European leaders may have rushed to Washington ostensibly to throw a protective arm around President Zelensky and head off any repeat of February's Oval Office bust-up.

But their real aim is to stop US President Donald Trump threatening long-term European security after his abrupt change of course over how best to end the war in Ukraine.

Not only did Trump drop calls for a ceasefire as a prerequisite for talks about long-term peace, he also - diplomats say - made clear he had no intention of imposing further economic sanctions on Russia.

In short, the travelling European heads of government – plus EU and Nato leaders - want to avoid not just confrontation, but also capitulation.

President Macron of France was the latest to use the C word, saying on Sunday: "There is only one state proposing a peace that would be a capitulation: Russia."

• Follow live updates on this story

It takes a great deal for heads of government to upend their schedules at short notice – especially in August – when some are on holiday.

The French leader was enjoying water sports on the Riviera. The Italian leader, Georgia Meloni, had been in Greece.

But such was the scale of President Trump's change of strategy after meeting President Putin – and the consequent potential threat to Europe – that the European leaders changed their plans fast.

Officials say Meloni was first to invite herself along, followed closely by Macron, after which it became inevitable others would have to go too.

The leaders spent the weekend working the phones, holding no fewer than five separate group chats.

Their concern was Trump's decision to change the diplomatic goal posts after meeting the Russian leader in Alaska.

Some officials think the huge impact of these two decisions – which overturned months of western strategy – has been under-priced. Both moves shifted the US position more closely in Russia's favour.

"Things have moved very significantly and quite quickly to a timetable that no one was expecting," one European official said.

"The US sees this as a moment to strike while the iron is hot. Our question is what are we trying to achieve here?"

They added: "The European position has long been that Putin needs to show a genuine desire to get around a table and stop the war, and that would involve a ceasefire. But since Friday we have moved on from that. The question now is how we can get out of today without a blow-up. This is a moment of extreme jeopardy."

The aim for European leaders, diplomats say, is to shift White House thinking on two issues.

One, the idea that peace can be achieved simply by Ukraine ceding the Donbas to Russia. And two, that this is not just about the future of Ukraine.

"This is fundamentally about the security of our continent," one British diplomat said.

In other words, any discussion about security guarantees – as part of a final deal – would be about ensuring the wider security of Europe and not just Ukraine.

That means convincing Trump of two things: one, that questions about territory and security guarantees cannot be separated, and two, that security guarantees must be about more than verbal or textual promises.

US negotiators have talked about giving Ukraine as yet ill-defined Nato-style assurances that the west would come to Kyiv's aid against future Russian aggression.

"Nobody is clear what Trump means about a security guarantee," one official said.

"He believes that him simply saying to Putin "don't attack" is enough. That's not good enough for Ukraine or us."

The Europeans, instead, are expected to argue that Ukraine's security will be guaranteed only by allowing its army to remain strong, with long-term and substantial allied military and financial support.

That would include American weapons bought by Europeans and gifted to Ukraine, plus continued Ukrainian access to US intelligence.

By definition, all that would exclude Russian demands for the demilitarisation of Ukraine.

The risk for the Europeans today is that they push Trump too hard, that he thinks he is being bullied, and that the meetings go badly.

The European delegation has been thrown together at the last minute.

It is – one official said – "quite unwieldy", and some differ on how much Europe should commit to Ukraine's future security.

What role a future European-based "reassurance" force might play in a post-conflict Ukraine remains unclear.

So the European aim today may be to slow things down and calm fevered talk about land-swap deals that should really be part of the endgame of a negotiation.

To some, that would be putting the cart before the horse.

Instead, the European leaders may look for progress on a possible trilateral summit with Trump, Zelensky and Putin; the carving out of some broad principles of any future deal; and how to have talks about talks deciding the location and framework of any negotiations.

And above all, whether this can happen only when a ceasefire of sorts has been agreed.

The BBC has postponed the broadcast of a documentary showing the last years of Ozzy Osbourne's life, which had been scheduled to be broadcast on Monday.

Ozzy Osbourne: Coming Home had been due to air on BBC One at 21:00 BST, but was removed from the schedule earlier in the day.

A BBC spokesperson said: "The film has moved in the schedules and we'll confirm new transmission details in due course."

No reason was given for the postponement of the one-hour film, which will show the rock star's move back to the UK and the run-up to his farewell concert in Birmingham in July and his death at the age of 76 later that month.

The documentary was originally conceived as a 10-part series titled Home to Roost, which was to follow Ozzy and wife Sharon's "attempt to re-start their lives" in Buckinghamshire.

As Ozzy's health deteriorated, however, it was converted to a single, hour-long film depicting the last three years of his life.

The BBC has described it as a "moving and inspirational account of the last chapter of Ozzy's life, told through unique and intimate access to the whole Osbourne family, including Sharon, Jack and Kelly".

However, it was scheduled to be screened less than a month after his death, and less than three weeks after Sharon and their children made a highly emotional appearance in front of crowds in his home city of Birmingham on the eve of his funeral.

The film was replaced in the BBC One schedule by an episode of Fake Or Fortune?

On a May evening in Dalston last year, a motorbike rider, unnoticed by passers-by, approached a busy restaurant, pulled out a gun, and opened fire. Customers dived for cover. Three men were struck by bullets.

"Within seconds, all hell broke loose," said Det Insp Ben Dalloway from the Met Police.

"Six shots were fired into the restaurant by this gunman on this high-powered bike, who then fled the scene immediately." The three men who were injured were the intended targets.

But also in the restaurant was a nine-year-old girl, who was eating ice cream with her family, and was hit in the head by a stray bullet.

The gunman fled the scene and has never been found. The force is now offering up to £15,000 for information to help find him.

Another man, Javon Riley, 33, was alleged to have played a key role that night.

Riley was found guilty of three charges of attempted murder and causing grievous bodily harm with intent against the girl, at the Old Bailey on Monday.

He told his trial he believed he was taking part in a robbery and refused to name the man who hired him.

"I cannot give you that. I fear for my safety and my family," he told the court.

Riley's trial heard the shooting appeared to be part of an ongoing dispute between two rival gangs, the Hackney Turks and the Tottenham Turks.

The court heard he was seen on 29 May driving past the restaurant in Kingsland High Street, several times, checking out the targets were there.

"There's been a long history of violence between these two organised crime groups," said Det Insp Dalloway.

"There's been several murders, there's been several shootings."

The little girl, who cannot be named because of her age, survived the gunshot but was left with life changing injuries.

"She does have the bullet still lodged in her brain," DI Dalloway said.

"Obviously she's suffered. Having said that, she has made a really, really good recovery."

He said she had returned to school and was able to walk and talk.

The Met is offering a reward of up to £15,000 for information to help find the gunman. But it is struggling to get people to come forward.

Commander Brittany Clarke, from the force, said: "We really understand the reasons for people not wanting to speak to police, we understand that there's community mistrust, and also they're scared.

"We see these incidences of violence and we really want to help."

DI Dalloway added: "At the end of the day, a nine-year-old girl has suffered.

She's got a bullet lodged in her brain and it's miraculous that she didn't die.

"There has got to come a point where we say enough is enough."

Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to hello.bbclondon@bbc.co.uk

European leaders may have rushed to Washington ostensibly to throw a protective arm around President Zelensky and head off any repeat of February's Oval Office bust-up.

But their real aim is to stop US President Donald Trump threatening long-term European security after his abrupt change of course over how best to end the war in Ukraine.

Not only did Trump drop calls for a ceasefire as a prerequisite for talks about long-term peace, he also - diplomats say - made clear he had no intention of imposing further economic sanctions on Russia.

In short, the travelling European heads of government – plus EU and Nato leaders - want to avoid not just confrontation, but also capitulation.

President Macron of France was the latest to use the C word, saying on Sunday: "There is only one state proposing a peace that would be a capitulation: Russia."

• Follow live updates on this story

It takes a great deal for heads of government to upend their schedules at short notice – especially in August – when some are on holiday.

The French leader was enjoying water sports on the Riviera. The Italian leader, Georgia Meloni, had been in Greece.

But such was the scale of President Trump's change of strategy after meeting President Putin – and the consequent potential threat to Europe – that the European leaders changed their plans fast.

Officials say Meloni was first to invite herself along, followed closely by Macron, after which it became inevitable others would have to go too.

The leaders spent the weekend working the phones, holding no fewer than five separate group chats.

Their concern was Trump's decision to change the diplomatic goal posts after meeting the Russian leader in Alaska.

Some officials think the huge impact of these two decisions – which overturned months of western strategy – has been under-priced. Both moves shifted the US position more closely in Russia's favour.

"Things have moved very significantly and quite quickly to a timetable that no one was expecting," one European official said.

"The US sees this as a moment to strike while the iron is hot. Our question is what are we trying to achieve here?"

They added: "The European position has long been that Putin needs to show a genuine desire to get around a table and stop the war, and that would involve a ceasefire. But since Friday we have moved on from that. The question now is how we can get out of today without a blow-up. This is a moment of extreme jeopardy."

The aim for European leaders, diplomats say, is to shift White House thinking on two issues.

One, the idea that peace can be achieved simply by Ukraine ceding the Donbas to Russia. And two, that this is not just about the future of Ukraine.

"This is fundamentally about the security of our continent," one British diplomat said.

In other words, any discussion about security guarantees – as part of a final deal – would be about ensuring the wider security of Europe and not just Ukraine.

That means convincing Trump of two things: one, that questions about territory and security guarantees cannot be separated, and two, that security guarantees must be about more than verbal or textual promises.

US negotiators have talked about giving Ukraine as yet ill-defined Nato-style assurances that the west would come to Kyiv's aid against future Russian aggression.

"Nobody is clear what Trump means about a security guarantee," one official said.

"He believes that him simply saying to Putin "don't attack" is enough. That's not good enough for Ukraine or us."

