Trump says conflict could lead to world war and Putin ‘has really let me down’

Donald Trump has said Russian President Vladimir Putin ‘really let him down’, as he met with his UK counterpart Sir Keir Starmer for talks at Chequers.

“The one that I thought would be easiest would be because of my relationship with President Putin. But he’s let me down. He’s really let me down,” the US President said, adding that “we’re sending lots of weapons to Nato”.

“Nato is paying for those weapons in full, but we’re sending them.”

The UK prime minister said the two countries are working together to put pressure on Vladimir Putin to get him to agree to a peace deal with Ukraine.

It comes as the Trump administration sends Ukraine its first missiles for Patriot air defence systems and HIMARS rocket launchers under a new Europe-funded scheme.

Volodymyr Zelensky said the first two batches, worth $500m (£366m) each, will “definitely include missiles for Patriot and HIMARS”.

Ukraine is bracing for a heavy autumn offensive from Russia, with Vladimir Putin’s forces accelerating strikes on its shattered energy system, including gas infrastructure.

How king of Wimbledon Bjorn Borg descended into a secret life of drugs and alcohol

It is not so unusual for superstars to quit their sport, though they are normally drawn back in soon enough. Michael Jordan left the NBA at the peak of his powers and returned a year later after an unsuccessful attempt to reinvent himself as a baseball player. Johan Cruyff retired from football aged only 31 but quickly returned after losing a lot of money investing in pig farming.

What was unique about Bjorn Borg was that he conquered his sport, retired aged 26 and never returned, or at least not while still a competent tennis player. He reappeared 10 years later but lost every match he played.

We now know why: for nearly two decades after he walked away from the game, his life spiralled into drug addiction. He nearly died twice, first in Milan in 1989 when his wife found him unconscious and he was rushed to hospital to have a lethal cocktail of drugs and alcohol pumped from his body. Then, in the mid-1990s when he suffered a heart attack on a bridge in the Netherlands. His heart stopped, and only the quick reactions of passers-by saved him.

The revelations are told in his new memoir Heartbeats, a book which opens up on his recent battle with cancer and at the same time melts away all we thought we knew about the “Ice Man”, laying bare a hidden truth decades later. “The Nineties feel like one long stretch of wasted time,” he writes of that period in his life when drugs took hold.

Behind his cool on-court persona was a man wrestling with his newfound rockstar status and without anyone to give him advice or guide him through the whirlwind. He felt hounded by fans, the media and photographers following his every move, and he left the sport to escape. But it left a void in his life, and, within a year, cocaine had replaced the dopamine hit of baseline winners and title triumphs.

It is hard to reconcile with the same Borg who was a picture of self-control during his career. That mastery of his emotions, whatever the outcome of the previous point, was a vital part of why he was able to win six French Open titles and five successive Wimbledons in a spell of dominance between 1974 and 1981.

His composed playing style stood in stark contrast to the fiery characters of his two great American rivals, John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors. That difference was epitomised by perhaps the greatest match of all time, when Borg met McEnroe in the 1980 Wimbledon final. Borg was going for a record fifth title in a row but McEnroe battled furiously, winning an epic fourth-set tiebreak 18-16, in which Borg lost several championship points.

Most players would have crumbled – think of how Jannik Sinner’s game collapsed after losing three championship points at Roland Garros this year – but Borg appeared almost emotionless. He shrugged off the disappointment, regrouped and won the fifth set 8-6 to make history.

Yet that self-restraint did not come naturally. Borg writes about how he learnt to swallow his emotions as a child after being suspended from his local tennis club in Sweden for poor behaviour. When he returned six months later, he consciously buried his feelings for fear of being kicked out again, something that must have taken vast willpower in what can be such a frustrating sport.

Borg first became interested in tennis at the age of six when his father, Rune, brought home a golden tennis racket he won at a table tennis tournament. Rune soon drew up a strict training regime for the young Bjorn, who quickly developed a supreme talent, albeit with an unusually jerky technique which he maintained throughout his career.

Borg was an only child whose relationship with his parents was quite typical of Swedish families of that era: restrained and stoical. He tells the story of his father coming to collect him from the hospital in the Netherlands after his heart attack to take him back to Sweden, to his mother. They did not speak on the flight home. “We didn’t even know how to begin discussing it,” Borg recalls. “They didn’t offer me help with any kind of treatment with the drugs. That was something I had to handle on my own.”

