Tech giants must ‘act quickly' to take down misleading posts, police watchdog says
His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Andy Cooke, said misinformation and disinformation spread on social media, and left up for too long, helped fuel the disorder seen across England last summer.
He said that while dramatic events naturally fuel greater use of social media sites, tech companies bear a responsibility to prioritise public safety.
'It is great for them, but they've got to have social responsibility as well,' he said.
'These companies have got to have responsibility, irrespective of whether they are led from China, led from America.'
He called for regulator Ofcom to get beefed-up powers to take posts down more quickly, and said the Online Safety Act has 'little or no bearing on the real-time effects of online content during instances of rapidly evolving widespread disorder'.
' Ofcom needs to have the proper capacity and capability to (get posts taken down) quickly if it's going to be effective,' Sir Andy said.
'And in a national disorder issue like you saw, the speed of some of these posts that are going up makes it really difficult to get them down quickly.
'If you don't get them down quickly, they spread virally.'
Laws around what is classed as inciting public disorder should also be tightened up so that there are tougher consequences for those who knowingly post false information online, he said.
He spoke to journalists as the watchdog's second report on the policing response to last summer's riots was published.
The report found that forces had not heeded recommendations given by the inspectorate in 2011 and 2021 about intelligence relating to disorder, as well as dealing with social media.
Force chiefs need to be prepared to counter false information or a lack of information with the truth, Sir Andy said, and should consider how to be more open with journalists from established mainstream media outlets about all major investigations.
'Forces can't control or counter the speed and volume of online content, that goes without saying, but they need to better appreciate how fast-moving events will require them to counter the false narratives online and be innovative in their approach.
'They need to fill the information void that we saw throughout this disorder that was filled with so much misinformation and disinformation, because that misinformation, disinformation, could go viral very, very quickly.
'So policing cannot be passive when public safety is at risk.'
Some forces have an 'exceptionally limited' ability to deal with content online due to a lack of resources, the report said.
The disorder was predictable, despite national assessments that said the risk of unrest was low.
'National police intelligence assessments didn't correctly assess the risk and threat to public safety from a rising tide of disorder,' the report found.
'Grading the threat and risk of disorder as 'low' was wrong and influenced the timeliness of national mobilisation decisions.'
It said the lack of a police intelligence network dealing specifically with disorder is a problem, and called for a return to neighbourhood policing so that officers are more aware of tensions that may be simmering in their area.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
29 minutes ago
- Spectator
Dirty tricks have gone too far
Last week, John Power reported on Labour's alleged 'dark arts' strategy: a cynical ploy to damage Nigel Farage and his allies not through debate, but through reputational sabotage. As a target of such smears for many years, I was not hugely surprised to see my name mentioned in the piece. I can attest to the venom of the attacks on Reform – in stark contrast to the 'kinder, gentler politics' once promised from Labour. We should expect robust debate where ideas clash, but instead what we often encounter is a reliance on smears and innuendo. In this week's Spectator, James Heale notes that my lawyers have written to Labour. Downing Street sources have reportedly denied the existence of any new 'attack team' in No. 10 with the remit of challenging Reform. But key questions remain unanswered. In recent weeks, anonymous online accounts and attack blogs have engaged in a sophisticated and targeted disinformation campaign against me. Following the allegations in The Spectator last week, some of these soon vanished. Who was behind them? Where did the money come from to fund various X accounts? And what, exactly, are the limits of Labour's 'opposition research' – better known as the 'dark arts'? The emergence and subsequent disappearance of these accounts come just as Labour ramped up its attacks on Reform UK. Over the weekend, Nigel Farage has been subject to an unrelenting barrage of slime from the Labour party's official X account, stating that he would 'put women and girls at risk' because of his position against the Online Safety Act. Peter Kyle, the Science Secretary, previously suggested that Farage was on the side of Jimmy Savile. Just how low is Labour prepared to go? My association with Nigel Farage, exacerbated by my family's financial support of Reform UK, has painted a bullseye on my back – and theirs. The assaults are manifold: in 2016, at the Republican National Convention supporting Donald Trump, I was arrested on allegations of a money-laundering conspiracy from my finance days, when I was 20. The tabloids had a field day, transforming it into a sensational saga of intrigue and excess prompting scurrilous claims of Russian interference. There were farcical allegations of illicit political financing in Montenegro, where I have lived