The Europeans, instead, are expected to argue that Ukraine's security will be guaranteed only by allowing its army to remain strong, with long-term and substantial allied military and financial support.

That would include American weapons bought by Europeans and gifted to Ukraine, plus continued Ukrainian access to US intelligence.

By definition, all that would exclude Russian demands for the demilitarisation of Ukraine.

The risk for the Europeans today is that they push Trump too hard, that he thinks he is being bullied, and that the meetings go badly.

The European delegation has been thrown together at the last minute.

It is – one official said – "quite unwieldy", and some differ on how much Europe should commit to Ukraine's future security.

What role a future European-based "reassurance" force might play in a post-conflict Ukraine remains unclear.

So the European aim today may be to slow things down and calm fevered talk about land-swap deals that should really be part of the endgame of a negotiation.

To some, that would be putting the cart before the horse.

Instead, the European leaders may look for progress on a possible trilateral summit with Trump, Zelensky and Putin; the carving out of some broad principles of any future deal; and how to have talks about talks deciding the location and framework of any negotiations.

And above all, whether this can happen only when a ceasefire of sorts has been agreed.

Hamas has agreed to the latest proposal from regional mediators for a Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal with Israel, a source in the Palestinian armed group has told the BBC.

According to a Palestinian official familiar with the talks, the proposal from Egypt and Qatar is a comprehensive two-stage plan based on a framework advanced by US envoy Steve Witkoff.

It would see Hamas free around half of the 50 remaining Israeli hostages - 20 of whom are believed to be alive - in two stages during a 60-day temporary truce. During that time, there would be negotiations on a permanent ceasefire and an Israeli troop withdrawal.

There was no immediate comment from Israeli officials.

On Sunday night, hundreds of thousands of people gathered in Tel Aviv to demand that Israel's government agree a deal with Hamas to return the hostages.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused the demonstrators of hardening the negotiating position of Hamas.

The latest development comes two days after Netanyahu's office said Israel would "agree to a deal on condition that all the hostages are released in one go".

Meanwhile Israel's cabinet is expected later this week to approve the military's plans to expand its offensive in Gaza and occupy Gaza City.

Netanyahu announced Israel's intention to do so after indirect talks with Hamas on a ceasefire deal broke down last month.

Hamas said at the time that it would only free the remaining hostages if Israel agreed to end the 22-month war. But Netanyahu said that would only happen once Hamas was disarmed and released all the hostages.

The Israeli military launched a campaign in Gaza in response to the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 62,004 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry.

What impact will ex-hurricane Erin have?

What's the weather looking like this week?

How's the weather for the bank holiday?

The latest series of Love Island will not be investigated by media watchdog Ofcom despite more than 14,000 complaints about issues including bullying and concerns for contestants' mental health.

The 14,154 complaints is the highest number for four years, with many about alleged bullying, abusive behaviour and misogyny - particularly in relation to a divide between some of the girls in the ITV villa.

The most controversial episode was on 24 July, after which 3,547 complaints were lodged about alleged bullying against Shakira Khan.

Ofcom said it had decided not to open a formal investigation because the negative behaviour "was not shown in a positive light", and was in line with what viewers have come to expect.

"We carefully assessed the complaints we received about this series of Love Island," a spokesperson said.

"We recognise that emotionally charged or confrontational scenes can upset some viewers.

"But, in our view, negative behaviour in the villa was not shown in a positive light, and contestants were seen supporting or apologising to each other.

"We also took into account that the format of this reality show is well-established, and viewers would expect to see highs and lows as relationships and friendships are tested."

The total number of complaints is higher than the 3,500 in 2024, and is the highest for a summer series since 2021, when 36,000 complaints were submitted.

Other issues to attract complaints this year included Dejon Noel-Williams' behaviour towards Megan Moore, while some viewers accused producers of manipulating islanders' emotions and using biased editing, including allegations of racism in the portrayal of Shakira.

In response, ITV said: "We would take any suggestion that any editorial decisions are made based on race very seriously indeed and would refute this in the strongest possible terms."

Some viewers complained about a decision to bring back Megan Forte Clarke after she was dumped from the villa. ITV's terms say producers have the discretion to "reintroduce an Islander seen in earlier stages of the competition who was previously evicted".

ITV also says participants get training in advance about "mutually respectful behaviour in relationships" and "behaviour patterns associated with controlling and coercive behaviour".

And they get "comprehensive psychological support" and an aftercare package including "support to all Islanders following their participation on the show".

Toni Laites and Cach Mercer were crowned the winners of this year's summer series at the start of August.

Private members' club chain Soho House has been snapped up for $2.7bn (£2bn) by a consortium involving Hollywood actor turned investor Ashton Kutcher.

The group opened its first club in London in 1995, and now has 46 Soho Houses in Europe, North America and Asia, as well a string of other up-market hospitality businesses.

It is widely regarded as being a popular haunt of A-list celebrities, and one of its London venues was reportedly where Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had their first date.

But since it listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 2021 the value of its shares has dropped sharply, as it struggled to make a profit amid a sense that it had lost the exclusivity it once had.

The agreed offer price of $9 a share is 18% higher than the price at close of trade on Friday. However, it is still below the peak of $14.21 per share which was reached in August 2021.

The consortium is led by MCR Hotels, the third-biggest US hotel group, whose high profile properties include the TWA Hotel at JFK Airport in New York and the BT Tower in London. The deal to return Soho House to private ownership was done by private equity firm Apollo.

Existing Soho House shareholders will hold onto their stakes in the company. They include founder Nick Jones, husband of the presenter Kirsty Young, as well as Ivy Collection restaurant chain boss Richard Caring.

Ashton Kutcher will become a board member, as will the boss of MCR, Tyler Morse.

Mr Morse said everyone at MCR was "excited to be part of the Soho House journey".

"We have long admired Soho House for bringing together cultures from around the world into a global network of 46 houses, and we look forward to the continued growth of that fabric, starting with four new houses opening soon."

The first Soho House, opened by Mr Jones, was in London's Greek Street above his restaurant, Cafe Boheme.

It bills itself as a members' club for "like-minded creative thinkers to meet, relax, have fun and grow".

Members are reported to include Kate Moss, Kendall Jenner and Ellie Goulding, as well as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Its venues include Shoreditch House, Soho Farmhouse, Soho House Bangkok and Miami Poolhouse.

In addition to the Soho House clubs, the group's other businesses include eight Soho Works office buildings, and Scorpios Beach Clubs in Mykonos and Bodrum.

However, this expansion had resulted in accusations that Soho House was no longer as exclusive as members would expect given its membership fee, which can run into several thousand pounds.

Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown, said that while Soho House "can now boast a Hollywood star as a director", the chain would need "a bit more than celebrity stardust to cement its long-term future".

"MCR Hotels, Ashton Kutcher and the other investors will have their work cut out to put Soho House back onto a more stable footing given concerns about the viability of its business model," she said.

"Its rapid expansion in recent years has sparked concerns that its 'exclusive' label was wearing thin."

She said it was a "challenging time" for the restaurant business, with "aspirational shoppers tightening their stylish belts".

Soho House chief executive Andrew Carnie said the return to private ownership "reflects the strong confidence our existing and incoming shareholders have in the future of Soho House".

Since the company floated on the New York Stock Exchange he said the company had focused on "building a stronger, more resilient business".

"I'm incredibly proud of what our teams have accomplished and am excited about our future, as we continue to be guided by our members and grounded in the spirit that makes Soho House so special."

A man has been warned he will likely be jailed for causing violent disorder during a protest outside a hotel housing asylum seekers.

Hundreds of people have demonstrated outside The Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, in recent months, protesting against it being used to house asylum seekers.

Dean Smith, 51, of Epping, pleaded guilty to causing violent disorder at Chelmsford Crown Court on 17 July.

He was remanded in custody for sentencing on 6 October.

Separately, other defendants denied committing offences on 17 July.

• Lee Gower, 43, from Epping, denied violent disorder and assaulting a police officer. He was remanded in custody until 22 September
• Shaun Thompson, 37, of Epping, who was alleged to have punched a police car, denied committing violent disorder. He was bailed until a further case management hearing on 22 September
• Jonathan Glover, 47, of Waltham Abbey, was not asked to enter a plea to a charge of violent disorder. He was bailed until 22 September, when an application to dismiss his case is due to be heard
• Keith Silk, 33, of Loughton, pleaded not guilty to violent disorder. He also denied criminal damage, having been accused of damaging a sign belonging to The Bell Hotel, and was bailed until a further case management hearing on 22 September

The recent protests followed the arrest of a resident at the hotel, subsequently charged with sexual assault, harassment and inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity.

Hadush Kebatu, 41, from Ethiopia, has denied the offences and is in custody.

Twenty-eight people have since been arrested in relation to disorder at the hotel, and 16 of them have been charged.

Follow Essex news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.

It promises to be a day unlike any other at the White House later, when world leaders make a rare collective visit for crunch talks on Ukraine.

What had been billed as a meeting between two presidents, Donald Trump and Volodomyr Zelensky, has now become more of a summit.

Leaders from the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Finland, the EU and Nato have dashed across the Atlantic to have their say on how the three-year-old war with Russia should end and on what terms.

It's a reflection of how high the stakes are and increased European concerns that the US has shifted its position to one less favourable to Ukraine.

We break down what each of those present - and one who is not - would regard as a win when the sun sets on a long day of talks.

US - a deal, any deal

Trump's campaign promise was that he would solve this conflict on his first day in office but six months later the breakthrough he wants still eludes him.

The terms of any agreement have seemed less important to Trump than the deal itself, so the conditions have shifted over time.

Since meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, Trump appears to have ditched his criticism of Moscow and the threat of sanctions, and decided to pile the pressure on Zelensky instead.

