THE CLAIM
Katie Hopkins has returned to the war in Ukraine with another confident assessment of who deserves credit for a peace deal that, at the time of writing, does not actually exist.
Hopkins says:
“Trump looks like he will achieve a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.”
She then claims:
“Of course, and predictably, Keir Starmer has come straight out briefing the press that he was intimately involved in getting this peace deal.”
And she asks:
“If that was the case, why would it be that nothing has happened for the last three years, apart from us sending nearly £13 billion of British taxpayers’ cash over to Ukraine to keep the war going.”
There are several problems packed into those few sentences.
There is no peace deal yet.
The £13 billion figure does not represent the current total UK commitment to Ukraine.
British support was not simply a pile of taxpayers’ cash “sent over” to Kyiv.
There is no evidence that the purpose of British aid was “to keep the war going”.
And the suggestion that Britain and its European allies have done “nothing” diplomatically over the previous years is demonstrably false.
There is also an awkward problem for Hopkins.
In an earlier video she confidently predicted that Donald Trump would have ended the Ukraine war within his first 100 days in office.
He didn’t.
More than a year after Hopkins’ deadline expired, Trump’s representatives are still trying to negotiate the peace she told viewers would already have happened.
WATCH THE ORIGINAL VIDEO
Katie Hopkins’ original video can be watched here:
[INSERT ORIGINAL VIDEO LINK]
CLAIM 1: “TRUMP LOOKS LIKE HE WILL ACHIEVE A PEACE DEAL”
He might.
Donald Trump’s administration is currently making another serious attempt to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war.
US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner travelled to Moscow on 5 September 2026 for talks with Vladimir Putin and are expected to travel on to Kyiv.
There is therefore a genuine diplomatic initiative under way.
If Trump ultimately brokers a lasting agreement acceptable to Russia and Ukraine, he will be entitled to considerable credit for doing so.
But there is an elementary problem with declaring victory now.
There is no peace agreement.
Significant disagreements remain between Russia and Ukraine over territory, security arrangements and Ukraine’s future relationship with NATO.
Russian and Ukrainian military operations are continuing.
Trump’s representatives are travelling between the two countries precisely because the war has NOT yet been settled.
“Trump looks like he will achieve a peace deal” is therefore a prediction.
It isn’t a fact.
HOPKINS HAS MADE THIS PREDICTION BEFORE
This is where the latest statement becomes particularly interesting.
Hopkins has already told her audience that Trump was going to end this war.
And she gave a deadline.
In an earlier video she said:
“Trump, in his first hundred days in office, will have ended the war.”
She went further, saying that Trump would thereby have:
“honoured that pledge.”
That prediction failed.
Trump returned to office on 20 January 2025.
His first 100 days came and went.
The war continued.
The rest of 2025 came and went.
The war continued.
And now, in September 2026, Trump’s representatives are still travelling to Moscow and Kyiv trying to negotiate an agreement.
Hopkins has therefore quietly moved from:
TRUMP WILL HAVE ENDED THE WAR WITHIN 100 DAYS
to:
TRUMP LOOKS LIKE HE WILL ACHIEVE A PEACE DEAL.
That is a considerably less ambitious prediction.
If Trump does eventually secure peace, that will be an important achievement.
But it will not retroactively make Hopkins’ original 100-day prediction correct.
CLAIM 2: KEIR STARMER SAYS HE WAS “INTIMATELY INVOLVED” IN GETTING THE PEACE DEAL
Again, there is an immediate problem.
There isn’t yet a peace deal to take credit for.
But Hopkins’ broader suggestion — that Starmer could not possibly have contributed to peace negotiations because he failed to end the war previously — doesn’t make sense.
Britain and France have spent considerable time coordinating European diplomatic and security arrangements concerning Ukraine.
Under Starmer, Britain and France co-led the Coalition of the Willing.
That coalition has explicitly worked on the conditions necessary for a ceasefire, peace negotiations and security guarantees intended to prevent another Russian attack after a settlement.
Starmer, Macron and other European leaders also repeatedly met Zelenskyy and coordinated with the United States over negotiations.
That does not prove Starmer “made” a future peace deal.
It certainly does not mean he should receive Trump’s credit if Trump ultimately produces the decisive breakthrough.
But saying Starmer couldn’t possibly have contributed because the war hadn’t already ended is logically absurd.
International negotiations don’t work like that.
Conditions change.
Governments change.
Battlefields change.
Negotiating positions change.
Economic circumstances change.
And agreements frequently emerge after years of unsuccessful diplomacy.
If participating in unsuccessful negotiations means somebody can never subsequently contribute to successful negotiations, Hopkins would have to apply exactly the same rule to Donald Trump.
His negotiations failed to end the war during his first 100 days.
They failed to end it during his first year.
Yet Hopkins still believes he may now succeed.
She cannot logically grant Trump that possibility while denying it to everybody else.
CLAIM 3: “NOTHING HAS HAPPENED FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS”
This is simply wrong.
Hopkins may dislike what Britain and other European countries have done.