for years, and lurid tales of investigations and arrests, along with whispers of shadowy business dealings with gangsters and despots. These tales disintegrate under scrutiny – but they were never intended to be proven. They are designed to depict me as a Bond-esque rogue. What's changed is how these attacks are amplified. Anonymous social media accounts use generative AI tools like ChatGPT and X's Grok to spread misinformation. By feeding these models with attack blogs and unreliable sources – often of their own creation – they generate misleading responses, auto-translate them, and inject them into the feeds of British journalists. This manipulation plays on well-known vulnerabilities of large language models, which can reflect the assumptions of their prompts and dream up plausible-sounding falsehoods. It is digital defamation at scale. The personal toll is profound. They imperil my petition for a US presidential pardon, following my 2017 plea deal, and have necessitated a 24-hour security team and an army of libel lawyers and investigators amid intimidation that endangers my family's safety and privacy. At the heart of this campaign lies a concerted effort to discredit me and Geostrategy, my global polling and strategy consultancy. Critics brand it a 'shady' vehicle for 'dark money', claims which are not just inaccurate, but malicious. Our polls, which align with other respected outfits, showing, for instance, majority US support for a free Ukraine, are conducted to the highest standards, belying claims of pro-Russia bias. Yet activist groups, colluding with the press, push such narratives without evidence. This approach, reminiscent of efforts against figures such as Trump, risks undermining liberal democracy by failing to accommodate dissenting voices within the system, potentially leading to greater instability. If we aim to restore faith in our institutions, we must return politics to its proper form: a competition of visions and ideas, rather than a battle of character assassination. Our democracy deserves civility, integrity and the courage to engage in open debate.
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Pregnant, homeless, what now?' The search for a safe place to abandon a baby
When Romina discovered she was pregnant in 2021, she was 39 years old and homeless, without a euro to her name. She did what many a lonely and frightened woman has done throughout history, on learning that she was going to have a baby, and pretended she wasn't. 'If you don't think about it, it doesn't exist – something like that,' she told me, more than three years on. By the time she noticed the changes in her body, she had been homeless for nearly seven years. Before that, she had lived a comfortable, secure life in The Hague, with a man she had fallen passionately in love with. But the man had become controlling, she said, preventing her from working or seeing her friends, spying on her and eventually threatening her if she left him. She left him anyway, one night around Christmas 2014, and so opened a very dark chapter in a life that, to hear Romina, had already known its fair share of darkness – her parents' divorce when she was three; years of sexual abuse at the hands of a stepfather; her mother's many suicide attempts, the last of which, in 2009, succeeded; estrangement from her two half-siblings; and separation from her two sons (one of whom was just a toddler) after she entered into that last, abusive relationship, leaving them with their fathers. Her ex had political clout locally, so Romina felt that the only way to prevent him from tracking her down was to disappear into the city's shadow world. The first night on the streets was the worst, she said. It was raining and cold. She didn't have enough money for a hotel, and the little she had, she knew she had to keep for food, so she walked, and cried. When she finally slept, after three wakeful days and nights, it was in a parking garage. For a woman alone, it can be a toss-up as to which is riskier, staying inside a homeless shelter or on the street, and except in winter, Romina preferred to take her chances outside. 'It's strange,' she said, 'but only six months were very hard, because you still have hope and you know a better life. After six months you don't know it any more, your brain goes into survival mode.' In her mind, all her ties of family and friendship fell away. Her sole preoccupations were finding food and a safe place to sleep. Romina and I spoke via a video call, because she was still nervous about revealing her whereabouts. Her laugh is full-throated and her English excellent, given that she told me she learned it from Netflix. She has a mass of blond curls and was wearing red lipstick and had a tattoo the length of her forearm. She looked younger than her 42 years. She had two lifelines during those years, she said: an old school friend who let her wash and use the internet at his place when his girlfriend was at work, and Tinder, the dating app. She would have sex with men in exchange for a bed for the night. She was aware that sounded like sex work, but said she only chose men she found attractive. With one of those men the relationship was 'Netflix and chill'. They always used a condom, but she got pregnant anyway. By the time it became impossible for her to deny her condition, the relationship was petering out, so she decided not to tell the man. She tapped a query into Google – 'pregnant, homeless, what now?' – and up came a name she'd never seen before, Beschermde Wieg, which is Dutch for 'protected cradle'. It was the name of a foundation that ran a number