ANDREW NEIL: This was nothing short of a disgrace, the bullying of a leader whose country has been savaged by unprovoked Russian aggression and who deserved to be treated better. Who knows where it leaves any peace process?
What happened to Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office yesterday was nothing short of a disgrace.
The sight of the leader of Ukraine, a country which has been savaged by unprovoked Russian aggression, being ganged up on by Donald Trump and his vice president JD Vance was really quite upsetting.
This is a man who, when offered an evacuation flight out of Kyiv two days after the invasion of February 2022, reportedly replied: 'The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.'
No one can doubt Zelensky's patriotism or valour and yet Vance tried to intimidate him and then accused him of being disrespectful because he answered back.
And when the Ukrainian president said, quite rightly, that Putin could not be trusted, Trump launched a brutal verbal assault of his own, threatening to abandon him and his country unless he did as he was told.
Normally when wars end, it is the aggressor who is landed with the bill for reparations, as Germany was at the end of the First World War. But in Trump World it is whoever America has bankrolled during hostilities that must stump up.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the war in Ukraine rages on. 'I think we're going to have a very successful peace,' Trump told Keir Starmer when he visited the White House on Thursday, 'and I think it's going to be a long lasting peace, and I think it's going to happen hopefully quickly.'
Such vague but warm generalisations are the very stuff of daytime television, a genre that these encounters in the Oval Office have come to resemble this week, with Trump as host and Macron and Starmer as grateful guests. But after yesterday's extraordinary row they have never sounded more hollow.
When Trump was asked in front of Starmer if he trusted President Putin, he replied: 'I think he'll keep his word. I spoke to him, I've known him for a long time now, I don't believe he's going to violate his word.'
This of a dictator who has violated just about every treaty he's signed. Again, Starmer stayed shtum, probably wisely.
Our Prime Minister may well have done the best he could in difficult circumstances. It could be the basis of future Anglo-American collaboration — or it could all unravel within weeks. With Trump you just never know.
It is now clear that what happened in the White House on Thursday was somewhat divorced from reality. If Starmer doubts that, he might care to remember that Trump praised the famously nasal knight for his 'beautiful accent'. You only hear that sort of flannel on daytime TV. British diplomats had prepared matters well: common ground was highlighted, differences papered over or ignored.
And Starmer, a wooden performer at the best of times, played his part in the US limelight with some skill.
The personal chemistry displayed and the pleasantries exchanged during Thursday visit were impressive, given that the two men are such very different characters from opposing political traditions.
Starmer flew back to Blighty his stature as a world leader enhanced, having established a decent rapport with a quixotic US President. This will give him a pivotal role in Europe, Brexit notwithstanding, as it attempts to come to terms with a far less engaged America.
There was even some substance in their deliberations. Trump indicated that, as he gears up for another round of growth-destroying trade tariffs, Britain might be dealt a get-out-of-jail-free card. This matters since the US is our biggest national export market.
He even dangled the prospect of some kind of Anglo-American trade deal. 'I think we're going to end up with a great trade deal,' Trump opined. Indeed, there was a 'very good chance' that Britain and the US will sign a 'real trade deal where tariffs aren't necessary'. Starmer purred.
Trump even backed away from making an issue of Starmer's ridiculous plan to surrender the Chagos Archipelago, a British Overseas Territory in the Indian Ocean, to Mauritius (2,000 kilometres away) – then pay around £10 billion (linked to inflation) for the pleasure of leasing back just one of the islands, Diego Garcia, where America has a strategic airbase.
'I have a feeling it's going to work out very well,' said Trump in words that surprised many (including me!). 'I think we'll be inclined to go along with [Britain]. It doesn't sound bad.' Of course, it's not America that will have to pony up the £10 billion to pay for what we already have.
So Starmer had some significant accomplishments to stick under his belt as he boarded the red-eye back to London on Thursday night. But on the most important matter of all he came away empty-handed.
Starmer, somewhat rashly, has committed British forces as peacekeepers (to serve with other Nato armies) along a ceasefire line should Trump pull off a peace deal with Russia over Ukraine. Not that that now looks likely any time soon.
Trump had already ruled out US boots on the ground. Now it's clear even air cover is not a given.
Securing American security guarantees for the peacekeepers was Starmer's most important mission in Washington this week. Sadly, he failed. So did France's Emmanuel Macron when he visited the Oval Office earlier in the week. He called his meeting with Trump a 'turning point'. But, frankly, it's hard to see what point was turned.
Look behind all the bromides and banalities that obfuscate meetings between Trump and his visiting supplicants and you can quickly see what really motivates the President. He sees a peace deal in Ukraine as an exit route for US military involvement in Eastern Europe, not a precursor to more intervention.
