteriorating security environment. But there is nothing to prevent Turkey, or any other member country for that matter, to engage with Russia in various fields, based on mutual benefit and respect, without contradicting NATO commitments and obligations. In any case, it is equally true that Turkey which enjoys good relations with its western allies and partners will be much better positioned in its dealings with Russia, compared to Turkey which is left alone by its allies and partners.

In conclusion, Turkey and Russia may have diverging positions on a number of issues, some with a potential for direct or indirect confrontation. But, for now, their relations seem to be governed by pragmatism. Even though a lot of patience and some occasional looking the other way may be needed in these relations, both countries seem to realize that dialogue and cooperation are better than confrontation; so long as it is possible.



Undoing the ‘Tangled Nest’ of Iran Sanctions Won’t Be Easy or Quick

A veiled Iranian woman walks past an anti-US mural, depicting an Iranian and US negotiation table, next to the former US embassy in Tehran, Iran, 22 June 2026. (EPA)
A veiled Iranian woman walks past an anti-US mural, depicting an Iranian and US negotiation table, next to the former US embassy in Tehran, Iran, 22 June 2026. (EPA)
TT

Undoing the ‘Tangled Nest’ of Iran Sanctions Won’t Be Easy or Quick

A veiled Iranian woman walks past an anti-US mural, depicting an Iranian and US negotiation table, next to the former US embassy in Tehran, Iran, 22 June 2026. (EPA)
A veiled Iranian woman walks past an anti-US mural, depicting an Iranian and US negotiation table, next to the former US embassy in Tehran, Iran, 22 June 2026. (EPA)

Tehran stands to gain billions of dollars from a 60-day reprieve from US sanctions announced on Monday, but unwinding more than four decades of restrictions poses legal, political and commercial challenges that could take years.

At issue is whether an interim US deal with Iran can translate into lasting economic relief, given the complexity of dismantling a sanctions regime that spans US law, international measures and private-sector risk concerns.

The United Nations, the US and the European Union have imposed sanctions and trade embargoes and have frozen assets since the late 1970s over Iran's nuclear program, human rights violations and support for armed groups around the region.

Under a 14-point memorandum of understanding signed by the US and Iran last week, Washington is to start abolishing all types of sanctions using a schedule to be forged in a final deal within 60 days, a period that can be extended.

On Monday, the US Treasury issued a temporary general license allowing the production, delivery and sale of crude oil and petrochemical and petroleum products of Iranian origin through August 21.

Removing the remaining sanctions - if it happens - would represent a stark change in US policy toward the Middle East, which has long focused on curbing ‌Iran's influence and ‌using financial pressure to weaken its theocratic government.

It would also be difficult, requiring executive action for some measures, approval ‌by ⁠Congress for others ⁠and close coordination with the UN and other countries that have imposed their own sanctions. Companies, wary after decades of restrictions, could also blunt the impact.

"You have this tangled nest of sanctions, and it's not just executive orders, it's congressional sanctions," said Juan Zarate, deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism under former President George W. Bush.

CONGRESS IS SKEPTICAL

Washington first sanctioned Iran in 1979, after revolutionary students seized the US embassy in Tehran, holding diplomats hostage.

Since then, Congress has passed half a dozen sanctions laws and presidents have issued executive orders over Iran's nuclear program and its support for groups the US deems terrorist organizations including Hamas, Hezbollah and Yemen's Houthis.

Since early 2025, the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has imposed sanctions on more than 1,000 people, vessels and aircraft, according to Treasury data.

Delisting thousands of entities designated for ⁠sanctions would take OFAC at least a year, said Jeremy Paner, a partner at law firm Hughes Hubbard & Reed ‌and a former US sanctions official.

President Donald Trump can rescind executive orders issued on Iran, but some ‌measures - including sanctions on Hamas and Hezbollah - are mandated by law and will have to be removed or amended by Congress, where the interim deal has already sparked sharp ‌public criticism from his fellow Republican lawmakers.

Undoing 40 years of sanctions would be difficult, added Matt Zweig, managing director of policy at FDD ‌Action, the lobbying arm of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

"Any attempt to comprehensively remove layer upon layer of sanctions will be like peeling back an onion - exposing the administration - not just to legal complexities but political risks," said Zweig, a former aide on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The license issued on Monday could be worth up to $3 billion for Iran over two months, by some estimates.

