Politics latest: Starmer to meet Trump after drawing 'red line' over Ukraine peace deal (2025)

There seems to be agreement across the political divide that Britain should spend more on defence.

But after decades of cuts, and reliance on the US, it won't be easy or cheap turning things around.

So how much does defence cost the UK right now? And how many soldiers could really be sent to Ukraine?

Sky's Matt Barbet talks you through the numbers:

Ukraine is the frontline of Britain, according to Keir Starmer.

He was speaking as European leaders gathered in Paris to discuss their response to Donald Trump opening up negotiations with Russia over ending the war in Ukraine.

Will the rhetoric match the reality?

It certainly sounds like this is a man gearing up to send British troops to Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping effort if a deal is struck to end the war.

If Ukraine really is the frontline of Britain, then we're on the frontline with Russia, which means we could be in a position where British troops are fighting Russian troops, without the protection of NATO.

That feels unlikely - and there's another potential issue.

A peacekeeping force can't just be decided on by Ukraine - Russia would presumably need to have a say too.

Who might they insist on? China? North Korea?

For all the rhetoric about Ukraine being the frontline of Britain, and the UK playing its full part in any peacekeeping efforts, some kind of back-up military support sitting behind the actual frontline feels far more likely.

What will be sacrificed to boost defence?

This is just one of the many questions to be worked out by European leaders, alongside Ukraine, the US, and Russia.

But the one thing there does seem to be agreement on is the need for Europe to spend more on defence.

And it's one of those rare occasions when there's agreement across the political divide too, with Kemi Badenoch also calling for more spending.

So there's an awful lot of talk about the need to spend more, but an awful lot less about exactly what they want to spend these extra billions on - and what spending we're prepared to cut in order to do so.

Rachel Reeves may have some tough choices to make on spending, but she's going to have to find the money for defence.

That's the view of former Foreign Office official Sir Simon Fraser.

"We have to be able to stand up for ourselves collectively - that means more spending and better spending," he tells Sophy Ridge.

The Labour government has vowed to spend 2.5% of national income on defence but has not yet said when it will hit the target.

The UK currently spends about 2.3%, but there have been calls to go higher towards 3%.

Fraser acknowledges "rivalries" between government departments who want more cash, but says the country needs to have an "honest debate" about the need to prioritise defence.

Not meeting promises on things like the NHS will cause problems for Labour, Fraser says, but "trade-offs" are required.

On the 2.5% pledge, he says we "need to move in that direction rapidly".

Sophy Ridge's conversation with Sir Simon Fraser turns towards how Britain could manage the growing division between the US and Europe under the presidency of Donald Trump.

The former top Foreign Office official says being out of the EU gives the government more "tactical freedom" in its foreign policy, and the prime minister could be a "bridge" between the two.

But he is unsure whether Sir Keir Starmer has "enough purchase on either end of that bridge to be a really influential player".

Asked what his advice for PM would be, he says his "growth agenda" could actually be helped by boosting defence spending.

The "military freedoms" the UK has outside the EU could allow it to go further and faster, he says.

America will be conducting foreign affairs "based on power", he says, and Britain should take that "very seriously".

Sky'sSophy Ridge has sat down with Sir Simon Fraser, a former senior Foreign Office official, to talk about the UK's response to fast-moving developments regarding the war in Ukraine.

After Donald Trump announced his intention to seek a quick peace deal following talks with Vladimir Putin, US and Russian officials have been in Saudi Arabia today for face-to-face discussions.

Excluded from that meeting, Sir Keir Starmer and European leaders have held their own talks in Paris.

Fraser says it's clear "the Europeans are playing catch-up".

They were "taken by surprise" when Trump announced peace talks with Putin, and "shocked" by the hostile tone of a speech his vice president gave at the Munich Security Conference over the weekend.

'Very risky' to put British troops in Ukraine

European leaders now realise they need to "put something on the table" should they wish to be part of talks about Ukraine's future - hence the prime minister saying he'd be willing to put British troops on the ground there for any peacekeeping force.

"It's very risky - it would depend on the nature of the deal," says Fraser.

"It would also, in my view, depend on the Americans being prepared to underpin that deal themselves."

While Trump has indicated he wouldn't put US troops on the ground, Fraser says the president "has a stake in the deal being good and being maintained, so I think they've got to uphold it".

Keir Starmer has tonight drawn a "red line" when it comes to US President Donald Trump's attempt to end the war in Ukraine, says ourEurope correspondent Adam Parsons.

Trump has triggered shockwaves through the continent with last week's direct contact with Vladimir Putin, so far excluding Ukraine and its European allies from any peace negotiations.

