No more slogans, no more contradictions, Britain needs a hard-nosed plan on Ukraine - Patrick Mercer

“Zelensky doesn’t care and, frankly, with all the money that Europe is giving him he doesn’t want to end this war and probably never did… I WANT THIS WAR TO END!”

And equally uncompromising phrases from America’s President. But is this all just bombast or have the usual tensions between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky moved up a - possibly fatal - notch?

Only now are the facts becoming clear. First, Mr Trump told Mr Zelensky to stop hitting Russian diesel oil plants with long range drones, yet the attacks continued. Then Washington declared an ‘energy ceasefire’ without, apparently, consulting either Kiev or Moscow, but the attacks continued.

Mr Trump, though, upended his latest round of sanctions against the Kremlin by lifting restrictions on diesel oil and inviting Russian tankers to unload their dark cargoes in return for dollars to bolster Mr Putin’s economy.

Then, as an extra flick of the whip, it’s been suggested that the US controlled Starshield satellite communications link was deliberately disrupted. This technology allows Ukraine to operate interceptor drones effectively, especially against Moscow’s powerful jet powered weapons.

Immediately after the opening salvoes of the row, though, Russian missiles brought more havoc for Kiev causing Mr Zelensky to accuse America of another slap to bring him to heel. To aggravate things further, it’s now alleged that the US Secretary of State for War, Pete Hegseth, is blocking the export of some Patriot air defence weapons that were bound for Ukraine having been bought with NATO funds.

Unsurprisingly, none of this has been soothed by Kiril Dimitriev’s (Russia’s main negotiator with America) gleeful meme showing a Russian bear and an American eagle teaming up against Ukraine. But when is blind anger reined in and rational thought adopted?

Well, Mr Trump can bellow as much as he likes about wanting to end the war, but that’s entirely in his gift. No matter how brave, how steadfast the people of Ukraine are without the money, materiel and, above all else, the precise intelligence that the US supplies the fighting couldn’t continue for very much longer.

So, is this just bluster or is Mr Trump prepared to sacrifice Kiev, impose a brutal ‘peace’ and perhaps, just perhaps, improve his popularity in time for the mid-term elections next month?

In the face of America’s changing stance, Sir Keir Starmer wrestled for Britain to become the leader of NATO Lite, sometimes known as the Coalition of the Willing. Now, I’m not alone in still being unclear about Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s foreign policy goals, but he’s got to act more coherently over Ukraine.

For example, No 10’s reaction to the latest Trump-Zelensky row was simply specious. The press had been told to trumpet plans for British troop deployments to Ukraine and the Sundays duly obliged with headlines that portrayed our government boldly defying both the Kremlin and the White House.

Yet in reality all that was being announced was a forthcoming exercise in Poland by a couple of battalions of logisticians. These worthies were meant to check administrative preparations for a NATO peacekeeping force that might be deployed in the event of a ceasefire. Would it not be more realistic to bend every sinew to achieve that ceasefire first?

Then the Chief of the General Staff (CGS) was sent out to make a spine stiffening speech to young soldiers that included the emotive words “extreme jeopardy in the world” and “sacrifice”. But it looked as though the hapless brasshat was distracted by the reality of the government’s refusal to increase defence spending and Chancellor John Healey’s statement when he was defence secretary that, “we’ve not been ready… to fight.”

I could detect little confidence in the General’s address. But then events added unexpected weight to the CGS’s comments. Last Saturday night Kiev launched drones in a deadly attack on St Petersburg using a flightpath over NATO member Latvia. Very little was said about this in the West whilst Moscow howled.

No statement came from Downing Street about this serious escalation. Indeed, the only comment at the time came from the former foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper, as the Russian oil imports to the USA debacle hit the press.

Last weekend she said that Britain takes “a strongly different view” from President Trump on Russian sanctions. But that’s not true: on that same day we relaxed our sanctions too and started importing Russian oil products. That doesn’t sound like a “strongly different view” to me, it sounds like rank hypocrisy.

And here’s the problem. The Tories positioned Britain as the unspoken leader against Russia. Sir Keir Starmer accepted that responsibility and now Mr Burnham has done the same. But he must realise that this task goes beyond cosy camera calls with Mr Zelensky and telling him that we’ll stand with Ukraine ‘for as long as it takes’.

De facto wartime leadership’s hard, but it’s especially hard at a time when there’s riotous turmoil in many EU capitals, America is distancing herself from us and Ukraine is on the brink. No more slogans, no more contradictions, Prime Minister, Britain needs a hard nosed plan.

Patrick Mercer is a former Conservative MP for Newark and Army Colonel.