What are the key dividing lines between the UK and the US on Ukraine?

International diplomacy has gone into overdrive as the new US administration disrupts established norms and protocols.

With the war in Ukraine now the focus of friction between the US and its traditional European allies, divisions in the West are in clear sight as Vladimir Putin looks on.

Here the PA news agency examines the differences in opinion and approach by Sir Keir Starmer and Donald Trump at a time when the future of the Nato alliance – as it is traditionally understood – is being questioned.

– Varying approach to Russia

Donald Trump’s return to the White House has marked a significant shift in the US approach to Russia.

Gone is the hard-line criticism of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine under Joe Biden, replaced by a realignment of foreign policy which is not only sympathetic to Moscow but, many argue, supportive of the Russian leadership’s position.

A clear example of this is the repeated implication by Mr Trump and other officials in the administration that it is Ukraine, not Mr Putin, who is responsible for starting the war.

Ukraine’s wish to forge closer links with the West and join the Nato alliance provoked Russia to defend itself, so the argument goes, with the Trump administration careful to avoid referring to an invasion taking place.

In contrast, Sir Keir has remained steadfast in his condemnation of Russia and his support for Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelensky, a position that has broad support across the political spectrum in the UK.

The Prime Minister has insisted that Russian aggression at a time when there are serious questions over Washington’s commitment to its historic alignment with European powers constitutes a “crossroads in history”.

– What have Keir Starmer and Donald Trump done in response to recent events?

Donald Trump has ordered a pause on military aid to Ukraine as the administration carries out a review, in a bitter blow to Ukraine and European allies who have been trying to persuade the US administration to maintain its support.

Sir Keir will not be “blindsided or bounced” from the pursuit of peace in Ukraine, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner insisted on Tuesday, underlining the UK’s commitment to collective agreement in contrast to the unilateral strategy being pursued by Washington.

Other notable developments in the US include defence secretary Pete Hegseth ordering offensive cyber and information operations against Russia to cease.

Top US officials including secretary of state Mark Rubio previously travelled to Saudi Arabia to start peace talks with Russia, but President Zelensky and European leaders were not invited.

Meanwhile Sir Keir convened a defence summit on Ukraine, where he unveiled a four-step plan including a pledge to “develop a coalition of the willing” to defend a deal in Ukraine and guarantee a peace settlement.

In contrast to the US position, the Prime Minister has maintained that Ukraine and European powers must be involved in talks on a deal.

Having previously pledged to increase defence spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product, Sir Keir said “every nation must contribute” in the best way it can and a number of “important steps” were agreed.

The move not only highlights concerns about military capacity in Europe but also acknowledges – and acts on – White House concerns.

The UK has also signed a £1.6 billion deal to supply more than 5,000 air defence missiles to Ukraine using export finance.

– Does a US deal on Ukraine’s minerals provide adequate security?

Plans for Donald Trump and Volodymr Zelensky to sign a deal which would grant the US access to minerals in Ukraine were put on hold after the fractious exchanges between the two at the White House.

Mr Trump and administration officials argue that such a deal would effectively act as a security “backstop” which would deter further aggression from Vladimir Putin.

However, Sir Keir continues to argue that such a deal would be inadequate in isolation and falls short of providing a long-term solution to the threat of Russian aggression.

“The mineral deal is not enough on its own,” he told MPs, as he called for strong US backing for any European-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine.

But the US president has hit out at calls by European leaders for the US to provide security guarantees for any Ukraine peace deal, calling the demands a demonstration of weakness to the Kremlin.

With recent events appearing to have disrupted the UK-US relationship after what was seen as a positive visit by Sir Keir to meet Donald Trump, Defence Secretary John Healey is expected to visit the US later this week for talks with his counterpart Mr Hegseth.

This will show whether a productive dialogue can be maintained after a diplomatically fraught period.

– What about the future of Nato?

The US had been long-established as the anchoring power of the Nato alliance, but hints that the country may abandon its obligation to defend allies under Nato’s Article 5 have stunned leaders in Europe and beyond.

The US administration has said it will not withdraw from Nato and remains committed to a defence partnership with Europe.

But concern in Washington that an imbalanced relationship within the alliance “encourages dependency” on the US has led the president to insist such a scenario “will not be tolerated”.

While concerns over spending within Nato have been voiced by previous US leaders, the potential implications of this dynamic are magnified when they are applied to the war in Ukraine, with uncertainty and distrust playing out during the biggest security crisis for Europe in decades.

President Trump has continued to downplay the importance of commitments shared by Nato members and, by default, its founding principles.

For example, he said: “This war is far more important to Europe than it is to us – we have a big, beautiful ocean as separation.”

Comments by European leaders including the Prime Minister suggest that a scenario in which the US seeks to pull back significantly from previous shared defence commitments is being considered.

This has led to comments on the potential need for the rapid development of independent European defence capability.