UK and Europe at 'crossroads' with Ukraine war amid 'very different' US - what will happen next?

As Keir Starmer sets out Europe's plans to end Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Mirror speaks to experts about what it means for the current and future state of the war

Volodymyr Zelensky's fiery row with Donald Trump was not catastrophic for Europe's future, a world affairs expert says.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer gathered 18 leaders in London on Sunday to hammer out a way to end the war in Ukraine, amid fears Trump could abandon Europe in a botched deal with Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin. He said: "We are at a crossroads in history today. This is not a moment for more talk. It's time to act. Time to step up and lead and to unite around a new plan for a just and enduring peace."

The PM said that "Europe must do the heavy lifting", but made it clear that US support is needed to deter Russia from invading again. He confirmed the UK and France would lead a "coalition of the willing" to help end the fighting, and announced an additional £1.6billion of UK export finance to buy more than 5,000 air defence missiles, on top of a £2.2bn loan to provide more military aid to Ukraine.

It came just 48 hours after Zelensky and Trump had a heated exchange in the Oval Office at the White House, leaving many with little hope of a salvaged relationship between the two countries. But despite the clash leaving Zelensky's ambassador with her head in her hands, a world affairs expert believes it was pivotal for Ukraine, and safety and security in all of Europe can still be achieved.

'Buying time'

While Zelensky received a public dressing-down, with Trump demanding that he show more gratitude for years of US support, NATO is not "automatically left in a smouldering ruin", Professor Anthony Glees told the Mirror. The security and intelligence expert, previously of the University of Buckingham, said the "toe-curling" meeting confirmed that "America under Trump is a very different America from one Europe has got to know since 1945".

There is also no doubt that going forward, Nato will be forced to "undergo a big change", and Europe's security will now "have to be delivered by European nations and not the USA", the prof said, but that isn't necessarily a step back. He explained: "In the short term, it is possible for Europe to buy time, both literally (by spending much more on our defence) and metaphorically (by not answering a punch-up with another punch-up), which is exactly what wise statesman Starmer is trying to do - buying time from Trump in order to end Putin's war with Ukraine and buying time to re-invent the Nato Treaty to centre it on European security."

The affairs expert said "now is the time for an honest broker between Trump and Zelensky and Starmer fits very well into that role". He explained: "The future of Nato will be very different even if it does not disappear down the drain, as Putin so earnestly desires. America will continue to have an interest in being part of a new alliance, even if Trump and Vance are too short-sighted to see that one day they might also be under attack from a revived Russia and its warlord Putin."

The prof said the Japan attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and the terrorist attack of 9/11, are both examples of times America was "mighty pleased to have allies". He added that the purpose of Nato, as Lord Ismay, the first Secretary General of Nato, said was to "Keep the Russians out, the Americans in". And while Trump and JD Vance do not want to keep Russia out of Europe, "the fight in the Oval Office does not mean America will stop offering Europe the support that Article Five of the Nato Treaty promises".

Prof Glees said Friday's bull-baiting of Zelensky by Trump is not "necessarily a definitive disaster for Ukraine". "If Starmer's plan to bring about a ceasefire in Ukraine is successful, and if a ceasefire leads to a peace settlement which does not allow Putin to claim victory, the brave Ukrainians and ourselves can begin to breathe easier again, and for the time being, security in all of Europe will have been achieved. These ifs are very big ones, but they are not, as of today, unrealistic," he explained.

Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University, told the Mirror that the outcome of Zelensky's meeting with Trump was "more pivotal than catastrophic". He said the full 45-minute press conference was "pretty good natured" until they went head-to-head in the viral clip that's spread online.

"Trump was quite praising about the Ukrainians and their bravery, and Zelensky was grateful for the support from the Americans. It all went haywire after Vance intervened," he explained. "Looking forward, it will certainly be pivotal as it will give Zelensky more European support, and we already saw that yesterday."

Starmer's 'best' response

After the summit on Sunday, Starmer announced a four-point plan to work with Ukraine to end the war. This included keeping military aid flowing into Ukraine and ensuring that any lasting peace includes Ukraine's sovereignty and security. In the event of a peace deal, the alliance must boost Ukraine's defensive capabilities, and develop a 'coalition of willing' to defend a deal in Ukraine and guarantee peace afterwards.

Prof Glees said he was "impressed" with Starmer's conference, four-point plan, and how he navigated his relationships with both Trump and Zelensky. He believes the deals put in place are "very promising and should reassure Ukraine whilst making it plain to Trump in the Oval Office and Putin in the Kremlin that Europe is rolling its sleeves up and means business". He added: "This is the best possible response to the bullying on Friday in the Oval Office and it isn't even mentioned once."

Agreeing with Prof Glees, international affairs expert Prof Rogers believes Starmer has handled everything pretty well, having taken the decision to "not rile Trump - which is probably the only way you can handle him". He said: "The diversion of money from our foreign aid programme into defence will cause problems, rightfully so, in the Labour party. But that's the way Starmer has decided to do it, and he will likely get away with it in the short term."

Professor Rory Cormac of International Relations at the University of Nottingham added: "The UK government responded positively to the crisis and the London summit, with its four-point plan offering a way forward. The footage stood in stark contrast to that coming out of Washington and Starmer's team deserves much credit."

'Defining turnaround'

But what does it mean for the future of Nato and the UK's allies? Currently, Ukraine is not part of Nato, and Russia has consistently opposed the idea of Ukraine becoming a member over fears it would bring the alliance's forces too close to its borders. Starmer previously said Ukraine was on an 'irreversible path' to Nato membership and Zelensky believes it is the best, and cheapest, way to ensure its security.

The Ukrainian president has now said he is "exchangeable" for his country's Nato membership, indicating that he would resign in return to join the alliance. "I don't think Zelensky will get the Nato membership and he probably knows that," Prof Rogers said. "Nato members have quite a lot of issues with Ukraine due to corruption, so I don't think that's on the cards - but these are strange times, so you can't be sure."

Meanwhile, Prof Glees believes it would be a "risky" move for Zelensky to resign for Nato, if that were to happen, and he should instead stay put for now. In the short term, Zelensky could instead issue a public apology to Trump for not wearing a suit and disputing with him, the prof said, to keep him sweet. This would help to "keep Trump inside the European tent for as long as possible while Europe gets on with its rearmament and support programmes", he explained.

In the medium term, by August 2025, the prof believes we should have accepted that Trump's America will see Russia as its ally and Europe as a threat. "This is a major turnaround which will define the 21st century," Prof Glees said. If this is the case, Europe will never be able to trust American again, but by then, we would have hopefully built up our own security and safety to defend our borders as one, he explained.

Prof Rogers, however, doubts that America would form a strong alliance with Russia in the near future. He added: "Trump is very keen on Russia because he is an extraordinary egotist and regards considerable wealth as success. There is a possibility of some sort of deal with Russia, but I do not believe a full security deal is likely."