• Follow live updates
• Whirlwind day of talks could reshape Ukraine's future

In a late Sunday night social post, he warned the Ukrainian president he must forgo hopes of Nato membership and will have to concede Crimea, which Putin illegally annexed in 2014.

Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff said on Sunday that Washington would provide security guarantees to Europe aimed at deterring further Russian aggression. But the details remain unclear.

Up to now, the US has resisted European demands that it commits to the future security of Ukraine. All eyes will be on the White House later to see if that has really changed.

Ukraine - refuse concessions on territory

Zelensky finds himself in the unenviable position of having to stand his ground in the face of an increasingly impatient Donald Trump, who appears to have been swayed by Putin and who has already accused Zelensky of standing in the way of peace.

Trump will probably tell Zelensky he must agree to give up land. This will be extraordinarily difficult for the Ukrainian president to give in to as it would entail retreating from Donetsk and Luhansk, regions which thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have fought and died to protect since 2022.

It would also allow Russia to end up in control of huge swathes of territory it could later use as a launchpad for further aggression.

• What handing Donbas to Putin would mean for Ukraine

So Zelensky cannot agree to land concessions without strong security guarantees that would kick in should Russia attack again. Those could have been provided by Nato, but Trump has made it clear Ukraine will not join the alliance.

Details of any alternative guarantees have likely not been worked out yet, but without them it will be difficult for Zelensky to make any commitments.

Ukraine is also concerned by the fact that Trump seems to have moved on from wanting a ceasefire to pushing for a full peace deal. This could take an exceptionally long time, allowing in the meantime for continued Russian attacks, civilian deaths and frontline losses.

Europe - a US commitment to Ukraine's security

European leaders will be trying to push Trump to flesh out what US security guarantees for Ukraine could look like.

The vagueness of US statements on the matter is alarming to Europeans who feel protection from potential future attacks by Russia will have to come from a credible American commitment.

There is also nervousness around the idea the US may insist Ukraine gives up land to Russia. The European continent has a long history of bloody wars and leaders want to avoid a scenario in which a sovereign country's borders are redrawn by force.

These serious concerns explain the unprecedented decision for such a large contingent of leaders to visit the White House at the last minute.

Last week, a virtual US-EU meeting ahead of the Alaska summit seemed to harden Trump's criticism of Russia; now that he appears to be teetering on Moscow's side again, European leaders will try to impress on him that their concerns about the continent's long-term security have not changed.

Russia - more Ukrainian land

There will be no Russian representative at the White House today. That may not matter: it appears Putin made enough of an impression on Trump last week that Moscow may be confident its point of view will be adequately represented.

Trump has already stated Ukraine would not join Nato – and Russia wants that commitment reiterated and ratified. It also wants full control over the Donbas, which would entail Kyiv giving up the land it still holds in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Perhaps most importantly Moscow has managed to instil in Trump that it is now up to Zelensky to make a deal to end the war – while knowing full well he cannot agree to ceding territory outright. A win for Russia would be for this friction to lead to Trump walking away from the negotiating table for good and leaving Ukraine and the Europeans to fend for themselves.

It is quite possible that Monday's meeting in the White House could prove even more crucial to the future of Ukraine - and for all of Europe's security - than last Friday's US-Russia summit in Alaska.

On the surface, that Putin-Trump reunion seemed to live down to every expectation.

There was no ceasefire, no sanctions, no grand announcements.

Were Ukraine and Europe about to get cut out of a deal cooked up behind closed doors by the world's two foremost nuclear powers?

Not, apparently, if Ukraine and its partners can prevent it.

The presence of Sir Keir Starmer, President Macron, Chancellor Merz and other leaders alongside President Zelensky in Washington is about more than making sure he does not get ambushed in the Oval Office again, in the way he did on 28 February.

They are determined to impress upon Donald Trump two things: firstly, that there can be no peace deal for Ukraine without Ukraine's direct involvement and secondly, that it must be backed by 'cast-iron' security guarantees.

Above all, Europe's leaders want the US President to see that Ukraine and Europe present a united front and they are eager to ensure he is not being swayed by his obvious personal rapport with Vladimir Putin into giving in to the Russian leaders' demands.

This is where the Sir Keir Starmer's diplomatic skills will be sorely tested.

Trump likes Starmer and listens to him, and in a month's time Trump will be coming to the UK on a state visit.

He also likes Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary-General who will be in attendance, a man who is sometimes called 'the Trump Whisperer'.

The US President appears to be less fond of President Macron and the White House was sharply critical recently of his intention to unconditionally recognise a Palestinian state at the next UN General Assembly.

For a peace deal in Ukraine to have any chance of working, something has to give.

European leaders have said frequently that international borders cannot be changed by force and President Zelensky has said time and time again he will not give up land and besides, Ukraine's constitution forbids it.

But Putin wants the Donbas, which his forces already control around 85 per cent of, and he has absolutely no intention of ever handing back Crimea.

Yet as the former Estonian PM and now Europe's top diplomat Kaja Kallas once said to me: victory for Ukraine in this war does not have to be exclusively about reconquering occupied land.

If Ukraine can obtain the sort of Article 5-type security guarantees now being talked about, sufficient to deter any future Russian aggression and thereby safeguard its independence as a free and sovereign state, then that would be a form of victory.

It does now appear that what the US and Russia have been discussing is a proposal that broadly trades some Ukrainian land for security guarantees that it won't have to give up any more to Russia.

But the question marks are huge.

Could Ukraine accept a deal that ends the war but costs it land, especially when so many thousands have died trying to save that land?

If it is asked to give up the remaining 30 per cent of Donetsk Oblast that Russia has yet to occupy then does that leave the path westwards to Kyiv dangerously under-defended?

And what of Starmer's much-vaunted Coalition of the Willing?

Earlier talk of deploying tens of thousands of boots on the ground have since been scaled back.

Now it's more about 'safeguarding skies and seas' while helping Ukraine to rebuild its army.

But even if peace does break out on the battlefield we are still in dangerous territory.

Every military expert I have spoken to believes that the moment the fighting stops Putin will reconstitute his army, build more weapons, until he is in a position, perhaps in as little as three to four years, to grab more land.

If and when that happens it will be a brave Typhoon or F35 pilot who is prepared to fire that first missile on an advancing Russian column.

In all of Sir Keir Starmer's interventions on a possible Ukrainian peace process, there seems to be a significant gap between his careful public pronouncements and more pragmatic private views.

The only constant is the PM's regular condemnation of Russia's President Putin and support for President Zelensky.

Some argue the Starmer strategy is sensible when handling complex negotiations involving unpredictable world leaders.

There was significant anxiety in Westminster about Friday's Alaskan meeting between presidents Putin and Trump.

Yet UK ministers stayed diplomatic and avoided the punchy language of former PM Boris Johnson.

He called that meeting "the most vomit-inducing episode in all the tawdry history of international diplomacy".

Sir Keir has not said it explicitly but I am told the UK government privately accepts the premise of "land for peace" - Ukraine ceding territory as part of a peace deal with Russia.

That might only involve land already under the control of the Russian military, but it nonetheless points to a painful process ahead for Kyiv.

No 10 sources have stressed, however, that any questions about territory are ultimately a matter for Ukraine, and Ukraine only.

"There are three issues", one British official told me. "How much land, which land, and whether de facto or de jure."

This final issue refers to a possible grey area in negotiations. Ukraine could accept land as "de facto" Russian territory because Moscow controls it militarily. Or it might be accepted as Russian "de jure" and internationally legally recognised as such.

The Starmer strategy

I am told the UK government is hoping for two things from today's mass leaders' visit to the White House.

Firstly they want to encourage President Zelensky to carefully listen to and consider what Donald Trump is offering. Memories of February's Oval Office argument remain fresh and all are keen to avoid a repeat.

Secondly, Keir Starmer and his European colleagues want to flesh out details of what they hope will be "ironclad" security guarantees - measures to protect and defend Ukraine in the event a peace deal is struck.

Trump envoy Steve Witkoff's recent endorsement of these proposed security guarantees as "game changing" is seen in No 10 as proof that months of work on Starmer and Macron's 'coalition of the willing' is finally paying off.

UK government sources point out that many had argued this effort was an irrelevance or would not happen, and yet the opposite is now the case.

Sir Keir's role at the White House today is likely to rely on the rarity of his strong relationships with both Trump and Zelensky. The PM seems keen to continue his role as a diplomatic 'bridge' between the White House and European leaders.

But what exactly will Donald Trump contribute?

Witkoff has said the "United States could offer Article 5-like protection", a reference to the section of Nato's treaty which outlines its principle of collective defence.

Zelenskyy has praised this as "a historic decision".

But a firm, public, on camera commitment from President Trump as to the US's role might calm anxieties in London, Paris, Berlin and Rome.

One UK government source described President Trump's role in Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations as an "exercise in raw power".

The assessment of UK officials is that Donald Trump will strain every American muscle to get a deal.

He ideally would like to bring Western nations along, yet they believe his hunger for peace outweighs his wish to ensure European leaders are mollified.

Keir Starmer's calculation seem to be that for now he should be supportive and pragmatic, even if his hostility and scepticism towards Vladimir Putin does not seem to be shared by the US president.

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.

As Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky arrives at the White House for talks aimed at ending the war, the scale of United States (US) support is once again under the spotlight.

President Donald Trump has criticised the amount of aid provided by the US compared to Europe in the past. But the figures he's previously cited are not backed by the evidence.

BBC Verify has been taking a close look at how much the US has spent since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and how it compares with Europe's contribution.

How much has the US spent in total?

The US has spent a total of $130.6bn (£98.9bn) between 24 January 2022 and 30 June 2025, according to the Kiel Institute, a Germany-based think tank that tracks international support for Ukraine.

The US Department of Defense has provided its own figure looking at all spending on Operation Atlantic Resolve - a response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

It says $184.8bn has been "appropriated" - a figure that covers US military training in Europe and replenishment of US defence stocks.

This total runs only to 31 March 2025, making it less up to date than the Kiel Institute's calculation - though notably higher.

BBC Verify has asked the US departments of Defense and State if they can supply more recent figures.

What has Trump previously claimed?

Back in February, when he was hosting France's President Macron, Trump claimed:

"We've spent more than $300bn and Europe has spent about $100bn - that's a big difference"

BBC Verify looked at the claim at the time and concluded Trump's numbers did not add up as the published numbers - from both Kiel and the US government - showed the US had spent a lot less than $300bn.

This remains the case six months on.

How does US spending compare to Europe?

It is true that the US is, by some margin, the largest single donor to Ukraine. But Europe combined has spent more money than the US, according to the Kiel Institute.

Between January 2022 and the end of June 2025, Europe as a whole spent $165.7bn on Ukraine, compared to the US's $130.6bn over the same period, according to Kiel Institute calculations.

The figure includes aid directly from the European Union (EU), but also from bilateral deals from European countries, both inside and outside the EU. It includes military, financial and humanitarian aid.

Will Europe get its money back while the United States doesn't?

Trump has previously claimed Europe would get its money back as it was "loaning" it to Ukraine.

This prompted Macron - who was sat next the US president in the Oval Office at the time - to intervene, saying both Europe and the US had given a mixture of grants and loans.

President Macron is correct, according to Kiel figures specifically on financial aid. But the institute's figures also suggest President Trump has a point - the US has sent more grants, while the EU sent more loans.

However, again, there are different figures out there.

As of 18 July, the EU says its members have provided about $180bn so far, with loans making up 35% of the total.

Like the United States Department of Defense, the EU has used a broader definition of what counts as aid to Ukraine.

EU loans will have been on generous terms - so Ukraine will be repaying less interest than it would normally. In some cases, Ukraine isn't expected to pay anything, with repayments coming from revenues from frozen Russian assets.

What we can say is that aid to Ukraine has been a mixture of loans and grants.

How much has the UK given to Ukraine

The UK is one of the biggest individual state donors to Ukraine - the latest was a $2.8bn (£2.3bn) loan agreement signed during Zelensky's visit to London on 1 March.

At the end of July, the UK government had committed $29.5bn (£21.8bn) for Ukraine overall. This includes $17.6bn (£13bn) in military support.

The only countries to have spent more are the United States and Germany, according to Kiel data.

However, the UK's contributions are much smaller than the US

That raises a question for the UK and other European countries: if peace is not secured in the near future and US decides to withdraw a large part of its funding, can other states make up the difference?

That would require a significant increase in their current contributions.

Additional reporting: Thomas Spencer, Christine Jeavans and Daniel Wainwright

What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?

It promises to be a day unlike any other at the White House later, when world leaders make a rare collective visit for crunch talks on Ukraine.

What had been billed as a meeting between two presidents, Donald Trump and Volodomyr Zelensky, has now become more of a summit.

Leaders from the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Finland, the EU and Nato have dashed across the Atlantic to have their say on how the three-year-old war with Russia should end and on what terms.

It's a reflection of how high the stakes are and increased European concerns that the US has shifted its position to one less favourable to Ukraine.

We break down what each of those present - and one who is not - would regard as a win when the sun sets on a long day of talks.

US - a deal, any deal

Trump's campaign promise was that he would solve this conflict on his first day in office but six months later the breakthrough he wants still eludes him.

The terms of any agreement have seemed less important to Trump than the deal itself, so the conditions have shifted over time.

Since meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, Trump appears to have ditched his criticism of Moscow and the threat of sanctions, and decided to pile the pressure on Zelensky instead.

• Follow live updates
• Whirlwind day of talks could reshape Ukraine's future

In a late Sunday night social post, he warned the Ukrainian president he must forgo hopes of Nato membership and will have to concede Crimea, which Putin illegally annexed in 2014.

Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff said on Sunday that Washington would provide security guarantees to Europe aimed at deterring further Russian aggression. But the details remain unclear.

Up to now, the US has resisted European demands that it commits to the future security of Ukraine. All eyes will be on the White House later to see if that has really changed.

Ukraine - refuse concessions on territory

Zelensky finds himself in the unenviable position of having to stand his ground in the face of an increasingly impatient Donald Trump, who appears to have been swayed by Putin and who has already accused Zelensky of standing in the way of peace.

Trump will probably tell Zelensky he must agree to give up land. This will be extraordinarily difficult for the Ukrainian president to give in to as it would entail retreating from Donetsk and Luhansk, regions which thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have fought and died to protect since 2022.

It would also allow Russia to end up in control of huge swathes of territory it could later use as a launchpad for further aggression.

• What handing Donbas to Putin would mean for Ukraine

So Zelensky cannot agree to land concessions without strong security guarantees that would kick in should Russia attack again. Those could have been provided by Nato, but Trump has made it clear Ukraine will not join the alliance.

Details of any alternative guarantees have likely not been worked out yet, but without them it will be difficult for Zelensky to make any commitments.

Ukraine is also concerned by the fact that Trump seems to have moved on from wanting a ceasefire to pushing for a full peace deal. This could take an exceptionally long time, allowing in the meantime for continued Russian attacks, civilian deaths and frontline losses.

Europe - a US commitment to Ukraine's security

European leaders will be trying to push Trump to flesh out what US security guarantees for Ukraine could look like.

The vagueness of US statements on the matter is alarming to Europeans who feel protection from potential future attacks by Russia will have to come from a credible American commitment.

There is also nervousness around the idea the US may insist Ukraine gives up land to Russia. The European continent has a long history of bloody wars and leaders want to avoid a scenario in which a sovereign country's borders are redrawn by force.

These serious concerns explain the unprecedented decision for such a large contingent of leaders to visit the White House at the last minute.

Last week, a virtual US-EU meeting ahead of the Alaska summit seemed to harden Trump's criticism of Russia; now that he appears to be teetering on Moscow's side again, European leaders will try to impress on him that their concerns about the continent's long-term security have not changed.

Russia - more Ukrainian land

There will be no Russian representative at the White House today. That may not matter: it appears Putin made enough of an impression on Trump last week that Moscow may be confident its point of view will be adequately represented.

Trump has already stated Ukraine would not join Nato – and Russia wants that commitment reiterated and ratified. It also wants full control over the Donbas, which would entail Kyiv giving up the land it still holds in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Perhaps most importantly Moscow has managed to instil in Trump that it is now up to Zelensky to make a deal to end the war – while knowing full well he cannot agree to ceding territory outright. A win for Russia would be for this friction to lead to Trump walking away from the negotiating table for good and leaving Ukraine and the Europeans to fend for themselves.

A man has been found guilty over his role in the shooting of a nine-year-old girl at a restaurant in east London in a tit-for-tat feud between rival gangs.

Javon Riley, 33, was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to the girl who was hit in the head by one of six bullets fired by a man on a passing motorbike at the Evin Restaurant in Kingsland High Street in Hackney on 29 May 2024.

Riley was also found guilty of attempting to murder three men - Mustafa Kiziltan, 35, Kenan Aydogdu, 45, and Nasser Ali, 44 - who were sitting at tables outside the restaurant that night.

The girl's mother said: "In a single moment, the future we had imagined for our daughter was torn away."

The gunman and the weapon have never been found.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on X to get the latest alerts.

A man has been warned he will likely be jailed for causing violent disorder during a protest outside a hotel housing asylum seekers.

Hundreds of people have demonstrated outside The Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, in recent months, protesting against it being used to house asylum seekers.

Dean Smith, 51, of Epping, pleaded guilty to causing violent disorder at Chelmsford Crown Court on 17 July.

He was remanded in custody for sentencing on 6 October.

Separately, other defendants denied committing offences on 17 July.

• Lee Gower, 43, from Epping, denied violent disorder and assaulting a police officer. He was remanded in custody until 22 September
• Shaun Thompson, 37, of Epping, who was alleged to have punched a police car, denied committing violent disorder. He was bailed until a further case management hearing on 22 September
• Jonathan Glover, 47, of Waltham Abbey, was not asked to enter a plea to a charge of violent disorder. He was bailed until 22 September, when an application to dismiss his case is due to be heard
• Keith Silk, 33, of Loughton, pleaded not guilty to violent disorder. He also denied criminal damage, having been accused of damaging a sign belonging to The Bell Hotel, and was bailed until a further case management hearing on 22 September

The recent protests followed the arrest of a resident at the hotel, subsequently charged with sexual assault, harassment and inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity.

Hadush Kebatu, 41, from Ethiopia, has denied the offences and is in custody.

Twenty-eight people have since been arrested in relation to disorder at the hotel, and 16 of them have been charged.

Follow Essex news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.

Nestled among the lush green mountains of Pakistan's north, and with a river flowing serenely through its centre, Bishnoi was, until recently, a beautiful village.

But it had rained heavily on the morning of Friday, 15 August, and when the villagers woke early and went off to work they were unaware of how swiftly things were about to change.

According to locals, a sudden torrent of water came surging through Bishnoi, "bringing huge rocks with it and crushing buildings in its path, destroying the entire village".

When BBC Urdu visited in the aftermath, the area was dotted with large stones, concrete blocks and uprooted trees. Without heavy machinery, rescue workers and locals were busy clearing the debris using small tools.

"There is a house under every stone. People try to look under these rocks to see if they can find someone," local Israr Khan explained. "The houses are buried under the ground."

Across the wider province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, at least 314 people have been killed and 156 injured due to rains and flash floods that began between Thursday and Friday night.

Buner district, where Bishnoi is located, is the worst-affected, with 217 fatalities, according to the Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA).

Another local said many people had been killed in a house where wedding preparations were underway. Others told us there had been a total of 80 to 90 households in Bishnoi, most of them involved in farming.

An estimated 50% of the houses have been completely destroyed in the flood. The rest are no longer habitable.

