Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Starmer’s diplomatic flurry puts him at centre of attempts to shape Ukraine-Russia deal

      by

      As Keir Starmer and his aides huddled to discuss their response to Friday’s calamitous White House meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the prime minister’s team pondered whether to issue a statement on social media.Already messages of support were flooding in for the Ukrainian president from other European leaders, including Emmanuel Macron of France and the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen.But the prime minister decided to stay silent and instead display his backing with action rather than words. After a series of phone calls on Friday night, Starmer brought forward a planned visit by Zelenskyy to London, giving him the opportunity for a symbolic meeting at Downing Street followed by an audience with King Charles.“I picked up the phone to President Trump, and I picked up the phone to President Zelensky,” Starmer told the BBC on Sunday. “That was my response.”Starmer’s flurry of diplomatic activity has resulted in a Franco-British peace effort which puts the prime minister at the centre of European attempts to shape any deal between Moscow and Kyiv.“Starmer’s was a big gesture,” said Bronwen Maddox, the director of the Chatham House thinktank. “Having Zelenskyy here, having that meeting, mattered. There is no need to go rushing around tweeting. He’s now trying to be a bridge between the US and Zelenskyy and Europe, which is a reasonable ambition.”Some even believe this could be Starmer’s “Falklands moment”, referring to the way Margaret Thatcher took on Argentina over the Falkland Islands and in doing so rebooted her flagging premiership. By Sunday morning, Starmer was being backed by the leaders of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.“It’s really important that this summit the prime minister is having today goes well and we support him in that,” the Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch, said on Sunday.Starmer’s calls with Trump and Zelenskyy on Friday night focused on trying to get the minerals deal between the two countries back on track.One Downing Street official said: “We need to ensure there is a minerals agreement and there is a plan for stopping the fighting and giving Ukraine the security guarantees it needs. The minerals deal is still on the table.”View image in fullscreenOfficials rejected reports that Starmer’s call with Zelenskyy had been “emotional”, but said the Ukrainian president had clearly found his encounter with Trump “bruising”. The two men agreed that Zelenskyy would visit London 24 hours earlier than planned, allowing him time for a longer meeting in Downing Street before a trip to Sandringham on Sunday to meet King Charles.Officials said the visit to see the king was a deliberate message to Washington, where Trump is eagerly awaiting his own audience with the monarch, with US officials pushing for a state visit as soon as this year.Starmer then spent Saturday around the cabinet table in discussions with Jonathan Powell, his national security adviser, and other senior officials. They had come to the conclusion there was little they could do to restart US-Ukrainian talks, so decided to come up with an alternative plan to help shape the peace deal.The plan they hit upon was a separate set of discussions, this time involving Britain, France, Ukraine and potentially one or two others, to formulate their own prospective deal to present to the US. The talks would provide a counterbalance to those between the US and Russia which have excluded Ukraine and European countries.Starmer called Macron, who welcomed the idea. But there was one more hurdle to clear: the prime minister had to call the US president for the second time in two days to make sure he was not opposed.Officials briefed on the call would not say what Trump’s reaction to the idea was, or even whether he indicated he would not stand in the way. But the prime minister was sufficiently emboldened by the conversation that he decided to announce the talks on the BBC on Sunday morning.“The second Trump call was much more focused on not wanting to go back over what has happened, but saying, if we move forward with this other plan, would you be interested in us doing that?” said one British official. “There is no point in us doing this if the US didn’t feel there was space for that. Clearly we are doing it, so we thought it was a worthwhile exercise.”Saturday evening culminated with Starmer’s Downing Street talks with Zelenskyy. In front of the assembled press, the prime minister took the unusual step of leaving No 10 to greet Zelenskyy from his car, before walking him back down the street again after their meeting.View image in fullscreen“And as you heard from the cheers on the street outside, you have full backing across the United Kingdom,” Starmer told his Ukrainian counterpart. “We stand with you, with Ukraine, for as long as it may take.”Sunday was yet another intense day of diplomacy for the prime minister, who began by speaking to the leaders of all three Baltic states and then hosted the Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, at Downing Street. Meloni, who arguably has the best relations with Trump of any European leader, has called for an immediate summit between the US, EU and other allied countries to discuss Ukraine.From there, Starmer travelled to Lancaster House for his defence summit, which was attended by representatives from across Europe, as well as officials from Turkey and Nato.British officials are aware that all this activity may result in very little. They have yet to secure their main objective – a promise from Trump to offer military backing to any British and European troops posted to secure a new border between Russia and Ukraine.But for now, Downing Street is delighted that the prime minister has managed to navigate the turbulent geopolitics of a Trump-led US, and in doing so prove that post-Brexit Britain can still play a global leadership role.“It’s a testament to the relationship the prime minister has with the presidents of both America and Ukraine that he was able to host Zelenskyy and speak to Trump not once but twice over the days,” said one official.Additional reporting by Angela Giuffrida in Rome More