That is entirely legitimate.
But “I disagree with what they did” is not the same statement as “nothing happened”.
Britain supplied military equipment.
It trained Ukrainian personnel.
It provided air-defence support.
It provided economic and humanitarian assistance.
It imposed sanctions on Russia.
It participated in repeated diplomatic discussions.
Britain and France established and co-chaired the Coalition of the Willing.
European leaders discussed ceasefire conditions and security guarantees.
They coordinated with Ukraine and the United States.
They developed plans for a multinational force intended to support Ukraine after a credible cessation of hostilities.
People can debate whether any of those policies were successful.
They can argue that Western governments made the war worse.
They can argue that weapons should never have been supplied.
They can argue that Europe should have pushed Ukraine towards a settlement much earlier.
Those are political positions.
But they cannot reasonably be summarised as:
“nothing has happened”.
CLAIM 4: BRITAIN SENT “NEARLY £13 BILLION” TO UKRAINE
This figure requires some serious context.
As of the government’s July 2026 Ukraine support factsheet, the UK had committed a total of:
£25 BILLION
in support for Ukraine.
That includes:
£16 billion in military support;
up to £5.6 billion in non-military support;
and a £3.5 billion export-finance cover limit for reconstruction and defence projects.
So “nearly £13 billion” is not an accurate description of the current overall British commitment.
It appears to refer to an earlier stage or narrower measure of British support.
The current government figure is substantially higher.
BUT WAS £25 BILLION OF “BRITISH TAXPAYERS’ CASH” SIMPLY SENT TO UKRAINE?
No.
This is another way Hopkins’ wording gives a misleading impression.
The headline commitment includes different forms of support.
Military support can involve weapons, ammunition, equipment, training and procurement.
Some expenditure takes place through British defence companies and supports manufacturing and employment in Britain.
The £3.5 billion export-finance figure is a cover limit, not £3.5 billion in cash simply transferred into a Ukrainian bank account.
The military figure also includes Britain’s £2.26 billion contribution to the G7 Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration loan.
That mechanism is intended to be repaid using profits generated from immobilised Russian sovereign assets.
So whatever one’s view about the wisdom of supporting Ukraine, describing the entire package as British taxpayers’ “cash” being “sent over to Ukraine” is an oversimplification.
CLAIM 5: THE MONEY WAS SENT “TO KEEP THE WAR GOING”
This is the most loaded part of Hopkins’ statement.
She doesn’t merely say British assistance had the EFFECT of allowing Ukraine to continue fighting.
That is plainly true.
Without foreign military assistance, Ukraine’s ability to resist the Russian invasion would have been significantly reduced.
Hopkins says the money was sent:
“to keep the war going.”
Those are different propositions.
The publicly stated purpose of British military support is to enable Ukraine to defend itself against Russia’s invasion and to place Ukraine in a stronger position to secure a lasting settlement.
Hopkins is perfectly entitled to argue that Western weapons prolonged the war.
There is a serious political debate to be had about that.
Some people believe continuing military support has prolonged a conflict that should have been settled through negotiation.
Others argue that withdrawing support would not have created “peace” but would simply have allowed Russia to seize more Ukrainian territory and dictate the terms of a settlement.
But Hopkins doesn’t present that debate.
She presents her preferred interpretation of British motives as though it were an established fact:
Britain sent the money “to keep the war going”.
Where is the evidence that this was the PURPOSE of British policy?
She doesn’t provide any.
KEEPING A WAR GOING OR PREVENTING ONE SIDE FROM LOSING IT?
There is an important distinction here.
Imagine somebody attacks your neighbour.
You give your neighbour something with which to defend themselves.
Your assistance may enable the fight to continue longer than it otherwise would have.
But it does not automatically follow that you supplied the assistance because your objective was to prolong the fight.
Your objective might be to stop your neighbour being defeated.
Exactly the same distinction matters when discussing Ukraine.
Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022.
Britain supplied Ukraine with weapons so Ukrainian forces could resist it.
Hopkins can argue that Britain should instead have pressured Ukraine to concede territory.
She can argue that Western governments should have stopped supplying weapons.
But saying Britain deliberately spent billions “to keep the war going” turns a contested political interpretation into an assertion of motive without supplying evidence for that motive.
CLAIM 6: IF STARMER COULD HELP NOW, “WHY” DIDN’T HE END IT BEFORE?
This argument collapses under its own logic.
Hopkins says, in effect:
If Starmer genuinely contributed to peace now, why didn’t he produce peace previously?
Apply that test consistently.
If Trump can produce peace in September 2026, why didn’t he produce it in April 2025?
After all, Hopkins explicitly promised that he would.
The obvious answer is that international diplomacy is complicated.
Neither Trump nor Starmer can unilaterally order Russia and Ukraine to agree.
Any sustainable agreement ultimately requires decisions by Russia and Ukraine themselves.
Indeed, a February 2026 G7 statement explicitly recognised that only Ukraine and Russia, negotiating in good faith, can ultimately reach a peace agreement.
