There is a very good reason why there will be no European representation at the summit due to take place in Alaska between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss ending the Ukraine conflict.
It is simply that, when it comes to the big geopolitical decisions affecting the future security of the continent, today’s generation of European leaders cannot be trusted to make the right call.
The last time the world’s major powers met to carve up Europe’s borders, at the Potsdam Conference at the end of the Second World War, Britain was guaranteed a seat at the top table by virtue of the statesmanlike leadership qualities Winston Churchill had displayed throughout the conflict.
Back then Europe’s fate was to be decided by the so-called “Big Three”, the US, Britain and Russia. Now the Big Three are the US, Russia and China – the UK barely meriting a mention.
The notion that Sir Keir Starmer, or any other European leader, might have any useful contribution to make at the Alaska summit is almost risible given their recent conduct on the other pressing security issue of the day: ending the appalling conflict in Gaza.
Since returning to office in January, Trump has made it clear that his two main foreign policy objectives are to end the conflicts in both Ukraine and Gaza. While his efforts regarding Ukraine have so far been stymied by Putin’s lack of interest in a ceasefire, the Trump administration has worked hard to formulate a workable ceasefire proposal for Gaza.
Indeed, by early July, Washington was indicating that Israel had broadly accepted the terms of the 60-day ceasefire deal, with the final decision on whether it would go ahead or not left in the hands of Hamas. It was torpedoed after the organisation’s terrorist leadership announced that it would not accept the ceasefire until a Palestinian state had been created and recognised.
A key factor in Hamas’s rejection of the ceasefire deal appears to have been the decision by Starmer, together with French President Emmanuel Macron, to announce their intention to recognise a Palestinian state at next month’s annual UN General Assembly in New York. This is despite the fact that no such Palestinian state actually exists.
To add insult to injury, Hamas officials publicly praised the British and French leaders for declaring their intention to recognise a Palestinian state, with the terrorist organisation hailing the decision as “one of the fruits of October 7”.
Not surprisingly, the grandstanding exploits of Starmer and Macron, which were taken more to embarrass Israel than make any positive contribution to the plight of ordinary Palestinians, have not gone down well in Washington. Even Trump remarked that Starmer’s plan to grant recognition meant “rewarding Hamas”.
The Trump administration has blamed the collapse of July’s ceasefire talks, and Hamas’s decision to reject the ceasefire terms, directly on Macron’s decision to recognise Palestinian statehood. Talks with Hamas “fell apart on the day Macron made the unilateral decision that he’s going to recognise the Palestinian state,” said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Starmer’s subsequent decision to follow Macron’s lead in planning to recognise Palestine only made matters worse for Washington in terms of arranging a lasting ceasefire in Gaza.
In such circumstances it is hardly surprising that the Trump administration has little appetite for including the likes of Starmer and Macron in key discussions relating to the future of Europe’s security when he meets with Putin in Alaska.
Instead, the Europeans, in the form of Starmer’s so-called “coalition of the willing”, have been relegated to the periphery of the negotiations, with Trump agreeing to hold video conferences with European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky ahead of his summit with Putin.
Whether the American president will take on board anything Starmer has to contribute to the discussion is another matter. To date, Starmer’s most notable contribution to the Ukraine debate has been to float the notion of establishing some form of European security force to protect Ukraine’s borders once a ceasefire takes hold.
Starmer has even talked of deploying “boots on the ground”, although this proposition has been quietly dropped after it was pointed out to the Prime Minister that the parlous state of our Armed Forces meant the UK’s contribution would be minimal.
The other big disconnect between Starmer and Trump is that the US leader is playing for far higher stakes than simply ending hostilities in Ukraine. Trump’s primary goal is to forge closer ties with Moscow in a bid to weaken Russia’s strategic partnership with China, a country that Washington regards as posing a far greater threat to America’s long-term security than Russia.
So when Starmer warns Trump, as he did earlier this week, that Putin cannot be trusted, the American president will politely note the Prime Minister’s concerns, and then act in a way that suits his own interests.
There is a very good reason why there will be no European representation at the summit due to take place in Alaska between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss ending the Ukraine conflict.
It is simply that, when it comes to the big geopolitical decisions affecting the future security of the continent, today’s generation of European leaders cannot be trusted to make the right call.
The last time the world’s major powers met to carve up Europe’s borders, at the Potsdam Conference at the end of the Second World War, Britain was guaranteed a seat at the top table by virtue of the statesmanlike leadership qualities Winston Churchill had displayed throughout the conflict.
Back then Europe’s fate was to be decided by the so-called “Big Three”, the US, Britain and Russia. Now the Big Three are the US, Russia and China – the UK barely meriting a mention.
The notion that Sir Keir Starmer, or any other European leader, might have any useful contribution to make at the Alaska summit is almost risible given their recent conduct on the other pressing security issue of the day: ending the appalling conflict in Gaza.
Since returning to office in January, Trump has made it clear that his two main foreign policy objectives are to end the conflicts in both Ukraine and Gaza. While his efforts regarding Ukraine have so far been stymied by Putin’s lack of interest in a ceasefire, the Trump administration has worked hard to formulate a workable ceasefire proposal for Gaza.
Indeed, by early July, Washington was indicating that Israel had broadly accepted the terms of the 60-day ceasefire deal, with the final decision on whether it would go ahead or not left in the hands of Hamas. It was torpedoed after the organisation’s terrorist leadership announced that it would not accept the ceasefire until a Palestinian state had been created and recognised.
A key factor in Hamas’s rejection of the ceasefire deal appears to have been the decision by Starmer, together with French President Emmanuel Macron, to announce their intention to recognise a Palestinian state at next month’s annual UN General Assembly in New York. This is despite the fact that no such Palestinian state actually exists.
To add insult to injury, Hamas officials publicly praised the British and French leaders for declaring their intention to recognise a Palestinian state, with the terrorist organisation hailing the decision as “one of the fruits of October 7”.
Not surprisingly, the grandstanding exploits of Starmer and Macron, which were taken more to embarrass Israel than make any positive contribution to the plight of ordinary Palestinians, have not gone down well in Washington. Even Trump remarked that Starmer’s plan to grant recognition meant “rewarding Hamas”.
The Trump administration has blamed the collapse of July’s ceasefire talks, and Hamas’s decision to reject the ceasefire terms, directly on Macron’s decision to recognise Palestinian statehood. Talks with Hamas “fell apart on the day Macron made the unilateral decision that he’s going to recognise the Palestinian state,” said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Starmer’s subsequent decision to follow Macron’s lead in planning to recognise Palestine only made matters worse for Washington in terms of arranging a lasting ceasefire in Gaza.
In such circumstances it is hardly surprising that the Trump administration has little appetite for including the likes of Starmer and Macron in key discussions relating to the future of Europe’s security when he meets with Putin in Alaska.
Instead, the Europeans, in the form of Starmer’s so-called “coalition of the willing”, have been relegated to the periphery of the negotiations, with Trump agreeing to hold video conferences with European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky ahead of his summit with Putin.
Whether the American president will take on board anything Starmer has to contribute to the discussion is another matter. To date, Starmer’s most notable contribution to the Ukraine debate has been to float the notion of establishing some form of European security force to protect Ukraine’s borders once a ceasefire takes hold.
Starmer has even talked of deploying “boots on the ground”, although this proposition has been quietly dropped after it was pointed out to the Prime Minister that the parlous state of our Armed Forces meant the UK’s contribution would be minimal.
The other big disconnect between Starmer and Trump is that the US leader is playing for far higher stakes than simply ending hostilities in Ukraine. Trump’s primary goal is to forge closer ties with Moscow in a bid to weaken Russia’s strategic partnership with China, a country that Washington regards as posing a far greater threat to America’s long-term security than Russia.
So when Starmer warns Trump, as he did earlier this week, that Putin cannot be trusted, the American president will politely note the Prime Minister’s concerns, and then act in a way that suits his own interests.