That could swell to "at least tens of billions of dollars" if made permanent, erasing a discount on Iranian oil, allowing Tehran to ‌sell to additional buyers beyond China, and increasing exports, said Edward Fishman, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. China now buys about 90% of Iranian oil, despite the sanctions.

The new license is broader than ⁠the one issued in March, calling for ⁠inclusion of not just oil and petroleum products, but also banking, insurance and transportation related to the oil trade, giving Tehran quicker access to its revenues.

"There are a number of thorny issues involved," said Stephanie Connor, a former OFAC official now a partner with law firm Holland & Knight, adding that lifting sanctions could mean funds flowing to groups the US considers a threat.

"Are we really going to let money start flowing to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps?" she asked, referring to the powerful paramilitary force that the US has designated a foreign terrorist organization.

WARY COMPANIES

Banks, oil firms and insurers will face evolving regulations, tougher due diligence and exposure to sanctions-evasion risks tied to Iran links with countries such as China, North Korea and Russia. They also remain subject to separate sanctions from Britain, the UN, the EU and others.

"We've kind of beaten the markets up with the risk of doing business with or through Iran, so you can't just flip a switch and say, 'Oh, now it's okay to do business with Iran,'" Zarate said.

Companies that deal with Iran would still face lawsuits from victims of attacks, who can sue investors and companies for aiding designated groups under the 2016 Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which aides say is unlikely to be repealed.

Given such risks, companies may steer clear of working with Iran to escape legal and reputational risk as long as the Iranian government remains in power, said Brett Erickson, principal with Obsidian Risk Advisors.

"We're not going to see massive multi-billion-dollar commitments until things are far more cemented and politically stable," he said. "There's just a long way to go."


Trump Allies Defend Him to Israelis Anxious Over Iran Deal

Israeli and US flags stand against a backdrop of destroyed buildings in southern Lebanon, as seen from northern Israel, Sunday, June 21, 2026. (AP)
Israeli and US flags stand against a backdrop of destroyed buildings in southern Lebanon, as seen from northern Israel, Sunday, June 21, 2026. (AP)
TT

Trump Allies Defend Him to Israelis Anxious Over Iran Deal

Israeli and US flags stand against a backdrop of destroyed buildings in southern Lebanon, as seen from northern Israel, Sunday, June 21, 2026. (AP)
Israeli and US flags stand against a backdrop of destroyed buildings in southern Lebanon, as seen from northern Israel, Sunday, June 21, 2026. (AP)

American allies of President Donald Trump this week defended him to an Israeli public anxious about a US interim deal with Iran and White House criticism that together appeared to signal fissures in Israel's decades-old alliance with Washington.

The US-Israeli relationship has been on a roller coaster, from the early confidence they shared after their joint attack on Iran to public disagreements between Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over how to end the four-month-old war.

Netanyahu and many other Israelis see a risk that Trump's memorandum of understanding with Iran will empower a state they regard as their deadliest enemy and constrict their ability to respond to threats from Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon.

They sense the US alliance - long the bedrock of Israel's strategic approach - is under strain as opinion polls show Americans increasingly unhappy with Israel and their strongest champion in Washington appears to be turning away.

"The United States and Israel have an unbreakable bond," Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, said on Sunday after acknowledging there was an "enormous level of anxiety about the relationship."

He spoke at the JNS International Policy Summit in Jerusalem where concerns about ‌the state of ‌the US-Israel alliance dominated many of the discussions.

Mark Levin, a conservative Fox News commentator and longtime Trump supporter ‌who has ⁠broken with the ⁠president over the Iran deal, told the audience that while he did not like the agreement and believed that the "Iranian regime" had to be destroyed, he nevertheless praised Trump for what he said was the president's support for liberty and religious freedom.

ISRAELIS WORRY OVER CRITICISM FROM REPUBLICANS

Alongside their concerns about the wording of the Iran deal, Israelis worry about Trump's insistence on Israel agreeing a ceasefire with Hezbollah in Lebanon and his language responding to Netanyahu's resistance to those agreements.

In recent weeks Trump has called Netanyahu "[expletive] crazy," lectured Israel that "you don't have to knock an apartment down every time you're looking for somebody" and publicly pondered asking Syria to replace Israeli troops in Lebanon.

