Was Starmer Summit enough to change the diplomatic sphere?

Lancaster House may have been bathed in the sun when European leaders gathered to draw a path to follow for Ukraine.

But there was a cloud hanging on the summit in the middle of the golden greatness of the old royal house in downtown London.

He arrived in a question: Did it be worth it? Was this European powers meeting enough to change the diplomatic sphere? Or had the United States decided to do it only by finding a high fire in Ukraine?

The prime minister’s response was to a large extent that Europe still had a role to play. He said that the United Kingdom, France and others would work with Ukraine in A plan to stop the fight and then discuss that plan with the US..

He said that Europe would maintain military aid now and, in the case of a peace agreement, would boost Ukraine’s own defensive capabilities, building the “armed forces and border defenses” of the country to ensure that “Ukraine can resort to ammunition, finance and teams to defend themselves,” according to the official conclusions of the summit.

And Sir Keir said there would be a “coalition of the provisions” to defend Ukraine and guarantee peace.

Who or what would imply still clear. The prime minister simply said that there would be “a force consisting of Europeans and other partners.”

The United Kingdom and France have already said that they would be willing to put boots on the ground in Ukraine to help deter Russian aggression.

The head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said that the purpose was to turn Ukraine into a “steel pork that is indigestible for possible invaders.”

The objective seems to reinforce the European offer of postwar security guarantees for Ukraine in an attempt to convince Donald Trump to promise an US military support.

Until now, the president has been reluctant to follow that route, which suggests that the presence of US mining companies in the field in Ukraine would be sufficient to maintain peace.

Sir Keir does not share this point of view, explicitly saying “to support peace in our continent and to succeed, this effort must have a solid support of us.”

This summit was in many ways an attempt in Europe to take some owned by diplomacy. In recent weeks, Trump has directed efforts to end the fight in Ukraine talking to President Putin and President Zelensky.

Europeans also wanted to find ways to repair the transatlantic alliance, which looks quite fragile after the confrontation between Trump and Zelensky in the Oval office on Friday.

In recent weeks, the US administration has been after its European allies; Questioning his democracy, voting against him in the United Nations and, in the form of the president’s main executor, Elon Musk, saying that even the United States should leave the NATO military alliance.

The summit in London was an attempt by the prime minister both to calm diplomatic eyebrows and harden diplomatic tendons. The diplomats said there was a clear resolution around the table to support Ukraine, but also to take advantage of Trump’s desire to find a high fire.

But Europe that performance is only half of history and depends a lot on whether the United States is willing to play its role.

Diplomats say that the United States is willing to reduce tensions with Zelensky, but there were mixed messages on Sunday; The Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, said that the United States was ready to interact with Ukraine, but the United States national security advisor, Mike Waltz, suggested that Zelensky could have to give up as part of any high fire.

Then, the result of the Summit of the House of Lancaster was apparently a United European front to support Zelensky, with the promise of more military support for Ukraine to come.

But the cloud that lurks in the heavens of London remains what the United States does. And that is not clear yet. Trump and his deputy have made their antipathy towards Zelensky as clear as their confidence in Putin.