A devastating monsoon season

Monsoon rains between June and September deliver about three-quarters of South Asia's annual rainfall. Landslides and flooding are common, and 650 people have already died in this year's season.

In Pakistan, at least 507 people have died and more than 700 have been injured in rain-related incidents since the monsoon started in late June, according to the National Disaster Management Agency.

Punjab and parts of Islamabad are among the areas that have been battered by heavy downpours and flash floods so far this year. But neither have been hit harder than Pakistan's mountainous north, home to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and one of the most glaciated areas in the region.

Global warming is causing these glaciers to quickly thin and retreat, in turn making debris such as rocks, soil and other materials more vulnerable to being dislodged. And while the exact cause of the recent floods and landslides are yet to be determined, glaciologists say that ice melt is a contributing factor.

Government forecasters have warned that heavy rainfall it expected until 21 August in the north-west, where several areas have been declared disaster zones.

In the Swat Valley, less than 100km from Buner, a school principal saved nearly 900 students from the floods.

"It was exactly 09:00 when I had a last glance at the stream and sensed it was going to burst its banks due to continuing rains," Saeed Ahmad, 59, told Anadolu news agency.

Mr Ahmad ordered an immediate evacuation, and within 15 minutes all teachers and children had left - moments before raging floodwaters surged through the school, washing away half the building, its boundary walls and playground.

Sarwar Khan, a local councillor, said "this timely action by the principal saved 900 lives".

Others were not so fortunate. Abdul Salam, who lives in Punjab, told BBC Urdu of the moment he realised his wife, two daughters and son may have been caught in the Swat Valley floods.

"I started dialling numbers on my mobile phone like crazy, but I couldn't get in touch with my wife and children," he said. All four of them drowned.

Meanwhile, in Buner, Asrar Khan said that 27 people from his village were still missing.

When asked how the disaster unfolded, he took a deep breath.

"It all happened before my eyes," he said - and explained that although he and others had managed to save some people, "the water was so strong it had no mercy on anyone".

'The search is ongoing'

Crops lay flattened on both sides of the road on the drive towards Buner's Pir Baba Bazaar. Trees were uprooted and vehicles were in ruins - sometimes stuck in mud, sometimes in walls.

Arriving at the market, other details of the destruction were visible.

The intensity of the floods were clear from the fact that the water had reached the third floor. Some shops had collapsed. Sugar sacks and women's clothes were littered in the mud, with vehicles passing over them.

The shopkeepers had started working on their own, removing mud and water from their shops.

In Bishnoi, Al-Khidmat and other relief agencies were hard at work, with goods being distributed among the people and a medical camp set up. Rescue and other agencies, along with military personnel, were busy with the restoration work, while heavy machinery was also arriving.

But people from far-flung areas had also come to the disaster zone to help those affected.

At one point, two young men came and sat down on a stone, their feet encrusted in mud.

"They're looking at the house in front," another man explained.

The house is not immediately obvious - until, that is, he pointed to a foundations that had once been a home to 20 family members.

"Eighteen of them are no longer there," he said. "Some bodies have been found and the search for others is ongoing."

Two people had survived, he added, but they had been unconscious and seemed confused about the situation.

"Their understanding is not working," he explained. "If anyone asks them anything, they start crying."

From among the broken remains of Brahim Hamaiel's olive trees, in the occupied West Bank, we saw the masked men approach.

A dozen settlers, charging down from the illegal outpost above his farm and across the field towards us, moving fast and carrying large sticks.

A sudden and unprovoked attack.

Brahim had been showing us the trees he said had been hacked to pieces this week by settlers from the outpost.

His family have farmed olives here on land near Turmus Aya, for generations, making it a target for extremist settlers who think killing Palestinian trees and livestock will also kill the idea of a Palestinian State, by forcing residents like Brahim off their land.

"Fear is natural," Brahim had told me, looking up at the ridge where tarpaulin flapped at the settlers' lookout post in front of a few caravans and makeshift homes. "But there's something stronger than fear that drives me to stay here – the scent of my ancestors and an attachment dating back hundreds of years – even if I pay the price with my blood."

As the masked men run towards us, we pull back to the road and drive a safe distance away.

Within minutes, some of Brahim's neighbours from the surrounding farms and villages gather with catapults and stones to confront the attackers.

Vegetation by the side of the road is set on fire, its smoke signalling the site of the confrontation, as settlers on a quad bike chase away a volunteer emergency crew trying to reach a farmhouse in the middle of the field.

• 'Stop shooting! My daughter is dead': Woman killed as West Bank power struggle rages

This is now a familiar routine. Palestinians living in these villages south of Nablus say there are attacks and confrontations on their lands every week, and that settlers are using these kinds of tactics to take over the land, field by field.

But the speed and spread of this attack is breathtaking.

In little more than an hour, dozens of settlers had fanned out across the hills. We watched as they broke into an isolated building, and methodically set fire to vehicles and homes.

Shepherds on the furthest ridge rushed their flocks away, as the hillside behind them broke into flames, smoke billowing up from several places.

By then, Palestinians arriving from across the area to help their neighbours found the main access road blocked by the Israeli army, as the destruction continued.

One Palestinian was reportedly beaten by settlers, and the army later told us that both sides had hurled rocks at each other, and that Palestinians had burned tyres. It said four Israeli civilians received medical treatment at the scene.

Among the crowd waiting near the army roadblock, we found Rifa Said Hamail, her frantic gestures giving way to a warm smile and embrace when we spoke to her.

Rifa told us her husband was trapped in their farmhouse near Brahim's olive farm, and surrounded by settlers, but that the army wouldn't let her pass.

"Every other day the settlers do this to us – they attack us, cut down the olive trees, and burn the farms," she said. "This is not a life. No one can stop them. We have nothing to resist them with. They have weapons, we have nothing."

We later learned that settlers had torched part of their property, and that Rifa's husband had been left with cuts to his face and leg, after being hit with rocks.

The Israeli organisation Peace Now, which monitors the spread of settlements in the West Bank, says the number of outposts – and settler aggression – has multiplied since the Hamas attacks on Israel in October 2023, and the Gaza War that followed.

• Palestinian olive harvest under threat from Israeli attacks and restrictions

Since the beginning of last year, it says, some 100 outposts have appeared across the West Bank. It also found that hundreds of square kilometres of land had been taken over by settlers in the past few years using the same violent pattern of intimidation – encouraged, it says, by government support and a lack of proper law enforcement by Israel.

Last week, Israel's far-right Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, announced the creation of thousands of new housing units in a large West Bank settlement bloc further south, saying it would "bury the idea of a Palestinian state".

Between 5-11 August, the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs documented at least 27 settler attacks against Palestinians that resulted in casualties, property damage or both, across two dozen different communities. These attacks, it said, led to the displacement of 18 households.

We weren't able to speak to any of the settlers involved in the attack we witnessed. The local settlers' council told us there were elements on both sides seeking provocation, which it strongly condemned.

Brahim told us he had filed two separate complaints about the attacks on his land, but few Palestinians here have much faith in Israeli justice or security forces, saying repeatedly that they protect only the settlers.

One of the volunteer emergency crews who came to help during the clashes on Saturday told me the Israeli army had prevented them from reaching the scene.

"We were trying to rescue the young men, when the army came, honking at us and telling us to get away from here," Yahya al-Khatib said.

"We were volunteers wearing our vests. We're not here to attack or harm settlers. We want to put out fires and treat injured people. But they [the army] stop us and stand in our way."

Tensions between local residents and settlers are complicated by the increasingly heavy control of Israeli forces across the West Bank, which has seen the evacuation and widespread demolition of refugee camps across the northern West Bank.

From January to June this year, the UN found that 149 Palestinians were killed by Israeli settlers or soldiers in the occupied West Bank. Nine Israelis were killed by Palestinians.

Hours after the clashes that erupted around Brahim's farm on Saturday, another Palestinian casualty was added to that grim tally.

Eighteen-year-old Hamdan Abu-Elaya was shot and killed by Israeli troops in al- Mughayyir village, a few miles from Brahim's field.

His mother told us he'd gone to see the fires lit by settlers nearby. "I raised him for 18 years, and he was gone in a minute," she said.

We asked the Israeli army what happened. It said "terrorists" had thrown rocks and Molotov cocktails at troops in the village, and that soldiers had "responded with fire to remove the threat".

Hundreds crowded into Hamdan's house for his funeral on Sunday, as his body was carried in for his mother to say goodbye.

His father, Ameen Abu Elaya, raging to friends and family, said he refused to show the Israelis his tears.

"They thought if they killed our son, we would leave," he said. "I will not shout and scream and say 'why has he gone?' I'm not sad that he passed. I encourage young men to do anything they can against the criminal occupier."

At the local mosque, there was a hero's welcome for Hamdan's body as it was carried in for the funeral prayer – vast Palestinian flags hung alongside those of Fatah and Hamas from the rooves and windows; crowds lining the path of the bier.

In the language of this conflict, each birth and each burial only strengthens the ties to the land.

Additional reporting by Morgan Gisholt Minard

A man has been found guilty over his role in the shooting of a nine-year-old girl at a restaurant in east London in a tit-for-tat feud between rival gangs.

Javon Riley, 33, was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to the girl who was hit in the head by one of six bullets fired by a man on a passing motorbike at the Evin Restaurant in Kingsland High Street in Hackney on 29 May 2024.

Riley was also found guilty of attempting to murder three men - Mustafa Kiziltan, 35, Kenan Aydogdu, 45, and Nasser Ali, 44 - who were sitting at tables outside the restaurant that night.

The girl's mother said: "In a single moment, the future we had imagined for our daughter was torn away."

The gunman and the weapon have never been found.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on X to get the latest alerts.

Farmers in the driest parts of the UK are facing some of their worst ever harvests as the heatwave continues to hit crop and vegetable yields.