Trump may provide the decisive mediation.
Starmer and Macron may contribute to security arrangements.
Zelenskyy may make concessions.
Putin may make concessions.
Other governments may provide guarantees.
None of those possibilities is mutually exclusive.
Peace isn’t a football match where only one politician is allowed an assist.
WHAT HAS BRITAIN ACTUALLY BEEN DOING?
The official record is extensive.
Under Starmer, Britain and France jointly led the Coalition of the Willing.
The coalition worked on:
a ceasefire;
direct Russia-Ukraine negotiations;
security guarantees;
continued military support;
sanctions;
and arrangements for a multinational force following a credible cessation of hostilities.
In July 2026, the coalition explicitly supported:
“direct dialogue between Ukraine and Russia — with active US and European participation”.
That is almost the exact opposite of Hopkins’ suggestion that Britain was interested only in keeping the war going.
Again, people are free to believe that this diplomacy was ineffective.
But ineffective diplomacy and nonexistent diplomacy are not the same thing.
THE MOST AWKWARD PART OF HOPKINS’ ARGUMENT
There is a broader contradiction running through these Ukraine videos.
When Trump negotiates, Hopkins calls it peace-making.
When European leaders negotiate, Hopkins portrays it as photo opportunities and self-promotion.
When Trump fails to obtain an agreement, Hopkins gives him more time.
When European leaders fail to obtain an agreement, Hopkins treats that failure as proof that they never genuinely wanted peace.
When Trump sends representatives to Moscow and Kyiv, it demonstrates his commitment to diplomacy.
When Starmer meets Zelenskyy and European leaders, Hopkins dismisses it as:
“more chats, more photo opportunities”.
Those aren’t consistent standards.
They are conclusions determined by which politician Hopkins likes.
GIVE TRUMP CREDIT IF HE EARNS IT
There is actually no need to diminish what Trump is attempting.
The current American initiative could prove important.
If Donald Trump succeeds in persuading Russia and Ukraine to sign a sustainable peace agreement, he deserves credit for that achievement.
If Witkoff and Kushner’s current diplomacy produces the breakthrough that previous negotiations failed to achieve, that should be acknowledged.
A fact-checking site should say so.
But we should probably wait for the peace agreement before celebrating the peace agreement.
As of 5 September 2026, the war is still going on.
Trump’s representatives are still negotiating.
Significant differences remain.
Hopkins previously guaranteed that Trump would have finished the job during his first 100 days.
He didn’t.
She is now making another prediction.
Perhaps this time she will be right.
But it remains a prediction.
CONCLUSION
Katie Hopkins is entitled to oppose British military support for Ukraine.
She is entitled to believe that Keir Starmer’s approach was wrong.
She is entitled to believe Donald Trump is a better negotiator.
And she may ultimately be proved right that Trump will broker the agreement that ends the war.
But several of the factual and logical claims she uses to construct that argument don’t survive scrutiny.
There is no peace deal yet.
Trump did not end the war within his first 100 days, despite Hopkins explicitly predicting that he would.
Britain has not merely spent “nearly £13 billion” on Ukraine. The government’s current total commitment is £25 billion, including £16 billion of military support.
That £25 billion is not simply a gigantic cash transfer to Zelenskyy. It includes military equipment and procurement, non-military support, financial mechanisms and export-finance cover.
There is no evidence that Britain’s stated PURPOSE in providing military assistance was “to keep the war going”.
The stated policy was to enable Ukraine to defend itself against Russia’s invasion and ultimately secure a lasting peace.
And the claim that “nothing has happened” diplomatically over the previous years is demonstrably false.
Britain and France co-led the Coalition of the Willing and worked on ceasefire proposals, negotiations, sanctions, security guarantees and post-conflict security arrangements.
Perhaps Trump’s current negotiations will finally succeed.
If they do, give him the credit he deserves.
But that will not make Hopkins’ previous prediction that Trump would end the war within 100 days magically come true.
Nor will it prove that every pound Britain spent helping Ukraine resist Russia was secretly intended “to keep the war going”.
The irony is that Hopkins’ own argument provides the best answer to her question.
If failure to achieve peace previously proves somebody wasn’t genuinely trying, then Donald Trump — who missed Hopkins’ own 100-day deadline by well over a year — would fail exactly the same test.
She doesn’t apply that test to him.
And that tells us considerably more about the argument than it does about the peace process.
VERDICT: MISLEADING, INTERNALLY CONTRADICTORY AND UNSUPPORTED
SOURCES
UK Government — UK support to Ukraine: factsheet
UK Government — Statement of the co-chairs of the Coalition of the Willing, 13 July 2026
UK Government — G7 leaders’ statement on the war in Ukraine, 24 February 2026
Reuters — US envoys Witkoff and Kushner arrive in Moscow for Ukraine peace talks, 5 September 2026
ORIGINAL VIDEO
Katie Hopkins — Trump / Starmer / Ukraine comments
[INSERT ORIGINAL VIDEO LINK]
Batshit Bonkers Katie Hopkins 