of 'baby rooms' across the Netherlands, places where you could give up your baby anonymously, relinquishing – without judgment – any role in that baby's life along with any straightforward way for him or her to find you. In the moment, the anonymous option appealed to Romina. She fired off an inquiry, since the foundation also offered anonymous advice. That was how she entered into contact with the women who, by providing information and unflagging support, would help her turn her life around. She broke off from our conversation to reassure her son, now three, who was clamouring for her attention in the background. Like the vast majority of expectant parents who have enquired about baby rooms in the 11 years that they have operated in the Netherlands, Romina ended up keeping her child. The founders and staff of Beschermde Wieg insist that their rooms offer a caring alternative to the more controversial baby windows – also known as baby hatches, life windows or safe haven boxes – where a person simply deposits a baby in a secure vault, often in the wall of a public building, and walks away. To the dismay of many, this modern incarnation of the medieval foundling wheel has made a comeback since the turn of the millennium, proliferating in countries rich and poor. Beschermde Wieg believes there are enough new parents in crisis – including victims of rape or incest, fugitives and the extremely young – that it's vital the option exists of giving up your baby anonymously. As Romina attempted to express her gratitude to the foundation, her English temporarily deserted her. Then she found the words. At the moment when her pregnancy forced her to act, she said, she trusted no one and had nothing to give. Without Beschermde Wieg, either she would have abandoned her child somewhere less safe, or she would be dead. 'They saved us,' she said, simply. Infant abandonment and infanticide – which are often mentioned in the same breath – are not subjects that most people like to think about. Even Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, an anthropologist and professor emerita at the University of California, Davis, who studied them for years in the context of her wider interest in child-rearing, finds them hard topics to discuss now that she is a mother and a grandmother. Though typically rare, abandonment is documented as far back as records go. There's plenty of evidence it predates history, too, and even the emergence of home sapiens. Hrdy has argued that men and women are strategists hardwired to enhance their reproductive success. A pregnancy carried to term is a huge investment of resources, and usually the rational choice is to nurture and protect that investment. Very occasionally, however, circumstances arise that make the rational choice to write it off – as painful as that might be. Those circumstances include economic policies that separate new mothers from their support networks, and social conventions such as an extreme preference for sons. In her 1999 book, Mother Nature, Hrdy quotes a chilling note penned by a Roman soldier to his wife in the first century BC: 'If you are delivered of child … if it is a boy keep it, if a girl discard it.' No country collects data systematically on abandonment, making it difficult to see what is driving it at a granular level. Newborn babies abandoned or killed before their existence is officially registered may, tragically, pass under the radar. We do know that abandonment reflects changes in the socioeconomic context. Today, abortion bans and crackdowns on illegal immigration are among the factors pushing it up. In the past it was principally lack of access to maternal care, stigmatising of single mothers, and poverty. Lorraine Sherr, a psychologist at University College London who studies abandonment, calls it a 'lightning rod' for society's ills, because it's in childbirth – when humans are at their most vulnerable – that the strains show first and most dramatically. So many dead babies – more girls than boys – were being fished out of the Tiber by 1198 that a Roman church had a rotating cylinder fitted into its wall. A person could place a baby in the cylinder on the street side and rotate it into the building – abandoning the child anonymously. By 1400, foundling wheels were to be seen all over Europe. You can still see one at the Innocenti, a hospital turned museum in Florence, where the wheel is covered by a grille that was supposed to prevent people from shoving in older children. Indeed, Innocenti, along with Esposito ('exposed' in English, as in 'left out'), were once surnames commonly given to foundlings. By the late 18th century, abandonment rates in many European capitals had peaked, shockingly, at about one in four births, and Hrdy has written of 'epidemics of foundlings'. Misuse was suspected – birth parents presenting themselves as foster parents to collect monetary compensation, for example – and the windows began to be phased out, to be replaced in some countries by consignment offices where you were required to identify yourself. Maternity care and social services slowly improved. Methods of contraception other than abstinence became available from the 19th century, and legal abortion from the 20th – though, of course, not everywhere. Then in the late 1990s – for reasons including the decriminalisation of abandonment, and academic and media interest in the topic – the baby window was back on the scene. The typical baby window is a vault in the wall of a building – sometimes a hospital or clinic, sometimes a fire station or religious-run institution. Inside is a cradle and