Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said he is “exchangeable” for Ukrainian membership of NATO, indicating he would be prepared to step down as president if his country was allowed to join the military alliance.

He also suggested he was ready to sign a minerals deal with the US that was put on hold after his heated meeting with Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Friday.

Mr Zelenskyy was speaking to reporters on Sunday evening after earlier talks with other world leaders at a London summit hosted by Sir Keir Starmer, who suggested a coalition of European allies could step up to defend Ukraine and “guarantee the peace”.

Latest updates on Ukraine’s future

Asked by Sky News’ lead world news presenter Yalda Hakim if he could quit in the event his country becomes a NATO member, he said: “I am exchangeable for NATO.”

The Ukraine president added: “I have said that I am exchanging for NATO membership, then it means I have fulfilled my mission. NATO means I have fulfilled my mission.”

But, he continued: “To change me, it will not be easy because it is not enough to simply hold elections. You would need to prevent me from participating. And it will be a bit more difficult.”

Mr Zelenskyy has also rebuffed US officials calling for him to resign.

His comments at Stansted Airport come after Republicans including senator Lindsay Graham and speaker Mike Johnson suggested he should step down from his position following the fiery White House exchange with President Trump.

Mr Zelenskyy spoke to journalists shortly before leaving the UK on Sunday evening.

In response to a question from Yalda Hakim, Mr Zelenskyy said: “I can give [Lindsay Graham] citizenship of Ukraine and he will become a citizen of our country.

“And then his voice will start to gain weight, and I will hear him as a citizen of Ukraine on the topic of who must be the president.”

“The president of Ukraine will have to be chosen not in Lindsay Graham’s home but in Ukraine,” he added.

Mr Zelenskyy confirmed there has been communication between Ukraine and the Trump administration since the clash on Friday, but “not on my level”.

Mr Graham – a Republican senator and close Trump ally – labelled the meeting a “complete, utter disaster” at a press briefing on Friday.

Asked whether Mr Zelenskyy should step aside, he said: “He either needs to resign or send somebody over that we can do business with, or he needs to change.”

After the London summit on Sunday, the prime minister unveiled a four-step plan discussed by leaders, including a pledge to “develop a coalition of the willing” to defend a deal in Ukraine and guarantee a peace settlement.

Sir Keir said Europe “must do the heavy lifting”, and the UK “is prepared to back this with boots on the ground and planes in the air, together with others”.

He also announced a new deal which will allow Ukraine to use £1.6bn of UK export finance to buy 5,000 more air defence missiles.

Zelenskyy’s meeting with the King

The Ukrainian president’s 90-minute sit down with the media came shortly after he wrapped up a tough week with a visit to see the King at Sandringham.

Mr Zelenskyy flew to Norfolk in a helicopter on Sunday afternoon after attending the security summit in central London.

People – some holding Ukraine flags – gathered outside Sandringham to try to witness his arrival. A military helicopter could be seen flying low before descending over the estate.

Pictures released after the meeting show Charles and Mr Zelenskyy shaking hands by the entrance to the royal home. The pair chatted briefly before heading inside, where they posed for more photographs.

Their meeting lasted just under an hour, Sky News understands.

A difficult week for Ukrainian president

Mr Zelenskyy’s difficult few days began on Friday, when his day at the White House with Mr Trump was cut short after their meeting in the Oval Office descended into a shouting match.

The pair had been due to sign a minerals deal and hold a joint press conference – but both events were called off after their tense exchange, fuelled in part by comments from vice president JD Vance.

Read more:
What Ukrainians think of the Trump row
What did Vance say to Zelenskyy?
UK, France and Ukraine work on peace plan

As White House officials scrapped the day’s schedule, Mr Trump described the meeting as “very meaningful” in a post on his Truth Social platform.

He wrote: “I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations.”

Meanwhile, in an interview on Fox News, the Ukrainian president said the row was “not good for both sides” and refused to apologise. Mr Zelenskyy then jetted to the UK to meet Sir Keir and other world leaders.

US Speaker Mike Johnson has suggested Volodymyr Zelenskyy might need to leave office in order for Ukraine to achieve a peace deal with Russia, as Lord Mandelson says Kyiv should commit to a ceasefire before Russia.

“Something has to change,” Mr Johnson told NBC.

“Either he needs to come to his senses and come back to the table in gratitude or someone else needs to lead the country to do that,” he added, referring to Mr Zelenskyy.

The Republican said “it’s up to the Ukrainians to figure that out”.

Meanwhile Lord Mandelson, the UK’s ambassador to the US, told ABC News: “I think that Ukraine should be the first to commit to a ceasefire and defy the Russians to follow.

“And then, as part of the unfolding plan for this negotiation, the Europeans and perhaps some other countries too have got to consider how they are going to put forces on the ground to play their part in providing enduring security and deterrence for Ukraine.”

Ukraine war summit latest: ‘This is a once in a generation moment’, PM tells EU leaders

The remarks came two days after a disastrous meeting between the Ukrainian president and Donald Trump and his vice president JD Vance descended into a shouting match in the Oval Office.

Mr Johnson said: “What President Zelenskyy did in the White House was effectively signal to us that he’s not ready for that yet and I think that’s a great disappointment.”

The fallout left a proposed agreement between Ukraine and the US to jointly develop Ukraine’s natural resources in limbo.