Broccoli growers are particularly struggling with a lack of water and bone-dry soils, with yields cut by more than 50%, quality affected and shoppers warned to expect smaller vegetables on the shelves.

One Herefordshire grower told the BBC there could be supply shortages if sustained rainfall does not come soon.

The British Growers Association said supplies of brassicas – including broccoli, cauliflower and cabbage - were "tight" but better harvests in wetter parts of the UK should ensure vegetables still make it to the supermarkets.

The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), an independent think tank, is now warning that the UK is on course to see its sixth or seventh worst harvest since records began 40 years ago.

Although the overall harvest picture is mixed across the UK, farmers in parts of the country that have seen little rain and have low river levels - and who are growing produce in lighter, drier soil that does not hold moisture well - are seeing substantial shortfalls.

Ben Andrews, who has a mixed organic farm growing broccoli near Leominster, Herefordshire, told the BBC that shoppers will have to "shift their expectations" about the size and shape of the vegetables in supermarkets.

He added, as it was also too hot for brassicas to be grown abroad and imported to the UK, there could also be issues with shortages.

"You'll be looking at maybe not quite as much availability and maybe needing to accept smaller heads of broccoli or lettuce or cabbage.

"I'm not sure quite about shelves being empty, but if this continues it's not completely impossible," he said.

The British Growers Association (BGA) said this summer was "proving to be yet another climatic challenge for growers", but shortfalls from some suppliers were being mitigated by producers growing more crops in areas that have seen lower temperatures and higher rainfall.

Jack Ward, the BGA's chief executive, said: "In some areas, supplies of summer brassicas, cauliflowers and cabbages are tight.

"Other root crops, carrots and onions have been kept going by the use of irrigation, but there are serious concerns about water supplies if the lack of rain continues.

"At this stage, we are confident that the crops will be there, but the weather events of the last three months highlight the increasing uncertainty around our food supplies."

Meanwhile, arable farmer Martin Williams, who is also the chairman of the National Farmers' Union (NFU) Herefordshire branch, said he had seen a 50% drop in his cereal yield, a third of the normal potato crop was likely, and there had been a 70% drop in the grass grown for feed.

He said conditions had been "absolutely, devastatingly dry" and he is now considering how and what he should farm in the future

"Going forward, it makes me wonder about the viability of growing cereal commodity crops.

"It is a risk-based job but if I can manage my risk down by not growing those risky crops then maybe that's something I should look at," he said.

'Hugely varied' harvest

The National Farmers' Union (NFU) said the extremes of weather conditions this year had been "unprecedented", with the overall harvest picture currently "hugely varied".

Jamie Burrows, chairman of the NFU's crops board, said that farmers in areas that had seen rainfall were actually seeing "better-than-expected" yields, while others are "facing significant drops which will have substantial financial implications on their businesses".

Tom Lancaster, the ECIU's head of land, food and farming, said successive years of extreme weather, both wet and dry, were taking its toll on farmers.

He told the BBC: "I don't think we should look at this year just in isolation. This is part of a pattern, coming off the back of the second worst harvest last year and the worst harvest on record in 2020.

"It's that pattern we need to be concerned about because, as these impacts on agriculture and on farmers start to stack up, farmers will just effectively stop farming."

Warning: This article contains strong language

The video opens with some white cliffs and a politician standing on a beach. This isn't Dover, and it's not Nigel Farage (although the echoes with Reform UK are deliberate). Rather, it's a campaign video for the Green Party's leadership hopeful, Zack Polanski.

Amid slick filming and a moody orchestral soundtrack, he delivers an animated and uncompromising message.

Small boats, he declares, are an "obsession that has gripped the country," blamed for a "crumbling" NHS and "obscene" rents, while people are told there's no money left.

"Well," he says, looking into the camera, "I call bullshit."

The real problem, he continues, are the "super-rich and their yachts".

The Green Party is on the brink of choosing its new leader. It usually does it once every two years and the contest can go fairly unnoticed.

Not this year.

Polanski, a former actor who is the party's deputy leader, has turbo-charged the race, the result of which will be announced on 2 September.

He calls his approach "eco-populism" and says it's about being "bolder" and more clearly anti-elite in communicating social and economic issues, as well as environmental ones.

This, he argues, is the style of messaging that the Green party needs to embrace.

He wants to "connect with people's anger" and then offer solutions, something the Greens are, in his view, often "too nice" to do.

He worries it leaves them looking "out of touch".

"I think far too often in the past we've equivocated or we've been too worried to challenge wealth and power in as blunt a way as possible. This isn't about shouting, it isn't about being louder, it's about being more effective."

Tried and tested vs a radical approach

The Greens had record success at the General Election last summer, going from one to four seats in Parliament and overturning large Labour and Conservative majorities.

Together with the Scottish Greens and the Green Party of Northern Ireland, they won 6.7% of the vote.

Now, the party is at a crossroads: does it stick with what it knows has worked or pick something more radical?

And, given the candidates don't really differ on policy, just how big a difference could new leadership make to the party's national chances?

Polanski, who is a member of the London Assembly, wants the Greens to replace Labour as the "party of the left".

But his opponents, the current co-leader Adrian Ramsay and new MP Ellie Chowns, who are running on a joint-ticket, believe Polanski would explode a winning formula that has brought them their greatest ever electoral success.

Ramsay and Chowns were elected to Parliament in last year's general election.

Their style is, mostly, less combative - they believe it's important that the Greens have broad appeal and that the party is seen to be at the heart of Westminster if it wants to bring about change.

Chowns says many voters already have a "generalised warm feeling" towards the Greens, they just need convincing they're a credible option.

"It's really the difference between populism and popularity," she says.

"What they need to know is that if they put their vote in the Green box on the ballot paper that's got a really, really good chance of electing somebody."

Time to capitalise on discontent?

Plenty of analysts, and Green party members themselves, have questioned why the party hasn't already capitalised more on left-wing discontent with Labour, or why it hasn't pitched itself more effectively as an alternative to the traditional parties, in the way Reform UK has.

Matt Zarb-Cousin, a former spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn who joined the Greens in 2022, is a founding member of Greens Organise, a group that wants the party to take a more socialist stance.

He argues that it is "inexcusable" that the party hasn't made a breakthrough in the polls since the election.

Like Polanski, he believes that voters understand the party's environmental credentials and so it needs to highlight its policies on the cost of living, inequality and taxing wealth over work.

"It's not just about saying we support those things, it's about how you frame that argument: who are the enemies? Whose side are you on?"

Former Green party councillor Rupert Read, who is an environmental philosopher and a co-director of the campaign group Climate Majority Project, says a lot of Green party policy is left-wing, but adds that this is often the result of "making green policies that work for ordinary people".

"You need to come from a starting point that is not dogmatically and self-avowedly left. If you do there'll be a strict ceiling on the level of support which is possible."

Ramsay and Chowns make a similar argument. Ramsay says that Polanski is "about appealing to a narrow base of activists," which he and Chowns argue isn't enough to win in the UK's first past the past electoral system.

Chowns also believes that Polanski's approach is too similar to strategies that have failed in the past.

"We spent years as the Green party engaging in the sort of politics where we stood on street corners and told people why we were very passionate about things...

"It's all well and good but it's not the way to win people over."

Return of the 'Green surge'?

The Green Peer Baroness Bennett, who led the party between 2012 and 2016, said there had been "a level of excitement and interest around this leadership election more than I've ever seen before by a very large scale".

It is reporting a "significant increase" in members in the past few months, although it won't yet give an exact figure. (The cut-off date to join and be able to vote in the leadership contest was July 31.)

Baroness Bennett also points to "organic growth in the grassroots" since the general election.

The party has held 12 seats in council by-elections since 4 July 2024, and won another 14 - mostly at the expense of Labour, while losing four to the Conservatives.

This all marks a significant change from the past - the so-called "Green Surge" in 2015, under Baroness Bennett's leadership, saw the party's membership and vote share grow but still only returned Caroline Lucas to Parliament.

Prof Neil Carter from the University of York, a long-time observer of environmental politics, says he can see an argument for following Polanski's strategy, as the Greens have traditionally had the greatest success with "metropolitan, liberal-minded, young, professionals".

The sort of voters who are key to Chowns and Ramsay's approach could be harder to win over, he argues.

"The trouble is you can reach out to a sort of middle-class Tory rural voter to some extent, if you just talk Green, but as soon as you start to talk about all of those other issues that the Greens like to talk about, you're going to alienate those voters."

But Chowns, who, like Ramsay, won a formerly Conservative seat, says that's not her experience. "People across the political spectrum find a lot to like in what we stand for."

Attracting 'anti-system' voters

Getting noticed is often a struggle for smaller political parties. For that reason, Luke Tryl, who is UK director of the political research organisation More in Common, believes that Polanski's approach might be the Greens' quickest route to boosting its numbers.

"If you are trying to get 10 to 15%, it's probably what gets you noticed." But he argues it would net the party far fewer seats than the 40 that Polanski believes he can win.

He says that the party is rarely brought up in the focus groups which he runs outside of Green areas and that a charismatic leader could help the party cut through.

There is a segment of the population that is "anti-system", he says, to whom a more radical pitch from the Greens might appeal.

Mr Tryl, however, believes that while eco-populism could be a good way of getting known, the Greens would then need to "moderate" to become a "genuine mass movement party with potential for power".

On getting into government, he says: "The Adrian and Ellie approach is right because you need to win over more of the North Herefordshires and Waveney Valleys (Chowns' and Ramsay's seats) and actually places like the Isle of Wight - but they are a long way from that".

Where Corbyn's new party fits in

There is another challenge facing all candidates: the new party that will soon be launched by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, a former Labour MP.

Both Prof Carter and Mr Tryl warn that Polanski's strategy could be crowded out by this new party that has yet to be named but which, according to Corbyn, had 600,000 people sign up by early August.