Vice President JD Vance also struck a more critical tone, saying "Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to ⁠the nation of Israel at this moment in time," adding later that not all criticism of Israel ‌should be dismissed as antisemitism.

The fact such sharp views are emanating from Trump's Republican Party is especially ‌worrying for many Israelis, with US Democrats far more vocally critical of Israel than in previous years.

Sid Rosenberg, a prominent conservative New York radio host, told Israelis that for ‌all their concerns about Trump, he was the best option for them. "You could have JD Vance. Good luck with that," he said, after acknowledging that "a ‌lot of people in Israel are very, very upset" with the president.

While large majorities of Republicans 50 and older view Israel positively, younger conservative Americans have grown more critical, a Pew Research Center poll from late March showed. Some 57% of Republicans aged 18-49 have an unfavorable opinion of Israel, up from 50% a year previously.

Many Americans, including prominent Democratic politicians, were outraged by the scale of death and devastation in Israel's military campaign in Gaza after the deadly Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, on Israeli communities ‌and the taking of hostages.

Israel has also faced criticism over the joint decision to launch the war on Iran, a conflict that is deeply unpopular in the United States, including among Trump's conservative base.

Victoria Coates, ⁠vice president at the conservative Heritage Foundation ⁠think tank and Trump's deputy national security adviser during his first term, suggested on Monday that the US-Israeli relationship was strained but expressed confidence that the leaders of both countries would bring it "back on track".

A day earlier, speaking at the conference, she had said that recent days had been "challenging for all of us, to put it mildly," but that there had been plenty of "great and good things" in Trump's second term "for which we can and should be grateful."

NETANYAHU NOT CONCERNED BY TRUMP COMMENTS, OFFICIALS SAY

Until recently, Trump had been seen in Israel as its strongest-ever White House ally after his decision in his first term to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and Israeli sovereignty over Syria's occupied Golan Heights and his leading diplomatic role securing the release of hostages last year.

Two Israeli officials familiar with Netanyahu's thinking said the prime minister was not concerned that comments by Trump and Vance indicated any meaningful US policy changes such as slower arms deliveries.

Netanyahu believed the comments might be partly geared towards assuaging voters ahead of US midterm elections in November amid growing frustration over Israel and the war, said the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The anxiety in Israel has led some prominent figures to say it is time for the country to envisage a future without strong US support and to further build up its own military and technological capabilities.

Ohad Tal, chair of the US-Israel caucus in Israel's parliament the Knesset, said Israelis needed to prepare for the day when there is a less supportive US president "and this is why we have to be much more independent and we have to forge new alliances."


A Decade of Chaos: Britain Prepares for Seventh Prime Minister

 British Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks as he announces the timeline for his resignation, outside 10 Downing Street, in London, Britain, June 22, 2026. (Reuters)
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks as he announces the timeline for his resignation, outside 10 Downing Street, in London, Britain, June 22, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

A Decade of Chaos: Britain Prepares for Seventh Prime Minister

 British Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks as he announces the timeline for his resignation, outside 10 Downing Street, in London, Britain, June 22, 2026. (Reuters)
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks as he announces the timeline for his resignation, outside 10 Downing Street, in London, Britain, June 22, 2026. (Reuters)

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he would quit on Monday, paving the way for ‌the country to have its seventh leader in 10 years. The chaos dates back to the Brexit referendum, 10 years ago to the day on Tuesday.

In the years since the vote, Britain has tried to forge its own path but struggled to boost its low-growth economy, hamstrung by high debts and a growing welfare bill, at a time of growing geopolitical volatility.

JUNE 2016: UK VOTES FOR BREXIT, PM CAMERON QUITS

Britons cause a global shock by voting 52%-48% to leave the European Union, ending a more than 40-year union and plunging the country into its biggest political crisis since World War Two. Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron resigns and the party chooses Theresa May to succeed him.

JUNE 2017: SNAP ELECTION GAMBLE BACKFIRES

Riding high in opinion polls and seeking a bigger majority in parliament to push Brexit legislation through, May calls a snap election. The Conservatives lose their majority and form a government by striking a deal with Northern Ireland's pro-UK Democratic Unionist Party.

