When Vladimir Putin sent at least 19 drones into Poland last week, the Russian president was delivering a message: He’s not planning to end his war against the West anytime soon. The Russian incursion into NATO airspace follows weeks of aerial attacks in Ukraine that killed dozens of civilians, damaged buildings housing the EU and British delegations and struck for the first time a government building in central Kyiv.  Far from being ready to strike a peace deal with Ukraine under pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, Putin has pegged his political survival to a simmering conflict with the United States and its allies. “Putin is the president of war,” said Nikolai Petrov, a senior analyst at the London-based New Eurasian Strategies Center. “He has no interest in ending it.” Having fashioned himself as a wartime leader, going back to being a peacetime president would be tantamount to a demotion. “No matter what the conditions are, he cannot give up that role,” Petrov said.  As Putin’s full-scale assault on Ukraine drags toward its fourth year, the Russian president arguably has the most cause for optimism since the early days of the war when the Kremlin hoped to capture the country in a matter of days. With Ukrainian forces hamstrung by a lack of weapons and manpower, Russia has been grinding deeper into the country.  But Moscow’s progress has been slow — and costly. The Kremlin’s armed forces have suffered an estimated one million casualties and the conflict has taken its toll on the Russian economy, which threatens to tip into recession. And yet, politically, ending the conflict comes with risks. The Kremlin’s tight control over the media and the internet would likely allow it to sell a peace deal to most Russians as a victory. But that’s not who the Russian president will be worrying about. With Russia’s liberal opposition decimated, a small but vocal group of nationalists now presents the biggest threat to his rule, said Petrov. And he has promised them a grandiose victory, not only over Ukraine but over what the Kremlin calls “the collective West.” “There’s a desire among the hawkish part of the military-political establishment to destroy NATO,” Alexander Baunov, a former Russian diplomat now a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, told DW’s Russian service. “To show NATO is worthless.” Since Putin met with Trump in Alaska last month in what the U.S. president had touted as a summit dedicated to striking a ceasefire, Moscow has ramped up its campaign of hybrid warfare against Europe, according to military analysts.  Before Wednesday’s incursion, Russian drones had repeatedly ventured into Polish airspace from neighboring Belarus, circling cities before turning back. In August, a Russian drone crashed some 100 kilometers southwest of Warsaw.  According to WELT, a sister publication of POLITICO in the Axel Springer Group, five of the drones that crossed into Poland were on a direct flight path toward a NATO base before being intercepted by Dutch Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets. In an opinion piece published two days before the drones crossed into Poland, Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, accused Helsinki of planning an attack, threatening that any assault “could lead to the collapse of Finnish statehood — once and for all.”  Analysts noted the article’s rhetoric resembled the Kremlin’s talking points ahead of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Moscow has also begun to shift vital industries, including shipbuilding, to the east of the country, away from its border with NATO, Petrov pointed out. On Friday, Russia began carrying out large-scale military exercises with Belarus, including just across the Polish border. The exercises are expected to conclude on Tuesday. “Whatever Putin achieves in Ukraine, the confrontation with the West will not end there; it will continue in various forms,” said Petrov. “Including militarily.” With actions like the incursion into Poland, Putin is issuing a warning to Trump and European leaders discussing providing security guarantees for Kyiv after a potential peace deal, said Kirill Rogov, founder of the think tank Re:Russia. “Putin showed that he can attack NATO countries today and they have no defense systems in place,” he said. Trump’s mixed signaling on his commitment to NATO and his unwillingness to stick to his own deadlines when it comes to imposing sanctions on Moscow give Putin the confidence that he can get away with it. For the Russian president, “it’s now or never,” Baunov added. Incursions like the one in Poland are intended to chip away at the Western military alliance’s commitment to collective defense, with small offensives that test NATO’s willingness to respond. The hope, said Baunov, is to reveal the military alliance as a toothless tiger. So far, the reaction from Washington has fed into those fears.  On Thursday, Trump echoed Moscow’s talking points, telling reporters that “it could have been a mistake.”  The Kremlin has dismissed accusations that the drones were a deliberate provocation. The Russian defense ministry said there “had been no plans to target facilities” in Poland.  Belarus, which served as a launchpad for some of the drones according to Polish officials, said the incursion could have been the result of a mishap due to “electronic jamming.” “This is typical Putin-style trolling and probing,” said Rogov. “He likes things to be ambivalent so that they can be interpreted either as deliberate or accidental.”

Blockages in the technology innovation pipeline and digital skills shortages were just some of the topics discussed by industry stakeholders during a DSEI-hosted roundtable held in July. Chaired by the UK minister for defense procurement, Maria Eagle, attendees included the likes of KX, Forcys, Dell and Amazon Web Services, all of which are attending DSEI UK 2025. The theme of the roundtable was ‘developing defense technology at pace to meet modern battlefield requirements’, a key theme at this year’s DSEI UK. Under the banner of this overarching theme, four sub-themes were discussed by the group as company representatives directed questions and suggestions toward the minister. The minister opened the proceedings by outlining the priorities of the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD), calling the current moment a “pivotal” one for UK defense as the country looks to return to warfighting readiness. Technology will be central to this move and the UK is set on becoming a leading “tech-enabled defense superpower by 2035,” she said, with priorities based on the lessons learned in Ukraine. Changes like these will require some changes in the government’s approach to technology, though. “We’ve got to innovate at the speed of technology … there’s no point taking six years to get to contract on a drone — you’d just be contracting to put it in the museum,” she added. > We’ve got to innovate at the speed of technology … there’s no point taking six > years to get to contract on a drone — you’d just be contracting to put it in > the museum. Changing the way the UK government acquires and utilizes innovative defense technology at speed and scale will require stronger collaboration between government and industry, however, and there is still some way to go to ensure this relationship works, according to industry stakeholders at the roundtable. Bolstering the innovation pipeline A major hurdle for defense firms is navigating the ‘valley of death’ — the time between developing an initial concept and the point at which the company starts to see returns on its investment. Businesses need considerable support to stay liquid and avoid bankruptcy in this period. “I think part of the challenge that we’ve identified is taking an operational concept demonstrator, which we’ve been involved with in defense, and bringing that into core [military programs],” a representative from KX, a software company based in Northern Ireland, said. “[It’s] the valley of death or the cup of opportunity, as I call it — and nobody seems to be drinking from that cup,” the representative said. “A lot of attention goes to the SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises] and the concept demonstration, and the primes get a huge amount of attention at the other end of the scale, but dragging those concept demonstrators into a core program, that seems to be a key challenge, and it would be great to understand how that can be accelerated so that concepts don’t just wither on the vine.” Eagle recognized that concept demonstrators are sometimes shelved with “no follow up,” noting that the “valley of death has been a big problem.” To address this, the UK is “establishing UK innovation,” with the goal of getting “new ideas and concepts, and new ways of doing things to the warfighter.” Company representatives and moderator gathered at DSEI UK roundtable.  Is there enough support for SMEs? Another portion of the roundtable focused on how SMEs position in the defense ecosystem can be further supported, particularly by other key stakeholders such as the UK MoD and DSEI UK. Eagle noted the UK government’s plans to establish an SME hub in the “not too [distant] future” to provide smaller defense tech companies with assistance for working in the sector and with the MoD. A representative from Forcys welcomed plans to establish an SME hub but did push back against the minister, arguing that many of these initiatives designed to fund innovation do not come with “sufficient money.” “The average DASA [Defence and Security Accelerator] award is £50,000 to £100,000 — its buttons to what’s actually required to develop something at pace and really develop it properly, rather than just playing into it,” the representative argued. The representative also rallied against the problems faced by Forcys due to its size, given it is defined neither as an SME nor a prime. This means it doesn’t get the support infrastructure afforded to smaller firms or the advantages that come with having the scale of a prime.   The future of dual use and next-gen skills issues Looking ahead, stakeholders at the roundtable also discussed what the future might look like for the defense industry, given the changing nature of dual-use technology and the concerning digital skills gaps in the sector. > Stakeholders at the roundtable also discussed what the future might look like > for the defense industry, given the changing nature of dual-use technology and > the concerning digital skills gaps. Understanding the defense supply chain is crucial on the dual-use front, according to a representative from PQShield. They pointed to the untapped potential in dual-use, explaining that many companies don’t know how to sell to the defense industry. “We’re struggling to pitch it to defense right now because we don’t know the best place to go,” the representative said, speaking about PQShield’s cryptography products and solutions. Discussion also turned to the difficulties the defense industry faces in acquiring workers with the right skills or having access to graduates and those early in their careers. “We’re being outgunned by gaming, by fintech, by the finance industry — we’re not getting the best people. We say we do, we don’t because we just simply can’t pay for them,” said Rob Taylor, founder of training technology firm 4GD. Adding to this point, the representative from KX said that they would like to see schools doing more to incentivize students to seek out technology jobs. A good approach would be to start from year seven or even younger, they said. Eagle agreed that the skills issue is “tremendously important,” adding that the UK’s skills system has not worked as well as it could for some time and that many industries are suffering the same skills shortages. “As we’ve had the last few years, where you’ve got a war on our doorstep and things like that going on, there’s been a shift back towards understanding the value of defense. But there’s some ways still to go, so we’ve got more work to do on that,” Eagle said.

BERLIN — The European Commission’s plan to supercharge the continent’s defense industry through a new joint funding tool may violate EU treaties, according to a legal analysis by Germany’s parliament obtained by POLITICO. The confidential report, dated April 30, by the Bundestag’s legal analysts adds that the EU’s €150 billion Security Action For Europe loans-for-weapons regulation may also deliver limited economic value. “In the context of the establishment of SAFE, questions also arise concerning the compatibility of this instrument with the Union law prohibition on the use of EU funds for operational measures with military or defense implications,” the analysis states, referencing Article 41(2) of the Treaty on European Union. SAFE would offer long-term EU-backed loans — up to 45 years, with a 10-year grace period — to member states for defense procurement and industrial projects. It is being advanced under Article 122 of the EU treaties, typically used for economic emergencies. But the Bundestag report notes this legal workaround “is not universally accepted,” and warns that “even the financing of defense-related goods and services” could fall under the treaty ban — especially when “intended for Ukraine and not for EU member states.” SAFE was approved last month by member countries, including Germany. The parliamentary report is unlikely to have an impact on German government policy. The German defense ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment. The report’s criticism goes beyond legal concerns. The authors, made up of legal and policy experts, raise doubts about SAFE’s economic impact, pointing to “estimated expenditure multipliers between 0.4 and 1.0” — lower than for other public investments like infrastructure or education. They caution that “a significant portion of the positive effects of increased defense spending may occur abroad, particularly in the USA,” depending on supplier location. SAFE’s design includes a “Buy European” clause allowing only 35 percent of the value of the weapons to come from manufacturers beyond the EU, Ukraine or European Free Trade Association countries. While intended to strengthen the European defense base, the report highlights internal EU divisions and risks to defense partners. “Member states have expressed differing views on whether countries such as Canada or the United Kingdom … should be allowed to participate on an equal footing,” it notes. “Turkey and Serbia … are not mentioned at all.” SAFE is open to EU and EFTA countries and Ukraine. EU applicants and countries, like the U.K., that have signed security pacts with the bloc can join common procurements. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is in Brussels on Monday to sign a similar deal. However, as the U.K. is now finding out, it’s not clear what level of access third countries will have. The German legal service does not call for scrapping the initiative, but its tone suggests SAFE is far from settled policy. Its conclusion: “The macroeconomic and industrial policy effectiveness of such investments therefore depends strongly on their localization.”

First published in Columbia Missourian, United States, June 4, 2025 | By John Darkow First published on CagleCartoons.com, June 4, 2025 | By Malcolm McGookin First published on CagleCartoons.com, June 3, 2025 | By Malcolm McGookin

NATO allies cannot rely on the United States to defend them and need to step up themselves, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said. “The United States is proud to be here, to stand with our allies, but our message is gonna continue to be clear: It’s deterrence and peace through strength, but it cannot be reliance,” Hegseth told reporters ahead of a NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels on Thursday. “It cannot and will not be reliance on America. It can’t just be U.S. capabilities,” he said. The military alliance’s defense ministers are gathering in Brussels a few weeks before a high-stakes summit of NATO leaders in The Hague. The ministers at Thursday’s meeting are widely expected to agree on updated capability targets — meaning new requirements for military equipment — and to pave the way for a deal later this month on a new defense spending target of 5 percent of gross domestic product. In recent months, U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on Washington’s commitment to NATO’s mutual defense clause, known as Article 5. “Our commitment to Article 5 remains, but we also think it’s reasonable that our allies be also committed to Article 3,” the U.S. ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, told reporters on Wednesday, referring to the military alliance’s requirement to build capacity to resist an armed attack. Hegseth insisted that all NATO ally had to their part in the continent’s defense. “The reason I’m here is to make sure every country in NATO understands every shoulder has to be to the plow, every country has to contribute at that level of 5 percent,” he said, adding that he is confident an agreement will be reached in The Hague.

U.K. King Charles III has invited French President Emmanuel Macron for a state visit in May, months before a visit by U.S. President Donald Trump that is expected to take place in September, The Sunday Times reported. The first state visit by the French leader is being planned amid British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s efforts to relaunch relations with the European Union years after Brexit, while the U.K.’s historic American allies drift away and turn looking inward under Trump’s presidency. Macron and Starmer have in recent months led a “coalition of the willing” composed by European countries seeking to agree on security guarantees for Ukraine in case a ceasefire is achieved with Russia. As Macron schmoozes with the king in Windsor Castle, the U.K. and the EU are expected to seal a defense and security pact at a London summit on May 19 to boost military spending across Europe. While defense has served as the first steppingstone in efforts to rebuild EU-U.K. ties, its implications on trade loom large, as the pact could pave the way for further negotiations such as an agri-food standards agreement to reduce trade bureaucracy and EU plans like improved mobility for young people and students. In fact, defense pact is hinging on whether the U.K. will make concessions on fishing rights in English waters for EU fleets. Both sides are expected to use next month’s meeting to reach a common understanding of which issues will be part of Starmer’s wider U.K.-EU relations relaunch. On the other side of the Atlantic, Trump recently suggested he would visit Britain in September, after Starmer extended an invitation by King Charles during his visit to Washington in February. Trump has in recent weeks slapped hefty tariffs on countries around the world, including 10 percent duties for U.K and EU products across the board. The U.S. president hit the pause button on other heavier reciprocal tariffs to give space to negotiate new trade deals.

LONDON — Sometimes it’s better not to know what your so-called friends say behind your back. Case in point: When your closest ally calls you “pathetic,” accuses you of “free-loading” and says you should be made to pay for something you never knew they were going to do. British and European officials and diplomats reacted with a mix of hurt and anger to the leak of private messages between top figures in Donald Trump’s U.S. government about plans for air strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen.  According to The Atlantic, whose editor-in-chief was mistakenly added to the high-level group chat, Vice President JD Vance said he hated “bailing out Europe again” by launching the military action to protect shipping, mainly to benefit European trade. Defense secretary Pete Hegseth replied to Vance: “I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.” A U.K. diplomat said they had watched aghast as the spectacular leak emerged on Monday night, describing it as “wild.” The diplomat noted that it underlined the impression that Vance was the driver of U.S. hostility towards Europe. This, the person said, forced others including Trump into a tougher position because he “doesn’t want to look weaker than Vance.”  In public, U.K. ministers and officials tried to minimize the damage from the revelations, insisting the alliance with the U.S. was strong and communications remained secure.  But Britain’s former Defense Secretary Grant Shapps said some in the Trump administration clearly need re-educating about their allies. It was wrong of them to say European militaries had done nothing to address the problem of Iran-backed Houthis targeting commercial shipping, he said. The leaked messages even included a conversation about how to make Europe “remunerate” the U.S. for the cost of the military action. In fact, the planned air strikes detailed in the private Signal app group were supported by British refueling aircraft, according to reports.  “I agree Europe must do more on security,” Shapps posted on X. “But [Prime Minister] Sir Keir [Starmer] should remind USA the UK led from the front. I authorised 4 RAF strikes on the Houthis & the Royal Navy defended Red Sea shipping. Our forces risked their lives to protect trade. Some in DC need reminding.”  Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, a British opposition party, said: “JD Vance and his mates clearly aren’t fit to run a group chat, let alone the world’s strongest military force. It has to make our security services nervous about the intelligence we’re sharing with them.”  Elsewhere in Europe, the tone among diplomats was more of grief and resignation.  Any hope they may have held that Vance and his colleagues were putting on a public show of aggression toward Europe while being more sympathetic in private vanished.  “It’s sobering to see the way they speak about Europe when they think no one is listening,” one EU diplomat said, granted anonymity, like others, to give a candid view. “But at the same time this isn’t surprising … It’s just that now we see their reasoning in all its undiplomatic glory.” An EU official said Vance “happens to be the ideologue this time around but he is bound to make mistakes and eventually drop the ball.” After that, at some point the U.S. will return to being a reliable partner, the official said. A second EU diplomat agreed that history suggested America would one day return to its role as a solid ally for Europe. “For the time being, and despite the sometimes nice diplomatic words, trust is broken,” the diplomat said. “There is no alliance without trust. So I think that Europe has to do much more because it has no other choice.” On the charging the Europeans for the operation, a senior EU official added: “We haven’t received the bill yet.” Noah Keate and Matt Honeycombe-Foster contributed reporting from London. Clea Caulcutt contributed reporting from Paris.

LONDON — Military chiefs from about 30 Kyiv allies will hold a fresh “operational planning meeting” in London on Thursday to game out how they would commit peacekeeping troops to a post-war Ukraine. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the British-French-led talks after he hosted a call Saturday morning with the leaders of Ukraine, 25 other allied nations, NATO, the EU and the European Council — but not the U.S. Starmer, with French President Emmanuel Macron, is pulling together a “coalition of the willing” of allied nations to protect Ukraine after any peace deal. But major questions remain about what that will look like if a deal is signed without U.S. aerial intelligence and air cover, as the U.K. and French leaders are lobbying the White House to provide. Starmer told fellow leaders that allied nations should be “prepared to defend any deal ourselves.” He added that he believed “sooner or later” Russian President Vladimir Putin would have to “come to the table and engage in serious discussion, but … we can’t sit back and simply wait for that to happen. We have to keep pushing forward and preparing for peace, and a peace that will be secure and that will last,” he said. Yet in a Downing Street press conference Saturday, Starmer continued to insist that the plan would need a U.S. security backstop to work. “I’ve been clear that it needs to be done in conjunction with the United States,” he said. “The position on doing this in conjunction with the United States hasn’t changed.” MILITARIES TO GAME OUT DETAILS Thursday’s military talks will be the second round likely to happen without Europe’s traditional U.S. ally, following discussions between senior military officials from 37 nations in Paris last Tuesday. Starmer said the leaders on Saturday “agreed to accelerate our practical work to support a potential deal.” Thursday’s military meeting will aim to “put stronger robust plans in place to swing in behind a peace deal and guarantee Ukraine’s future security,” he said. “Now is the time to engage in discussion on a mechanism to manage and monitor a full ceasefire,” the prime minister added. Those joining Saturday’s call included the leaders of France, Finland, Poland, Germany, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council chief Antonio Costa. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte spoke on the call. Italy’s right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who has positioned herself as a European bridge to U.S. President Donald Trump, also joined the call despite earlier reports that she would not take part. Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan also participated. ‘NOT GOOD ENOUGH’ The U.K. prime minister said Ukraine was “the party of peace” after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — who joined Saturday’s call — “committed to a 30-day unconditional ceasefire.” By contrast, “Putin is the one trying to delay” a ceasefire, Starmer said. In a televised address Thursday, Russia’s president laid out a raft of caveats for accepting the proposal put forward by the U.S. and Ukraine to end the Kremlin’s war. Trump’s National Security Adviser Mike Waltz said Washington has “some cautious optimism” that a ceasefire deal could succeed. “The ‘yes, but’ from Russia is not good enough,” said Starmer. He said his message to Putin was “that this is the moment the guns fall silent, that the barbaric attacks on Ukraine once and for all stop, and agree to a ceasefire now.” The leaders also “discussed further sanctions that have got nothing to do with [frozen Russian] assets, which we will take forward as a result of this morning’s discussion,” Starmer said. Zelenskyy told leaders “the path to peace must begin unconditionally. And if Russia doesn’t want this, then strong pressure must be applied until they do,” he posted on X. Former White House adviser Fiona Hill, who is part of a team drafting Britain’s review of defense capability, warned this week that “there’s a genuine rupture in the relationship between the U.S. and its allies at this point.” She told the Foreign Affairs podcast that Putin’s behavior had made it “much more likely” that European countries, Japan and South Korea would be “rushing to get a nuclear weapon,” due to fears they can no longer rely on the U.S. Von der Leyen posted on X following the call: “We reiterate our support to Ukraine’s agreement to a ceasefire. Now Russia has to show that it is willing to support a ceasefire leading to a just and lasting peace. In the meantime, we will support strengthening Ukraine and its armed forces following our ‘porcupine strategy’.”

BRUSSELS — In the end, it was the Belgians who put it best. “It’s usually the case that if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu,” said Bart De Wever, the Belgian prime minister.  When it comes to ending the Russia-Ukraine war, Donald Trump has already started carving up Ukraine for dinner with Vladimir Putin, and there’s no sign he won’t go on to eat the European Union for dessert.  On Thursday, the leaders of the EU took their first steps toward trying to disrupt the strongman’s banquet before it’s too late.  All 27 EU leaders agreed to do exactly what Trump has been demanding for years: Radically increase their defenses with investment — potentially totaling €800 billion — that might just mean they can take care of themselves without “freeloading” (or relying) on American help.  With one predictable exception in Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, they even pledged to dig deeper into their pockets and urgently send Kyiv more weapons and cash, as Trump cuts military supplies and stops sharing secret intelligence with Ukraine.  In the next two weeks, officials in Brussels will frantically work up the details of the plan. If it goes ahead, it will allow EU governments to flex their spending rules to plunge funds into all kinds of military capabilities — from missiles and ammunition to drones, electronic warfare and air defenses. The leaders (apart from Orbán) also demanded the European Commission urgently bring forward the promised money for Ukraine’s immediate war needs.  Another summit will be held on March 20-21 when these same issues will be discussed again, with the aim of agreeing to more concrete actions. PREVENTING WORLD WAR 3 By the EU’s standards, this is quick, officials insist. At an informal summit a month ago, they were talking about moving in the direction of a plan to boost their defenses by June.  The EU is undergoing a transformation, from a peace project that grew out of the rubble of the Second World War into a defensive alliance tooling up to prevent a third.  But the reality is that for all the EU’s efforts — and the steps taken in recent days are certainly not meaningless — the real conversations about Ukraine and the future of European security are taking place elsewhere.  In almost pleading tones, the leaders set out their “principles” for a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia in the summit’s final communique. They included the now well-worn lines that “there can be no negotiations on Ukraine without Ukraine” and, rather forlornly, that “there can be no negotiations that affect European security without Europe’s involvement.”  For the avoidance of doubt, they added: “Ukraine’s, Europe’s, transatlantic and global security are intertwined.” Try telling that to Trump.  To be fair to the EU, they already did.  Kaja Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat, traveled to Washington last week to make her case. But Trump’s new Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, refused to make time to meet her, in what was seen as a blunt (and far from isolated) snub.  Trump himself has been clear about his disdain for the EU and has so far not even bothered to hold a detailed discussion with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen since returning to office in January.  In more heartening news, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told the EU leaders over lunch that his team had resumed talks with Trump’s officials. Later, more signs emerged of a thaw in relations between Trump and Ukraine after last week’s Oval Office onslaught: Zelenskyy said he would be traveling to Saudi Arabia for discussions on a peace plan with the U.S. Trump himself said he would be heading to Saudi, observing that he believed Ukraine now wants a deal, though he did not confirm that he would be aiming to get an agreement over the line next week. One thing seems clear enough: There is virtually no chance that the EU will be invited. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron look set to continue to take the lead on sending troops into Ukraine to keep the peace, despite a vague reference in the EU summit conclusions to exploring whether the the bloc’s defense structures can play a role.  THE WILLING  Starmer will be among the non-EU allies who will get a briefing from von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa on the summit discussions in a video call on Friday morning.  The prominent involvement of the U.K., which left the EU five years ago, is yet another sign that the formal structures that have served to organize Western priorities for decades are being overtaken by events. Starmer’s officials claim around 20 countries are ready to join the European peacekeeping mission in some form.  Kallas, the EU’s most senior diplomatic representative, recognized the new ad-hoc reality on Thursday when she said support for Ukraine would be “a coalition of the willing,” even around the formal summit table in Brussels (a point Hungary proved again).  But as Kallas herself can testify after Rubio’s refusal to meet her, the biggest question is whether Trump is willing to do anything to help Europe at all. 

The United Kingdom and France will work on a Ukraine peace plan and mediate between Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. President Donald Trump, after a meeting between the two spiralled into a row in the White House, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Sunday. “We’ve now agreed that the United Kingdom, along with France and possibly one or two others, will work with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting, and then we’ll discuss that plan with the United States,” Starmer said in an interview with the BBC. European leaders are scrambling to find a way forward after Friday’s disastrous meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump in the Oval Office. European and Canadian leaders are set to meet in London later Sunday for a security summit on Ukraine. Under the plan outlined by Starmer, France and the U.K. would lead talks on building a “coalition of the willing” to offer security guarantees to Ukraine in case a cease-fire is reached. The two countries have for weeks been involved in building a proposal to deploy peacekeeping troops to Ukraine after a hoped-for truce has been negotiated with Russia. But the talks have stalled due to the uncertainty over whether the Trump administration would provide a so-called U.S. backstop that would deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from sending his forces against Ukraine again. “I’m not criticizing anyone here, but rather than move at the pace of … every single country in Europe, which in the end would be quite a slow pace, I do think we’ve probably got to get to a coalition of the willing now,” he said. In Sunday’s interview, Starmer admitted he had not received assurances from Washington that the Trump administration would back European troops deployed to Ukraine. Both Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have been engaged in intense diplomacy since the meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy spiralled into a dismaying argument in the Oval Office on Friday, with U.S. Vice President JD Vance accusing Kyiv of failing to show sufficient gratitude. A planned press conference and the signing of a minerals deal were cancelled after the fractious encounter. According to an official from the Elysée Palace, Macron has spoken with Trump, Zelenskyy, Starmer and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in the last 48 hours. In an interview with the Sunday weekly the JDD, the French president said coordination and “the need for action” would take place in London on Sunday, and later at an EU summit in Brussels scheduled for Thursday. Mason Boycott-Owen contributed reporting from London.