occasionally also writing materials in case the person depositing the baby wants to leave a note. They slide up a window, place the baby in the temperature-controlled interior and close the window again. They then have a few minutes to leave or change their mind, before the window locks and an alarm sounds inside the building. Today, baby windows can be found throughout the world, though they are concentrated in regions where access to contraception and abortion is restricted. The US and Germany are outliers, with about 300 and 100 respectively. Most countries have many fewer, and the UK and France have none (the UK doesn't allow women to give birth anonymously, France does). In 2024, a woman named Toyin Odumala, who was herself abandoned as a child, launched a petition calling for baby windows to be introduced in the UK, in light of the highly publicised case of three siblings abandoned a few years apart in the same area of east London. Sister Ancilla runs the home for mothers and babies on a quiet residential street in Krakow, Poland. Financed by a Catholic charity, the Family Accompaniment Foundation, the home currently has four women and their babies in residence. But it serves a second function, having a baby window – a 'window of life' as it is called in the country – fitted into the wall on the street side. The Krakow window was the first to be inaugurated in Poland, in March 2006, at the request of Pope John Paul II. Three months later it received its first baby, a girl; since then it has received 24 others – 12 of each sex, including two sets of twins. The abandoned babies spend no more than a few hours in the home – the nuns' role is to care for them until an ambulance arrives, and inform the family court so that the adoption process can get under way – nevertheless some of these modern foundlings have marked the sisters deeply. One premature girl was left in a shoebox, Sister Ancilla told me, wrapped in an old T-shirt, with the placenta and umbilical cord still attached – and, it transpired, drugs in her system. This was before Ancilla's time but, she said: 'There was a presumption that it probably wasn't the mother who brought the baby. She wouldn't have been capable.' The nuns also suspected that the woman might have been a sex worker. The little girl survived, and Ancilla believes she went on to be adopted. Poland has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe, and the Krakow window – like the dozens of others across the country – is advertised through churches and welfare associations. Over the years, police spokespeople have been quoted by local media as saying that the number of infanticides has dropped in the Krakow region since it was installed – the implication being that it is saving lives. A similar claim is made by Swiss Aid for Mother and Child, the non-profit organisation that runs six of eight baby windows in Switzerland, and by Safe Haven Baby Boxes, the company that has furnished all of the US baby windows. But the data doesn't really support these claims. Given that poverty is a known cause of abandonment, it could be rising incomes that have driven down infanticide in Poland – or lessening of the stigma attached to unmarried mothers. Sherr distinguishes between babies abandoned to live and those abandoned to die. Most experts agree that baby windows have no effect on infanticide rates, because forensic psychiatric evidence indicates that women who kill their babies – many of whom conceal or deny their pregnancies, then panic when they give birth – experience a degree of emotional turmoil that precludes the planning and problem-solving that using a window entails. They could reduce the number of babies abandoned to live, some of whom will die accidentally, but the data is ambiguous on this point at best. About 700 babies are given up in Polish hospitals each year, on average, compared with fewer than 10 via the baby windows. The hospital route is safer for mother and child, but not anonymous. Nobody can say what would happen to those 10 babies if the windows didn't exist, and women were better informed about their rights and options. They might be abandoned in unsafe places, or their parents might choose the standard adoption route. There is even some evidence that baby windows encourage the very thing they're designed to combat. When the Danish government was deliberating over whether to introduce them, it commissioned Laura Navne and Marie Jakobsen of the Danish National Centre for Social Research, in Copenhagen, to carry out a survey of the impact of baby windows in 10 high-income countries. The pair's startling conclusion, published in 2021, was that 'they increase the incidence of child abandonment'. The government decided against installing them. The Danish finding echoes recent historical research conducted in Italy, showing that abandonment rates fell after the foundling wheels were phased out in the 19th century. The wheels provided both a solution for poor families with more children than they could support, the researchers found, and a secret, socially acceptable way of getting rid of babies born out of wedlock. In so doing, they entrenched the stigma attached to unmarried mothers, while fathers were unaccountable. Today's baby windows operate in a different cultural context, but they too have that dual function, the study's authors argued – protecting infants and perpetuating a system that fails to tackle the root causes of abandonment. About 20 years ago, in an unpublished but much-cited anecdotal report, Hungarian child rights advocate Mária Herczog and colleagues interviewed porters at a