Abandoning Ukraine is a geostrategic decision by Donald Trump’s administration to peel Russia off from its developing alliances with China and Iran - Patrick Mercer

On top of this, much of the West’s horror of Mr Putin’s strategy has been his expansionism, his desire to seize lands and resources that are not his. Now President Trump seems to have similar ambitions: the annexation of Greenland and Canada - both NATO soil - and the sequestration of Ukraine’s natural resources. Suddenly, the USA is guilty of the same ‘imperialism’.

Now, whilst a tolerant coexistence between Russia and America might be highly desirable, there will be a heavy price to pay, not only in the wholesale collapse of Ukraine, but also a schism with Europe. The abandonment of Ukraine is obvious; Kiev was not even represented at the first round of talks in Saudi Arabia whilst Mr Trump has said publicly, “A dictator without elections, Zelensky better move fast or he’s not gonna have a country left”. Now there’s little doubt that the US has reached the finish line of her Ukrainian strategy.

It isn’t just going to be bad news for Kiev, though. First came J D Vance’s speech on Valentine’s Day in Munich when he announced that the US’s new administration was going to put Mr Trump’s threats into practice telling Europe that they were going to have to be responsible for their own defence and security rather than relying upon Uncle Sam. To back that up, the European elements of NATO weren’t invited to Riyadh either.

That was a tremendous snub which left the Europeans rudderless until Sir Keir Starmer appointed himself their head, apparently determined that the UK and Europe will never allow themselves to be divorced from Washington - no matter what America wants.

Seeing the shocked disarray of his European colleagues at the hastily arranged, crisis meetings in Paris, Sir Keir has stepped forward to act as an interlocutor, a bridge, between the USA and Europe. Firm leadership amidst this chaos is obviously what’s needed, but does our Prime Minister have the cojones to galvanise things?

Certainly, things didn’t start well when he said, “But there must be a US backstop because the US security guarantee is the only way to effectively deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again”. Apparently he was ordering President Trump to reverse an already firm declaration that there would be no American military involvement in any peacekeeping force that might be sent to Ukraine.

Next, his attempt to rally the Europeans around the concept of such a force soon fell to bits when the Germans and the increasingly powerful Poles declined to get involved. Italy and Spain remained undecided leaving only France standing by Britain’s side. Unfortunately, Mr Macron’s political future is so delicately poised that anything he promises might very quickly be reversed.

Similarly awkward were the military maths that simply don’t add up. President Zelensky has said that it would need at least 100,000 Western troops to oversee the sprawling front lines and swat any Russian infractions.

Whilst the PM has signalled a deployment of our troops he doesn’t seem to understand that it would take the whole of the British Army - every last fusilier, gunner and trooper that we’ve got - to maintain 8-10,000 troops and sustain them for any period of time.

With the possible exception of our tiny, toothless force in Estonia, every other commitment would have to be subordinated to this. There would be no more Trooping of the Colour whilst the Falklands and Gibraltar could go and whistle unless we asked G4S to lend a hand.

Now, France could provide rather more and other nations might send a handful, but anything that could be cobbled together would be woefully short of the legions that are needed.

The Prime Minister must know this: the criminal neglect of our armed forces has been bellowed at him since well before the election, he’s even seen it for himself. Yet, he persists in promising ghostly grenadiers and spectral squadrons.

Then there’s Mr Lavrov’s - the Russian foreign minister - unequivocal statement, “NATO troops, even under the EU flag or part of a national contingent are completely unacceptable to us”. In other words, our peacetime forces would be like lambs to the slaughter if they’re sent eastwards to face Russian troops with three years’ combat experience.

Will Parliament allow such an guaranteed drubbing, or maybe Sir Keir has no intention of putting such a caper to the vote?

Look behind his tough talk for a moment, though. Since at least 2014 when the Crimea was occupied, there have been calls for Britain to rearm - which have only become more strident over the last three years. The Tories’ behaviour on defence was shameful, but Labour’s done nothing to change that beyond calling for another endless, defence review that will report late and then be used to underpin further cuts.

Remember, the PM will be haunted by Tony Blair’s demise caused by his foreign adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has no intention of sending troops to Ukraine and risking his premiership and - indeed - his whole career. Treat his posturing for the claptrap that it is.

Patrick Mercer is a former MP for Newark and Army colonel.