The declarations of support for Ukraine from European leaders following this afternoon’s London conference on the conflict might provide a welcome boost for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky after last week’s bruising encounter with US President Donald Trump at the Oval Office.
But Sir Keir Starmer’s call for Europe to do the “heavy lifting” to safeguard Ukraine’s future independence will count for little unless he and other European leaders can persuade the Trump administration to support their initiative.
It is all very well for Starmer to call for a “coalition of the willing” to protect Ukraine, one that could involve the deployment of British troops and fighter jets, but such pledges will count for little so long as European leaders fail to address the fundamental issue of their under-resourced and under-funded military forces.
For the brutal truth is that, without the vital support of the US military, any attempt by the UK and its European allies to deploy forces to Ukraine would be unlikely to deter the Russians from committing further acts of aggression.
On the contrary, the presence of European forces in Ukraine – which Nato leaders have been keen at pains to avoid for fear of provoking a wider confrontation with Russia – would only inflame tensions further, especially as Moscow has already stated it is totally opposed to such a deployment.
Which is why Starmer’s hastily-arranged Lancaster House conference, under the ill-defined title “Securing Our Future”, seemed to be more of an exercise in wishful thinking than any meaningful attempt to resolve the crisis.
The conference was a carefully-orchestrated attempt by Starmer and his European allies to demonstrate their support for Ukraine after last week’s unedifying row between Zelensky and Trump. Starmer’s desperation to show that the UK still remained committed to the Ukrainian cause even extended to the Ukrainian leader being invited to meet with King Charles at Sandringham.
But no matter how hard Starmer and other European leaders tried to demonstrate their pro-Ukraine credentials, by offering to maintain military supplies to Kyiv and insisting that Ukraine must participate in any discussions about its sovereignty and security, no one was under any illusions that European support would count for little without American support.
As Starmer himself conceded after promising to commit British “boots on the ground and planes in the air” to secure any future peace deal in Ukraine, such an operation to support peace in Europe could only succeed with “strong US backing”.
The declarations of support for Ukraine from European leaders following this afternoon’s London conference on the conflict might provide a welcome boost for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky after last week’s bruising encounter with US President Donald Trump at the Oval Office.
But Sir Keir Starmer’s call for Europe to do the “heavy lifting” to safeguard Ukraine’s future independence will count for little unless he and other European leaders can persuade the Trump administration to support their initiative.
It is all very well for Starmer to call for a “coalition of the willing” to protect Ukraine, one that could involve the deployment of British troops and fighter jets, but such pledges will count for little so long as European leaders fail to address the fundamental issue of their under-resourced and under-funded military forces.
For the brutal truth is that, without the vital support of the US military, any attempt by the UK and its European allies to deploy forces to Ukraine would be unlikely to deter the Russians from committing further acts of aggression.
On the contrary, the presence of European forces in Ukraine – which Nato leaders have been keen at pains to avoid for fear of provoking a wider confrontation with Russia – would only inflame tensions further, especially as Moscow has already stated it is totally opposed to such a deployment.
Which is why Starmer’s hastily-arranged Lancaster House conference, under the ill-defined title “Securing Our Future”, seemed to be more of an exercise in wishful thinking than any meaningful attempt to resolve the crisis.
The conference was a carefully-orchestrated attempt by Starmer and his European allies to demonstrate their support for Ukraine after last week’s unedifying row between Zelensky and Trump. Starmer’s desperation to show that the UK still remained committed to the Ukrainian cause even extended to the Ukrainian leader being invited to meet with King Charles at Sandringham.
But no matter how hard Starmer and other European leaders tried to demonstrate their pro-Ukraine credentials, by offering to maintain military supplies to Kyiv and insisting that Ukraine must participate in any discussions about its sovereignty and security, no one was under any illusions that European support would count for little without American support.
As Starmer himself conceded after promising to commit British “boots on the ground and planes in the air” to secure any future peace deal in Ukraine, such an operation to support peace in Europe could only succeed with “strong US backing”.