By PETER YOUNG

Judging from comments I have seen in the UK press, to many observers in Britain the obsession of US TV stations with being the first to provide their viewers with the latest news brings with it needless contradictions.

Since something newsworthy around the world is happening all the time, their practice of constantly jumping from topic to topic and labelling a new item as “breaking news” introduces an often spurious sense of importance and urgency that is unmerited by its content.

People assume this is designed to demand viewers’ instant attention, thus drawing them away from existing news. But, in practice, it simply makes their limited attention span even shorter. This is said to be a marketing technique to show commercial sponsors that the station is always up with the latest news and is therefore superior to its rivals. Thus, the argument goes, it will attract more viewers who will then be exposed to the goods the sponsor is trying to sell.

This low attention span presumably explains why TV stations this side of the pond seem to shy away from “in depth” news and analysis that takes up time; and many observers believe this applies, in particular, to Ukraine. There are endless brief reports about what is today the single biggest threat to world peace. But all too often the context and continuity are skated over so that developments can be hard to follow properly.

As perhaps the most important news subject of the moment, President Trump’s involvement in efforts to achieve a ceasefire has been moving fast and is changing almost daily. Confining oneself to US TV as a source of information, which gets constantly overtaken, can lead to confusion; though, of course, these days many also rely on social media. It seems that increasing numbers of commentators consider the subject should be reported in greater depth and with more perspective, and one way of doing this is to study varying aspects covered by the foreign media, not least the UK press which has an unmatched range of expertise in international affairs.

During this past week, there were two significant meetings in Europe about Ukraine : one of European leaders in Brussels to talk about defence policy and the other of military experts in London of the “coalition of the willing” to discuss the details of a peacekeeping force. This is now to be called a reassurance force because it will not be a peacekeeping one as such but rather a force to deter Russia from further aggression. A peacekeeping force would anyway be normally under the aegis of the UN and would be impartial in operating with the consent of both parties. By contrast, this force in Ukraine is planned to be on the side of that country itself with the aim of deterring aggression from Moscow.

The force is currently dubbed the Multinational Force Ukraine (MFU). As of last week, the plan was to send it to cement any ceasefire and to encourage long-term confidence in Ukraine. It would focus on providing air cover to keep the country’s skies safe and a naval presence in the Black Sea to encourage trade. Any deployment of so-called “boots on the ground” could not be large enough to enforce any peace between antagonists with massive numbers of troops already in Ukraine. Rather, its task would be to protect citizens, ports, airfields and major energy infrastructure like Ukraine’s five nuclear plants.

Sooner rather than later, rules of engagement will have to be drawn up; and, at this stage, these would be against a number of uncertainties, one of which is whether the US would provide satellite intelligence cover.

Moreover, according to reports, the MFU would not be there to monitor any ceasefire which would be the task of Ukrainian forces and Western surveillance. Policy-makers accept that Russia would have to be reassured that the MFU posed no offensive threat, not least because the Kremlin has already made clear that a ceasefire would be unacceptable to Russia if European or other forces were deployed to Ukraine.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who hosted the meeting of military representatives and experts in London, has spoken of the vital need of an MFU, saying that Putin would be likely to breach any peace deal “unless there is something behind it that could react straightaway”. But the Americans have already said they would not be willing to provide a military “backstop” - and that means presumably not contributing to one either.

Interestingly, following the latest Trump/Putin telephone call, both sides are claiming a diplomatic victory despite Russia’s rejection of Trump’s proposal of an immediate unconditional 30-day ceasefire that had already been agreed by Ukraine. But Trump described it as a “great call” even though Putin had set his own pre-conditions for peace; namely, an end to Western military aid and intelligence sharing. So, there remains much uncertainty; and both sides are continuing to mount bombing attacks on each other with drones.

At the weekend, a further complication arose when, in a US media interview, Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, supported the Putin argument that Ukraine was a “false country” and that Ukrainian territory in the east, which was already occupied by Russia, indeed belonged to Russia, though countries in the West “would not acknowledge that”.

Witkoff also dismissively called the MFU a “simplistic” notion that was “a combination of a posture and a pose”. Reportedly, he appeared to be uninformed about Ukraine in a number of respects and made various disputed assumptions about Russian-speaking regions. But he made it clear he was speaking on behalf of the president. So there remain various imponderables – and Witcoff’s performance has left some people wondering about the position in Washington of Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Meanwhile, at the time of writing the US is set this week to hold separate talks about a ceasefire with Ukraine and with the Russians at official level in Saudi Arabia. Who knows what might happen next?

