| After the hugs, the handshakes and the above family photo, the European summit – also joined by Canada and Turkey – proceeded on quite different terms to the White House’s version of diplomacy on Friday: behind closed doors. At the end of it, the attending leaders proclaimed that they were united in their support of Ukraine, and ready, in the words of the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, to “rearm Europe” and turn Ukraine into “a steel porcupine that is indigestible for potential invaders”. Keir Starmer said that the continent was “at a crossroads in history”. So what does that mean in practice – and how are Kyiv, the Kremlin and the White House responding to events of the last few days? European conference | Big announcements but little detail A litany of announcements followed the conclusion of the summit, led by Keir Starmer. He said that “a number” of allies had signed up to join the “coalition of the willing” ready to put troops on the ground in Ukraine, but said that he would leave it to those countries to set out their own commitments. Starmer also announced a £1.6bn deal that would see a loan to Ukraine to buy 5,000 advanced air defence missiles from the UK. Meanwhile the Nato chief, Mark Rutte, said more European countries had said they were ready to increase defence spending, and Germany’s leader-in-waiting Friedrich Merz expressed support for a British “bomb bank” plan that would see up to £20bn in government funding multiplied by up to £200bn private capital for military investment. It is notable that the most significant steps here lack the crucial public confirmation from those said to have made them. Starmer also claimed he still believes Trump remains open to working with Europe and Ukraine: “I spoke to President Trump last night,” he said. “I would not be taking this step down this road if I didn’t think it was something that would yield a positive outcome.” Many will remain sceptical that the signals emerging from the White House corroborate those claims. This explainer from Dan Sabbagh sets out the challenges facing Europe in how to move forward on security without US support. And in this piece, Patrick Wintour explains that the next milestone will come at an EU summit this week, which will face the question of whether the bloc will release defence investment outside its general rules limiting debt. Starmer’s BBC interview | Insistence that he can still be ‘bridge’ to US Ahead of the conference, the prime minister appeared on the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg and attempted to tread an increasingly difficult line: emphasising the UK’s unbreakable support for Ukraine while maintaining that Donald Trump is a reliable partner for peace. Unlike several European leaders, Starmer has refused to criticise Trump over the Oval Office meeting, and he defended that position yesterday. The footage of the meeting made him “uncomfortable”, he acknowledged: “Nobody wants to see that. But the important thing is how to react to that.” He went on: “There are a number of different routes people could go down. One is to ramp up the rhetoric as to how outraged we all are, or not. The other is to do what I did, which is, roll up my sleeves, pick up the phone, talk to President Trump, talk to President Zelenskyy … my reaction was, ‘we have to bridge this’.” The Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch – who has previously described Labour as “student politicians” for their past criticisms of Trump – now takes a different view. “I watched it and I couldn’t believe what was happening,” she told Kuenssberg. “He was being humiliated.” US fallout | Was the Oval Office meeting a set-up? One question to arise from Friday’s disastrous Oval Office meeting was to what extent the confrontation was a deliberate set-up by the Trump team. In this excellent piece from Washington DC, Hugo Lowell offers some useful clues. Within the White House, officials were blaming Zelenskyy for the way the meeting went, he reports, saying that Ukrainian officials were warned there should be no attempt to negotiate security guarantees because Trump wanted to come to that issue after the proposed minerals deal was signed. That echoes the claims of the South Carolina senator and Trump ally Lindsey Graham, who told the New York Times he advised Zelenskyy: “Don’t get into arguments about security agreements.” But Hugo also reports claims that JD Vance, whose attack on Zelenskyy tipped the meeting into acrimony, has been working to tilt the administration’s stance against Ukraine. The vice-president was involved in crafting Trump’s description of Zelenskyy as a “dictator” on Truth Social, two sources tell him. CNN and others report White House sources insisting there was no intention of an ambush – although it is perfectly plausible Vance had that intention without discussing it with anyone else. Whether the confrontation was deliberately engineered or not, it points to a larger imbalance in how Zelenskyy and Trump are treated. Whereas Zelenskyy is expected to bend to Trump’s demands with little reference to the reality of his country’s plight, Trump is assumed to be captive to his impulses – which means that whatever he does, it’s Zelenskyy’s fault. Downing Street officials have reportedly urged Zelenskyy to “play the game” if he gets another chance. Mood in Kyiv | Country rallies round Zelenskyy If the White House has sought to villainise Zelenskyy’s behaviour in the Oval Office meeting and continue to present him as an unpopular leader whose people want him out of office, reporting from Ukraine tells a very different story. In this piece from the city of Odesa, Luke Harding hears from ordinary Ukrainians dismayed by the White House’s warmth towards the Kremlin, and who insist their president remains the right man for the job. “This is our affair. Zelenskyy is our president. He got 73% of the vote. We should decide,” says Olena Palash, who works at a children’s clinic destroyed by Russian attacks. She also says: “Everything is back to front. After three years of war, I’m astounded. Trump doesn’t understand who the aggressor is.” This BBC piece reflects similar views in Kyiv. “It was an emotional conversation, but I understand our president,” says Yulia. “Maybe it wasn’t diplomatic, but it was sincere. It’s about life, we want to live.” Mood in Moscow | Attempts to make the most of new dynamic Trump’s treatment of Ukraine in recent days goes beyond even what Russia might have expected, and the Kremlin appears eager to make the most of its diplomatic advantage. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said in comments released yesterday but made before the Oval Office meeting: “The new administration is rapidly changing all foreign policy configurations. This largely coincides with our vision.” Meanwhile, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, praised Trump for “behaving correctly” in an interview reported by state news agency Tass on Sunday. “Donald Trump is a pragmatist,” he said. “His slogan is common sense. It means, as everyone can see, a shift to a different way of doing things.” Perhaps most tellingly, he sought to draw a clear line between Europe and the US under Trump’s leadership. The Trump team “say directly that they want to end all wars, they want peace”, Lavrov said. “And who demands a ‘continuation of the banquet’ in the form of a war? Europe.” | 