Will-they-won’t-they over a ceasefire does not change the underlying dynamics of US retreat from supporting Kyiv

A three-year conflict has taken bewildering, lurching turns in under a fortnight. Less than two weeks after Donald Trump berated Volodymyr Zelenskyy, ejected him from the White House and cut off Ukraine’s support, he U-turned to threaten financial measures “that would be very bad for Russia” if it did not reach a deal with Kyiv. Ukraine’s acceptance of a 30-day ceasefire proposal, building on its own suggestion of a halt in air and maritime conflict, threw the onus on Moscow. On Thursday, Vladimir Putin claimed to support the idea in theory – but warned of “serious issues” to address.

Ukraine’s agreement prompted the resumption of US intelligence sharing and military aid, which may well have been Kyiv’s primary aim. Mr Trump would like to take the credit – and perhaps aspires to a Nobel prize – for a peace deal. Mr Trump, who was hosting Nato’s secretary general, Mark Rutte, described the Russian president’s remarks as “very promising” albeit not “complete”. Even if he outsources the patience and focus required to reach an agreement, it is clear that he has no interest in the injustice or illegality of the invasion, that his sympathies lie with Mr Putin, and that he bears a deep grudge against Mr Zelenskyy.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Health secretary says end of ‘biggest quango in world’ is final nail in coffin of Andrew Lansley’s 2012 reorganisation

Keir Starmer has brought the health service back under the control of ministers by abolishing NHS England.

The prime minister said the NHS should be overseen by politicians rather than an arm’s-length body, as it would bring greater accountability.

PM says he is ‘bringing management of the NHS back into democratic control by abolishing the arms length body NHS England’

Starmer is now talking about regulatation, and giving examples of where he thinks it has gone too far.

l give you an example. There’s a office conversion in Bingley, which, as you know, is in Yorkshire. That is an office conversion that will create 139 homes.

But now the future of that is uncertain because the regulator was not properly consulted on the power of cricket balls. That’s 139 homes. Now just think of the people, the families, the individuals who want those homes to buy, those homes to make their life and now they’re held up. Why? You’ll decide whether this is a good reason because I’m going to quote this is the reason ‘because the ball strike assessment doesn’t appear to be undertaken by a specialist, qualified consultant’. So that’s what’s holding up these 139 homes.

When we had those terrible riots … what we saw then, in response, was dynamic. It was strong, it was urgent. It was what I call active government, on the pitch, doing what was needed, acting.

But for many of us, I think the feeling is we don’t really have that everywhere all of the time at the moment.

The state employs more people than we’ve employed for decades, and yet look around the country; do you see good value everywhere? Because I don’t.

I actually think it’s weaker than it’s ever been, overstretched, unfocused, trying to do too much, doing it badly, unable to deliver the security that people need.