    • 238 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      In this dangerous age, Britain needs to exert soft power as well as the hard stuff | Andrew Rawnsley

      by

      Shortly before he flew to Washington, Sir Keir Starmer turned up in the Commons, put on his sombre voice and declared: “Everything has changed.” One of the more startling transformations has been to Sir Keir himself. The Labour leader came to office thinking, as did most of those who voted for him, that he was going to be a domestically orientated prime minister with primary ambitions to improve living standards, build lots of homes and rejuvenate public services. That’s what “change”, his one-word election slogan, was supposed to be about. When he originally selected his overriding “five missions”, the defence of the realm didn’t make the cut.His central definition today is as a geopolitically focused prime minister who is promising to spend more on guns, missiles and warplanes and less on international aid. More British bullets will be purchased at the expense of succour to the impoverished and desperate of the world. This shift gives a flintier profile to his leadership, but not in a way that either supporters or opponents anticipated during last summer’s election. Most Labour people don’t quarrel with the argument that Britain has to put up its guard, but a lot of them, including queasy members of the Starmer cabinet, are wriggling uncomfortably about taking the hatchet to the international development budget. In the days since the decision was announced, they have taken to wondering what manner of Labour government is this?The short explanation for this transmogrification is two words and an initial: Donald J Trump. The upheaval in the international order unleashed by the US president has shattered decades-old assumptions about the western alliance. This has had a more profound impact on Sir Keir than any other event. A prime minister who used to earn his living as a human rights lawyer has had a crash course in realpolitik from the nakedly transactional practitioner of great power games who resides on Pennsylvania Avenue.Sir Keir came away from his encounter at the White House on Thursday empty-handed when it came to securing a bankable guarantee that there will be US military cover for any British and French peacekeepers deployed to Ukraine. What the prime minister did win was an apparent blessing for the Chagos Islands deal, puncturing Nigel Farage’s repeated claims that the White House is opposed to it. There were encouraging noises that the UK may swerve US tariffs and pats on the head for Sir Keir from his host for being a “special man” and a “very tough negotiator”. The price was paid in the currency of ingratiation. This was at its most toe-curling when the prime minister delved into his jacket pocket to flourish an invite from the king for the US president to make an “unprecedented”, “truly historic” second state visit to the UK. Excuse me while I find something to retch into. The other tribute to the Maga King was setting a 2027 deadline for lifting British defence spending to 2.5% of GDP with 3% as the ultimate target.Boosting defence spending is both a response to Trump’s demands that Europe pulls its weight and an insurance policy against the withdrawal of American security guarantees. Downing Street reeled at the callous and chilling monstering of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a democratically elected leader fighting for his country’s freedom against tyranny, at the White House on Friday. The shocking ugliness of the televised scene amplified Number 10’s unspoken fears that the Trump regime poses an existential challenge to European security.I’ve been among those anticipating this pivot. Given how menacing the world looked even before Trump’s return to the Oval Office, it was not sustainable to leave Britain’s armed forces in such a parlous condition that our own defence secretary describes them as “hollowed out”. The intelligence chiefs and the top brass have become increasingly clamourous about the growing scale and intensity of threats from a spectrum of malevolent adversaries.The issue then becomes whether the money will be spent well or wastefully. The Ministry of Defence has a rotten record when it comes to equipping the armed forces in a timely and cost-effective way. The onus is now on John Healey and the service chiefs to prove that they can get the maximum bang from the taxpayers’ extra bucks.The pain inflicted on the international aid budget will be brutal. Sir Keir was all crocodile tears when he intoned that regrettably “hard choices” had to be made, as if more money for defence could only be found by stealing it from aid programmes. There were many other options for a government that spends in excess of £1tn a year. These included being less generous towards other demands for spending, bearing down on escalating costs in areas of welfare or raising more from taxation. Though the prime minister claims he did not take this decision “lightly”, the international development budget was targeted because Downing Street and the Treasury reckoned it was the politically least painful option.This is the superficially clever and unashamedly cynical choice when it comes to electoral calculations. Polling suggests that cutting aid is a popular option with around two-thirds of voters. There’s an assumption among Labour strategists that aid is particularly resented by the kind of voter who supported Labour at the election and is now flirting with Reform or has already switched to it. There’s some truth in this analysis, but it is not the whole truth. There’s danger for Labour among the significant wedge of voters who chose the party at the election partly on the basis that it was more compassionate, enlightened and internationalist than the Tories. They didn’t expect Labour to outdo the last Conservative government in slashing the development budget.The case for spending on aid is easily made. On top of the humanitarian good it does, there’s the mitigation against instability, conflict and extremism. It also helps win friends and influence people in other countries who can be useful to the UK in the projection and protection of our national interests. These arguments will be highly familiar to Sir Keir and his cabinet because it was precisely the case they used to make themselves when they berated the Conservatives for raiding the budget. As Labour’s election manifesto put it, international aid helps make “the world a safer, more prosperous place”.The UK used to be able to make the claim that its record on helping the poorer parts of the planet made us a soft power superpower. As recently as 2020, the UK was one of only seven wealthy countries that met the UN target to spend 0.7% of gross national income on aid. The Conservatives cut that to 0.5% under Boris Johnson and it will now be slashed down to just 0.3%. Since a hefty chunk of the budget is being spent on asylum-seekers within Britain, the net amount supporting international development will be even more miserly. Programmes threatened include those alleviating poverty, tackling disease, improving the education of young people and addressing the climate crisis.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThis was a humiliation for Annaliese Dodds who was presented with a fait accompli just 24 hours before the cuts were announced. Number 10 clearly reckoned there was a slight risk that she would resign as international development minister, or decided it wasn’t terribly bothered even if she did. She has quit with the warning that denuding the international development budget will only encourage Russia’s aggressive effort to increase its presence worldwide. Blood must be rushing to the head of David Lammy. Justifying the cut has obliged the foreign secretary to stand on his head. It is only very recently that he was wagging a finger at the Americans by telling them it was a “big strategic mistake” to let Elon Musk eviscerate the US development budget. He accompanied that with the warning that China would exploit the vacuum to further its influence.I am being generous when I say that it is disingenuous of Sir Keir and his loyalists to suggest that they were faced with an either/or choice between defence spending in the name of national security and non-defence spending in troubled and distressed places abroad. The UK is an affluent country that likes to think it can punch above its weight. Even when money is tight, this nation is wealthy enough to wield both hard power and soft power.The face of Britain that the Starmer government is now presenting to the world is one that aspires to be more muscular while also looking meaner. Muscular is necessary in the scary new world order. Meaner is a myopic mistake that will render Britain less safe. More