The idea of Mr Zelenskyy stepping aside also came up on Friday after the Oval Office meeting, with US Republican senator Lindsey Graham saying the Ukrainian leader “either needs to resign or send somebody over that we can do business with, or he needs to change”.

Meanwhile, White House national security adviser Mike Waltz said it is not clear Mr Zelenskyy is prepared to secure lasting peace with Russia.

“We need a leader that can deal with us, eventually deal with the Russians and end this war,” Mr Waltz told CNN when asked whether Mr Trump wants Mr Zelenskyy to resign.

“If it becomes apparent that President Zelenskyy’s either personal motivations or political motivations are divergent from ending the fighting in his country, then I think we have a real issue on our hands.”

US secretary of state Marco Rubio said he had not spoken to Mr Zelenskyy since the spat on Friday.

“We’ll be ready to re-engage when they’re ready to make peace,” Mr Rubio told ABC.

But Democratic senator Amy Klobuchar told ABC she was “appalled” by the clash in the Oval Office and said she met Mr Zelenskyy before he went to the White House on Friday and he had been excited to sign an expected minerals deal.

“There is still an opening here” for a peace deal, she said.

Read more from Sky News:
‘Surge’ in women being offered rent in exchange for sex
Legendary referee on ‘cancer that could kill football’
Space craft touches down on moon

It comes as Sir Keir Starmer hosted a summit between Mr Zelenskyy and other European leaders in an effort to get a peace plan back on track.

The prime minister said the UK, France and Ukraine would work on a ceasefire plan to present to the US.

Sir Keir, who visited Washington on Thursday, said he believes Mr Trump does want a “lasting peace” but warned Europe is in a “moment of real fragility” and he would not trust the word of Vladimir Putin.

Mr Zelenskyy will later meet the King.

Remarkable – and relatively speaking a blessing – that the wake-up call for Britain to take defence seriously again did not come in the form of a military attack on UK soil, but instead was triggered by the verbal assault of Ukraine’s wartime leader by a sitting US president.

The lack of any physical destruction on British streets, though, should fool no one in government or wider society that the framework of security that has protected the country and its allies since the end of the Second World War is not at best cracked and at worst shattered.

Instead, check out one of the latest posts by Elon Musk, Donald Trump’s “disrupter-in-chief”.

He used his social media site X to say “I agree” with a call for the United States to leave NATO – a transatlantic alliance, and the bedrock of European security, that the new administration had until now continued to back at least in public.

It is yet another example of escalating hostility from the new Trump White House – which has sided with Russia against Ukraine, lashed out at its European partners over their values, and even suggested absorbing Canada as the 51st American state.

The alarming mood-change by a nation that is meant to be a friend surely demands an equally dramatic shift in approach by NATO’s 30 European allies and their Canadian partner.

Rather than stating the obvious – that American support can no longer be taken for granted – they should instead be actively adapting to a world in which it fundamentally no longer exists.

Make no mistake, this would be a daunting and humbling prospect – perhaps too awful even to contemplate, in particular for the UK, which has tied itself militarily so closely to the US for pretty much everything from intelligence sharing and technology to nuclear weapons.

Britain is not alone. All European militaries, as well as Canada, to a greater or lesser extent rely heavily on their more powerful American partners.

Breaking that dependency would require a rapid expansion in military capabilities and capacity across the continent, as well as a huge effort to build up the defence industrial base required to produce weapons at scale and exploit emerging technologies.

Sir Keir Starmer – who is hosting a Ukraine summit of allies on Sunday – has rightly adopted the UK’s natural position of leadership in Europe in the wake of Donald Trump’s extraordinary hostility towards Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He gave the embattled Ukrainian president a warm embrace on Saturday when the two met at Downing Street.

Britain is one of Europe’s two nuclear-armed states, a powerful voice within NATO, and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

But talking tough on defence and the need to support Ukraine as the US steps back is no longer enough in a world where hard power is the only real currency once again.

A pledge by the prime minister to increase defence spending to 2.5% of national income by 2027 and to 3% in the next parliament is of course a step in the right direction.

Yet unless it is accompanied by much greater speed and urgency coupled with a genuinely generational shift in the entire country’s approach to national security then it will go down in history as the headline-grabbing but otherwise empty gesture of a government that has forgotten what it means to be ready to fight wars.

Anneliese Dodds, who quit as international development secretary on Thursday over the prime minister’s plan to fund his increase in defence spending with a raid on the overseas aid budget, summed up the challenge well in her resignation letter.

She wrote that she supported the plan to lift the defence budget but said even 3% “may only be the start, and it will be impossible to raise the substantial resources needed just through tactical cuts to public spending”.

She added: “These are unprecedented times, when strategic decisions for the sake of our country’s security cannot be ducked.”

Read more:
Starmer asks leaders to unite ahead of Ukraine summit
Israel agrees to Gaza ceasefire extension

Ms Dodds is right.

It is no longer good enough to treat defence, deterrence and wider national resilience as a niche subject that is delivered by an increasingly small, professional military.

Rather, it should once again be at the heart of the thinking of all government departments – from the Treasury and business to health and education – led by the prime minister, his national security adviser and the cabinet secretary.

This is not something new. It was normal during the Cold War years when, after two world wars, the whole country was acutely aware of the need to maintain costly but credible armed forces and a population that was ready to play its part in a crisis.