A Prince’s foray to Estonia

In a similar context to my separate piece today about Ukraine, it is good to report that Prince William, the heir apparent to the British throne, made a two-day trip to the Baltic state of Estonia earlier this month. According to the official guidance, his purpose was to visit troops of the Mercian regiment of which he is colonel-in-chief. They are in Estonia within a force of 900 British troops that are part of a multinational force in the country. This is currently the British Army’s biggest operational deployment overseas.

The Prince of Wales’ wish to see his regiment deployed overseas was the official reason for this visit. But Royal tours overseas, even short ones of this nature, are also said to be about sending messages.

It is likely that all concerned will have seen it as simultaneously showing the support of the Western allies and Britain itself for this small Baltic nation, with a population of some 1.3 million, which joined NATO in 2004. Located on the eastern shore of the Baltic Sea like the other Baltic States of Latvia and Lithuania, which also became members of NATO in 2004, Estonia is clearly under threat from Russia in the context of the war in Ukraine.

Prince William’s visit followed one in December last year by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who was in the country for a NATO Joint Expeditionary Force conference. The PM took the opportunity of meeting British troops at a forward operating base near the border with Russia. This force is said to be placed in Estonia to defend NATO’s eastern flank.

From all reports, the Prince was warmly received, both officially by the Estonian president and by an enthusiastic public, many of whom are said to be keenly aware of their country’s need for military assistance. Large crowds gathered in the capital, Tallinn, to meet him, lining the streets to shake his hand or to take numerous photographs and “selfies”. Being photographed himself in camouflage uniform in the turret of a tank near the Russian border - and also in an armoured fighting vehicle – was said to have gone down particularly well with Estonians.

They hope that his visit signifies a UK commitment to defend, if necessary, the three small Baltic States situated immediately to the north of Belarus, which is strongly pro-Russian. Estonia is already experiencing a constant wave of cyber attacks and misinformation from Moscow, and these are judged to be the Russians experimenting in order to see how NATO reacts.

Despite NATO’s commitment to collective defence in the face of an attack on any of its members - which, of course, has not been tested under US President Trump – Estonians, with Russia on their eastern border, are said to regard any threat from Moscow as very real.

Before gaining its independence in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Estonia was a base for Soviet air defences and MIG fighters that were ready to take on the West. Now the roles are reversed.

Most recently, Estonia has been a strong supporter of Ukraine and has taken in numbers of refugees from the war. Reportedly, many local people now fear that some of Trump’s rhetoric may lead to Putin being emboldened to attack vulnerable countries in the region and they are desperate to avoid the horrors of the Ukrainian conflict.

Overall, this royal visit was considered to have been a considerable success, despite its brevity, in strengthening the resolve of the Estonian people. It is being seen in Britain as another example of so-called royal “soft” power.

BBC interview programme victim of own success

The recent decision by the BBC to axe, as a cost cutting measure, its famous, hard-hitting interview programme known as ‘HARDtalk’ has attracted much criticism, both at home and overseas. It is regarded as BBC World News’ flagship current affairs show which claims to hold global power to account by posing tough questions to world leaders and holding them to account in a way they have not normally had to face in their own countries – and they tend to agree to being interviewed in this way because of the BBC’s fine reputation that gives those leaders credibility as well as exposing them to criticism.

This regular show has been presented for nearly 20 years by veteran BBC journalist, Stephen Sackur, who is well known for his thorough research and preparation before posing those tough questions during masterful interrogations. He possesses a certain presence, authority and intellectual rigour that enables him to engage effectively with such leaders. Unsurprisingly, he has described the cancellation of his own programme as “depressing news” for all who believe in the importance of independent, rigorous, deeply-researched journalism.

The BBC has said that cutting out HARDtalk is part of the loss of some 130 roles in the corporation’s news production team in order to save money. As so often in such savings measures, loyal devotees of this high quality, long-running programme, which has been a favourite with countless numbers of viewers over the years, have suggested the cancellation instead of other BBC programmes of less overall value to viewers.

While unaware, of course, of the inner workings of the BBC, its decision in this case looks to be difficult to justify. Reportedly, it is seen by many as a grave mistake and people are calling for the decision to be reversed. Traditionally, people look to the BBC as a trustworthy and accurate news source that helps them understand what is going on around the world. There are, of course, nowadays alternatives so that people can get their news from a variety of other suppliers. But there are always questions of reliability, accuracy and trust that are worth further consideration - and perhaps it might be interesting to examine all this in a future column.