He deeply regrets retiring, but at the time he felt like it was his only way out. “All I could think was how miserable my life had become,” he writes about that time in 1981. After Borg lost the US Open final to McEnroe, he should have been frustrated and angry about missing out on a tournament which he had never won. But he didn’t care, returning to his Long Island home to sit in his pool house and drink beer.

“I was not upset or sad when I lost the final,” he told the Associated Press. “And that’s not me as a person. I hate to lose. My head was spinning and I knew, I’m going to step away from tennis.”

The book – which is ghostwritten by his third wife, Patricia Ostfeldt – hints that women were another vice, and he describes Hugh Hefner as “my old friend” with whom he would spend weekends at the Playboy Mansion.

Borg has two sons: Robin, with model Jannike Bjorling, born in 1985, the year after divorcing his first wife, fellow tennis professional Mariana Simionescu; and Leo, a tennis player, with his second wife, Italian singer Loredana Berte. One romantic relationship would overlap with the next because “I just couldn’t handle being alone,” he writes. He regrets spending so little time with Robin, who grew up in Sweden while Borg lived mainly in Milan.

He blew most of his fortune on failed investments like his lifestyle brand Björn Borg Design, which went bankrupt in 1989. He later complained he had been cheated by friends who “were all out to take advantage of me”. It was another example of the lack of support for his life after tennis. Had he been a player of the modern era, Borg would have had a team of people to guide him through his career and out the other side. Instead, he felt alone.

“When I stopped playing tennis, I didn’t have a schedule. I’d wake up in the morning and say to myself: I can do everything, anything, I’m so happy,” he told The Times. “But I left tennis. I left my tennis friends. That was a big mistake. I left the people in tennis that I was around and I liked all these people.

“The problem was that I didn’t realise this – I had no plan. It finally came to a point: OK, what am I supposed to do now? I had no idea. I was lost. I was lost in this world. I had no plan and that’s a difficult life.”

Borg’s life is a simpler one now, although he still values his privacy, despite his candid memoir. The 69-year-old exercises by doing laps of his large living room. He has been clean from drugs for 25 years, but now it is prostate cancer which threatens his life.

“The doctor said it was a really, really aggressive cancer,” he said of his diagnosis in late 2023. He underwent immediate surgery and is now in remission. “The doctor says that I still have the cancer cells in my body but right now they’re sleeping. They could be sleeping for years.”

In the week when Ricky Hatton died, Borg’s truth is another reminder of sport’s heavy toll. It is not necessarily the game itself which hurts, although the pressure and the scrutiny and the relentless clamour are often overwhelming. But when the sport ends, it takes an entire purpose with it. In an instant, it takes away the comforting structures of an athlete’s life – the training, the coach, the tournament cycle – and fails to replace them.

There are parallels with other tennis players, like Boris Becker, who lost his fortune, and Andre Agassi, whose autobiography Open is one of the great sporting memoirs. In it, he details the intense pressure from his father as a child, his resentment as a player and his spiral into drugs. But perhaps what is so arresting about Borg’s story is simply that it is Borg, the immovable object, the epitome of cool. The deep shock of leaving professional sport cracks through even the thickest ice.

Melania style decoded: Jackie O designers and hats to hide behind

There was one question on the lips of observers when the president of the United States and the first lady arrived by military helicopter at Windsor Castle today to meet the Prince and Princess of Wales. Would anyone be able to see Melania’s eyes?

As it was, her felted aubergine hat was so low-brimmed – colour-matched to her husband’s tie and teamed with a charcoal Christian Dior haute couture skirt suit – that her eyes were completely shrouded from view. It was all very reminiscent of when the 55-year-old first lady donned a wide-rimmed boater by Eric Javits for her husband’s inaugural swearing-in ceremony. Then, the statement-making accessory seemed to handily keep her husband at a cool distance and spawned hundreds of hilarious memes online comparing her to fictional cartoons and evil movie characters.

“Melania’s hats almost function like Anna Wintour’s sunglasses and bob, where you can’t actually see her face for her hair,” says Claudia Croft, editor of 10 Magazine. “It’s a little bit unsettling.”

The late Queen, she adds, would never wear a hat that hid her face. “Our Royals exist to be in public – part of their public duty is to be seen, and to look good while doing so. Maybe Melania doesn’t feel the obligation to be seen in the same way that they do.”

The late Queen’s hats were, says Croft, “like replacement crowns – formal pieces that she would wear for daytime engagements”. Meanwhile, the Princess of Wales clearly got the memo, wearing a small, netted Jane Taylor hat, neatly positioned away from her face.

“Melania has taken a very different approach,” continues Croft. “There’s something about her hat that leaves you with more questions than answers. It makes you think, ‘What’s she hiding? Why doesn’t she want people to see her? Is she trying to create a mystery?”