Budapest hospital where visitors to the baby window were captured on CCTV. The hospital had the particularity of being located in the city's red light district, and the porters related that most of the 16 babies left there over the decade or so covered by the footage were brought by men. Who those men were, nobody knows. It's impossible to generalise from such a small and unscientific study, but it does serve as a reminder not to assume that the mother is the one giving up her baby, or even that she has consented to do so. For Herczog, the windows cynically exploit the most vulnerable women in society, since it is often the same women providing sexual services and babies for adoption. She called the devices 'profoundly anti-mother' and said that many women end up giving birth in unsafe conditions before returning to bad situations where they quickly get pregnant again: 'It is not a solution.' In her view, a humane society would intervene earlier, helping women to avoid unwanted pregnancies and supporting them through wanted ones. Sherr agrees. 'I always say the mother of the abandoned baby is herself abandoned,' she said. To be fair, Poland's Family Accompaniment Foundation and Swiss Aid for Mother and Child try to intervene early, offering counselling and support. But both are – or are perceived to be – anti-abortion. The founder of the Swiss organisation, Dominik Müggler, did not respond to requests to be interviewed for this article, but among the 33 reasons to have a baby, posted on the organisation's website, visitors can read: 'Because God wants babies to live.' Herczog finds it telling that where the emphasis is on supporting mothers and keeping families together, as in the Netherlands and parts of Switzerland, the windows (or rooms) stand mostly unused. In 2016, the Swiss canton of Valais installed a baby box that is funded, not by Müggler's organisation, but by the cantonal authorities, who wanted it to be ideologically and religiously neutral. Their aim was to reduce the infanticide rate, said the paediatrician who oversees the box, Juan Llor of the cantonal hospital at Sion, who was personally sceptical that it would have that effect. Since 2016, seven babies have been given up for adoption in the canton's hospitals, but not one has been placed in the box. 'If the baby box is used, that's a failure of care for the pregnant woman and the family,' Llor said, adding that his initial scepticism had been vindicated: the window had had no impact on the Valais infanticide rate. The residents of the Krakow mother-and-baby home are in no doubt that an anonymous solution is needed. Several of them wrote me letters telling me how, though they couldn't have imagined giving up their own babies, they could easily understand women in situations only slightly more perilous than theirs choosing that path. Beschermde Wieg, the Dutch organisation that Romina credits with saving her life, thinks it has found a happy medium – a way to offer anonymity humanely. It was founded by Barbara Müller, who previously worked in child protection, where she saw too many children let down by a dysfunctional care system, and concluded that more needed to be done early on, to keep families together. So in 2013, in her home town of Dordrecht, she set up a home where pregnant women or new mothers could find temporary accommodation and support. A year later Müller decided that she still wasn't reaching the most vulnerable women – those whose desperate circumstances forced them to hide their pregnancies and to abandon or kill their newborns. She shared her frustration with her friend Kitty Nusteling, a mother of five who was working in the private sector then, organising childcare for middle-class families. Nusteling realised that she, too, would rather help women in greater need. At the time, around five abandoned babies were being found each year in the Netherlands, most of them lifeless. 'And you can ask yourself the question, how many babies are not found?' said Nusteling. She and Müller felt that many new mothers in crisis might just need some respite, and that if they got it they would eventually – and joyfully – take their babies back. They decided to provide that respite, in anonymity and with no ideological or religious slant. 'We're pro-choice, we're not pro-life,' said Nusteling. Uncomfortable with the somewhat brutal image of a hatch through which you pass your baby, never to see him or her again, they conceived of a room complete with child-friendly murals, cuddly toys and a sheepskin-lined rocking chair. A person couldn't give birth in the room, but they could spend undisturbed time there, settling the baby in and saying goodbye to him or her – also, importantly, browsing literature about the other options available – before pressing the button that would signal the baby's presence, and leaving. Since Müller's plan contravened Dutch law, which protects a child's right to know its origins – a right enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – she decided to keep the baby room separate from the mother-and-baby home so as not to expose the latter to legal risk. So Beschermde Wieg, of which Nusteling is director of operations, was born in the converted garage of a volunteer's house in Dordrecht. The law could apply to anyone seen as enabling or provoking anonymous abandonment, as well as to the person actually abandoning, and the punishment could include a hefty fine and jail time. Müller said that the first time a woman brought her baby to the room, she was invited to the justice ministry, interrogated and threatened with prison, but the threat