Ramsay goes further. He believes the new Corbyn party would blow Polanski's pitch "out of the water".

Research carried out in June by More in Common suggested that the establishment of a Corbyn led-party could cut the Green's nationwide vote share from 9% to 5%. (This did not take into account who would be leading the Greens).

Polanski has signalled he would be willing to co-operate with a possible Corbyn-led project and believes the Greens' position as an already established party will mean he can succeed.

It is Ramsay and Chowns who have secured what could be considered the "OG" of Green endorsements: the former MP Caroline Lucas.

The strategy they propose sticking with is based on the one she used to get elected as the first ever Green MP in 2010, and focuses on intensive local campaigning.

The question of who to target

Both leadership pitches include carrying on with local targeting but Polanski believes it can't be scaled up sufficiently to get large numbers of seats on its own.

Chowns dismisses this idea: "My vision at the next general election is that we will have multiple large numbers of target seats and definitely more than one in every region."

With either approach, the Greens face other obstacles, such as funding.

The party's principle of not being funded by large donors means they lack the financial resources of other political parties.

During the election period, the party raised just £160,000, compared with more than £1.6m for both Reform UK and the Liberal Democrats, and £9.5m by Labour.

The Green leader has also little direct control over policy, as it is set by the members - not that there is much difference between the candidates.

Polanski has gone further than current party policy by suggesting the UK should leave Nato, but there are only a few differences between the candidates' public positions.

Ultimately, whoever is chosen to lead the party this time will likely face re-election again before the next general election. The political landscape may have changed further but there is certainly an opportunity for the Greens if they land on the right strategy.

As Mr Tryl puts it, "In the age of very fragmented multi party politics, small vote shares can deliver outsized results".

Top picture credit: Dan Kitwood / Leon Neal via Getty

BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

Spain has sent 500 more troops to fight raging wildfires, bringing the total deployed to 1,900, as the death toll from the blazes has risen to four.

On Sunday, a firefighter died after an accident during firefighting efforts when his truck fell down a steep hill, the Castile and León regional government said.

Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez expressed "sadness" and "desolation" on X at the latest death.

In neighbouring Portugal, where fires are also blazing, another firefighter was killed on Sunday in a "tragic" traffic accident, President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa said.

Fires have also broken out in Greece, France, Turkey and the Balkans as a heatwave has scorched swathes of southern Europe.

Several large fires are still burning in the northwest and west of Spain, where 27,000 residents are currently evacuated from their homes.

Castile and León is the most affected area, with local media station Radio 5 reporting on Monday that the air is "unbreathable" due to the smoke.

A fire in the western province of Cáceres is also still out of control and has burned 11,000 hectares (27,181 acres).

Twelve fires are burning in the north-west region of Galicia, most in the province of Ourense, with the largest having burned 17,500 hectares.

Fires on Sunday left at least five people injured in Castile and León, with four of them in critical condition.

Last week, two volunteers died fighting fires in Leon. Another man died in Tres Cantos, near Madrid, after a fire broke out.

This year alone, about 343,000 hectares have burned across Spain, according to the European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) - close to double the amount from the previous year.

Over the weekend, Spain's Civil Guard said they placed "sanctions" on four people for carrying out unauthorised burns in A Coruña in the Galicia region.

Causing a wildfire is a criminal offence in Spain, even if accidental.

Neighbouring Portugal has also had to contend with wildfires since late July, with the north and centre of the country hit the hardest.

President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa conveyed his "deepest sympathies" to the bereaved family of the firefighter killed in an accident on Sunday. Two other firefighters were also injured.

In 2025, the EFFIS reported that Portugal's wildfires had burned about 216,000 hectares of land.

Spain and Portugal have activated the European Civil Protection Mechanism, under which countries can request emergency assistance.

Firefighters from other countries have been sent to fight the fires in Spain, and both countries will be receiving two fire-fighting planes.

Wildfires are a common occurrence across southern Europe in the summer, but their severity can often be exacerbated by heatwave conditions.

Meteorologists say such extremes are becoming more frequent and intense due to human-induced climate change.

Climate change is causing weather to become harsher, according to research from Spain's state meteorological agency.

A man who was arrested on suspicion of racially abusing Bournemouth forward Antoine Semenyo during the opening match of the Premier League season at Anfield has been banned from every football stadium in the UK.

The Cherries' Friday game against Liverpool was briefly halted in the 29th minute after Semenyo flagged it up to the referee.

A 47-year-old man from Liverpool, who was arrested on Saturday on suspicion of a racially aggravated public order offence, has been conditionally bailed, Merseyside Police said.

The conditions include a ban on attending any regulated football match in the UK and not going within one mile of a designated football stadium.

The force said the investigation into the incident was ongoing and it was working closely with Liverpool Football Club.

The 25-year-old Ghana international posted on social media that the night at Anfield would stay with him forever "because of how the entire football family stood together".

He thanked his teammates, Liverpool players and fans and the Premier League officials "who handled it professionally".

Listen to the best of BBC Radio Merseyside on Sounds and follow BBC Merseyside on Facebook, X, and Instagram. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.

It is quite possible that Monday's meeting in the White House could prove even more crucial to the future of Ukraine - and for all of Europe's security - than last Friday's US-Russia summit in Alaska.

On the surface, that Putin-Trump reunion seemed to live down to every expectation.

There was no ceasefire, no sanctions, no grand announcements.

Were Ukraine and Europe about to get cut out of a deal cooked up behind closed doors by the world's two foremost nuclear powers?

Not, apparently, if Ukraine and its partners can prevent it.

The presence of Sir Keir Starmer, President Macron, Chancellor Merz and other leaders alongside President Zelensky in Washington is about more than making sure he does not get ambushed in the Oval Office again, in the way he did on 28 February.

They are determined to impress upon Donald Trump two things: firstly, that there can be no peace deal for Ukraine without Ukraine's direct involvement and secondly, that it must be backed by 'cast-iron' security guarantees.

Above all, Europe's leaders want the US President to see that Ukraine and Europe present a united front and they are eager to ensure he is not being swayed by his obvious personal rapport with Vladimir Putin into giving in to the Russian leaders' demands.

This is where the Sir Keir Starmer's diplomatic skills will be sorely tested.

Trump likes Starmer and listens to him, and in a month's time Trump will be coming to the UK on a state visit.

He also likes Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary-General who will be in attendance, a man who is sometimes called 'the Trump Whisperer'.

The US President appears to be less fond of President Macron and the White House was sharply critical recently of his intention to unconditionally recognise a Palestinian state at the next UN General Assembly.

For a peace deal in Ukraine to have any chance of working, something has to give.

European leaders have said frequently that international borders cannot be changed by force and President Zelensky has said time and time again he will not give up land and besides, Ukraine's constitution forbids it.

But Putin wants the Donbas, which his forces already control around 85 per cent of, and he has absolutely no intention of ever handing back Crimea.

Yet as the former Estonian PM and now Europe's top diplomat Kaja Kallas once said to me: victory for Ukraine in this war does not have to be exclusively about reconquering occupied land.

If Ukraine can obtain the sort of Article 5-type security guarantees now being talked about, sufficient to deter any future Russian aggression and thereby safeguard its independence as a free and sovereign state, then that would be a form of victory.

It does now appear that what the US and Russia have been discussing is a proposal that broadly trades some Ukrainian land for security guarantees that it won't have to give up any more to Russia.

But the question marks are huge.

Could Ukraine accept a deal that ends the war but costs it land, especially when so many thousands have died trying to save that land?

If it is asked to give up the remaining 30 per cent of Donetsk Oblast that Russia has yet to occupy then does that leave the path westwards to Kyiv dangerously under-defended?

And what of Starmer's much-vaunted Coalition of the Willing?

Earlier talk of deploying tens of thousands of boots on the ground have since been scaled back.

Now it's more about 'safeguarding skies and seas' while helping Ukraine to rebuild its army.

But even if peace does break out on the battlefield we are still in dangerous territory.

Every military expert I have spoken to believes that the moment the fighting stops Putin will reconstitute his army, build more weapons, until he is in a position, perhaps in as little as three to four years, to grab more land.

If and when that happens it will be a brave Typhoon or F35 pilot who is prepared to fire that first missile on an advancing Russian column.

Farmers in the driest parts of the UK are facing some of their worst ever harvests as the heatwave continues to hit crop and vegetable yields.

Broccoli growers are particularly struggling with a lack of water and bone-dry soils, with yields cut by more than 50%, quality affected and shoppers warned to expect smaller vegetables on the shelves.

One Herefordshire grower told the BBC there could be supply shortages if sustained rainfall does not come soon.

The British Growers Association said supplies of brassicas – including broccoli, cauliflower and cabbage - were "tight" but better harvests in wetter parts of the UK should ensure vegetables still make it to the supermarkets.

The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), an independent think tank, is now warning that the UK is on course to see its sixth or seventh worst harvest since records began 40 years ago.

Although the overall harvest picture is mixed across the UK, farmers in parts of the country that have seen little rain and have low river levels - and who are growing produce in lighter, drier soil that does not hold moisture well - are seeing substantial shortfalls.

Ben Andrews, who has a mixed organic farm growing broccoli near Leominster, Herefordshire, told the BBC that shoppers will have to "shift their expectations" about the size and shape of the vegetables in supermarkets.

He added, as it was also too hot for brassicas to be grown abroad and imported to the UK, there could also be issues with shortages.

"You'll be looking at maybe not quite as much availability and maybe needing to accept smaller heads of broccoli or lettuce or cabbage.

"I'm not sure quite about shelves being empty, but if this continues it's not completely impossible," he said.

The British Growers Association (BGA) said this summer was "proving to be yet another climatic challenge for growers", but shortfalls from some suppliers were being mitigated by producers growing more crops in areas that have seen lower temperatures and higher rainfall.