It’s tempting to speculate that Melania might be playing a game with us. For nearly a decade, rumours have swirled that the first lady uses a body double for some of her official engagements, when, as the internet loves to speculate, “she can’t be bothered”, or “when she’s doing downtime for cosmetic surgery” – and of course they call her doppelganger #fakemelania.

Indeed, former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci fuelled this rumour in 2020 during an appearance on an Australian TV quiz show, reporting that the president’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, “insists” that this is true, and that, “Her sister sometimes replaces her on the campaign trail … usually when you see somebody more affectionate with Mr Trump.”

While this is all, of course, gossipy nonsense, Melania was certainly in a “cover-up” mood when she wore an intriguingly long raincoat to step off Air Force One at Stansted Airport on Tuesday evening. Her Burberry Kensington Heritage trench coat was floor-skimming, worn with Christian Dior Empreinte leather riding boots. Why so long? Did her advisors not clock that, as glamorous as she looked, the ensemble was giving off some serious disguise vibes?

Nevertheless, says Croft, “It was good diplomatic dressing to wear Burberry – a great endorsement for a great British brand – though I was worried about her coming down the steps. One false move in a maxi-trench and you’re over.”

Usually, so much thought goes into planning outfits for official visits, you can expect some kind of messaging within the specific choices of designer, colour, style, etc. But what is it exactly that Melania is trying to say?

“It’s interesting that she’s chosen to wear prominent European couture,” notes the fashion historian Dr Kate Strasdin of Falmouth University – not least when Europe keeps being sent to the naughty step by JD Vance. Most likely, it’s a homage to Jackie Kennedy, who had a penchant for French couture, particularly Dior. Indeed, Melania has long admitted that the OG icon of first ladies is her style crush. In fact, the dress she wore to the state banquet, a bold yellow, off-the-shoulder column gown, was designed by Carolina Herrera, another of Jackie’s favourite designers. It’s easy to see Jackie’s influence – say what you like about Melania, but she is undoubtedly the most sleek and stylish of any of the presidents’ wives to follow her.

It’s also interesting to note, adds Strasdin, that the Dior skirt suit has a military aesthetic, “with the suit’s button placement running down both sides from the shoulder to below the waist – there’s a strength to the outfit, and maybe a sense of an embattled first lady under fire”.

In sharp contrast to the sharp edges and sombre colour choice of Melania’s first outfit choice, both the Queen and Kate wore rich jewel tones to greet the Americans – for the Queen, 78, a royal blue Fiona Clare dress and matching hat by Philip Treacy, for the princess, 43, a dark red Emilia Wickstead coat dress. Red and blue, plus, for the state banquet, Kate’s white silk crepe couture gown by Phillipa Lepley (worn with a gold lace Chantilly evening coat): there’s the colours of the British flag right there – another tick for diplomatic fashion, albeit predictably literal.

“The royals dress to be seen in a crowd,” explains Croft. “The late Queen would only wear black for funerals, and all the royals follow that protocol. But the one thing everyone can agree on is a stiletto pump.”

The detail that might have been missed even more than Melania’s eyes is Kate’s choice of brooch, the historic three feathers. “It was a wedding gift to Princess Alexandra of Denmark when she married the Prince of Wales [who later became King Edward VII] in 1863,” says Strasdin. “She went on to become a much-beloved Princess of Wales.”

The brooch, made up of 18 brilliant-cut diamonds encircled by tiny emeralds, includes the emblematic Prince of Wales ostrich feathers and a scroll inscribed with the Prince of Wales’s motto “Ich Dien”, which is German for “I serve”. So very on-message for Kate, who rarely puts a stiletto-pumped foot wrong when her star power is needed most.

Brigitte Macron to show court ‘scientific proof’ she is a woman

Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte will provide “scientific and photographic evidence” that she is a woman at her defamation trial against right wing American podcaster Candace Owens.

Tom Clare, a lawyer acting for the Macrons, said the couple were ready to prove “generally and specifically” that Owens’s allegations that Ms Macron was born male were false.

Owens began spreading baseless conspiracy theories about Ms Macron’s gender identity in 2024 in YouTube videos and podcast episodes that have accrued millions of views. She has stated that she will stake her “entire professional reputation” on her belief that Ms Macron “is in fact a man”.

The Macrons filed a defamation lawsuit in a court in Delaware in July, accusing Owens of spreading “outlandish, defamatory, and far-fetched” lies that have triggered a “campaign of global humiliation” and “relentless bullying”.

