Serbian president says he will go to Russia on 9 May because he promised Putin
Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić has said he will not back out of plans to visit Moscow on Victory Day, as he had given his word to Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin [Victory Day is a Russian holiday commemorating the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany in 1945, celebrated on 9 May – ed.].
Source: Serbian news outlet Tanjug, citing Vučić's statements at a press conference in the US on 1 May, as reported by European Pravda
Details: The Serbian president said that eight months ago he had promised Putin he would come to Moscow on 9 May. He added that his word binds him not only in an international context but also before his people and everyone else.
"My word matters. I've never lied to anyone. No one else has to go, no one else has to suffer. I will go – unless something happens or some threat is directed at Serbia. But my mind is not so easily changed," Vučić stated.
He said that his current visit to the US, as well as visits by European officials to Belgrade, are important for Serbia over the next 15-20 days.
"Numerous European guests will be coming to speak to me about the trip to Moscow, but they haven't convinced me yet that I shouldn't go. That's hard to do with people as hard-headed as we are," Vučić added.
Background:
In April, the European Union's chief diplomat Kaja Kallas called on European leaders not to attend military celebrations in Moscow on 9 May, urging them instead to show solidarity with Ukraine.
The European Union has also issued a clear directive to candidate countries not to attend the Moscow parade or make official visits to Russia.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business of Fashion
13 minutes ago
- Business of Fashion
Lead EU lawmaker on sustainability laws proposes more cuts
The European Union should further slash the number of companies subject to its environmental and corporate sustainability rules, the European Parliament member leading negotiations on the policies said on Thursday. The European Commission proposed a 'simplification omnibus' in February that it said would help European firms compete with foreign rivals by cutting back on sustainability reporting rules and obligations intended to root out abuses in their supply chains. Those proposals did not go far enough, according to Swedish centre-right lawmaker Jörgen Warborn, who has drafted amendments to scale back the laws further to only cover companies with 3,000 employees or more and over 450 million euros ($521 million) in turnover. The Commission proposal would exempt companies with fewer than 1,000 employees - already, cutting out more than 80 percent of the roughly 50,000 companies currently covered by the green reporting rules. The EU counts around 6,000 companies with more than 1,000 employees. 'Europe is falling behind the US and China in the global race for competitiveness. I'm entering this process with a clear ambition: to cut costs for businesses and go further than the Commission on simplification,' Warborn said in a statement on Thursday. His draft proposal must be negotiated in the European Parliament where other lawmakers can propose their own amendments. The Parliament will agree the final changes with EU member countries in the coming months. Warborn, a member of the centre-right European People's Party lawmaker group, is facing competing calls from some right-wing lawmakers to scrap the policies entirely, and Socialist and Green lawmakers vowing to preserve them. French president Emmanuel Macron and German chancellor Friedrich Merz have both demanded the EU scrap the supply chain law. But the walk-back on ESG rules has met resistance from some investors and campaigners, who have warned it weakens corporate accountability and hurts the bloc's ability to attract more investments towards meeting climate goals. Warborn said his proposed changes will not weaken Europe's sustainability standards, but rather free up resources that companies can instead invest in innovation. By Kate Abnett; Editor: Joe Bavier Learn more: Op-Ed | Dear Fashion CEOs, Stop Undermining Climate Action Too many brands have set ambitious emissions goals while their trade associations quietly work to block the regulations needed to achieve them, argues Maxine Bédat.
Los Angeles Times
16 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Mailbag: It's time to speak up and use your voice
In recent weeks, I've watched demonstrations rise across Southern California against those who support dictatorship and use power to silence dissent — from Russian propagandists to local officials who enable injustice. These protests matter. They remind us that democracy is fragile — and that we must use our voices to defend it. I moved to California with my son three weeks before Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. I believed I had reached a place of safety. But soon, I encountered something disturbingly familiar: silence in the face of abuse. Like many immigrants, I came with hope, honesty, and vulnerability — only to see those qualities met with manipulation, disinformation and isolation. People who called me 'family' behind closed doors violated my dignity. Abuse here wasn't hidden — it was normalized. I have lived under the shadows of dictatorship. I lost my family at age 10 when the Soviet Union collapsed, and I later survived institutional and domestic abuse in the U.K. I know how dangerous silence is. That is why today, I am raising my voice. The normalization of harm, whether in personal relationships or public discourse, always serves those in power. And when communities turn a blind eye or excuse abusive behavior as 'just the way things are,' they protect the abusers — not the vulnerable. To my neighbors in coastal Orange County: I urge you to speak out. Don't dismiss the warning signs. Abuse of power thrives in places where people are taught to stay quiet, to 'keep the peace,' or to 'look the other way.' Don't. Vulnerability is not weakness. It's where courage begins. It's the first step in breaking cycles of harm. If you see injustice — whether in a home, school or public institution — don't protect the silence. Use your voice. Show up. Speak up. Because when we speak, we don't just protect ourselves — we protect each other. Nadiia HardyLaguna Beach On June 10, Huntington Beach residents demonstrated that, not only can you fight City Hall, you can fight City Hall and win. Back in 2023, the City Council rejected the pleas from hundreds of residents to reconsider their book ordinance. As a result, committed volunteers joined forces to gather signatures, write postcards, knock on doors and attend marches and rallies. Last year, when the council issued an request for proposal (RFP) to outsource library management, volunteers worked together to create another petition that would require voter approval before the council could take such action. It was a combined effort from the public that took long hours and dedication, but it was a battle worth fighting. This was something the City Council did not and does not understand. They were willing to take a million dollar gamble that residents would not show up and vote. They grossly underestimated how much the public appreciates our library and its staff. The support for our library was overwhelming, as is evident in the voting results. People rebel against book restrictions. They don't want a politically-appointed committee deciding what books their families can and cannot read. People don't want their libraries run by a private for-profit company. Hopefully this will serve as a lesson to other cities considering similar agendas; residents value their libraries and reject censorship. Learn from us. Instead of the MAGA library plaque the H.B. City Council wants to install, may I suggest a ' Don't Tread On Our Library' flag instead? Barbara RichardsonHuntington Beach
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' could ban states from regulating AI for a decade
President Donald Trump's massive bill package, dubbed the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' contains a proposal that could significantly waylay a burgeoning movement to regulate artificial intelligence on the state level. The ban is tucked into a section of the bill that would allocate $500 million over the next 10 years to modernize government systems with the help of AI and automation technologies. The ban would not only prevent new state-led regulations of AI but would also block dozens of states from enforcing preexisting AI regulations and oversight structures. The 1,000-plus-page legislation pushed forward by Republicans passed in the House by just one vote on May 22, sending it off to the Senate. Though Republicans hope to finalize the tax and policy bill by the end of July in order to avoid a debt default, it's still a ways off from becoming law, as the GOP navigates a slim majority amid party infighting over several key elements of the bill. Though misgivings center on Medicaid, tax cuts and government spending, a few high-profile Republican lawmakers have signaled the proposed AI regulation ban is also a point of friction. Trump's bill: Tax policy bill clears the House. Next up: An opinionated Senate Regulation of artificial intelligence is often likened to a wild west of sorts, as governments across the country and the globe race to keep up with the rapidly evolving technology. AI itself has proved to be an enticing tool for public and private organizations – so much so that adoption of the tech far outpaces many governments' ability to implement laws and frameworks meant to prevent misuse. As it stands, there is no centralized federal oversight of AI, leaving states to attempt to regulate the technology through an uneven patchwork of legislation. Under President Joe Biden's administration, the White House introduced a now-defunct blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, taking a cue from the European Union's similarly named document. It directed state agencies to evaluate current uses and potential impacts of AI, evaluate potential AI-fueled risks and encourage state employee training on the subject. In its place is a new Trump-led AI framework, prioritizing accelerating AI innovation. The Trump administration's stance on regulation so far largely aligns with that of companies and much of the tech industry, who argue that regulation would stymie innovation. Trump and AI: President signs executive order boosting AI in K-12 schools Many regulations target AI scams, deepfakes and AI-assisted disinformation, with increasing focus on other possible harms from the technology. While there are many opportunities for AI to create positive changes, policy and advocacy organizations like the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy (CITED) warn of the same possibilities for negative impacts, necessitating regulation in some areas. "Many commentators believe that AI could soon be used by state and non-state actors to develop dangerous weapons, increase surveillance, and magnify existing biases and discrimination in a variety of fields, from lending, to hiring, to policing," CITED says in a January 2024 report. The letter's signatories include Georgetown Law's Center on Privacy and Technology, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Actors' Equity Association, Innocence Project and the National Union of Healthcare Workers, among others. Though Republicans largely expressed support for the provision in a House subcommittee hearing Wednesday, May 21, prominent Republican Republican Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee have recently pushed back on the ban. 'We certainly know that in Tennessee, we need those protections,' Blackburn said in a May 21 hearing on a bill to protect Americans from AI impersonations. 'And until we pass something that is federally preemptive, we can't call for a moratorium.' Hawley also pushed back on the proposed ban in a May 13 interview with Business Insider. 'I would think that, just as a matter of federalism, we'd want states to be able to try out different regimes that they think will work for their state,' Hawley said. 'And I think in general, on AI, I do think we need some sensible oversight that will protect people's liberties.' The argument against regulation is often one of innovation, with tech industry leaders and companies saying it could limit the technology and make the U.S. less competitive in the field. Others in support of the ban, such as Sean Heather, Senior Vice President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say states are moving too fast in regulating AI. "We should stop international patchworks and domestic patchworks in AI regulation," Heather said during the May 21 House subcommittee hearing. "We should not be in a rush to regulate. We need to get it right, therefore taking a time out to discuss it at a federal level is important to be able to support a moratorium." At least 45 states plus Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., introduced AI bills in the 2024 legislative session, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of those, over 30 states and territories passed legislation concerning AI, with Utah, Maryland and Florida passing regulatory and AI oversight acts. Across seven states and Puerto Rico, there are 16 AI regulation bills introduced last year still pending legislative approval, and more than a dozen new regulatory proposals introduced in statehouses across the country in 2025. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' could ban states from AI regulation