Jack Ward, the BGA's chief executive, said: "In some areas, supplies of summer brassicas, cauliflowers and cabbages are tight.

"Other root crops, carrots and onions have been kept going by the use of irrigation, but there are serious concerns about water supplies if the lack of rain continues.

"At this stage, we are confident that the crops will be there, but the weather events of the last three months highlight the increasing uncertainty around our food supplies."

Meanwhile, arable farmer Martin Williams, who is also the chairman of the National Farmers' Union (NFU) Herefordshire branch, said he had seen a 50% drop in his cereal yield, a third of the normal potato crop was likely, and there had been a 70% drop in the grass grown for feed.

He said conditions had been "absolutely, devastatingly dry" and he is now considering how and what he should farm in the future

"Going forward, it makes me wonder about the viability of growing cereal commodity crops.

"It is a risk-based job but if I can manage my risk down by not growing those risky crops then maybe that's something I should look at," he said.

'Hugely varied' harvest

The National Farmers' Union (NFU) said the extremes of weather conditions this year had been "unprecedented", with the overall harvest picture currently "hugely varied".

Jamie Burrows, chairman of the NFU's crops board, said that farmers in areas that had seen rainfall were actually seeing "better-than-expected" yields, while others are "facing significant drops which will have substantial financial implications on their businesses".

Tom Lancaster, the ECIU's head of land, food and farming, said successive years of extreme weather, both wet and dry, were taking its toll on farmers.

He told the BBC: "I don't think we should look at this year just in isolation. This is part of a pattern, coming off the back of the second worst harvest last year and the worst harvest on record in 2020.

"It's that pattern we need to be concerned about because, as these impacts on agriculture and on farmers start to stack up, farmers will just effectively stop farming."

The same shape, so what was different?

Arsenal were not allowed to take control

Not perfect, but plenty of signs of progress

Swiss watchmaker Swatch has apologised and pulled an ad featuring a model pulling the corners of his eyes, after the image prompted uproar among Chinese social media users.

Critics said the pose resembled the racist "slanted eye" historically used to mock Asians.

Calls for a boycott of Swatch products grew on Chinese social media as the ad went viral.

Swatch said it had "taken note of the recent concerns regarding the portrayal of a model".

"We sincerely apologize for any distress or misunderstanding this may have caused," the company said in a statement on Saturday.

"We treat this matter with the utmost importance and have immediately removed all related materials worldwide."

But the apology failed to appease critics.

Swatch is "only afraid for its profits," one Weibo user said. "You can apologise, but I will not forgive."

"They make money from us and still dare to discriminate against Chinese people. We would be spineless if we don't boycott it out of China," another Weibo user said.

Swatch gets around 27% of its revenue from China, Hong Kong and Macau - though it has seen declining sales in China amid the country's economic slowdown, according to Reuters news agency.

The company also produces Omega, Longines and Tissot watches.

In recent years Chinese consumers have organised boycotts against perceived insults to their culture or threats to national interests.

In 2021 there was a widespread Chinese boycott against global fashion brands like H&M, Nike and Adidas after they expressed concern over alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang province.

Last year, some tried to boycott Japanese clothing store Uniqlo after the company said it did not source cotton from Xinjiang.

Italian fashion house Dolce & Gabbana was also the target of such a boycott in 2018, after it posted videos showing a Chinese model using chopsticks clumsily to eat Italian food. Its products were pulled from Chinese e-commerce sites and the brand cancelled its Shanghai fashion show as critics said the ad depicted Chinese women in a stereotypical and racist way.

It is quite possible that Monday's meeting in the White House could prove even more crucial to the future of Ukraine - and for all of Europe's security - than last Friday's US-Russia summit in Alaska.

On the surface, that Putin-Trump reunion seemed to live down to every expectation.

There was no ceasefire, no sanctions, no grand announcements.

Were Ukraine and Europe about to get cut out of a deal cooked up behind closed doors by the world's two foremost nuclear powers?

Not, apparently, if Ukraine and its partners can prevent it.

The presence of Sir Keir Starmer, President Macron, Chancellor Merz and other leaders alongside President Zelensky in Washington is about more than making sure he does not get ambushed in the Oval Office again, in the way he did on 28 February.

They are determined to impress upon Donald Trump two things: firstly, that there can be no peace deal for Ukraine without Ukraine's direct involvement and secondly, that it must be backed by 'cast-iron' security guarantees.

Above all, Europe's leaders want the US President to see that Ukraine and Europe present a united front and they are eager to ensure he is not being swayed by his obvious personal rapport with Vladimir Putin into giving in to the Russian leaders' demands.

This is where the Sir Keir Starmer's diplomatic skills will be sorely tested.

Trump likes Starmer and listens to him, and in a month's time Trump will be coming to the UK on a state visit.

He also likes Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary-General who will be in attendance, a man who is sometimes called 'the Trump Whisperer'.

The US President appears to be less fond of President Macron and the White House was sharply critical recently of his intention to unconditionally recognise a Palestinian state at the next UN General Assembly.

For a peace deal in Ukraine to have any chance of working, something has to give.

European leaders have said frequently that international borders cannot be changed by force and President Zelensky has said time and time again he will not give up land and besides, Ukraine's constitution forbids it.

But Putin wants the Donbas, which his forces already control around 85 per cent of, and he has absolutely no intention of ever handing back Crimea.

Yet as the former Estonian PM and now Europe's top diplomat Kaja Kallas once said to me: victory for Ukraine in this war does not have to be exclusively about reconquering occupied land.

If Ukraine can obtain the sort of Article 5-type security guarantees now being talked about, sufficient to deter any future Russian aggression and thereby safeguard its independence as a free and sovereign state, then that would be a form of victory.

It does now appear that what the US and Russia have been discussing is a proposal that broadly trades some Ukrainian land for security guarantees that it won't have to give up any more to Russia.

But the question marks are huge.

Could Ukraine accept a deal that ends the war but costs it land, especially when so many thousands have died trying to save that land?

If it is asked to give up the remaining 30 per cent of Donetsk Oblast that Russia has yet to occupy then does that leave the path westwards to Kyiv dangerously under-defended?

And what of Starmer's much-vaunted Coalition of the Willing?

Earlier talk of deploying tens of thousands of boots on the ground have since been scaled back.

Now it's more about 'safeguarding skies and seas' while helping Ukraine to rebuild its army.

But even if peace does break out on the battlefield we are still in dangerous territory.

Every military expert I have spoken to believes that the moment the fighting stops Putin will reconstitute his army, build more weapons, until he is in a position, perhaps in as little as three to four years, to grab more land.

If and when that happens it will be a brave Typhoon or F35 pilot who is prepared to fire that first missile on an advancing Russian column.

It is quite possible that Monday's meeting in the White House could prove even more crucial to the future of Ukraine - and for all of Europe's security - than last Friday's US-Russia summit in Alaska.

On the surface, that Putin-Trump reunion seemed to live down to every expectation.

There was no ceasefire, no sanctions, no grand announcements.

Were Ukraine and Europe about to get cut out of a deal cooked up behind closed doors by the world's two foremost nuclear powers?

Not, apparently, if Ukraine and its partners can prevent it.

The presence of Sir Keir Starmer, President Macron, Chancellor Merz and other leaders alongside President Zelensky in Washington is about more than making sure he does not get ambushed in the Oval Office again, in the way he did on 28 February.

They are determined to impress upon Donald Trump two things: firstly, that there can be no peace deal for Ukraine without Ukraine's direct involvement and secondly, that it must be backed by 'cast-iron' security guarantees.

Above all, Europe's leaders want the US President to see that Ukraine and Europe present a united front and they are eager to ensure he is not being swayed by his obvious personal rapport with Vladimir Putin into giving in to the Russian leaders' demands.

This is where the Sir Keir Starmer's diplomatic skills will be sorely tested.

Trump likes Starmer and listens to him, and in a month's time Trump will be coming to the UK on a state visit.

He also likes Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary-General who will be in attendance, a man who is sometimes called 'the Trump Whisperer'.

The US President appears to be less fond of President Macron and the White House was sharply critical recently of his intention to unconditionally recognise a Palestinian state at the next UN General Assembly.

For a peace deal in Ukraine to have any chance of working, something has to give.

European leaders have said frequently that international borders cannot be changed by force and President Zelensky has said time and time again he will not give up land and besides, Ukraine's constitution forbids it.

But Putin wants the Donbas, which his forces already control around 85 per cent of, and he has absolutely no intention of ever handing back Crimea.

Yet as the former Estonian PM and now Europe's top diplomat Kaja Kallas once said to me: victory for Ukraine in this war does not have to be exclusively about reconquering occupied land.

If Ukraine can obtain the sort of Article 5-type security guarantees now being talked about, sufficient to deter any future Russian aggression and thereby safeguard its independence as a free and sovereign state, then that would be a form of victory.

It does now appear that what the US and Russia have been discussing is a proposal that broadly trades some Ukrainian land for security guarantees that it won't have to give up any more to Russia.

But the question marks are huge.

Could Ukraine accept a deal that ends the war but costs it land, especially when so many thousands have died trying to save that land?

If it is asked to give up the remaining 30 per cent of Donetsk Oblast that Russia has yet to occupy then does that leave the path westwards to Kyiv dangerously under-defended?

And what of Starmer's much-vaunted Coalition of the Willing?

Earlier talk of deploying tens of thousands of boots on the ground have since been scaled back.

Now it's more about 'safeguarding skies and seas' while helping Ukraine to rebuild its army.

But even if peace does break out on the battlefield we are still in dangerous territory.

Every military expert I have spoken to believes that the moment the fighting stops Putin will reconstitute his army, build more weapons, until he is in a position, perhaps in as little as three to four years, to grab more land.

If and when that happens it will be a brave Typhoon or F35 pilot who is prepared to fire that first missile on an advancing Russian column.