Sir Keir Starmer is straining his diplomatic sinews to simultaneously praise Donald Trump’s efforts to end the war in Ukraine, while repeating calls for a completely different approach – one which ends the cosy bonhomie with Vladimir Putin, threatens the Russians with sanctions, and puts the Ukrainians back centre stage.
If that’s a message which feels like quite a stretch in writing, in person, during this morning’s call of international leaders, it must have been even more awkward.
Donald Trump‘s public dismissal of the Europeans’ previous calls for a ceasefire – after his tete-a-tete with Putin – has only highlighted divisions.
Of course, the prime minister and his European allies have no choice but to keep their criticism of the Alaskan summit implicit, not explicit.
Image: Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin after their private meeting in Alaska. Pic: Reuters/ Kevin Lamarque
Even as they attempt to ramp up their own military preparedness to help reinforce any future peace deal, they need President Trump to lead the way in trying to force President Putin to the negotiating table – and to back up any agreement with the threat of American firepower.
For Downing Street, President Trump’s new willingness to contribute to any future security guarantee is a significant step, which Starmer claims “will be crucial in deterring Putin from coming back for more”.
It’s a commitment the prime minister has been campaigning for for months, a caveat to all the grand plans drawn up by the so-called Coalition of the Willing.
While the details are still clearly very much to be confirmed, whatever comments made by Donald Trump about his openness to help police any peace in Ukraine have been loudly welcomed by all those present, a glimmer of progress from the diplomatic mess in Anchorage.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Of course, the promise of security guarantees only means anything if a peace deal is actually reached.
At the moment, as the European leaders’ bluntly put it in repeating Donald Trump’s words back to him: “There’s no deal until there’s a deal.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
8:31
Wallace: Putin ‘laughing all the way home’
Fears of Zelenskyy being painted as warmonger
There is clearly real concern in European capitals following the US president’s comments that the onus is now on Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ‘do a deal’, that the Ukrainians will come under growing pressure to make concessions to the Russians.
As former defence secretary Ben Wallace said: “Given that Donald Trump has failed to deliver a deal, his track record would show that Donald Trump then usually tries to seek to blame someone else. I’m worried that next week it could be President Zelenskyy who he will seek to blame.
“He’ll paint him as the warmonger, when in fact everybody knows it’s President Putin.”
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
The European leaders’ robust statements describing the “killing in Ukraine” and Russia’s “barbaric assault” are an attempt to try to counter that narrative, resetting the international response to Putin following the warmth of his welcome by President Trump – friendlier by far than that afforded to many of them, and infinitely more than the barracking President Zelenskyy received.
They’ll all be hoping to avoid a repeat of that on Monday.
WazirX has been trying to get a restructuring plan through the Singapore High Court to start returning funds to users impacted by the $234 million hack in 2024.
“It’s an interesting moment,” was how one government source described the High Court ruling that will force an Essex hotel to be emptied of asylum seekers within weeks.
That may prove to be the understatement of the summer.
For clues as to why, just take a glance at what the Home Office’s own lawyer told the court on Tuesday.
Granting the injunction “runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests”, the barrister said – pointing out that similar legal claims by other councils would “aggravate pressures on the asylum estate”.
Right on cue and just hours after the ruling came in, Broxbourne Council – over the border in Hertfordshire – posted online that it was urgently seeking legal advice with a view to taking similar court action.
The risks here are clear.
Image: Police officers ahead of a demonstration outside The Bell Hotel. Pic: PA
Recent figures show just over 30,000 asylum seekers being housed in hotels across the country.
If they start to empty out following a string of court claims, the Home Office will struggle to find alternative options.
After all, they are only in hotels because of a lack of other types of accommodation.
There are several caveats though.
This is just an interim injunction that will be heard in full in the autumn.
So the court could swing back in favour of the hotel chain – and by extension the Home Office.
Image: Protesters in Epping on 8 August. Pic: Reuters
We have been here before
Remember, this isn’t the first legal claim of this kind.
Other councils have tried to leverage the power of the courts to shut down asylum hotels, with varying degrees of success.
In 2022, Ipswich Borough Council failed to get an extension to an interim injunction to prevent migrants being sent to a Novotel in the town.
As in Epping, lawyers argued there had been a change in use under planning rules.
Image: The hotel has been the scene of regular protests. Pic: PA
But the judge eventually decided that the legal duty the Home Office has to provide accommodation for asylum seekers was more important.
So there may not be a direct read across from this case to other councils.
Home Office officials are emphasising this injunction was won on the grounds of planning laws rather than national issues such as public order, and as such, each case will be different.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
But government sources also smell dirty tricks from Epping Council and are suggesting that the Tory-led local authority made the legal claim for political reasons.
Pointing to the presence of several prominent Tory MPs in the Essex area – as well as the threat posed by Reform in the county – the question being posed is why this legal challenge was not brought when asylum seekers first started being sent to the hotel in 2020 during the Conservatives‘ time in government.
Epping Council would no doubt reject that and say recent disorder prompted them to act.
But that won’t stop the Tories and Reform of seizing on this as evidence of a failing approach from Labour.
So there are political risks for the government, yes, but it’s the practicalities that could flow from this ruling that pose the bigger danger.
Federal Reserve vice chair for supervision, Michelle Bowman, says the central bank should roll back its restrictions that ban staff from buying crypto.