Such is the power of modern communications in today’s interconnected world that an incident deemed to be sufficiently newsworthy can spread across the globe almost instantaneously. It is called, of course, “going viral”.

Over the weekend, all eyes were on the latest example of this; namely, the tempestuous and unsavoury meeting, in the presence of the media, in the White House last Friday that ended in an angry shouting match between President Trump and his Vice President on the one side and President Zelenskyy of Ukraine on the other. Embarrassingly, the numerous officials and media present – and later the rest of the world -- witnessed a complete breakdown of the civilized norms of diplomatic exchanges in public between heads of government.

It is worth watching the whole video of the meeting lasting some 45 minutes in order to see that the main part of it was cordial and business-like from the beginning. Trump and Vance may have been irritated by a warning from Zelenskyy that any appeasement of Putin as the aggressor would have consequences for the rest of the world including the US itself and by his insistence on at least discussing at the start of peace negotiations security guarantees as part of a ceasefire agreement.

The meeting only deteriorated in to an altercation following an aggressive intervention by JD Vance about Zelenskyy’s alleged lack of respect and gratitude to America for its active diplomacy and military support for Ukraine during the past three years of conflict. Trump then doubled down on this in berating Zelenskyy at length for his lack of cooperation and willingness to assist American efforts to end the war, saying brutally that his country was in big trouble and “he held none of the cards” so needed American help.

This bruising encounter surely came as a shock to all concerned. Evidently, that week in Washington had been carefully choreographed in advance. There were separate meetings at the White House on Monday with President Macron of France and on Thursday with the British prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, who produced an invitation from King Charles for a second state visit by the president to Britain. This was accepted on the spot. Then, on Friday afternoon, President Zelenskyy was due to sign an agreement with the US that would give it access to Ukraine’s substantial deposits of rare earth minerals. But, alas, that did not happen, since Zelenskyy hastily departed the White House after the furious exchange with Trump.

The next day, Zelenskyy appeared in London and had talks with Starmer who welcomed him warmly and reiterated Britain’s firm, unwavering support for Ukraine while announcing a new nearly $3 billion military aid package to Ukraine funded by frozen Russian assets. Zelenskyy also received a large number of messages of support from European leaders.

Then, on Sunday, at his own request, the president had an audience with the King after Starmer had hosted a summit in London of European leaders to discuss a peace plan, which, he said, would be put to Trump for consideration. In the words of NATO secretary general Mark Rutte, this meeting was “really positive” and he told reporters that the first step was to make sure a peace deal was agreed before there were discussions about how to guarantee it.

Prime Minister Starmer commented after the summit that “we are at a crossroads in history” and “Europe must now do the heavy lifting”, though US backing, he said, was essential for any peace process to work. He unveiled a plan for the UK, France and others to work with Ukraine to stop the fighting and to be discussed with the US before taking it forward together.

Four points have been agreed: to keep military aid flowing into Ukraine, to have Kyiv at the table for any peace talks, to maintain the aim of European leaders to deter any future Russian invasion of Ukraine and to form a “coalition of the willing” to defend Ukraine and guarantee peace there.

Inevitably, there have been varied reactions to Friday’s unruly spat. To some outsiders, how disappointing it was to listen to people like secretary of state Marco Rubio tamely toeing his master’s line. What is more, the US’s latest stance at the UN is considered by many as a disgrace. Some commentators consider that as soon as the exchanges at Friday’s meeting became heated Trump should have drawn the proceedings to a halt. Such behaviour should not have been allowed to happen in front of the media and any differences of this kind should only be aired behind closed doors.

To that extent, even though Trump’s irritation may have been justified, the whole episode has been described as a display of “boorish brutishness” designed to humiliate Zelenskyy. Vance talked about respect for the Oval Office – others ask about the respect that should have been accorded to the head of state of another country seated by invitation in that Oval Office.

People are already now looking at the vice president in another light as a man who cannot control himself and becomes a bully in a public setting; and they are drawing fresh attention to his undiplomatic approach at the recent Munich Security Conference. Thus far, he has had to face protests during a ski trip to Vermont over the weekend, and it is being said that this incident could even be remembered if he makes a bid for the top job in four years’ time.

As for Trump, interestingly some observers have said that he will never act properly like a statesman because he is motivated primarily by doing deals and does not see the bigger picture. Moreover, he seems to characterize the war as a kind of binary conflict between two countries who should both take their share of the burden or blame for the fighting and its causes when it was clearly the case that Russia illegally invaded its neighbour.

All that said, an important aspect of this whole issue is that the minerals deal ought to benefit Ukraine in so far as it will bring the US formally in to play with long-term projects involving a firm commitment to the country in terms of security. This is because the US will need to protect its investments in mining and the personnel employed there. It could anyway be part of a wider security guarantee, though, reportedly, such security protection is already built in to the draft minerals agreement. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the mining concerned is located in the east of the country over which Russia now claims control – and the US will surely wish to do what it can to protect its interests there.

