Given below is an article. Analyze and output in the following JSON format (no backquotes, JSON only): { "analysis": { "bias": { "score": "1-10, where 1-10 measures UNFAIR or UNHELPFUL bias. As the AI analyst, you must judge: 1. Fairness of Bias: - Is the tone/alarm proportional to events? - Is criticism warranted by facts? - Are similar actions judged equally? 2. Utility of Bias: - Does the bias help readers understand real implications? - Does it highlight genuine concerns that neutral language might minimize? - Does it provide valuable context through its perspective? Example: An article about climate change might use emotional language and scary scenarios. While this is technically 'bias', it might be USEFUL bias if it helps readers grasp real dangers that cold, neutral language would understate. A high bias score should only be given when bias is both unfair AND unhelpful.", "description": "Explain both unfair and useful bias found. For each biased element: 1. Is it fair/warranted? 2. Does it serve a valuable purpose for readers? 3. Should it be removed or retained?" }, "missing_context_misinformation": { "score": "1-10", "points": [ "", # DIRECTLY provide essential context the reader needs without ANY phrases like "the article lacks/doesn't/fails to mention/omits" etc. Simply state the relevant facts. Each point up to 5 sentences as needed. Up to 10 points. NEVER refer to the article itself or what it's missing - just supply the information directly. The missing context should try to compensate for the bias in the article, and not just add related information. ] }, "disinformation_lies": { "score": "1-10", "points": [ "" # Provide corrections for erifiably false statement. These lines should be brief. Upto 10 points. ] } }, "summary": ["",""], # A list of short paragraphs. Provide a version that: * Retains key facts and proportional concerns, * Removes unfair bias while keeping warranted criticism, * Adds critical missing context, * Corrects any inaccuracies. Remove author attribution. Maintain article's POV - no meta-references. You can decide the most appropriate length based on the article while lightly favoring brevity. "changes_made": [ "List significant changes made in the summary", "Include both removals and additions", "Note bias adjustments" ], "key_words": [ "3-10 relevant terms to help identify related articles", "Focus on major themes and topics" ] } London CNN  —  How did things get so bad, so fast? Europe’s leaders and officials have been blindsided by a staggering collapse in American support for Ukraine in the past week. Many still cannot understand why US President Donald Trump has turned so furiously on Ukraine’s leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, parroting the vitriolic disinformation usually heard from the Kremlin. Leaders on the continent weren’t part of the Russia-US talks this week. They don’t know when the US will present a proposed peace deal to Kyiv, or make good on its threat to turn its back on the conflict. And they don’t know what will happen next. Ad Feedback Ad Feedback “The way in which this was delivered – blow after blow after blow, within days – that was a real shock” for the continent, said Armida van Rij, a senior research fellow and head of the Europe Programme at London-based think tank Chatham House. European politicians are working through their grief. A frantic summit in Paris sparked a raft of hawkish new ideas, aimed at framing the contours of an uncertain new reality. But still, key capitals are adrift in their aims. A peacekeeping force, hiked defense spending and new military aid have all been put forward, but never in chorus. Europe’s scattershot intentions formed one half of a stunning split-screen this week; on the other side were the US and Russia, suddenly chummy, tossing Ukrainian demands and territories off the negotiating table. Ad Feedback Trump has mocked Zelensky, encouraged elections in the war-torn country, and criticized Ukraine for the war that Russia started. Europeans have pushed back -- but angering Trump further risks playing into Putin's hands. Kevin Lamarque/Reuters The emergence of a leader might help, some experts say: A figurehead who can corral Europe behind a universal intention, building a bridge between Kyiv and Washington. Britain’s Keir Starmer and France’s Emmanuel Macron are the most obvious candidates, and both will visit DC next week, trips that have taken on outsized importance. But Europe is not known for its unity on defense, and every major leader has electoral or economic headaches at home. Plus, there is the thorny issue of when, and how hard, to push back on Trump; governments know that rupturing that relationship might play into Moscow’s hands. And so, the questions persist. “We do not want to fracture our relationship with America,” British defense analyst Nicholas Drummond told CNN. “But what do you do when your closest ally gets into bed with your worst enemy?” Boots on the ground Europe expected Trump to be less interested in Ukraine’s fight for sovereignty than the previous Biden administration, but it wasn’t primed for a break-up so sudden, unequivocal and bitter. The sight of a sitting US president blaming an adversary’s invasion on its besieged ally was staggering, and drew unified condemnation from European leaders. On an emotional level, as well as a practical one, Europe has been shellshocked. But it should not have been. For months, Trump and his inner circle had demurred and speculated