didn't materialise. Eventually she was summoned to an official hearing at the ministry where she just kept repeating her line: 'You are reading the UN convention in the wrong way.' In focusing on article 7, about a child's right to know their birth parents, she explained that officials had overlooked article 6, which defends a child's right to life. Müller argued that a person could only wonder about who gave birth to them if they were alive. In 2019, the government changed its stance. Though anonymous abandonment remained illegal, operating and using the rooms would no longer be punishable. The foundation even received funding from the Dutch health ministry after that, though nowadays it relies on private donations to pay for the 14 baby rooms – 13 fixed and one mobile – that it runs across the country, including nine in hospitals. If someone wants to give up a baby in the Netherlands, the official procedure begins with the child being placed with a foster family for three months. At the end of that period, the birth parents have an opportunity to change their mind. If they don't, the baby goes to an adoptive family, but the birth parents have a say in the choice of that family. Their identity is kept on record, and the child can obtain it, if he or she wants to, upon turning adult. Beschermde Wieg respects this protocol scrupulously, but it inserts the extra option of anonymity. Many parents in crisis are drawn to the baby room, Nusteling said, but few ultimately choose it. Of the roughly 1,700 who contact the foundation each year, 17 give up their babies, around two-thirds of whom later reclaim them. The foundation's goal is to reach the mother as early as possible in the pregnancy, and to help her change her situation – to get an education, say, or to escape a violent partner. It wants the rooms to stand empty. Beschermde Wieg was vilified to begin with, but as it shared more of the nameless women's stories, the criticism became more muted. 'People saw over 10 years that there were not long queues of women wanting to give up their babies,' said Nusteling. 'It's not easy.' They also saw that the women weren't all illegal immigrants – a common misconception. There were some of those, but there were also Polish women providing Dutch companies with cheap labour; young, unmarried Dutch women belonging to a strict Protestant denomination; and middle-aged ones like Romina, fleeing Dutch men with political influence. Perhaps, adds Müller, they also saw that there could be courage – and sense – in sacrificing your own desires to give your child a better life. During Romina's first exchange with Beschermde Wieg, she agreed to a prenatal scan four days later. It was January 2022. 'The next day it was very cold outside,' she said. 'It was raining and all my clothes were wet.' She fell sick and called the foundation, which arranged for an ambulance to pick her up. At the hospital she learned that she was three months pregnant. Technically she could still have requested an abortion, but having seen what she saw on the ultrasound screen, she decided that was no longer an option. Feeling trapped and frightened, her mind zeroed in on the baby room. Nusteling and her colleagues dissuaded her from taking an irreversible decision too soon, and she agreed to a period of foster care. She gave birth on a Friday, in hospital, by caesarean section. Given that she would only keep her baby for a few days, the medical staff advised her not to breastfeed him. 'I did it sneakily!' she said. The following Monday, the foster parents came. Handing him over to them was the hardest thing she has ever done, she said, but she felt she had no choice. She was still homeless. If she didn't give him up, child protection would surely take him away from her. She spent the next three months in a psychiatric facility, half the time sedated to help her cope with the emotional maelstrom that losing her baby pitched her into. 'The first three weeks were awful because your body is screaming for a baby but there isn't a baby,' she said. After six weeks she saw her son again, as the law required, and decided that she would do whatever it took to get him back. A judge agreed that she could have him, on condition that she found them a place to live. Beschermde Wieg's sister organisation offered her a room in one of its mother-and-baby homes, and when her son was three months old they moved into it, taking a single bag of clothes. Romina has some outstanding debts to The Hague city authorities. She is on welfare and feels guilty that there is no father figure in her son's life. But she is slowly getting back on her feet, and has re-established contact with her older sons. Last Mother's Day, they came to visit. She shows me a picture of her middle son playing with his younger half-brother, her arms encircling them both. All three are smiling. When her youngest starts school, in a year's time, she plans to find work. She and Nusteling have discussed the possibility of her joining Beschermde Wieg, to advise women going through experiences similar to hers. She knows it won't be easy – for a start, she's the perimenopausal single parent of an energetic three-year-old – but she can't get over how lucky she's been, or how surrounded she feels by kind people. 'I have a beautiful home, I have food on the table, I have a shower, I have clothes,' she said. 'Every day feels like a dream.' Listen to our podcasts here and sign up to the long read weekly email here.
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
European leaders scramble to shield Ukraine in high-stakes Trump talks – but did they?
