Ukraine's PM speaks to US Treasury Secretary about investment fund
Yulia Svyrydenko, the main driving force behind the creation of the fund, said she and Bessent had discussed the fund's operations and "continuing and strengthening cooperation in the defense and investment sectors".
"We are working on expanding its mandate so that the fund can also invest in the defense sector," Svyrydenko wrote in English on the X social media platform.
"The first meeting of the board of directors is scheduled for September. The task is to launch the first three projects within 18 months."
Svyrydenko was speaking to Bessent for the first time as prime minister since her appointment last month. As first deputy prime minister, she had signed the agreement setting up the fund in April as part of an accord, heavily promoted by U.S. President Donald Trump, to develop Ukraine's mineral resources.
In her comments, Svyrydenko also said she and Bessent had discussed a potential broad defence agreement that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has cited regarding production and sale of Ukrainian drones.
They also discussed the prospect of imposing tougher sanctions on Russia, a measure Ukraine has long sought. Trump has warned Russia that he will introduce more sanctions on Moscow if it does not make more progress on ending the war before a deadline set for Friday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
18 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
European leaders stress Ukraine support ahead of Trump-Putin summit
The path to peace in Ukraine 'cannot be decided without Ukraine', European leaders have said, as US president Donald Trump prepares to meet Russian president Vladimir Putin for talks on Friday. In a joint statement, the leaders of Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Finland and the European Commission, said that the current line of contact between Russia and Ukraine could only be a 'starting point of negotiations'. Advertisement They said: 'Ukraine has the freedom of choice over its own destiny. Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities. 'The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. 'We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force.' The statement comes a day after Mr Trump announced that he would meet Mr Putin in Alaska on Friday, as he seeks an end to a conflict he had promised he could finish on his first day in office. Advertisement The US president had earlier suggested that any peace deal was likely to involve 'some swapping of territories', with reports suggesting this could involve Ukraine giving up its Donetsk region. But president Volodymyr Zelenskiy has already rejected any proposal that would compromise Ukraine's territorial integrity, something that is forbidden by Ukraine's constitution. On Sunday Mr Zelenskiy said Kyiv "values and fully supports" the joint statement by European leaders on achieving peace in Ukraine while protecting Ukrainian and European interests. "The end of the war must be fair, and I am grateful to everyone who stands with Ukraine and our people today for the sake of peace in Ukraine, which is defending the vital security interests of our European nations," Zelenskiy wrote on X. Advertisement "Ukraine values and fully supports the statement by President Macron, Prime Minister Meloni, Chancellor Merz, Prime Minister Tusk, Prime Minister Starmer, President Ursula von der Leyen, and President Stubb on peace for Ukraine." He said Mr Putin wanted to 'exchange a pause in the war, in the killing, for the legalisation of the occupation of our land – he wants to get territorial spoils for the second time'. Mr Zelenskiy added: 'We will not allow this second attempt to partition Ukraine. Knowing Russia, where there is a second, there will be a third.' He also said that any peace agreement that excluded Ukraine would be a decision 'against peace'. Advertisement In their statement, the European leaders said they welcomed Mr Trump's 'work to stop the killing in Ukraine, end the Russian Federation's war of aggression and achieve just and lasting peace and security for Ukraine'. Adding that they were 'ready to support this work diplomatically' and through military and financial support for Kyiv, they reiterated the need for 'robust and credible security guarantees' for Ukraine and their own 'unwavering support' for the country. The statement also comes after British foreign secretary David Lammy hosted a meeting of top Ukrainian officials and European national security advisers alongside US vice-president JD Vance on Saturday. Saturday's meeting of national security advisers was co-hosted by US vice-president JD Vance. Photo: Suzanne Plunkett/PA The meeting took place at the British foreign secretary's official country retreat, Chevening, in Kent, where Mr Vance is staying at the start of a UK holiday. Advertisement After the meeting, Mr Lammy said: 'The UK's support for Ukraine remains ironclad as we continue working towards a just and lasting peace.' It is understood that the meeting had been called at Washington's request, and included representatives from the US, Ukraine, France, Germany, Italy, Finland and Poland as well as the UK. Ukraine was represented by Rustem Umerov, secretary of the country's national security and defence council, and the head of Mr Zelenskiy's office, Andriy Yermak. In a post on social media, Mr Yermak said the allies' positions were 'clear' that 'a reliable, lasting peace is only possible with Ukraine at the negotiating table, with full respect for our sovereignty and without recognising the occupation'. Ahead of the meeting at Chevening, British prime minister Keir Starmer discussed the talks in a call with Mr Zelenskiy on Saturday, and also spoke to French president Emmanuel Macron. Meanwhile, the conflict continues, with Ukrainian authorities reporting four people killed and 16 wounded in Russian drone strikes on Saturday in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions.
Telegraph
18 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Inside Ukraine's mission to expose Russia's submarine weakness
'This is a historic event,' Vladimir Putin declared on July 24 as he unveiled Russia's newest nuclear submarine, the Knyaz Pozharsky. Squinting in the sun in front of the puffed-out chests of dozens of its crew, he said the stealth vessel, soon to join Russia's Northern Fleet, would 'strengthen the security of the fatherland' and act as a symbol of a 'modern, powerful navy'. But 10 days later, Ukrainian state hackers stole a trove of secret documents exposing 'critical' limitations of the state-of-the-art submarine and published them online. The highly classified files detailed its combat systems, technical intricacies, survivability measures, crew rosters, engineering reports and a log showing daily combat duties. The intelligence leak has the potential to put the whole Borei-class strategic ballistic missile submarine fleet – a cornerstone of Moscow's nuclear triad, which also underscores the country's strategic position in the Arctic – at risk. But it also served as a potent reminder of another front of the war – the cyber battlefield that Russia has long dominated, but on which Ukraine has been gaining ground with increasing skill. 'The information obtained by the intelligence officers allows us to identify the features and technical limitations of not only the Knyaz Pozharsky, but also other submarines of project 955A, which are critically important for supporting the imperial myth of the aggressor state of Russia,' the HUR, Ukraine's military intelligence agency, said. Maxim Starchak, an expert in Russian nuclear policy, said he believed most of the information was likely already known by US intelligence, which is constantly monitoring Russian submarines. But more important, he said, is the blaring psychological threat the leak sent through the corridors of the Kremlin. 'Nuclear weapons are a main symbol of Russia's greatness,' Mr Starchak told The Telegraph. If Ukrainian intelligence can uncover weak points in its sea-based nuclear capabilities, then it directly undermines the strength that Moscow tries to project. 'This is a serious blow to the Russian defence ministry and its nuclear capabilities as it cannot guarantee the secrecy of their plans, missions, and operations,' he said. While the significance of the stolen data is still under debate, the ability of Ukrainian hackers to get their hands on it is a different story. 'This is a dangerous situation for Moscow. The Kremlin will try to find the people responsible and punish them strictly, demanding that the defence ministry solve the issue of cybersecurity,' Mr Starchak added. That issue is not likely to be fixed soon. Analysts say that Ukrainian hackers – who are carrying out increasingly advanced operations – are relentlessly trying to breach Russia's most critical defence and military infrastructure, or are already lurking inside. It is not clear whether HUR carried out the operation alone or whether it involved independent hacking groups. 'Ukraine has shown remarkable cyber capabilities on both the offensive and defensive fronts. Many Ukrainian hackers are highly motivated and proactive, even without state oversight,' David Kirichenko, an analyst who specialises in cyber warfare, told The Telegraph. Two years ago, in a world first, Kyiv openly called on hackers around the globe to help it wage a crowdsourced cyber war, giving birth to the so-called Ukraine IT army, which uses the collective computing power of volunteers to disrupt and sow chaos inside Russian systems. The vigilante collective, which is believed to have thousands in its ranks, has proved skilled at overwhelming the cyber defences of Russia's government, media and financial institutions and sowing chaos. A report in March by Russian cybersecurity firm F6 said the attacks by the IT army had risen sharply over the past year. However, despite the initial fanfare, analysts have quietly voiced that the prowess of the IT army has been somewhat overstated. HUR still tended to operate its cyber efforts independently, Mr Kirichenko said, but emphasised that it was steadily increasing its co-ordination with civilian hackers to go after Russian targets. Moscow, meanwhile, relies on a more centralised campaign fought by state-sponsored groups with rigid structures. At the end of July, two pro-Ukrainian groups claimed a massive cyber attack on Russia's flagship airline that destroyed 7,000 Aeroflot servers, paralysed operations at Moscow's airports and caused nationwide disruptions. The hacktivist groups, Silent Crow and Cyber Partisans, had been lurking in Aeroflot's systems for over a year, gathering intelligence and mapping out vulnerabilities. Experts suggested it was likely HUR had some degree of involvement. On Saturday, Silent Crow announced that it was beginning to release medical records of the airline's employees, including pilots. 'These documents show who exactly ensures the operation of the aircraft that supports military aggression against Ukraine,' the group said. 'Now their secrets are no longer protected.' The Kremlin said the sophisticated cyber attack was 'worrying' and lawmakers described it as a wake-up call for Russia. 'The Russian network is really vulnerable' Dr Lukasz Olejnik, a cybersecurity expert and visiting fellow at the Department of War Studies at King's College London, said the attack was another indication that the 'Russian network is really vulnerable'. 'Some key Russian infrastructure entities are very likely to be well mapped by Ukraine's services,' he told The Telegraph, adding there was 'no doubt' it was a sign of much more to come. Yuliana Shemetovets, the co-ordinator of Cyber Partisans, the Belarusian group that took part in the recent Aeroflot cyber attack, called it 'the price of war'. She told The Telegraph she was 'unsurprised' to learn of HUR stealing data on Knyaz Pozharsky. Russia, she said, had become increasingly fearful and protective of its digital systems, 'but they are still so vulnerable and so many pro-Ukrainian groups are collaborating to get inside'. It is still an asymmetrical battle as Russia retains significant upper-hand in cyber warfare. Yet, Ms Shemetovets suggested that might miss the point. At the crux of all their hacking efforts, Ms Shemetovets said there is one goal: 'One country cannot kill the citizens of another without consequences. We are showing Russians who are responsible for this war and we are bringing it home.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
As the world hurtles ever closer to nuclear oblivion, where is the opposition?
Nuclear weapons – their lethal menace, dark history and future spread – are back in the headlines again and, as usual, the news is worrying, bordering on desperate. Russia's decision last week to formally abandon the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty banning medium- and short-range nuclear missiles completes the demolition of a key pillar of global arms control. It will accelerate an already frantic nuclear arms race in Europe and Asia at a moment when US and Russian leaders are taunting each other like schoolboys. Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, has repeatedly threatened the west with nuclear weapons during his war in Ukraine. Last November, Russian forces fired their new Oreshnik hypersonic, nuclear-capable intermediate-range missile at Dnipro. It travels 'like a meteorite' at 10 times the speed of sound and can reach any city in Europe, Putin boasted – which, if true, is a clear INF violation. Moscow blames its decision to ditch the treaty on hostile Nato actions. Yet it has long bypassed it in practice, notably by basing missiles in Kaliningrad, the Russian exclave on the Baltic sea, and Belarus. That said, Russia has a point about Nato. Donald Trump first reneged on the INF treaty way back in 2018. The subsequent huge buildup of mainly US-produced nuclear-capable missiles, launchers, planes and bombs in European Nato states has understandably alarmed Moscow. It should alarm Europeans, too. In the 1980s, deployments of US Pershing and cruise missiles sparked passionate protests across the continent. In contrast, today's ominous tick-tocking of the Doomsday Clock, closer than ever to catastrophe at 89 seconds to midnight, is mostly accompanied by eerie silence. Trump's melodramatic claim last week to have moved US nuclear submarines closer to Russia came in response to crude threats from the former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, a notorious Putin stooge. It was another chilling moment. But this puerile standoff will have served a useful purpose if it alerts slumbering European public opinion to the growing risk of nuclear confrontation. Maybe people have grown complacent; maybe they have too many other worries. Maybe governments such as Britain's, suspected of secretly stashing US nuclear gravity bombs at an East Anglian airbase, are again failing to tell the truth. (The UK government refuses to say whether or not American nukes are now at RAF Lakenheath.) Whatever the reason, it falls to the children of the cold war – to the daughters of Greenham Common, to the heirs of ban-the-bomb protesters, to CND's indefatigable campaigners – to more loudly warn: this way lies extinction. Yet why is it that they alone sound the tocsin? It's all happening again, only this time it's worse, and everyone's a target. If unchecked, today's vastly more powerful nukes could turn the planet into a universal killing field. Last week's ceremonies marking the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings should be seen as a warning as well as a reminder. The nuclear weapons buildup in Europe proceeds apace. The US already stores nuclear bombs in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. Now the UK, too, has offered facilities – and is buying nuclear-capable fighter jets. Germany will host Tomahawk cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles next year. The US is expanding missile bases in Poland and Romania. Nato countries such as Denmark and Norway have joined missile exercises aimed, for example, at establishing 'control' of the Baltic. All this is justified in the name of self-defence, principally against Putin's Russia. Likewise, Nato's decision in June to raise national defence budgets to 5% of GDP. The global picture is no less disturbing. The nine nuclear-armed states – Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the US – spent $100.2bn, or $3,169 a second, on nuclear weapons last year, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) reported. That's up 11% on 2023. Under Trump's proposed 2026 budget plan, the US, already by far the biggest spender, will increase funding for its nuclear forces, including the new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, by 26% to $87bn. Doing its bit for global insecurity, China has more than doubled its nuclear stockpile since 2020, to 500 warheads. Who can doubt where all this is leading? For the first time since the cold war, Europe, Asia and the Middle East are being transformed into potential nuclear battlegrounds, with the difference, now, that atomic bombs and missiles are viewed not as deterrents but as offensive, war-winning weapons. The proliferation of lower-yield, tactical warheads supposedly makes 'limited' nuclear warfare possible. Once that red line is crossed, an unstoppable chain reaction may ensue. The collapse of arms-control agreements – the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New Start) will be next to lapse in February 2026 – is destroying safety nets. Signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty are bound 'in good faith' to gradually disarm; instead, they are rapidly rearming. Dehumanised AI systems may raise the risk of accidental Armageddon. Rogue states such as Israel and North Korea constantly push the boundaries. Trump's impetuosity and Putin's psychosis increase the sense of living in a global shooting gallery. It might have been very different. In June 1945, a group of University of Chicago nuclear physicists led by James Franck told President Harry Truman that an unannounced atomic bomb attack on Japan was 'inadvisable'. Detonating the new weapon would trigger an uncontrollable worldwide arms race, they predicted. Their warnings were rejected, their report suppressed. Now, the UN is trying again. In line with the 2021 treaty outlawing nuclear weapons, a high-powered, international scientific panel was tasked last month with examining 'the physical effects and societal consequences' of nuclear war 'on a local, regional and planetary scale'. The challenge is formidable, the outcome uncertain. But someone, somehow, somewhere must call a halt to the madness. It is still just possible to hope that, unlike in 1945, wiser counsels will prevail. Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator
