Was Starmer's summit enough to sway Trump?

In the sun-drenched Lancaster House, European leaders gathered, aiming to chart a course forward for the Ukraine issue. However, within the gilded splendor of this former royal residence in the heart of London, a shadow loomed, casting doubt on the future of European involvement.

This shadow stemmed from a fundamental question: Is all this effort worthwhile? Is this gathering of European powers sufficient to advance the diplomatic process? Or has the United States already decided to seek a ceasefire solution for Ukraine on its own? The British Prime Minister made it clear that Europe can still play a role, emphasizing continued European support.

The Prime Minister also stated that Europe will continue to provide military assistance and, in the event of a peace agreement, will enhance Ukraine's own defense capabilities, strengthening the country's "armed forces and border defenses" to ensure that "Ukraine can use ammunition, funds and equipment to defend itself," which was the official conclusion of the summit. Sir Keir Starmer stated that there would be a "coalition of the willing" to defend Ukraine and guarantee peace.

It is currently unclear which countries or organizations this will involve. The Prime Minister only stated that there would be a "force of European and other partners." The UK and France have already indicated their willingness to send ground troops to Ukraine to help deter Russian aggression. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the aim was to turn Ukraine into a "steel porcupine that would be difficult for a potential invader to swallow."

The aim appears to be to strengthen Europe's post-war security guarantees for Ukraine, attempting to persuade Donald Trump to commit to American military support. So far, President Trump has been reluctant to take this approach, believing that the presence of American mining companies in Ukraine is sufficient to maintain peace. Sir Keir Starmer disagreed, making it clear that "to support peace on our continent and to succeed, this effort must be strongly supported by the United States."

In many ways, this summit was an attempt by Europe to seize diplomatic leadership. In recent weeks, efforts to end the fighting in Ukraine have been primarily led by conversations between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. European countries also hope to find a way to repair the transatlantic alliance, which looks very fragile after the confrontation between Trump and Zelenskyy in the Oval Office.

In recent weeks, the US government has been attacking its European allies, questioning their democratic systems, voting against them at the United Nations, and indicating through the President's chief executor, Elon Musk, that even the US should withdraw from the NATO military alliance. The London summit was an attempt by the Prime Minister to defuse diplomatic disputes and strengthen diplomatic forces. Diplomats said participants made it clear that they were determined to support Ukraine, while also hoping to build on Trump's desire to seek a ceasefire.

However, Europe's strengthening is only half the story, and largely depends on whether the United States is willing to play a role. Diplomats said the United States was willing to ease tensions with Zelenskyy, but the message conveyed on Sunday was mixed. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the United States was ready to engage with Ukraine, but National Security Advisor Mike Waltz suggested Zelenskyy may have to resign in order to reach a ceasefire agreement.

Therefore, the outcome of the Lancaster House summit appears to be a united European front in supporting Zelenskyy, with a commitment to provide more military support to Ukraine. However, the shadow looming over London remains the next move by the United States. It remains unclear. Trump and his deputies have made clear their dislike for Zelenskyy and their trust in Putin.