Bolivia is set to elect a non-left wing president after nearly two decades of near-continuous rule by the incumbent socialist party, according to official preliminary results.

Senator Rodrigo Paz Pereira and former president Jorge Quiroga came in first and second place respectively in Sunday’s presidential elections.

Neither received a high enough share of the vote to secure an outright win, so the vote will go to a run-off between these two candidates, due in October.

Paz Pereira, of the Christian Democratic Party, was a surprise vote leader, after opinion polls had suggested Samuel Doria Medina, a businessman, was the frontrunner.

The electoral authorities said it can take up to three days to finalise the results.

Paz Pereira’s campaign focused on redistributing more funds away from central government towards regional entities, and fighting corruption – with his slogan “capitalism for all, not just a few”.

He has suggested a programme of accessible credit, tax breaks to boost the formal economy, and eliminating import barriers for products that Bolivia doesn’t manufacture.

Quiroga briefly acted as interim president from 2001-2002 after serving as Vice President to Hugo Banzer, a military dictator until he was later elected.

The election of a president from outside the left camp will likely see sharp changes in the Latin American country’s foreign policy.

In terms of trade, both candidate’s capitalist stances could indicate more support for foreign investment in Bolivia’s vast lithium reserves – the key ingredient for batteries used in many electric cars, laptops and solar panels.

Politically, a change in government could mark closer ties with the US, after two decades of strengthening ties between Bolivia and China, Russia and Iran.

A recent US Congress report briefing described US-Bolivia relations as “strained” under the socialist party’s governance.

The country’s turn to the right comes as it is experiencing its worst economic crisis in years, with shortages of fuel, foreign reserves and some food items and high inflation and debt.

Opinion polls ahead of the election suggested that many voters wanted to vote for change, or to punish the incumbent Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS) party.

The current president, Luis Arce, mired in deep unpopularity, decided not to seek re-election.

The punishment of the left is not just electoral, but physical in some cases.

The candidate for MAS, Eduardo del Castillo, was booed out of the school where he cast his vote. Bolivian media reported that some fellow voters told him to “wait in line like they do for fuel” rather than skip the voting queue.

People also threw stones at the highest-polling left-wing candidate, Andrónico Rodríguez, when he went to cast his ballot. Rodríguez was previously a member of MAS before splintering from the party.

Authorities in Bolivia also said that an explosive device was set off at the polling station where Rodríguez cast his vote. There were no reports of significant damage or injuries.

Rodríguez described it as an “isolated incident” orchestrated by a “small group” to a Bolivian newspaper.

The left has not just faced recent unpopularity over the economy. It is also deeply divided.

For the first time in about two decades, the former president, Evo Morales, was not on the ballot.

Morales ruled the country from 2006-2019 and was barred from running again, despite attempts to challenge legal and constitutional rulings to let him run for a fourth term.

He has urged his supporters to null their vote.

Rodríguez was once seen as a protégé of Morales, but has since distanced himself from him.

The last election in 2019 was disputed and protests erupted. Morales was accused of fraud after auditors found irregularities with the poll and he resigned under pressure from the military.

In 2020, Luis Arce – a former finance minister under Morales – took office as president. Morales then announced he would return to politics in Bolivia, and deprived Arce of a majority – turning the pair from allies to rivals.

Deep rifts and power struggles have existed in the ruling MAS party ever since. Morales’s supporters have held protests and roadblocks against the re-election ban imposed on him, which have at times turned deadly with some emergency responders being killed.

Judges ordered an arrest warrant for Morales over an alleged sexual relationship and rape of a 15-year-old girl. He has called the accusations politically-motivated.

He has been living and operating from Chapare in Bolivia, protected at times by his supporters.

Donald Trump has said the Ukrainian president can end Russia’s war “if he wants to”, but there would be “no going into Nato by Ukraine” as part of a peace deal.

Hours before he was due to host Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House, Trump also said there would be “no getting back” of the Crimean peninsula, which Moscow illegally annexed in 2014, eight years before launching its full-scale invasion.

It follows Trump’s summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska that resulted in the US president dropping a demand for a ceasefire and calling instead for a permanent peace deal.

A US envoy said on Sunday that Putin had agreed to a possible Nato-like security pact for Ukraine.

The Russian president has consistently opposed the idea of Ukraine joining the military alliance.

Posting on his Truth Social platform on Sunday night, Trump said: “President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight.

“Remember how it started. No getting back Obama given Crimea (12 years ago, without a shot being fired!), and NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE. Some things never change!!!” Trump added.

Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte and UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer are among the European leaders who will join Zelensky in Washington for talks on Ukraine’s future on Monday.

Also attending are French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Finnish President Alexander Stubb and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. It is unclear how many of them will go to the White House.

Trump later added: “Big day at the White House tomorrow. Never had so many European Leaders at one time. My great honor to host them!!!”

For so many heads of state to travel with such little notice across the Atlantic to what is essentially a wartime crisis meeting appears without precedent in the modern era, underscoring the sky-high stakes.

Diplomatic sources say European officials are concerned that Trump may try to press Zelensky to agree to terms, after the Ukrainian leader was excluded from the Trump-Putin meeting on US soil last Friday.

But US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the BBC’s US partner CBS that any suggestion Zelensky might be bullied by Trump into accepting a peace deal was a “stupid media narrative”.

Nato leaders also appear eager to avoid a repeat of Zelensky’s February trip to the Oval Office that ended abruptly after an argument with Trump and US Vice-President JD Vance.

The altercation – which saw Trump accuse Zelensky of “gambling with World War Three” – left Washington-Kyiv ties in tatters.

But European leaders have been working diligently behind the scenes since then to mend the relationship. The Ukrainian leader has been coached to talk in terms of deal-making – language that resonates with Trump.

In April, Ukraine signed a minerals agreement that gave the US a financial stake in the country, and Trump and Zelensky spoke privately at the Vatican before Pope Francis’s funeral. Ukraine made clear it was willing to pay for US weapons.

By July, the two leaders had a phone call that the Ukrainian president described as “the best conversation we have had”.

Meanwhile, Trump had begun to express exasperation with Russia’s unrelenting onslaught in Ukraine. He called Putin “absolutely crazy”, drastically shortened his deadline for a peace deal, and threatened economic sanctions on Moscow.

As these deliberations grind on, Russian forces continue to advance on the battlefield. They now occupy almost a fifth of Ukraine since Moscow launched its full scale invasion in February 2022.

A virtual summit was held on Sunday between Zelensky and the so-called coalition of the willing – a group of nations including the UK, France and Germany that have pledged to protect peace in Ukraine once it is achieved.

Afterwards, Emmanuel Macron told reporters their plan was to “present a united front” for Monday’s talks with Trump.

Zelensky and the Nato leaders said they were keen to learn more after US envoy Steve Witkoff told US television that Putin had agreed on Friday to “robust security guarantees that I would describe as game-changing”.

Witkoff said such an agreement could see Europe and the US protect Ukraine from further aggression with a Nato-like defence agreement.

“We were able to win the following concession: that the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in Nato,” Witkoff told CNN on Sunday.

Putin has long opposed Ukraine joining Nato, and Witkoff said the arrangement could be an alternative if the Ukrainians “can live with it”.

Article 5 is a principle at the heart of the 32-member transatlantic military alliance that says its members will come to the defence of an ally that is under attack.

Witkoff also told CNN that Russia made “some concessions” around five heavily contested regions of Ukraine.

In talks with European allies after the Alaska summit, Trump said Putin had reiterated that he wants the key Donetsk and Luhansk regions that make up Donbas, eastern Ukraine, according to European officials.

But at Sunday’s virtual summit with Nato leaders, Zelensky stressed that the Ukrainian constitution makes it impossible to give up territory – and that this should only be discussed by the leaders of Ukraine and Russia at a trilateral summit with the US.

The US secretary of state, meanwhile, sought to temper hopes that a deal to end Europe’s deadliest conflict for 80 years could be imminent.

“We’re still a long ways off,” Rubio said on Sunday.

Dame Helen Mirren has said James Bond should be played by a man, even though she is “such a feminist”.

In a new interview with Saga Magazine, the Oscar-winning actor said “you can’t have a woman. It just doesn’t work. James Bond has to be James Bond, otherwise it becomes something else”.

Amazon MGM Studios will produce the next iteration of the spy franchise, with Peaky Blinders creator Steven Knight set to write what will become the 26th film in the series.

The Studios previously said they were planning a “fresh” take on franchise but would honour the “legacy” of the “iconic character”.

The 80-year-old is currently starring opposite former James Bond actor Pierce Brosnan in the much anticipated film adaption of The Thursday Murder Club, in which she plays a retired spy.

Brosnan, 72, also told the magazine that he believed a male actor should continue to play Bond and he was excited to “see a whole new exuberance and life for this character.”

He starred in four Bond films during his tenure as 007, starting with GoldenEye in 1995 and finishing with Die Another Day, which was released in 2002.

Mirren has previously been quoted saying that the concept of James Bond was “born out of profound sexism”, and that women have always been an “incredibly important part” of the Secret Service.

Mirren and Brosnan are not the first to push back on the idea of Bond being played by a woman, with the sentiment echoed by Brosnan’s Die Another Day costar, Halle Berry.

“In 2025, it’s nice to say, ‘Oh, she should be a woman.’ But, I don’t really know if I think that’s the right thing to do,” she said, speaking at Cannes Film Festival in May.

The James Bond franchise was owned by the Broccoli family for more than 60 years, but producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson sold creative control to Amazon for a reported $1bn (£760m) earlier this year.

Speculation about who will next play the titular character has been rife, with British actors Aaron Taylor-Johnson and James Norton rumoured as frontrunners for the part.

There is no current release date set for the next film.

It is quite possible that Monday’s meeting in the White House could prove even more crucial to the future of Ukraine – and for all of Europe’s security – than last Friday’s US-Russia summit in Alaska.

On the surface, that Putin-Trump reunion seemed to live down to every expectation.

There was no ceasefire, no sanctions, no grand announcements.

Were Ukraine and Europe about to get cut out of a deal cooked up behind closed doors by the world’s two foremost nuclear powers?

Not, apparently, if Ukraine and its partners can prevent it.

The presence of Sir Keir Starmer, President Macron, Chancellor Merz and other leaders alongside President Zelensky in Washington is about more than making sure he does not get ambushed in the Oval Office again, in the way he did on 28 February.

They are determined to impress upon Donald Trump two things: firstly, that there can be no peace deal for Ukraine without Ukraine’s direct involvement and secondly, that it must be backed by ‘cast-iron’ security guarantees.

Above all, Europe’s leaders want the US President to see that Ukraine and Europe present a united front and they are eager to ensure he is not being swayed by his obvious personal rapport with Vladimir Putin into giving in to the Russian leaders’ demands.

This is where the Sir Keir Starmer’s diplomatic skills will be sorely tested.

Trump likes Starmer and listens to him, and in a month’s time Trump will be coming to the UK on a state visit.

He also likes Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary-General who will be in attendance, a man who is sometimes called ‘the Trump Whisperer’.

The US President appears to be less fond of President Macron and the White House was sharply critical recently of his intention to unconditionally recognise a Palestinian state at the next UN General Assembly.

For a peace deal in Ukraine to have any chance of working, something has to give.

European leaders have said frequently that international borders cannot be changed by force and President Zelensky has said time and time again he will not give up land and besides, Ukraine’s constitution forbids it.

But Putin wants the Donbas, which his forces already control around 85 per cent of, and he has absolutely no intention of ever handing back Crimea.

Yet as the former Estonian PM and now Europe’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas once said to me: victory for Ukraine in this war does not have to be exclusively about reconquering occupied land.

If Ukraine can obtain the sort of Article 5-type security guarantees now being talked about, sufficient to deter any future Russian aggression and thereby safeguard its independence as a free and sovereign state, then that would be a form of victory.

It does now appear that what the US and Russia have been discussing is a proposal that broadly trades some Ukrainian land for security guarantees that it won’t have to give up any more to Russia.

But the question marks are huge.

Could Ukraine accept a deal that ends the war but costs it land, especially when so many thousands have died trying to save that land?

If it is asked to give up the remaining 30 per cent of Donetsk Oblast that Russia has yet to occupy then does that leave the path westwards to Kyiv dangerously under-defended?

And what of Starmer’s much-vaunted Coalition of the Willing?

Earlier talk of deploying tens of thousands of boots on the ground have since been scaled back.

Now it’s more about ‘safeguarding skies and seas’ while helping Ukraine to rebuild its army.

But even if peace does break out on the battlefield we are still in dangerous territory.

Every military expert I have spoken to believes that the moment the fighting stops Putin will reconstitute his army, build more weapons, until he is in a position, perhaps in as little as three to four years, to grab more land.

If and when that happens it will be a brave Typhoon or F35 pilot who is prepared to fire that first missile on an advancing Russian column.