Europe hoped that concerted efforts could have some effect in bringing round Donald Trump to a more reasonable position on Ukraine, and mitigate the worst of his administration’s instincts. After the combined persuasion and flattery of Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron brought out a somewhat tamer and more jovial version of the US president, there were modest hopes that the Ukrainian president’s visit to Washington might be more productive than feared – even if there was no sign that they had succeeded in tempting Mr Trump towards the security assurances so desperately needed.
Instead, his Oval Office meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy soon exploded into acrimony, with the US president berating his guest for ingratitude. Mr Trump had earlier spoken of partnership with the Ukrainian president. But he and his vice-president, JD Vance, teamed up to deliver a public kicking. It would, the president added, be “great television”.
“You are gambling with world war three,” Mr Trump accused him. He attacked Mr Zelenskyy’s “hatred” for Vladimir Putin, suggesting it was the obstacle to achieving peace – no mention of Russia’s invasion. So much for Mr Trump’s remark that “I’m in the middle, I’m for both Ukraine and Russia” – itself a shameful pronouncement. It is hard to see how the curtailed visit – Mr Trump said that Mr Zelenskyy “can come back when he is ready for peace” – could have gone worse. “President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations,” Mr Trump wrote.
Europe’s charm initiative was always a long shot. Like Mr Macron, Sir Keir enjoyed a jovial reception from Mr Trump. He had learned to speak his language. Having arrived armed with an invitation for a second state visit, he gushed that Donald Trump’s return to Britain would be “so incredible. It will be historic.” He also managed to speak the truth: he stressed that peace must not reward the aggressor and factchecked the president’s lie that European aid to Ukraine was merely loaned. Asked about Mr Trump’s vision for Gaza, he stated the need for Palestinians to return home and reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to the two-state solution.
Mr Trump, in affable mode, suggested he would probably back the UK’s plan to hand the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. He dangled the prospect of a bilateral trade deal, but its substance remains unclear – and likely skewed in America’s favour.
It would have been folly for Sir Keir to burn bridges. But it was always clear that Mr Trump would be ready to set the torch to them himself whenever he saw fit. And so on Friday he put the boot into a democratically elected leader fighting to defend his country against invasion – “You don’t have the cards,” he told Mr Zelenskyy – yet has said he believes that Mr Putin can be trusted to keep promises. No one else does, which is why a security backstop from the US is needed.
The minerals deal that Kyiv was set to sign with Washington smacks more of a shakedown than a partnership. Mr Trump’s suggestion that American workers mining those resources could be the backstop against further Russian aggression was both a reminder of his priorities and further confirmation that he will not offer anything more substantive. Then came his blistering attack on Mr Zelenskyy.
Sunday’s defence summit of European leaders in London is now more crucial than ever. “Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader,” wrote the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, following the disastrous meeting. The extent of their erstwhile ally’s betrayal is now undeniable. Kyiv is the first but not the only victim. The extent to which European countries are able to formulate a plan for acting accordingly, and in unison, will be critical to Ukraine’s future, and to the continent’s.