MAY 2019: BREXIT PARALYSIS, MAY RESIGNS, JOHNSON TAKES OVER

May quits after failing to break a parliamentary deadlock over how Britain should leave the EU. Boris Johnson, one of the main faces of the pro-Brexit campaign, wins the internal Conservative Party contest to ‌succeed her.

DECEMBER 2019: JOHNSON ‌LEADS CONSERVATIVES TO SWEEPING WIN

With parliament paralyzed over Brexit, Johnson calls a snap election. Campaigning under ‌the ⁠slogan "Get Brexit Done" ⁠he steers the Conservatives to their biggest election win since Margaret Thatcher's landslide victory in 1987.

JANUARY 2020: BREXIT GETS DONE

Johnson uses his mandate to drive a Brexit deal through parliament and Brussels, and Britain exits the EU on January 31, 2020, becoming the first state to withdraw from the bloc.

JULY 2022: JOHNSON OUSTED Johnson leads Britain during the COVID-19 pandemic - at one point being hospitalized himself with the disease - but a long list of scandals and missteps proves too much and he steps down after a ministerial revolt.

SEPTEMBER 2022: TRUSS' CHAOTIC PREMIERSHIP

Liz Truss beats Rishi Sunak in a contest to succeed Johnson. Her "mini-budget" containing unfunded tax cuts spooks financial markets, pushing up borrowing costs sharply and further tarnishing Britain's reputation for political and fiscal stability. She lasts only 44 days before ⁠announcing her resignation.

OCTOBER 2022: SUNAK BECOMES PRIME MINISTER

Sunak takes over as Britain's third prime minister in as many ‌months, pledging to restore stability to government. He makes five key pledges focused on the ‌economy, stopping illegal immigration and improving the health system. In February 2023, Sunak strikes a deal with the EU on trade rules for Northern Ireland, improving ties with ‌the bloc.

MAY 2024: SUNAK CALLS ELECTION

Trailing the Labour Party by around 20 points in the polls, Sunak calls an election for July ‌4.

JULY 2024: STARMER BECOMES PRIME MINISTER "We said we would end the chaos and we will," Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, told supporters on July 5, 2024, after winning a landslide election but with the smallest share of the electoral vote of any majority government in modern history.

AUGUST 2024: STARMER WARNS 'THINGS WILL GET WORSE'

Starmer warns over the state of the public finances, saying the Labour Party has inherited "an economic black hole" and tells voters "things will get worse before they get ‌better".

OCTOBER 2024: LABOUR'S FIRST BUDGET

Finance minister Rachel Reeves announces tax rises worth £40 billion ($52.76 billion) a year, primarily by raising employers' social security contributions, bringing the tax burden to its highest level on record in ⁠peacetime and prompting an outcry from ⁠businesses.

FEBRUARY 2025: NIGEL FARAGE'S REFORM UK PARTY SURGES

Right-wing anti-immigration party Reform UK overtakes Labour in a national opinion poll for the first time. Reform UK, led by Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage, has topped polls ever since.

JUNE 2025: REBELLION FORCES STARMER U-TURN ON WELFARE

Starmer is forced to reverse plans to cut Britain's welfare bill after his own lawmakers threatened to defeat the government.

SEPTEMBER-APRIL 2025: MANDELSON SCANDAL

Pressure on Starmer ramps up over his appointment of Peter Mandelson as Britain's ambassador to Washington. Mandelson was later sacked over his ties to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as questions emerge over Starmer's judgment and the vetting process involved.

MAY 2026: LOCAL ELECTION DISASTER

The Labour Party suffers heavy losses in English local elections and votes for the Scottish and Welsh assemblies, deepening questions over Starmer's ability to govern, with Reform UK the main beneficiary.

MAY 2026: WES STREETING RESIGNS AS HEALTH MINISTER

Health Minister Wes Streeting quits saying he had lost confidence in Starmer's leadership and calls for a leadership contest, in which he said he would hope to compete.

JUNE 2026: DEFENCE MINISTER JOHN HEALEY QUITS

British Defense Minister John Healey quits over a months-long dispute over defense spending, accusing Starmer of failing to commit the money needed to keep the country safe from mounting threats.

JUNE 2026: ANDY BURNHAM SHOWS HE CAN BEAT REFORM UK

Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham wins an election in the north of England, trouncing Reform UK in the process, and allowing him to return to Westminster, removing a key obstacle to any leadership challenge against Starmer.