Trump has also repeated his criticism of Europe's NATO members for not spending enough on defence, and indicated America will turn its back.

Tonight's talks between Starmer and other European leaders in Paris were "clearly pivotal" in terms of framing their response to Trump's incendiary rhetoric, Adam says.

There's a "resolve to act together" and that extends to a "commitment to put troops on the ground" to enforce a peace deal.

But the PM has said that's contingent on a US "backstop" - something Adam reckons must be a "significant military presence" to deter Russia from ever attacking Ukraine again.

Naive to think Europe could hold back Russia alone

"That goes against a lot of rhetoric from the US on withdrawing troops from Europe and leaving the defence of Europe to European nations," Adam says, but the PM knows that support will be needed.

"The US military's might dwarfs any other member of NATO, says Adam, "and it's naive to think European nations could hold back Russia without any support from the US."

Sir Keir Starmer has repeated his willingness to consider deploying British troops in Ukraine if a peace deal is reached - but has demanded America provides a "backstop" to any peacekeeping force.

Speaking in Paris following emergency talks with European leaders, the prime minister said "a US security guarantee is the only way to effectively deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again".

Starmer will go to Washington DC next week to meet Donald Trump to "discuss what we see as the key elements of a lasting peace", he added.

'A once in a generation moment'

He will speak to Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy "in the coming days" and hopes for more talks with European allies when he returns from the US.

With Trump seeking a quick peace deal with Vladimir Putin, and having excluded Ukraine and Europe from those efforts, the PM said it was an "existential" and "once in a generation moment" for our security.

Britain and Europe recognise the need to "step up" in terms of defence spending and capability, he said, and today's talks in France were a "vital first step in responding to that challenge".

Our flagship weeknight politics programme is under way.

Joining us tonight is former Foreign Office officialSir Simon Fraser.

On the panel are ex-chancellorKwasi Kwartengand Labour peerBaroness Helena Kennedy.

Watch live in the stream at the top of this page or below:

There are times when the beautiful game is not so beautiful.

The Euro 2020 final at Wembley back in the summer of 2021 (it was pushed back a year due to the pandemic, you may recall), saw a host of football fans engage in hooliganism at the ground - with thousands of people without tickets storming the premises.

An independent review by Dame Louise Casey found lives were put at risk through a "perfect storm of lawlessness" involving thousands of "mindless thugs" - many driven by illegal drugs and alcohol.

Almost four years on, and the government has said police will be given extra powers to drug test people who commit criminal offences at football matches.

What's happening?

Under current legislation, police have the power to test someone for Class A drugs either on arrest or after charge if they have committed an offence that triggers a drug test - such as theft or robbery.

The list of trigger offences is to be expanded to include things like violence, invading the pitch, throwing missiles, and racist chanting.

Policing minister Dame Diana Johnson said: "This behaviour will not be tolerated."

If someone tests positive for a listed substance, police can refer them for specialised treatment or interventions to help them.

If convicted for possession or supply of Class A drugs at a match, they're almost certain to be banned from attending games for three to five years - or between six and 10 if they get a custodial sentence.

By Daniel Dunford, senior data journalist

The Labour government has today been celebrating the delivery of two million extra NHS appointments since it came to power - meeting an election pledge ahead of schedule.

Data published by NHS England lists the number of certain types of elective operations, outpatient appointments and diagnostic tests carried out between the start of July and end of November 2024, and compares that to the same period in 2023.

We've spoken to the NHS and tried to replicate its numbers, to verify and add historical context to them, but found it's actually not possible.

What's being measured here is a specific list of appointments that hasn't really been recorded like this before - and what the figures don't show is what has had to make way for these appointments to be prioritised.

The scope of the data collected is limited to services that typically involve a consultant-led referral for treatment.

That means it doesn't include emergency care, mental health services or maternity treatment. Put together, these make up a significant proportion of NHS activity, but we don't know exactly how much.

The NHS regularly publishes numbers on the amount of treatments carried out per month, in data going back to 2007, but these aren't broken down in a way that means we are able to compare them to the figures published today.

Prioritising comes at a cost

Looking at the overall figures, we still see an improved picture on last year, but not to the same extent in percentage terms.

This is not to say that the NHS are massaging the figures, or deliberately hiding anything.

These targets were defined from the outset and have been achieved according to the specific definitions they were aimed towards.

But NHS activity towards particular objectives comes at a cost.

The things that don't fit in the priority list inevitably fall down the pecking order - the record waits in emergency care revealed on Thursday last week are further evidence of this.

The NHS is delivering on the choices that politicians have made for them, but whether the public will agree that the delivery is worth the cost is another matter.

Watch: Inside a hospital at breaking point