over the start and hypothetical end of the war in Ukraine, and displayed an indifference to Kyiv’s sovereignty that signaled a jarring shift in policy was coming. US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Getty Images Related article Inside the 48 hours that Trump turned on Zelensky From the moment of Trump’s election victory, van Rij said, “European heads of government should have been getting together … to figure out what the European plan was going to be. But that hasn’t really happened.” Instead, it waited until now to act with real urgency. Two futures exist: one with a peace deal, and one without. But either would likely require European leadership; Trump’s administration has made clear its priorities lie in the Indo-Pacific and on its own borders. UK Prime Minister Starmer made the first significant move to jostle European governments behind a common goal, announcing this week a marked shift in policy: Britain would be ready to put boots on the ground to keep an agreed peace in Ukraine. Western officials said Wednesday that such a force would likely number fewer than 30,000 troops, and would focus on “reassurance,” securing key Ukrainian infrastructure and working to instill confidence in the state. The officials said the effort is being led by Britain and France. Paris first mooted putting boots on the ground last year but was roundly rebuffed by Europe. But Starmer has made clear that an American “backstop” would be key; the officials said such a backstop would likely be focused around air power, and be controlled from a NATO country like Poland or Romania. Britain's leader Keir Starmer has said he is ready to put boots on the ground in Ukraine, to help keep an agreed peace between Kyiv and Moscow. But his army is shrinking after two long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “No significant initiatives to modernize it have taken place since the end of the Cold War," Drummond said. Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP/Getty Images Starmer and Macron will be expected to pitch Trump on those plans in Washington next week. But there are many unanswered questions – if NATO soldiers are attacked by Russian on Ukraine’s non-NATO soil, for example, what level of response would it draw? And Starmer, who oversees a creaking military that has reduced in size since wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, would need buy-in from Europe, too. “The British Army is suffering from the cumulative effects of 40 years of decline,” Drummond said. “It will be very difficult for the military in our current situation,” admitted an MP from the governing Labour party, who has pushed the government to go beyond its planned hike to military spending, which stands at 2.3% of GDP but is set to rise to 2.5% in the coming years. “My sense is we can cope, but it is in dire need of investment for the modern battlefield,” the lawmaker told CNN. A painful split Putting boots on the ground is not a universally popular idea. Importantly, Poland – which boasts NATO’s largest military in Europe and is a significant player in Ukraine – is reluctant, fearing it would make its own borders more vulnerable. Should an informal, smaller European leadership group take shape, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk will likely expect to be involved. He will come to the table with uncomfortable truths for larger nations like Britain, France and Germany about the amount they are putting towards defense. And Germany is in line for a particularly harsh dressing down. An inconveniently timed election on Sunday could result in weeks of haggling over its next government. The probably incoming chancellor, Friedrich Merz, used last week’s Munich Security Conference to set out a hawkish position on Ukraine. But German military spending stands around a paltry 1.5%; Merz says it needs to be raised, but has avoided firm commitments. Russia’s war has already limited Germany’s voice in Europe on defense issues – Berlin spent decades forging closer economic ties with Moscow, despite Poland’s protestations – and Merz will struggle to regain it. The US Special Envoy to Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, meets with Zelensky on Thursday. Kyiv was excluded from major talks between the US and Russia in Saudi Arabia earlier this week. Thomas Peter/Reuters In any case, a glaring possibility exists that a peace deal, agreed by the US and Russia, is rejected by Zelensky, or that Putin doesn’t agree to peacekeepers. Europe’s support would then become essential, if Ukraine is to keep up a difficult war without an end date. That means more than words; Europe will need to fill a gap in military aid too. Western officials said this week that Kyiv likely has received enough military supplies to last until the summer. “Biden got a lot of kit in before the inauguration. Kit is still going in” one said. But losing American contributions would be a big blow: the official said there is a “difference in quality” between America’s supplies and Europe’s. Sorting through the pieces of the break-up of a decades-long security relationship with America would be painful and complicated work. But Europe has realized this week that it may be necessary. “The US is walking away from 70 years of cooperation,” another British lawmaker told CNN this week. “It remains a key pillar of NATO and I’m hopeful this will stand through time; but it needs to remain clear eyed as to its adversaries and its allies.”