G7 Gaffe: British PM Keir Starmers Awkward Mix-Up With Interpreter Goes Viral

A funny but embarrassing situation played out at the G7 Summit in Canada when British Prime Minister Keir Starmer accidentally greeted South Korea's newly elected President Lee Jae-myung's interpreter as the president. This was a formal meeting arrangement on Wednesday.
When Starmer walked up, he shook hands with the front man, realising immediately it was President Lee's translator. He warmly welcomed the actual president standing next to him. The confusion took only seconds but captured the media's attention at the high-profile G7 meeting. Downing Street, though, waved reports of the "handshake faux pas" as hyperbole.
Keir Starmer mistakenly shakes hands with a Korean interpreter instead of the President of South Korea (2025) pic.twitter.com/OYDjij1aJ1 — insane moments in british politics (@PoliticsMoments) June 18, 2025
UK-South Korea Relations Reinforced
Though there was a momentary confusion, both the leaders reasserted their intention to deepen UK-South Korea ties. Starmer said, "We share a robust partnership with South Korea, and we aim to take it further." He pointed to proposals to further defense cooperation and push trade deals. President Lee also concurred with the necessity of upgrading the bilateral trade agreement. The meeting was a part of the G7 outreach program, to which South Korea had been a special guest.
Another Trump Gaffe Moment
The handshake blunder was not the only awkward moment Starmer faced during the summit. A day before, when he had a bilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump, Starmer was forced to retrieve papers that had dropped from Trump's desk. Justifying his action, Starmer said, "With Trump's close security, it was simpler for me to take them myself."
In another blunder, Trump inadvertently stated America had reached a trade agreement with the EU when he referred to the UK. Asked if Trump's health was the issue, Starmer refused to say anything.
They have provided a tongue-in-cheek, but slightly embarrassing, aside to the G7 Summit, where world leaders are wrestling with serious international challenges.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

25 minutes ago

• Time of India

Israel-Iran Conflict: How another Middle East War is ripping MAGA apart - will Trump coalition survive?

As war clouds gather over Tehran, the 'America First' coalition fractures—from Carlson's outrage to Cruz's crusade, with Vice President JD Vance echoing the commander-in-chief's every word. The MAGA Movement Promised No More Wars—Now It's on the Brink of One Donald Trump didn't just win the 2024 election—he crushed it with a promise to rebuild America without stumbling into another foreign disaster. 'No more stupid wars' became doctrine. His base connected with this pledge, proud that he hadn't launched any new wars. But now, deep into 2025, that legacy is under pressure. In June, Israel struck Iran's nuclear facilities—and Trump responded by warning Iran's leaders to surrender 'unconditionally,' advising Tehran's civilians to evacuate, and boasting that the U.S. had 'total control of the skies.' The MAGA movement—defined by its distrust of foreign entanglements—is experiencing an identity crisis. The coalition that brought Trump back to power is now split, torn between instincts that fueled his rise. The Anti-War Wing: Carlson, Bannon, Greene, Gaetz—and the MAGA Grassroots Tucker Carlson: MAGA's Foreign Policy Firewall Carlson has emerged as the vocal anti-war leader within MAGA circles. He warned that war with Iran could end Trump's presidency. During a dramatic on-camera exchange with Senator Ted Cruz, he challenged his hawkish views by questioning basic facts about Iran—its population, its sectarian landscape—and called out what he sees as dangerous ignorance dressed up as resolve. To Carlson, this is Iraq 2.0. And allowing MAGA to shift toward intervention is nothing short of a betrayal. Tucker and Ted Cruz Get Into Heated Debate on AIPAC and Foreign Influence Steve Bannon: The Loyal Dissenter Bannon warned that a war with Iran could destroy the MAGA coalition. Yet he tempered the warning with neutrality, noting that even dissenting voices would ultimately fall in line behind Trump. His message: the base doesn't want war, but Trump remains the centre of gravity. Marjorie Taylor Greene: Culture Warrior, Peace Advocate Greene has remained firm in her opposition to escalation. She's made it clear that another conflict in the Middle East would betray the MAGA movement's core promise: to put America first—at home, not in yet another desert war. Matt Gaetz: The Populist Sceptic Gaetz has voiced deep scepticism over renewed interventionism, warning that MAGA should not fall for recycled Bush-era framing. He's dismissed hawkish rhetoric and cautioned that any move toward war must have a clearly defined exit strategy and real American interests at stake. His message is clear: military might is not a substitute for strategic clarity. The War Caucus: Cruz, Rubio, Levin, Hannity—Old Doctrine, New Labels Ted Cruz: Confident, But Clueless? Cruz maintained a hawkish stance in public appearances, even as he fumbled through basic facts about Iran. He's called Iran a threat and said the U.S. must act if necessary. His slip—confusing Israeli actions with American ones—highlighted the extent to which some MAGA hawks are ready for conflict, regardless of the details. Marco Rubio: From Miami to Mossad Now serving as Secretary of State, Rubio has become the administration's leading voice for a hardline Iran policy. He insists that Iran must be denied not just weapons, but even enrichment capacity. His doctrine is simple: Iran cannot even come close to the nuclear threshold. Mark Levin and Sean Hannity: Reagan-era Revivalists Both Levin and Hannity have called for strong action. Levin has floated the idea of regime change. Hannity has embraced the logic of preemptive strikes. They represent the older, more muscular conservatism that sees war not as a failure—but as assertion of American strength. JD Vance: The Loyal Lieutenant, Not the Peacemaker Vice President JD Vance, once the populist realist, now speaks with tight discipline. He hasn't condemned the hawks. He hasn't echoed the doves. He simply follows the President's lead—repeating Trump's lines, offering no deviation, and avoiding ideological entanglement. Vance is not acting as a bridge between factions. He's acting as a megaphone for Trump. His silence is strategic. His discipline is total with the belief that if he holds on long enough, he's a shoo-in to the be Trump's successor. Trump's Game: Maximum Pressure, Minimum Commitment—So Far Trump has long weaponised ambiguity. He's sent American forces into visible alert, named Iranian leaders, threatened air superiority—and yet, he hasn't fired a shot. This is vintage Trump: threatening force without deploying it, posturing without committing. But the longer this game stretches, the more pressure mounts. Hawks want action. The base wants peace. And Trump, ever the tactician, wants both. MAGA's Iraq Flashback: The Ghost That Haunts Them Still The language is all too familiar. Talks of WMDs. Warning of rogue regimes. Accusations of appeasement. MAGA was born in rebellion against this rhetoric. Trump won hearts by denouncing the Iraq War as a historic failure. Now, those ghosts are back. And the question is whether the movement has truly changed—or merely changed labels. The 2025 Test: Can MAGA Survive a Middle East War? Trump's current coalition—rooted in working-class values, suburban nationalism, and youth anti-establishment sentiment—says no to foreign adventures. Most polls show his base is wary of intervention. But a gamble remains: if Trump escalates, that coalition could fracture. The internal pressure is mounting. MAGA's future depends on whether it keeps its promise—or betrays the fierce anti-war impulse that helped redefine American politics in 2025. The Real War Is Inside MAGA This is more than a foreign policy debate—it's an ideological showdown. Anti-war bloc: Carlson, Bannon, Greene, Gaetz—warning against another Iraq, urging focus at home. War caucus: Cruz, Rubio, Levin, Hannity—championing confrontation and regime change. Intercepted by: JD Vance—standing in lockstep with Trump, no deviation. At the centre: Trump—wielding threats and uncertainties while testing the elasticity of a fractured coalition. A strike on Iran may win a skirmish—but MAGA's soul hangs in the balance. The real question now isn't just 'should we go to war?'—it's 'can MAGA survive it?'