    • 238 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump says US won’t give Ukraine security guarantees ‘beyond very much’ ahead of Starmer meeting – UK politics live

      by

      Good morning. Keir Starmer is in Washington where later today he will have his first meeting with President Trump since the inauguration. With Trump aligning with Moscow even more explicitly than he did during his first administration, and threatening to wind down the Nato guarantees that have underpinned the security of western Europe since the second world war, the stakes could not be higher. Starmer, despite leading a party whose activists mostly loathe Trump and everything he represents, has managed to establish a warm relationship with the president and today will give some clues as to what extent he can sustain that, and protect the UK from the tariff warfare that Trump is threatening to unleash on the EU. But Starmer is one of three European leaders in Washington this week (Emmanuel Macron was there on Monday, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is there tomorrow) and today’s meeting is also part of a wider story about the fracturing of the US/Europe alliance. It is definitely in trouble; but what is not yet clear is whether after four years of Trump it will still be functioning effectively.Starmer spoke to reporters on his flight to the US yesterday. Pippa Crerar, the Guardian’s political editor, was on the plane and, as she reports, Starmer said he wants Trump to agree that, in the event of a peace settlement in Ukraine, the US will offer security guarantees that will make it durable. He has already said that Britain would contribute troops to a European so-called “tripwire” peace-keeping force, there to defend Ukraine and deter Russia. But European soldiers would need US air and logistical support to be effective, and Starmer is looking for assurances on this topic.But the backdrop is not promising. As Starmer was flying across the Atlantic, Trump wsa holding a televised cabinet meeting where, Soviet-style, his ministers laughed heartily at his jokes as they all congratulated each other on how brilliantly they were doing. In the course of the meeting, on the subject of Ukraine, Trump said:
      I’m not going to make security guarantees beyond very much. We’re going to have Europe do that.
      Starmer is due to arrive at the White House shortly after 5pm UK time and the press conference is meant to start at 7pm. We will, of course, be covering it live. It should be fascinating. During Trump’s first term, Theresa May managed to get the first foreign leader invite to the White House and her visit, during which she offered the president a state visit, was deemed a success. But it did not stop Trump treating her very badly later during the presidency, regularly patronising when they spoke in private, and sometimes in public too, and openly suggesting at one point that Boris Johnson would make a better replacement.Here is the agenda for the day.9.30am: The Home Office publishes its latest asylum, resettlement and returns figures.9.30am: Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, takes questions in the Commons.After 10.30am: Lucy Powell, the leader of the Commons, makes a statement to MPs about next week’s parliamentary business.11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.Around 5.15pm (UK time): Keir Starmer is due to arrive at the White House for his meeting with President Trump.Around 7pm (UK time): Starmer and Trump are due to hold a press conference.And at some point today Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, is expected to announce that she is approving a decision to expand Gatwick.If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog. More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Starmer’s aid cuts: they won’t buy security, but they will undermine it | Editorial