From what most people are saying, it should now be for Zelenskyy to try to salvage the mining deal and to repair, generally, his relationship with Trump. While the details of Europe’s plan to end the war are awaited, it will be compelling to watch developments. As Trump himself has said repeatedly, large numbers are dying needlessly on the battlefield, and for the sake of humanity this war has to be brought to an end.

Britain increases its defence spending

To some in Britain, prime minister Starmer’s decision to increase defence spending and reduce overseas aid to pay for this is a defining moment for the new Labour government. It goes against the party’s election manifesto and shows that -- together with, for example, tightening the nation’s borders -- he has no intention of leading an exclusively liberal left administration. But in today’s uncertain world such an increase perhaps reflects the reality of overseas conflicts undermining security and prosperity at home and the fact that the first duty of government is to protect its citizens in an ever more dangerous world.

It was announced in the PM’s statement of 25 February that spending on defence is to increase to 2.5 per cent of GDP from April, 2027, with an ambition to reach 3 per cent in the next parliament as economic and fiscal conditions allow. This means spending some $17 billion more on defence every year from 2027. In the words of the statement, this will deliver the stability that underpins economic growth by ensuring a secure environment in which business can thrive.

The government has claimed that, at the same time as a new reinvigorated approach to the defence industry will drive economic growth and create jobs across the UK, it will also bolster national security and protect borders.

This announcement came the day after the third anniversary of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and it shows the UK’s continued readiness to step up and meet this serious threat to global stability. It was clearly also timed to coincide with Starmer’s visit to Washington last week. It is a fair bet that it is partly a response, as well, to the US president’s consistent pressure on all NATO members to increase their defence spending.

This new commitment will see the biggest sustained increase in defence spending in Britain since the Cold War as the UK enters an era of intensifying geopolitical competition and conflict. The announcement also demonstrates Britain’s readiness to maintain its global leadership and especially when it is becoming clear that Europe will have to be more responsible for its own security, not least in relation to Ukraine.

Britain’s finance minister has urged European leaders to follow the UK lead, saying that the world has changed and “the importance of hard power -- of securing our defence -- is clearly more important today than it has been for a long time,” and “we have to respond to that.”

The increase in defence spending will be funded by reducing Overseas Development Assistance from 0.5 per cent to 0.3 per cent of Gross National Income. That, of course, is a big step for a socialist government to take, and it has been labelled a “betrayal” by development charities.

The premier has made it clear that the UK remains fully committed to making the world a safer and more prosperous place. But, in his view, the way to do that is by deterring and preventing conflict and targeting aid more effectively; for example, increased humanitarian funding to countries like Sudan which is now in desperate need of assistance. Meanwhile, the government also remains committed in the longer term to returning to spending 0.7 per cent of GNI on aid as soon as the economy allows.

Is peace in Ukraine attainable?

On his return to Kyiv after a tumultuous visit to Washington and London last week, President Zelenskyy said in a statement yesterday that Russia had intensified its attacks on Ukraine recently and that this raised serious doubts about whether Putin really wants to end the war. The Ukrainian president also took the opportunity of expressing to the American government and people once gain his country’s gratitude for their enormous help and support in successfully resisting Russian aggression during the last three years of war.

Interestingly, commentators in the UK have been wondering why, during the flurry of activity over Ukraine during the past week, so little has been said about whether the Russians are really willing to try to end the war, which Putin still calls a ‘special military operation’, and withdraw from Ukraine. Or has this been discussed and we are not being told about it?

It is argued, of course, that Trump’s tactic of making concessions in advance of negotiations has been the best means of persuading Putin to come to the table. But, without using force, which could lead to another world war, the only way to end the conflict is for Putin to be persuaded that it is his own interests to negotiate.

His murderous foray into Ukraine has clearly been a failure for him since Ukraine, with the help of the West, has successfully resisted his overwhelming military force. But he does not care about massive Russian casualties and loss of equipment, not least because as a dictator he does not have to answer to local public opinion.

It is said that one element of diplomacy is to “provide ladders down which other people can climb”. But in the rush to be tough on Putin, some people are now questioning whether sufficient weight has been given to this advice. Putin is in possession of large chunks of Ukrainian territory in the east of the country as well as having annexed Crimea in 2014. Since it now appears that, after three years of conflict, Ukraine is unlikely to be able to win the war, he can only be dislodged by negotiation.

That is not appeasement – it is facing reality. Without keeping the Russians at the negotiating table, the prospects for peace are slim. So, notwithstanding those exchanges in the Oval Office, perhaps Trump’s approach might be the best way of trying to achieve it after all.