内容摘要："To carve into it would be a mistake… and it doesn't meet those government guidelines," he said.

"To carve into it would be a mistake… and it doesn't meet those government guidelines," he said.

They are going to try.On Monday morning, UK prime minister Sir Keir Starmer said the UK was "ready and willing to put troops on the ground". Even in Germany, ahead of a heated election, the foreign policy spokesman of the CDU party, expected to win the most seats, said Europe's largest country would also be willing to commit troops within an international framework.

The Trump administration is clearly not 100% sure what it wants to do about Ukraine. There were a number of mixed messages over the weekend.This allows Europe a tiny window of opportunity to try to persuade the American president it's an invaluable partner.It hopes to do that via this Paris meeting, getting the ball rolling on two major issues demanded by Donald Trump: That Europe spend and do more for its own defence, and that Europe send troops to Ukraine after a ceasefire.

Europe's leaders insist Kyiv be directly involved in ceasefire talks too. They've long maintained the view that "there can be no decisions about Ukraine, without Ukraine".But it's about even more than that for Europe.

It is the cold realisation - much dreaded, but not entirely unexpected - that the Trump administration does not prioritise relations either with European partners, or their defence.

Europe has relied on a security umbrella provided by the US since World War Two.Marlean Ames worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years.

She claims she was passed over for a promotion, then demoted, because she is straight. The job she hoped to get and the one she held when demoted, were both given to gay colleagues, according to the lawsuit.Ohio state officials have denied the discrimination, and Ms Ames has so far been unsuccessful in court.

In oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court - split 6-3 in favour of conservative judges - justices on both sides ideologically appeared sympathetic to Ms Ames's case.A 1964 US law forbids discrimination in the workplace, and in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that protection extends to sexual orientation, however lower courts have dismissed Ms Ames's case.