It was dubbed the 'Great European Charm Offensive'. Hours before Volodymyr Zelenskyy headed to Washington for a Monday meeting with Donald Trump, announcements came pouring in from across Europe, making it clear that the president of Ukraine would not be going alone. Instead, seven European heavyweights – a 'dream team' of leaders representing Europe's economic and military heft and who had a proven rapport with the US president – hastily cleared their schedules to join Zelenskyy in Washington. The result was a meeting set to become among the 'oddest in modern diplomacy', Simon McDonald, former permanent under secretary at the Foreign Office, wrote in the Guardian. Their scramble hinted at just how much was at stake. Days earlier, Trump had met with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, rolling out the red carpet for a man wanted by the international criminal court for war crimes. The US president had gone into the summit insisting he wanted 'some form of a ceasefire'; he came out of it backing pro-Russian positions. As Trump publicly dropped plans for an immediate ceasefire and insisted it was now up to Zelenskyy to 'get it done,' the mood in Moscow was jubilant. At its most simple, the united European front was aimed at avoiding a repeat of Trump's February ambush of Zelenskyy in the Oval Office. But the 'rare and sweeping show of diplomatic force' was also about protecting Ukraine and Europe from any widening aggression from Moscow, said Luke Harding, the Guardian's senior international correspondent, as the leaders of Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Finland landed in Washington alongside their EU and Nato counterparts. The talks offered up a showcase of the lessons learned during Trump's erratic time in power. Flattery flowed fast and freely, with European leaders showering compliments on Trump and gently papering over potential sticking points as much as possible. Six months after Zelenskyy's extraordinary dressing down in the Oval Office, the Ukrainian president peppered his opening remarks with eight thank you's, most of them directed at Trump, as he sported what one European diplomat described as 'almost a suit' in a style that Reuters coined as 'combat formal'. Matthias Matthijs, a senior fellow for Europe at the Council of Foreign Relations, likened it to the meandering trajectory that EU trade relations have taken under Trump: 'There are always high expectations, and then the Europeans' expectations are dashed by the Americans – usually by Trump's social media posts or some interview he gives,' he said following Monday's meeting. 'Then when they meet again, having avoided the worst outcomes, they come to some sort of agreement. It's better than they feared, but it's always worse than the status quo. But as the saying goes, the Europeans live to fight another day.' Fabrizio Tassinari pointed to the broader picture of how Trump had inadvertently become 'the greatest unifier of Europe since the end of the cold war'. Writing in the Guardian, the executive director of the School of Transnational Governance at the European University Institute in Florence, added: 'For those like myself who have followed the chimera that is European foreign and security policy for years, it was almost an epiphany to witness these seven leaders, each speaking for two minutes, repeating the exact same message.' Days after the unprecedented flurry of diplomacy, questions continue to swirl over what – if anything – might come out of it. On Monday, Trump and several European leaders, said Putin had agreed to face-to-face talks with Zelenskyy in the coming weeks. Moscow, however, has yet to confirm that any such meeting – which would be the first since Russia launched its full invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago – is being planned, with a Kremlin aide saying only that Putin and Trump discussed the idea of 'raising the level of representatives' in the Ukraine talks. Trump had also indicated a willingness to be part of security guarantees for Kyiv if there was a deal to end fighting. But the exact nature of those guarantees remains to be seen, with Trump later ruling out the possibility of the US putting troops on the ground in Ukraine and instead floating that Washington could provide air support. Sign up to This is Europe The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment after newsletter promotion Concerns also continue to linger over what exactly Trump proposed in Alaska and what, if anything, Putin agreed to during the near three-hour meeting. As Pjotr Sauer, a Guardian Russian affairs reporter, noted, some fear Trump may have overstated the outcome and misjudged Moscow's willingness to compromise. Others, such as Yuriy Boyechko, CEO of charity Hope for Ukraine, suggested Trump is deliberately setting out an exit path for Washington by entertaining Putin's demands that Ukraine withdraws from Donetsk and Luhansk, even as Zelenskyy sets a firm red line against ceding land beyond the present occupation or legitimising Moscow's control. Putin had offered a 'peace deal' that Ukraine would be forced to reject, knowing Trump would then blame Zelenskyy and end US support for Kyiv, he told the Guardian on Monday. After a week dominated by talks and punctuated by Russian bombs continuing to rain down on Ukraine, Boyechko hoped that the jarring contrast would force European leaders to realise that it would take more than just charm offensives to protect the region. 'Ukraine and its European allies must recognise the urgent need to develop their own strategy to defend Ukraine and secure peace in Europe – because it is increasingly likely that Trump will walk away from the peace negotiations.' This is an edited version of the This is Europe newsletter. If you want to read the complete version every Wednesday, please sign up here.