Mr Clare told the BBC’s Fame Under Fire podcast that the court would be provided “expert testimony” that would be “scientific in nature”. He did not elaborate on what evidence might be given at the trial.

Despite the looming legal action, Owens doubled down on her baseless claim in an interview in July in which she alleged that Ms Macron’s death would be faked before the case reached the discovery phase.

Mr Clare said that Ms Macron has found the allegations “incredibly upsetting”, while her husband has found them a “distraction” from his duties.

“I don’t want to suggest that it somehow has thrown him off his game. But just like anybody who is juggling a career and a family life as well, when your family is under attack, it wears on you. And he’s not immune from that because he’s the president of a country,” he said.

“It is incredibly upsetting to think that you have to go and subject yourself, to put this type of proof forward.”

Mr Clare said Ms Macron was determined to “set the record straight” in public.

“It is a process that she will have to subject herself to in a very public way. But she’s willing to do it.”

He added: “If that unpleasantness and that discomfort that she has of opening herself up in that way is what it takes to set a record straight and stop this, she’s 100 per cent ready to meet that burden.”

The Independent has contacted Owens for comment.

In a YouTube video posted by Owens in response to the 219-page defamation complaint, she claimed that she had provided Mr and Ms Macron with multiple opportunities to offer proof and comment against her claims – but had received no response.

Ms Macron was awarded £6,750 in damages last year after two right-wing influencers, Amandine Roy and Natacha Rey, accused her of being a transgender woman.

They were also ordered to pay damages to her brother, Jean-Michel Trogneux, who they alleged had assumed the identity of Ms Macron.

Trump calls Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension over Charlie Kirk comments ‘great news’

Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show has been pulled off the air “indefinitely” after the host’s comments about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, reportedly leaving the comedian “livid” about the decision.

ABC confirmed the move after Kimmel said earlier in the week that the “MAGA gang” was trying to “score political points” from the fatal shooting of Kirk.

President Donald Trump, who has shared his contempt for Kimmel in the past, celebrated the suspension, calling it “Great News for America”. Trump appeared to call for the ousting of other late-night hosts, Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers, who also have been critical of his presidency.

Hours before the decision was made public, the Trump-appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, said his agency could hold ABC, Disney, and Kimmel accountable for the comments, claiming the comic appeared to be making an intentional effort to mislead the public into believing that Kirk’s assassin was a Trump supporter.

Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old man suspected of killing Kirk, was officially charged with aggravated murder and six other counts and faces the death penalty if convicted. Authorities say he held a “leftist ideology.”

How Macmillan Cancer Support built a movement that reaches everyone

Cancelling Jimmy Kimmel reveals the crude truth about Trump’s definition of free speech

Nothing reveals Donald Trump’s double standards on free speech more emphatically than the way the Jimmy Kimmel TV show in America has been taken off air.

Talk show host Kimmel was dropped after accusing the “Maga gang of trying to score political points” off the murder of Charlie Kirk and mocking Trump’s reaction to it as “how a four-year-old mourns the death of a goldfish”. You can question Kimmel’s sense of taste, but you would expect a champion of free speech to leap to his defence.

Trump has done the opposite and even took time out during his state visit to Britain to post his approval of Kimmel’s silencing on his Truth Social platform.

No one has ever accused Trump of having a sense of irony. But you would like to think that he paused for just a moment to consider the inconsistency of praising the virtues of free speech in his Windsor Castle banquet speech, and shortly afterwards celebrating the demise of someone for exercising that supposed cherished freedom.

It reveals the crude truth about Trump’s definition of free speech: you can say anything you like as long as you don’t criticise him. Nor was he merely commenting on the censorship of Kimmel from the sidelines: his departure seems to have been the direct result of action by Trump’s allies in the US.

His show was suspended by the ABC network after pressure on its owners, Disney, from Brendan Carr, the head of America’s media regulator, the Federal Communications Commission. Carr called Kimmel “truly sick” and accused him of “lying to the American people”. Carr just happens to have been appointed to his role by, yes, you guessed it, Donald Trump.

Respected US media commentator Stephen Battaglio of the Los Angeles Times said of Carr on the Today programme: “He is an agent of Donald Trump. He wakes up in the morning, and the first thing he asks himself is ‘How can I please the president?’” As Battaglio pointed out, Kirk, the outspoken pro-Trump advocate assassinated at a Utah Valley University event last Wednesday, was himself a passionate advocate of free speech. “He said a lot of things that were loathsome to many people. However, he was willing to go into the arena and debate and challenge people who didn’t agree with him. I cannot imagine he would have approved of something like this in his memory.”

Battaglio said Disney TV chiefs who had buckled to pressure could rue the day they dumped Kimmel at Trump’s behest. It could lead to other celebrities and broadcasters, horrified at the way someone could be “shut down for something they said in a moment of creative expression”, refusing to go on ABC shows in a show of support for Kimmel. Battaglio said: “There could be a wider reaction to this that Disney may come to regret.” It is too soon to tell whether that will happen, although US show business figures, including actors Ben Stiller, Wanda Sykes and Jean Smart, have already criticised the firing of Kimmel. Compare and contrast Kimmel’s fate with that of Brian Kilmeade, a presenter on Trump’s beloved right-wing Fox TV. Kilmeade recently called for mentally ill and homeless people to be killed. As US comedian Paul Scheer observed: “So let me get this straight. Kimmel is off the air for his comments about the politicisation of an assassination – but this is totally fine.” Kilmead later apologised for his remarks.

It is hard to grasp the breathtaking degree of Trump’s hypocrisy in the Kimmel affair. Judging from his outrage, one imagines he would be even more angry if Kimmel accused him of having a “low IQ” and falsely claimed he had lied about being born in America. Except Kimmel did not say those things. Both were insults hurled by another former TV show host, Trump himself – about Democrat opponents Kamala Harris and Barack Obama. Before narcissist Trump and vice-president JD Vance lecture Britain on free speech, they should look in the mirror first.

Boris Johnson at heart of furious Tory row at state visit reception

A state reception dinner for British right-wingers descended into a bust-up between Boris Johnson and other senior Tories over the party’s record in government.

In an astonishing turn of events, a witness described “real anger” as the meeting of minds led to a spat between Liz Truss, Mr Johnson and his former boss, broadcaster Andrew Neil.

The event, at the luxury Peninsula hotel in London’s Mayfair, was hosted by US broadcaster Newsmax and included guests of honour Marco Rubio and US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent. Both are in the UK for Donald Trump’s state visit.

Nigel Farage and Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg were also there representing the right of British politics.

After canapes, Mr Farage and the US cabinet members left, before the rest of the guests, who also included Sir Sajid Javid and Mark Harper, were treated to dinner.

Mr Johnson then gave a speech defending his record on Brexit, and it was at this point that a witness said “tensions were evident over the last government’s record”. Right-wing critics have rounded on Mr Johnson for overseeing mass migration into Britain as PM, with Reform UK dubbing it the “Boris wave” of migration.

The witness told The Telegraph that tensions came to a head when former transport secretary Lord Harper raised the need for welfare reform and immigration control, before being rebuked by broadcaster Mr Neil about why the Tories had not done so in power.

The witness added: “At that point, Boris robustly defended his government’s record. Boris argued that Brexit gives us powers to reduce immigration if we wish, and said he did reduce it. He also said we shouldn’t bash the contribution migrants make to Britain.

“There was a robust exchange of views, and everyone defended themselves well, but real anger is obvious. The Reform attendees were of the view that this is why the Conservatives don’t function well as a party any more.”

Sir Jacob reportedly attempted to make peace between Tory critics supporting Reform and those defending the Conservatives’ record, apparently believing the two parties should work together.

Mr Neil has long been critical of the former PM after his stint as Mr Johnson’s boss at The Spectator magazine.

A series of scandals erupted at the weekly publication under Mr Johnson’s editorship, including several affairs leading to it being dubbed the “Sextator”.

More recently, Mr Neil delivered a scathing verdict on Mr Johnson’s trustworthiness after he failed to submit to a BBC grilling before the 2019 general election and was the only major party leader not to do so.

In a damning monologue, he said: “The theme running through our questions is trust.

“And why, so many times in his career in politics and journalism, critics and sometimes even those close to him have deemed him to be untrustworthy. It is of course relevant to what he is promising us all now.”

The latest row between the pair came after a week in which Mr Farage welcomed a fresh handful of defectors to Reform UK, with high-profile former Tories Maria Caulfield and Danny Kruger joining the party.

Mr Kruger became the first sitting MP to defect to the party, while Ms Caulfield became the 13th former Tory MP to join Mr Farage’s ranks.

As he left, Mr Kruger urged other Tory MPs to join him in Mr Farage’s party, saying: “I would hope that colleagues who share my view about the crisis the country is in [recognise] the opportunity that Reform offers to save our country.”

Ms Caulfield, meanwhile, told GB News: “If you are Conservative right-minded, then the future is Reform.”