Ukraine cause akin to Second World War Allies, Starmer says before Alaska talks
Speaking in Downing Street, Sir Keir said: 'I sat on this terrace this very morning with President (Volodymyr) Zelensky, who is fighting for the same values as we were fighting for. And so when we say never forget, we must pass on the stories of those who have gone before us.'
It came as US President Donald Trump suggested European leaders could be invited to a second meeting if the summit is successful, which could pave the way to peace in the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Mr Trump will meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday at the summit which could see the drawing up of peace terms for Ukraine.
Mr Trump and Sir Keir have spoken optimistically about a potential ceasefire, including at a virtual meeting of Ukrainian allies on Wednesday.
Leaders of the European-led 'coalition of the willing' could then join talks between Mr Trump, Mr Putin and Ukrainian leader Mr Zelensky to end the war.
The possibility was raised by Mr Trump in the White House on Thursday, before he flew to Anchorage where he will meet Mr Putin.
He said: 'We have a meeting with President (Vladimir) Putin tomorrow, I think it's going to be a good meeting.
'But the more important meeting will be the second meeting that we're having. We're going to have a meeting with President Putin, President Zelensky, myself, and maybe we'll bring some of the European leaders along. Maybe not.'
The PA news agency understands that Sir Keir will attend a meeting if he is invited. He has been a central player in the coalition group which also includes French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.
Mr Trump added: 'I think President Putin will make peace. I think President Zelensky will make peace. We'll see if they can get along. And if they can it will be great.'
The head of the British armed forces, Sir Tony Radakin, said the West should not be 'cowed' by Mr Putin and praised the strength of Britain and Nato.
Writing in the Telegraph on the anniversary of VJ Day, he said: 'Putin doesn't want a war with Nato because he would lose. So we should not be cowed by his rhetoric or his campaign of sabotage, outrageous as it may be.
'The one weapon that is most needed in our arsenal is confidence. Despite the global instability, Britain is secure at home. Nato is strong. Russia is weak. It is not complacent to point this out.'
Sir Keir met Mr Zelensky in Downing Street on Thursday. They both said there was 'strong resolve' for peace in Ukraine.
The two leaders embraced as the red carpet was rolled out for Mr Zelensky's arrival in Downing Street, and they later discussed the conflict.
They expressed cautious optimism about the prospect of a truce 'as long as Putin takes action to prove he is serious' about ending the war, a Downing Street statement said.
In a separate statement, Mr Zelensky said there had been discussions about the security guarantees required to make any deal 'truly durable if the United States succeeds in pressing Russia to stop the killing'.
But concerns linger over the prospect of Kyiv being excluded from negotiations over its own future, and pressured to cede territory, after Mr Trump suggested any agreement may need to involve 'swapping of land'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Spectator
How Ireland became a haven for Hezbollah's cocaine
In the end, it was a combination of the Irish weather, European maritime intelligence and engine trouble that scuppered a massive Hezbollah-cartel drugs shipment. The Irish government's failure to patrol the coastline has made Ireland a safe harbour for the fast-evolving drug trafficking network merging terror and narco finance. Hezbollah's involvement in the transnational drugs trade to fund its war against Israel is well documented, with the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam its main conduit into Europe. But evidence from an Irish court last month revealing 'a major Iranian nexus' in a cocaine ship off Ireland's coast indicates that Hezbollah now sees Ireland's under patrolled coastline as a 'point of least resistance' into the lucrative European market. One security expert is reported as saying Ireland was being targeted for 'tonnage loads by Iranian Hezbollah.' In September 2023, a Panamanian registered cargo ship, MV Matthew, set sail from Venezuela heading for Irish waters. It had 2.2 tonnes of pure cocaine on board, funded by an alliance of Hezbollah, the Dubai-based Irish Kinahan crime gang and a South American cartel. The ship was to rendezvous at sea with a fishing trawler, the Castlemore, which would drop the drugs ashore at isolated coves for onward transport to the UK and Europe. Unknown to the Iranian captain, Soheil Jelveh, the European Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre (MAOC), was tracking the ship across the Atlantic and tipped off the Irish authorities. But with just one large vessel to actively patrol a coastline ten times the size of Ireland's land mass and depleted navy personnel, monitoring and intercepting both ships was always going to be challenging. So many things could have gone wrong. Luckily, the Irish weather lent a hand. A raging storm hit Ireland the day the Castlemore was due to rendezvous with MV Matthew anchored 13 nautical miles off the east coast. After two failed attempts in storm force winds and swelling seas, the Castlemore ran aground. Its crew put in a distress call to the Irish coastguard, setting a train of