      by

      Politics is about choices. Some are forced on governments by circumstance. Others are self‑imposed. Labour’s decision to cut the aid budget to “pay” for increased defence spending is firmly in the latter category. It is also wrong – forcing the world’s poor to pay for Britain’s safety. This is a false economy. Cutting aid will make the world more unstable, not less. The very crises that fuel conflict – poverty, failed states, climate disasters and mass displacement – will only worsen with less development funding. Labour’s logic is self‑defeating: diverting money from aid to defence does not buy security; it undermines it.The numbers tell the story. Despite government attempts to inflate the amounts involved, the extra £5bn‑£6bn for defence is tiny relative to Britain’s GDP. The UK could easily absorb this through borrowing – especially in a global financial system where sterling is heavily traded – or, if the government prefers, through a modest wealth tax. Yet Sir Keir Starmer has chosen to frame this as a zero-sum game, where aid must give way to security. Why? Because this is not about economic necessity – it’s about political positioning. Labour wants to prove that it can be fiscally disciplined even when the numbers don’t demand it. It wants to neutralise Tory attacks, even when the real battle is over priorities, not affordability.It is also a move that aligns with Donald Trump’s worldview. The US president wants to close down the US government’s main overseas aid agency, treating it as an expensive indulgence rather than a pillar of foreign policy. Sir Keir is set to go to Washington this week. A UK prime minister that echoes Mr Trump’s “America first” instincts on defence and aid may find the meeting more congenial. If so, Sir Keir may be taking the idea that “the meek shall inherit the earth” a little too literally.Labour doesn’t just believe in fiscal discipline, it believes that it must believe in fiscal discipline and it constructs a justification for that belief. The problem is this: by accepting Conservative trade‑offs, Labour locks itself into an orthodoxy that it may later need to break. In a volatile world, Britain – outside the EU – must boost high-value exports and cut reliance on fragile supply chains. Even under Joe Biden, the UK was kept out of the US-EU Trade and Technology Council, which strengthened transatlantic industrial policy. Yet when does Downing Street admit Britain’s real limit is productive capacity – not budget deficits?Britain’s fiscal constraint is artificial, but its resource constraints are real. Energy, food and manufacturing are matters of national security, not just market functions. Without investment, dependence on key imports makes Britain vulnerable to supply-chain shocks and price inflation. That should make the announcements by Labour’s Ed Miliband and Steve Reed matter. If every pound spent requires a cut elsewhere, neither would have had much to say.Sir Keir often presents himself as a pragmatist rather than an ideologue – claiming to be adapting to circumstances rather than adhering to dogma. But such pragmatism is itself a belief system, one that treats capitalism’s rules as unchangeable, markets as beyond politics, and history as a one‑way street where past mistakes justify permanent, crippling caution. In doing so, he isn’t just rejecting alternatives – he’s rewriting history to suggest they were never an option to begin with.Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Trump’s realignment: the geopolitical plates are moving. Brace for further shocks | Editorial