He has no historic or ideological allegiance to the Atlantic Alliance, the cornerstone of American-European security for almost 80 years. That was clear on Thursday during Starmer's visit.
When asked bluntly if he supported Nato's Article 5, which commits all members to come to the aid of any member under attack, Trump hesitated, then muttered an unconvincing 'yes' before rushing to add that he didn't think it would ever need to be invoked.
It was hardly reassuring. Starmer kept quiet, no doubt anxious not to puncture the bonhomie in the room, even though Trump had just run a coach and horse through Nato's very raison d'être.
Trump told Starmer that, if post-war Ukraine was full of Americans exploiting its mineral wealth, Russia was unlikely to cut up rough and resort to further hostilities. I can understand the logic. But it's hardly the same as a watertight security guarantee. And following yesterday's mindblowing imbroglio doesn't look like much of a goer – in the short time at least.
That's the problem with Trump: you just don't know what bits of what he says are bankable. Even Starmer's apparent successes from his visit could easily turn out not to be quite what they're currently cracked up to be.
Take tariffs. Trump, who some said was not really serious about them, is about to embark on several rounds of tariff increases: 25 per cent on Mexico and Canada (two neighbours and allies); an extra 10 per cent on China on top of last month's 10 per cent; 25 per cent on steel, aluminium, cars and pharmaceuticals from anywhere; and a new range of global 'reciprocal' tariffs (whatever your tariffs are on our stuff, we'll levy at least the same on yours).
Is it really conceivable that Britain will manage to avoid this Trump tariff blizzard? Possibly, with a far-reaching free trade deal. But, for all Trump's talk of a 'real trade deal, quickly as it can be done', there is no prospect of a 'full-fat' deal (which would do away with all US-UK tariffs). Officials on both sides of the Atlantic are making that clear.
Starmer speaks of a trade deal which would have 'advanced technology at its core', which suggests it will be less than comprehensive. Perhaps this suits him. His government is committed to aligning UK regulations, such as food standards, with the European Union. You cannot do that and aspire to a wide-ranging free trade agreement with America.
Maybe Starmer will have second thoughts about realignment. He is, after all, experiencing something of a re-education when it comes to Brexit. He speaks about a new deal with America on artificial intelligence because he goes along with its light-touch approach. He couldn't do that if we were still in the EU, where AI regulation is heavy-handed.
He urges the US not to impose tariffs on Britain. He could not ask to be made an exception if the UK was still an EU member. Nor would there be any prospect of a trade deal with America. Brussels has sole control of trade policy for all EU members.
When it comes to tariffs, we're not out of the woods yet, however. Nor is the Chagos deal necessarily done and dusted. I'm told Trump has given very little thought to it. ('He couldn't find the Chagos Islands on a map,' a State Department official said to me.)
But a number of prominent Republicans are stridently against it. They may yet get his attention. If they do, I don't rule out a wrenching U-turn.
Sudden changes of mind are always a risk when dealing with Trump. It's partly the way he is (having no fixed opinions), partly the manner in which he does business.
As I say, he's turned his meetings with visiting world leaders, like Starmer and Macron, into a form of light entertainment in which he dominates the conversation and his guests are mere supporting acts, or even a foil for his barbs.
Substance takes second place to adoration and light-hearted exchanges. Trump will lavish praise on his guests even when he barely knows them, as he did with Starmer (who he's met only once before) this week, the understanding being they will reply in kind.
'Prime Minister Starmer, you've been terrific in our discussions,' Trump said with a wry smile. 'You're a very tough negotiator. I'm not sure I like that. But that's okay.'
Starmer lapped it up and thanked Trump for his leadership and commitment to peace. At that point it had perhaps not yet dawned on him that, on the issue that mattered most, this 'tough negotiator' had largely failed.
Macron was suitably giggly and complimentary during his time on Daytime Trump TV. But Starmer came up with a classic talk show stunt when he produced a letter from King Charles inviting Trump to a state visit. Both Starmer and
Trump played their parts to perfection.
Our PM ladled on the soft soap, repeating how 'unprecedented' it was for any
world leader to be offered a second state visit to Britain (Trump made one in his first term). For a man who used to dine out on his republican credentials, he was very convincing as he invoked the soft power of the monarch to keep the special relationship on track.
Trump affected to be surprised, asked if he could open the letter, then praised Charles as a 'great gentleman, a great, great gentleman'. Oprah Winfrey in her daytime heyday could not have done it any better.
But yesterday the mask slipped, the chaotic encounter with Zelensky ending with no deal signed and the proud Ukrainian president ordered to leave the White House grounds and not return until he was ready to eat humble pie.
I don't think I've ever seen such a dramatic and outrageous turn of events in all my decades in journalism.
I am well known for always being pro-American. It's now become a position that's hard to sustain.
