Starmer-Biden talks were about second-guessing Putin
In the hours before the prime minister was driven to the White House, he and his team were in a secure room at the nearby British Embassy.
This room was specifically designed for discussions that spies, no matter how advanced their eavesdropping techniques, were not meant to overhear.
The Downing Street team was in communication with British government staff in Ukraine and Russia, working on their briefing and strategy for the upcoming meeting with President Biden.
They arrived at the White House late in the afternoon Washington time, with President Biden giving Sir Keir Starmer a tour of the Rose Garden before heading to the Blue Room.
At a long rectangular table, the two delegations—each with the prime minister and president accompanied by seven colleagues—took their seats.
Reporters were allowed in briefly, where they witnessed a warm exchange between the leaders, followed by a barrage of questions and a swift exit for the press.
The meeting proceeded privately for about 90 minutes, focusing primarily on Ukraine but also covering other important topics, including the Middle East, China, and Iran.
Downing Street had framed this meeting as an opportunity for a more in-depth discussion than what is typically possible in international summits.
But why bother when President Biden is soon to be yesterday’s man, out of office, power and influence in four months time?
The urgency of the issues on the table, I am told.
Take Ukraine: an ally of both the UK and the US, still in desperate need of ongoing help as its friends weigh up how best to provide it – and at what cost.
The UK has been “forward facing” as it was put to me in making the case to others to agree to Kyiv’s request to be allowed to fire western missiles into Russia.
President Biden is sceptical, fearful it could drag America and Europe into direct conflict with Moscow.
That is just what Vladimir Putin has been hinting at in the last few days.
Then again his sabre rattling in the past hasn’t come to much, so perhaps it wouldn’t again?
But maybe, this time, it would.
Diplomacy and intelligence turning to the psychology of a leader at war, attempting to second guess how he might react.
Would he really contemplate a military attack on a Nato member state – with the frightening potential of hauling the whole western alliance into war with Russia?
And, if not that, would Ukraine’s allies stomach lower level aggression in retaliation, such as cyber attacks or damaging sub-sea communication cables?
There was little expectation this meeting would resolve the question about western missiles, not least because further conversations with others at the United Nations are expected shortly.
Afterwards, the prime minister wouldn’t be drawn on whether he had persuaded the president to change his mind.
This is a conflict without obvious end which presents too no end of thorny dilemmas based around a recurring theme: how to defeat Russia without provoking Moscow.
What could be the consequences of action?
And what could be the consequences of inaction?
It is the essence of the West’s challenge since the full scale invasion of Ukraine two and a half years ago.