      by

      The rumblings prompted by Donald Trump’s re-election soon gathered force. First came tariffs and threats of territorial annexation; then the greater shocks of JD Vance’s Valentine’s Day massacre of European values and Mr Trump’s enthusiastic amplification of Kremlin lines on Ukraine.On Monday came another seismic moment. For more than a decade, the UN security council has been largely paralysed by the split between the five permanent members – Russia and China on one side; the US, France and Britain on the other. This time, when the US brought a resolution calling for an end to the war in Ukraine on the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion, it did not criticise Moscow, demand its withdrawal or back Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The result was that China and Russia backed the resolution – while the UK and France, having failed to temper it, abstained.Earlier, even Beijing had chosen to abstain rather than reject a UN general assembly resolution condemning Moscow as the aggressor in Ukraine. It was passed overwhelmingly, with the backing of 93 states. Yet the US joined Russia in voting against it – along with Belarus, North Korea, Syria and a handful of others. “These are not our friends,” the Republican senator John Curtis wrote on X.The post-1945 order is beyond repair while Mr Trump occupies the White House. Emmanuel Macron’s charm and deftness papered over the problems somewhat when he became the first European leader to meet the US president since his re-election. (Sir Keir Starmer, not noted for his nimbleness or charisma, is likely to find the task somewhat harder this week.) The French president was adroit in flattering Mr Trump even as he told the truth. But it is not surprising that he failed to make any real progress in closing the gap. These are not cracks in the transatlantic relationship, but a chasm.A committed Atlanticist such as Friedrich Merz, on course to shortly become the German chancellor, is compelled to urge independence from the US because “the Americans, at any case the Americans in this administration, do not care much about the fate of Europe”. He warned that European leaders might not be able to talk about Nato in its current form by June. The problem is not only what Mr Trump may do but what he may not. Nato is built on the conviction that countries will stand by the commitments they make. That confidence cannot exist while Mr Trump is president.When Sir Keir told MPs on Tuesday that “Here we are, in a world where everything has changed”, he was commenting on Russian aggression, but everyone understood the real shift underlying his remarks. To note, as he did, that the US-British alliance has survived countless external challenges was not quite a vote of confidence. It tacitly acknowledged that the threat this time is internal.The ground is rocking beneath Europe’s feet. It must brace itself for further shocks. In place of the post-second world war order, Mr Trump envisages a world where alliances are no more than empty words and great powers bluff and bully their way through. Bilateral meetings have their purpose – they may offer minimal respite and buy a little time – but it will require common will to defend the interests of European states. The Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, suggested that European leaders would be meeting in London at the weekend to discuss security. Their best hope of standing firm is by standing together.Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Can the ‘special relationship’ survive Donald Trump? – podcast

      by

      It’s the most important international relationship the UK has, and for decades has been referred to as “special”. Since the second world war, the UK and the US have considered themselves the closest allies, working together for shared values, with any resentments, differences of opinion or cross words kept to private channels.But now Donald Trump is back and he seems keen to throw the usual world order of alliances and enmities into chaos. Keir Starmer’s first meeting with the US president comes at a crucial juncture for Europe, with the future of Ukraine in the balance. “The stakes at the moment could not be higher,” says the Guardian’s diplomatic editor, Patrick Wintour.He tells Michael Safi what advice Starmer should be receiving from his advisers, including to keep things simple and not to be boring. And what Starmer will be trying to achieve, especially in terms of clarifying Trump’s recent outpourings around Ukraine. “I think the key thing to find out is where does this man lie ideologically,” Patrick says. But if Trump has no allies, only transactional relationships, how much can Starmer hope to achieve during this meeting? More

    • 275 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      There is a clear Trump doctrine. Those who can’t see it won’t have a say in reshaping the world | Nesrine Malik