action in motion. The eventual capture of the Matthew was like a scene from an action movie. Over the course of two days the ship played a game of cat and mouse with the Navy ship, LE William Butler Yeats, engaging in evasive manoeuvres in lashing winds and swelling seas. The Iranian captain, Soheil Jelveh refused to comply with orders from the Yeats, saying the ship had developed engine trouble. In reality, he was receiving orders from a Dubai-based individual, 'Captain Noah,' a shadowy figure linked to Hezbollah, to change course and head for Sierra Leone. The Matthew was successfully captured after Army Rangers were lowered onto the deck from a rope suspended by a helicopter hovering overhead and the ship was stormed. The 2.2 tonnes of pure cocaine was valued at £136 million, rising to £650 million when cut, making it the largest drugs seizure in the history of the state. Jelveh, Iranian crewman, Saeid Hassani, and six other crewmen were jailed for a total of 129 years at the non-jury Special Criminal Court last month. It was a stunning success for the defence forces, thanks to the skill and bravery of the individual members involved. But it could have gone badly wrong. Just two of eight Irish navy vessels are currently in operation; the rest are tied up at Cork harbour because of insufficient personal. A former officer in the Army Ranger Wing, Cathal Berry, has said: 'By not resourcing our Navy we have handed the keys of the country over to the drugs cartels to do with us as they wish. It is painful to see €250 million of naval vessels tied up at Cork Harbour unable to be put at sea due to a lack of crew.' Irish and international law agencies are now examining the ship's telecommunication equipment to access the extent of the Iranian-Hezbollah involvement. There is little doubt Hezbollah is trying to increase its drug activity because it is under financial pressure. As one international law enforcement official put it: 'When you are getting hit the way Hezbollah is getting hit right now by the Israelis, the only way you can make money exponentially fast is with drugs.' It is extremely unlikely that the Hezbollah-cartel alliance would have risked such a massive investment on the first run. It is a safe bet that Matthew was not the first or the last shipment to use Ireland as a gateway to the lucrative European market. Former head of MAOC, Michael O'Sullivan, said: 'The Irish Navy is very strapped and that has not gone unnoticed. We cover an area almost ten times the size of Ireland. And time is of the essence. If you find where a vessel has left and you're trying to track where it is, it's not gonna stay in one place, it's not going to go in the one direction… You have got to get somebody out there to get a sighting of it. If you don't find it, it's gone.' The implication is clear: Ireland is not just a strategic waypoint, but an exposed hub in a fast-evolving trafficking network merging terror and narco finance for which the depleted Irish Navy is ill equipped to deal with.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Mounting Russian deaths will not deter Putin
In June, a grim milestone passed. The Ministry of Defence said that one million Russians had been killed or wounded in Ukraine. The Guardian reported that fatalities alone are 'five times higher than the combined death toll from all Soviet and Russian wars' after 1945. Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, stated that Russia had already lost '100,000 soldiers – dead – not injured' this year. Yet the unmentionable odour of death offends the Russian night. In Moscow, the milestone passed without official remark. The soaring butcher's bill has not, as some naively still hope, been matched by large-scale public unrest. Although, like the Soviet war in Afghanistan, Putin's war in Ukraine is an open wound slowly bleeding the country white, there is no comparable anti-war movement, mass protests, or anguished appeals from the mothers of soldiers. The wars in Ukraine and Afghanistan differ in their nature. Russia's modern digital dictatorship is not the Soviet Union of the 1980s 'collapsing under the weight of its own internal contradictions'. The Kremlin has effectively managed the impact of unprecedented losses by carrots and sticks or, as Russians put it, by gingerbread and whips. A fundamental difference with previous conflicts in Afghanistan and Chechnya is that Russia's war in Ukraine is being fought by volunteers, largely motivated by the prospect of life-changing amounts of money, and not by conscripts sent to fight against their will. In some regions, the gingerbread of signing on bonuses for new recruits now exceeds a year's salary. Generational wealth is promised for the families of the dead in return for their silence. This 'torrent of money' has transformed poorer regions, even if growing economic difficulties have seen bonuses being trimmed. The sugar rush of wartime spending on defence equipment has also increased real wages for many Russians, increasing living standards sharply. The Kremlin learned that its partial mobilisation of 300,000 mainly poor men in 2022 was a shocking and deeply unpopular experiment not to be repeated. With these troops now mostly dead, and the war presented as 'special' and faraway, Russians are much less interested in the fate of those who went to fight for the money. Conscripts are not sent to the front. Recruitment is spread across Russia's regions to prevent potent pockets of protest. To sweeten support for the conflict, the Kremlin relentlessly hammers a jingoistic narrative that Russia had no alternative to war, that it is fighting the collective West, and that Putin's 'special military operation' continues the Soviet struggle against Nazism. For example, volunteer recruitment went up after Ukraine's incursion into Russia's Kursk region prompted a patriotic response. Relatives are encouraged to view the death of their relatives as a noble blood sacrifice for this national cause, and not – as they really are – casualties of Putin's elderly rubbish. To further the ideological struggle and develop the next generation of recruits, the state seeks to recapture Russia's young by deepening 'patriotic' education programmes, re-writing history, re-using military symbols from the past, and re-forming Soviet-style youth movements. As one Russian expert told me, from the start the Kremlin has been acutely aware of Bonapartism: a charismatic general converting military success into political power. Officers at the front have been sacked for questioning the wisdom of launching costly assaults in order to move Putin's drinks cabinet ten centimetres closer to Kyiv. As noted by one Russian sociologist, no senior military officer has been used as a propaganda figure nor attained any kind of personal popularity in society; 'state propaganda praises only private soldiers who have taken part in the war, preferably those who have died in the process'. This being Russia, the whip has been wielded enthusiastically. Early anti-war protests were quickly squished and opponents to the war driven into exile, imprisoned, or pressed into military service. The climate of fear is fuelled by public prosecutions severe sentences. For example, Olga Komleva, a journalist and associate of the late Alexey Navalny, himself killed by the state in prison, was recently sentenced to 12 years for her anti-war activities. Civil society, already a weakened force in Russia, has been further cowed by being declared as agents of foreign powers. The Committees of Soldiers' Mothers were beaten into submission many years ago and are not the force they were in the 1980s. In their place, the Kremlin has created loyal simulacra that slavishly support the government line. Veterans' organisations, including those originally formed to support those who fought in Afghanistan, have been co-opted for the cause. As a result of these carrots and sticks, Russians remain generally indifferent to the war but with – from the Kremlin's perspective – a sufficient minority of genuine supporters. The public are more concerned about their own financial situation, criminalisation of society, and the potential impact of returning veterans than about the number of dead. Self-interest and fear have nixed the anti-war movement. The number of new recruits being sent to Ukraine still exceed battlefield losses. Three years into the war, it is unwise to hope for a deus ex machina of large-scale public unrest, or strain to discern ironic points of light of potential anti-war opposition inside Russia. As Oleg Orlov, a veteran campaigner for civil liberties put it: 'The opposition is completely crushed, the remnants of any freedoms are liquidated, [and] the words 'liberalism' and 'democracy' are dangerous to pronounce publicly without adding a curse word'. Instead, the war should be brought home to Russians by cranking up economic pressure on the country, its foreign enablers and collaborators while assisting Ukraine to strike military targets within its borders.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Independence won't come to a nation feart of itself
Thing is, water doesn't really do borders. Seemingly, this (and much else) seems to have escaped the US president, who thought he could make the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of America with a swift stroke of a handy Sharpie. (Such is his legendary vindictiveness; he subsequently banned a news agency from White House press conferences following their refusal to sign up to this geographical lunacy!) In truth, land borders are always more problematic. Just ask Ukraine. Or Canada, for that matter, given Donald Trump's sudden enthusiasm for turning an entire country into nothing more than a US state. READ MORE: Tree-planting is not climate change fix, report urges And land borders became rather more difficult for Scotland when, despite voting Remain – as did Northern Ireland – we found ourselves adjoining a non-EU country in the shape of England. The difference with NI obviously is that they are now adjoining an EU country in the south unlike our being yoked to EU refuseniks; what Rishi Sunak rather infelicitously labelled 'the best of both worlds'. Indeed, Rishi. Meanwhile, the three Baltic states nervously eye their combined 543-mile-long border with Russia, protected, sort of, by their membership of Nato. Protected too by their somewhat belated withdrawal from an agreement which meant they accessed electricity from Russia rather than the EU. And also meant Moscow called the electric shots. However, they have had to contend with a whole spate of sabotage incidents damaging pipelines and cables under the Baltic Sea. Not a peep from the Kremlin, of course, but Vlad the bad would seem to have his fingerprints all over these incidents which, oddly, only occurred after the Baltic states did a new deal with the EU. When they indicated they were leaving the Russia/Belarus one, there was also a sudden spate of social media posts alleging huge price rises and supply shortages. Neither of which came to pass. What differentiates ourselves from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is the widespread enthusiasm for independence they enjoyed at the time of severance. Mind you they already thought themselves independent at the end of the First World War until the then Soviet Union contrived to annex them. But they managed to maintain their culture and their ambitions and so Lithuania declared full independence in March 1990, while Estonia and Latvia followed in August 1991. One of the highlights of their independence movements was a giant linkage of hands across all three countries and one of the most moving, the sight of Lithuanian weans singing their anthem word perfectly despite decades of suppression. Some of these activities were labelled 'The Singing Revolution'. Would that we could orchestrate something similar. According to the current First Minister, his plan is the only one which would confer international legitimacy on declaring ourselves a separate state. Some 43 SNP branches choose to differ. It will be, to quote his party, a huge 'democratic deficit' if the annual conference body swerves a proper debate on ALL the options. The longer the wait goes on, the more impatient I become for a Scottish government to stop being super cautious and risk-averse. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: Scotland's stories are being lost as tourists focus on aesthetic posts Meanwhile, amid the publishing furore accompanying Nicola Sturgeon's memoir, not many people have cottoned on to the reasons she gives for our not having Baltic-style smeddum. She traces it back to the referendum of March 1979, when a London-based Scottish MP came up with the notorious 40% rule which said that only if 40% of the entire electorate voted Yes, could it succeed. Not only would a simple majority not suffice (although, at 51.6%, one was obtained) but effectively everyone who couldn't be bothered to vote was assumed to be a No. Sturgeon wasn't old enough to have a vote herself at that juncture but she declares in Frankly: 'The effect of this on the Scottish psyche is hard to overstate. It's always been part of the Scottish character – or at least the caricature of it – that we talk the talk much better than we walk the walk. We are full of bravado but, when push comes to shove, lack the gumption to follow through.' There will be those who would turn the same judgement on her, given the various trigger points ignored during her term of office. But the point is well made. In various tests of resolve Scotland has proved too feart to take the ultimate plunge. Maybe we won't until, Baltic-style, we construct a huge and enthusiastic majority. If we needed further proof that Scotland is indeed a goldfish bowl for frontline politicians, we need look no further than the media furore surrounding the publication of the Sturgeon memoir. How much of this is down to the publishers extracting maximum coverage for their much-anticipated book launch, and how much is self-inflicted we might never know. What is undeniable is that every jot and tittle of the former First Minister's thoughts have been minutely scrutinised and analysed. Every time she opens her mouth these days, it seems to prompt another media feeding frenzy. It was the late Margo MacDonald who declared that if every indy-minded person convinced just one other voter, the 2014 poll would have spelled victory for the Yes camp. She wasn't wrong then; she still isn't. It won't be an easy ask. There are those who are implacably opposed to breaking the Union, and nothing and nobody will dissuade them. Their views can and must be respected but, to quote a certain PM, they are not for turning. Not ever. However, there is a soggy centre who can be won over with an honest appraisal of the benefits independence might bring. Not to mention an honest look at how the statistics are continually pochled and never in our favour. There must be a similarly frank flagging up of the downsides; few countries have made an entirely seamless transition to determining their own destinies. The bumps in the road will soon enough appear. Then again, no country has ever concluded that reverting to servile status is an option. I've just been reading a book about Scottish timelines which puts all of our significant milestones into both a UK and a global context. Among much else, it reminded me what an ancient and proud nation we have been, one which long preceded the Unions of the Crowns and Parliaments. Obviously, one of our milestones was the 1707 Act of Union, which rarely, these days, feels much of a union and certainly not a partnership. In those days, the electorate consisted of feudal nobles, lesser nobles with feudal rights, and representatives from royal burghs (with varying electorates). Even so, with Jock Tamson's bairns only able to look on impotently, the majority was a mere 43. That all led to a British parliament in which 150 Scottish peers were graciously permitted to anoint 16 of their own to the Upper House, 30 MPs were to represent the counties, and a whole 15 covering all the burgh districts. As ever, the establishment looked after its own. Thus were the most powerful recipients of feudal favours able, rather modestly, to shape the new parliament. Of course, we still await the answer to the question often posed but never answered; if this is an alleged partnership of equals, how can this alleged partner extricate themselves? Not that the breath is being held.