First Post

25 minutes ago

• First Post

As US considers attacking Iran from Diego Garcia, will UK need to inform Mauritius in advance?

As the United Kingdom has ceded the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, analysts are divided on whether the terms of the treaty would require the UK to inform Mauritius in advance about any military action from the Diego Garcia base, which is on one of these islands. read more The photograph shows military aircraft stationed at the joint US-UK base at the Diego Garcia island in the Chagos Islands archipelago. (Photo: AFP) As UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is discussing options about joining US military against in Iran, there are concerns that any UK operation may be compromised by the recent Chagos Islands deal. Last month, the United Kingdom signed a deal with Mauritius to transfer the sovereignty of Chagos Islands. Under the terms of the deal, the UK has leased the Diego Garcia island, for 99 years. The island houses a military base that the UK shares with the United States. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD There are concerns among analysts that the UK may be required to inform Mauritius in advance about any military mission launched from the Diego Garcia base. If this would be the case, any mission involving ships or planes at the base would be compromised. The Diego Garcia base, formally called the Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, has housed submarines, ships, fighter planes, and bombers. B-2 bombers, which were stationed at the base in March, are one of the types of aircraft that the United States may use to strike Iran's underground nuclear sites. Will UK need to inform Mauritius about any operation? While analysts say that the terms of the deal are ambiguous, sources in the UK government have said that there is no scope of advance information. The Chagos Islands deal has said that the UK would need to 'expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia'. The Daily Telegraph has reported officials as saying that any information to Mauritius would be given after the operation has concluded, not before launching it. However, not everyone agrees with this. Some have stressed that the terms in the treaty's text released by Starmer's government are ambiguous. Philippe Sands, an international lawyer who previously acted for Mauritius against the UK, has told the parliament that there were 'presumably different interpretations' of the treaty's text and there was a chance of Mauritius interpreting it as being notified before the attack. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Irrespective of such concerns, Starmer's government would not notify Mauritius before any attack from Diego Garcia, according to i newspaper. The report further said that Mauritius does not hold any veto about military activities conducted from Diego Garcia.

Mint

27 minutes ago

• Mint

America is making a dangerous bet by trading principles for short-term expediency in its engagement with Pakistan

Srinath Sridharan Washington under Trump opting to engage with Pakistan's military chief despite Rawalpindi's record on terror undermines the values the US champions. Transactional geopolitics may serve the short-term interests of some, but cannot shape the destiny of nations that seek dignity, stability and peace. The US–Pakistan relationship has long been a case study in diplomatic cynicism. Gift this article 'I love Pakistan," said US President Donald Trump this week, quickly following up with another flourish: 'I stopped the war." He was referring to the ceasefire that followed India's Operation Sindoor, implying that his intervention averted an escalation between two nuclear powers. 'I love Pakistan," said US President Donald Trump this week, quickly following up with another flourish: 'I stopped the war." He was referring to the ceasefire that followed India's Operation Sindoor, implying that his intervention averted an escalation between two nuclear powers. In a country where 'I love New York" or 'I love Boston" merchandise is part of pop-cultural retail tradition, it is perhaps the first time that a sitting American president has publicly professed such open affection—not for a US city but for a foreign nation, and one long entangled with terror networks and given to military overreach. Also Read: Pakistan's economy must escape the clutches of its armed forces Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi promptly corrected the record the same day, clarifying (yet another time) that it was Islamabad that had sought de-escalation unilaterally. But Trump's insistence on claiming credit for a crisis he neither resolved nor influenced reveals a deeper, far more disturbing pattern: America's habitual romanticism of tactical deals with regimes entangled in terrorism while ignoring the long-term consequences for regional stability. This is not just bad optics. It is bad policy. The US, once considered the torchbearer of democratic values, seems increasingly willing to bypass elected governments in favour of military establishments and shadow power centres. Nowhere is this more evident than in its dealings with Pakistan. A nation that has harboured extremist groups, undermined civilian authority and used terror as statecraft continues to enjoy relevance in Washington's foreign policy playbook. The White House praises the arrest of a single militant as evidence of cooperation, even as Pakistan's terror infrastructure remains intact—undisturbed, deliberate, and institutional. Also Read: Nitin Pai: How to dissuade Pakistan from deploying terrorism It is hard to ignore the irony. America claims to lead the free world, yet chooses to transact with regimes that represent the antithesis of the values it espouses. The consequence is moral abdication. This dynamic plays out repeatedly: from the resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan to the safe haven for Osama bin Laden near a military cantonment in Abbottabad in Pakistan; from cross-border attacks in Mumbai, Pathankot, Pulwama and Uri to the continued radicalization in Pakistan's heartlands. The fingerprints are clear. So is the complicity. Yet, the US persists in treating Islamabad as a necessary partner—sometimes to broker influence in Kabul, other times to play the middleman in Kashmir, and often just to retain access and leverage in the region. It would be naïve to believe that the US-Pakistan relationship incentivizes reform. In truth, it legitimizes impunity. The Pakistani military, emboldened by its transactional value to Washington, continues to weaken democratic institutions at home and fund destabilizing proxies abroad. Every such engagement strengthens the perception that terrorism can be bartered for aid and extremism for arms. The contradiction becomes even sharper when viewed in the context of the Indo-Pacific. The US claims to rely on India as a democratic counterweight to China. It deepens defense ties, invests in the Quad and speaks of a free and open Indo-Pacific. Yet, it simultaneously chooses to ignore the very forces that threaten that vision by rewarding a regime that profits from regional unrest. This inconsistency is not lost on New Delhi. The US–Pakistan relationship has long been a case study in diplomatic cynicism. From selective partnerships to a repeated pattern of 'doing more" without consequence, Washington is an expert in the language of strategic necessity while turning a blind eye to long-term costs. But tactical flexibility cannot replace principled engagement. It does not produce allies; it breeds dependencies. Pakistan, meanwhile, has mastered the art of offering just enough cooperation to keep US interest alive while maintaining its core strategy of plausible deniability and proxy warfare. Credibility, not convenience, must now become the real currency of global order. Especially in a world grappling with great-power tensions—from Ukraine to the Taiwan Strait to West Asia—the US must ask itself a fundamental question: Can it afford to keep trading principles for short-term proximity? The answer becomes clearer when we examine Washington's recent diplomatic posturing over multiple global flashpoints—Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Iran and India-Pakistan. In each, the pattern is strikingly similar: choreographed pronouncements of peacemaking, fleeting moments of engagement and self-congratulatory claims of having 'brokered peace." For India, the implications are significant. A natural partner to the US, India must now calibrate its engagement with clarity and conviction. If the foundation of partnership is shared democratic values, then New Delhi must insist on consistency, not just in defence or economics but in principle. A rules-based international order cannot be built on selective amnesia or political expedience. It requires holding rule-breakers accountable. And it demands that peace not be sacrificed at the altar of tactical diplomacy. Affection in diplomacy is not measured by slogans, but by the values one chooses to embrace—and the silences one is willing to overlook. India, with its civilizational depth and global aspirations, must engage the world on its own terms. Our diplomacy must be grounded in self-respect, not shaped by shifting Washington moods. Because, at the end of the day, transactional geopolitics may serve the short-term interests of some, but cannot shape the destiny of nations that seek dignity, stability and real peace. The author is a corporate advisor and author of 'Family and Dhanda' Topics You May Be Interested In