      by

      A resonant phrase during Donald Trump’s first administration was the advice to take him “seriously, but not literally”. It was a singularly detrimental expression, widely quoted by politicians and the media. Its adoption fit with the position many felt most comfortable taking: Trump was bad, but he wasn’t smart. He wasn’t intentional. He wasn’t calculated and deliberate. He sounded off, but rarely followed up with action. He was in essence a misfiring weapon that could do serious damage, but mostly by accident.The residue of that approach still persists, even in analysis that describes Trump’s first executive orders as a campaign of “shock and awe”, as if it were just a matter of signalling rather than executing. Or that his plan for Gaza is to be taken – you guessed it – seriously, not literally. When that was suggested to Democratic senator Andy Kim, he lost it. “I understand people are bending over backwards to try to mitigate some of the fallout from these statements that are made,” he told Politico. But Trump is “the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world … if I can’t take the words of the president of the United States to actually mean something, rather than needing some type of oracle to be able to explain, I just don’t know what to think about when it comes to our national security.”Part of the problem is that people are reluctant to imbue Trump with any sort of coherence. But a Trump doctrine is emerging, most sharply in foreign policy. It has clear features, contours and a sort of unified theory of conflict. First, it is transactional, particularly when it comes to warfare in which the US is playing a role. Nothing has a history or any objective sense of right and wrong. Time starts with Trump, and his role is to end things, ideally while securing some bonus for the US.That upside is the second feature of the Trump doctrine: financialisation, or the reduction of politics to how much things cost, what is the return and how it can be maximised. Trump sees conflicts and financial assistance that have not produced anything tangible for the US. From the Gaza war, some sort of real estate deal can be salvaged. In Ukraine, a proposal for almost four times the value of US assistance so far in minerals is like the stripping of a distressed company by a new investment manager trying to recoup the funds disbursed by predecessors.The third feature is the junking of any notions of “soft power” – something that is seen as expensive, with questionable benefits that are abstract and unquantifiable. Soft power might even be a myth altogether, a fiction that flattered previously gullible regimes, giving them some sense of control while others fed off the US’s resources. In Gaza or Ukraine, the US was going through the motions of action without a definitive breakthrough. Where others saw soft power, Trump sees quagmires.The features of this approach may change, and they might be shortsighted and deleterious to the US’s security. And they may not entirely come from Trump himself, but rather the intersection of different political strands of the configuration of interests that support and advise him. Channelled through Trump, the doctrine takes on the hallmarks of his character – rambling, narcissistic, ignorant. However, none of this should be confused with a lack of underlying consistency and resolve to follow through.This leaves other leaders, particularly in Europe, in a place where their historical arrangements and understandings when it comes to US compact have been wiped out. European countries are now simply junior nations who can either dispense with their cancelled notions of the importance of rebuffing Vladimir Putin, join Trump in bringing an end to the war on his terms, or pick up the pieces themselves when the US withdraws its support.The ensuing anger and language of “appeasement” and “capitulation” feels like a misreading of what is happening, an echo of a time when it was universally agreed upon that aggressive enemies are to be stood up to, and anything else is a moral defeat and sign of weakness. But Trump is functioning in a different value system, one where these notions don’t even apply or have different definitions.As Europeans seethe, Trump’s plan for Ukraine is being worked out not only away from Europe in Washington, but in the Middle East, at new centres of middleman power that have always been transactional. They themselves are in the throes of redefining their relationship with the US, and have no illusions about the world that is emerging. Sergei Lavrov met with Marco Rubio in Riyadh and Volodymyr Zelenskyy flew to the region preparing for Gulf-mediated peace talks in Abu Dhabi. Those whose relationships with the US have been hard-edged, about mutual self-interest rather than shared values, and have always had to manage the US to greater or lesser extents, seem best positioned now to not freeze in moral horror.For the rest, for the country’s more intimate friends and family, those who shared America’s values and security liabilities, the regime change is a bitter pill to swallow. It is likely that there can be no persuasion, negotiation or hope of a “transatlantic bridge”, as Keir Starmer has been described, a figure that can act as an intermediary between the US and Europe and head off rupture. Perhaps Starmer can appeal to Trump’s ego? Or “tread a diplomatic line”, or convince him that giving in to Putin makes him look weak? All that assumes some measure of impulsiveness on Trump’s part that can be reined in (and by a prime minister not exactly known for his pyrotechnic charm), and also that Trump even shares similar notions of “judgment of history” or the same understanding of “weakness”. There is no small, but still shared, middle ground.There are now two options for the US’s former close friends and security partners: shed everything, dispense with notions of European solidarity, fast-forward the end of the postwar order, and make peace with defence vulnerability and political subordination. Or embark on a colossal power-mapping exercise. This entails rapid, closely coordinated action on a political, bureaucratic and military level to either replace the US, or at least demonstrate that they constitute a bloc that has some power, agency and agility – and challenge Trump in the only language he understands.It is tempting to think that Trump doesn’t mean it, or needs to be managed and cajoled because all that underlies his actions is recklessness. Or that there is a way to reconcile what are now in essence two incompatible conceptions of the global order. Who wants to wake up every day and reckon with the end of the world as they know it? But it is so. And the sooner political leaders come to terms with the fact that roads back to the old way are closed, the more likely it is that this new world will not be fashioned entirely on Trump’s terms.

      Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist More