Ukraine ratifies strategic minerals deal with US
May 8 (Reuters) - The Ukrainian parliament ratified a milestone minerals deal with the United States on Thursday, lawmakers said.
A total of 338 parliamentarians voted in favor of ratification, and no one voted against, said Oleksandr Merezhko, head of the Ukrainian parliament's foreign affairs committee.
The agreement grants the U.S. preferential access to Ukrainian mineral resources and paves a path for possible new military aid for Kyiv, although it lacks clear security guarantees.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Zelenskiy says Russia seeks to disrupt Ukraine, Moldova, southeastern Europe
ODESA, Ukraine, June 11 (Reuters) - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Wednesday Russia was determined to sow chaos in and destroy the south of his country as well as nearby Moldova and Romania, and called for increased pressure on Moscow to prevent further military threats. Zelenskiy, addressing a conference of southeast European leaders in the Black Sea port of Odesa, said collective efforts were needed to keep Moscow from causing further disruption. "The security of Southeastern Europe and the Black Sea is indivisible ... Today, we are forced to fight not only for our country, but also for this reality to become the cornerstone of a new regional policy," Zelenskiy said on Telegram. "We are here in Odesa, a city that Russia wants to destroy, as it has destroyed countless other cities. Russian military plans are aimed at this region, and then at the borders with Moldova and Romania. We need protection now. But even more, we need long-term guarantees that this will never happen again." Odesa, site of three ports, has been a frequent target of Russian air strikes in three years of war. The city came under a massive drone attack on Monday that targeted an emergency medical building, a maternity ward and residential buildings. Much attention has focused on a possible Russian threat to Moldova, where pro-European President Maia Sandu has accused Moscow of trying to destabilise her country and unseat her. Her Party of Action and Solidarity, which holds a majority in parliament, faces a general election in September, the outcome of which could affect the president's ability to press on with a campaign to join the European Union in 2030. Ukraine has also started talks on EU membership. "For three decades, Russia has tried to keep Moldova poor and unstable in order to take full control of it," Zelenskiy said. "If Europe loses in Moldova this year, it will embolden Russia to meddle even more in your countries' affairs, taking away your resources, your sovereignty, even your history." Sandu told the conference that Moldova "knows just what hybrid war is and is prepared to share its experience". "Moldova is facing one of its most important elections. Russia wants to see Moldova turn away from Ukraine. More to the point, it wants to use Moldova against Ukraine and the EU."
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
Putin says special attention should be paid to nuclear triad in Russia's new arms programme
MOSCOW, June 11 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday that special attention in the country's new arms programme should be paid to the nuclear triad - land-based, sea-based and aircraft-launched weapons. Putin's remarks, broadcast on state television, were made at a meeting of senior officials devoted to the country's arms industry. "Undoubtedly, special attention should be paid to the nuclear triad, which has been and will remain the guarantee of Russia's sovereignty and plays a key role in upholding the balance of forces in the world," Putin said. A total of 95% of weapons in Russia's strategic nuclear forces, he said, were fully up-to-date. "This is a good indicator and, in essence, the highest among all the world's nuclear powers," he told the gathering.
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Lammy is picking a needless fight with America
The alarming revelation that 2024 recorded the highest number of global conflicts since the Second World War should be taken as an incentive to deepen ties with key allies, not fracture them. That would certainly be the response of any government committed to the defence of the realm faced with the depressing statistic that last year saw 61 conflicts taking place in 36 countries. Of these, 11 were defined as full-blown conflicts – those that claimed at least 1,000 battlefield deaths – and included the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as other less-publicised violent eruptions in Sudan, Syria, Nigeria and Ethiopia. At a time when Sir Keir Starmer is attempting to promote his national security credentials, the rising tide of conflict detailed in a report by Sweden's Uppsala University should prompt his Government to strengthen ties with key allies such as the US and Israel. Instead, by opting to target two members of the Israeli government with sanctions, Starmer has shown that he is more interested in virtue-signalling than common sense. National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich may come from the ulta-nationalist fringe of Israeli politics, but they remain important members of Israel's democratically elected government, which is one of the UK's closest allies in the Middle East. Moreover, Israel, just like Ukraine, finds itself in the vanguard of the West's deepening confrontation with two of the most potent threats it faces, in the form of Vladimir Putin's Russia and Iranian-sponsored Islamist terrorism. The UK's support for Ukraine, together with its European allies, is predicated on the understanding that Western security would be fatally compromised if Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine were to succeed. Similarly, the UK's declaration of support for Israel in the wake of the October 7 attacks in 2023 was based on the tacit acknowledgement that it was in the West's interests that Iran's backing for Hamas terrorists must not be allowed to go unchallenged, especially given the ayatollahs' fixation with developing nuclear weapons. The Labour Government's decision, therefore, to single out two prominent members of the Israeli government for public censure not only threatens to undermine relations with a key regional ally. It runs the risk of jeopardising our own national security, especially if the Israelis conclude it is no longer in their interests to share vital intelligence with the UK. Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar has already announced the Israeli cabinet will meet next week to respond to what he called an 'unacceptable decision'. The British Government's decision to pick on the two politicians is hardly surprising given its previous lamentable track record of targeting Israel, with Foreign Secretary David Lammy declaring his support for the International Criminal Court and its highly politicised move to prosecute Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes. Yet, by siding with other self-righteous, but wholly naive, administrations in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, to provoke an entirely avoidable diplomatic row with Israel, Starmer and Co have placed themselves firmly on the wrong side of history. Apart from alienating Israel, the move also risks causing a rift with the US, another key ally. America's secretary of state Marco Rubio was particularly critical of the measures imposed against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for 'inciting violence against the Palestinian people'. The sanctions 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home and end the war,' he said, urging the UK 'not to forget who the real enemy is'. Hitting two controversial Israeli politicians with sanctions might play to Labour's vociferously anti-Israel supporters, but it could prove to be a self-defeating move in terms of safeguarding our own long-term interests. In terms of the likely impact it will have on Israeli policy, the sanctions will be about as effective as Greta Thunberg's equally puerile attempt this week to break Israel's Gaza blockade with her Freedom Flotilla. At the same time they run the risk of sending a signal to Iran and other hostile regimes that the UK is more interested in embarrassing its allies than confronting its enemies. It is certainly hard to grasp the logic of why, when Western powers like the UK are preparing to confront Iran over its nuclear programme, they should choose this moment to pick a fight with Israel, Tehran's sworn enemy. The need to impose fresh sanctions against Iran was very much in evidence at this week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, when Rafael Grossi, the body's director general, confirmed three new previously undeclared nuclear sites had been identified in Iran that could be used for developing nuclear weapons. The UK is among a number of European powers that have responded by pressing for the reimposition of sanctions against Tehran. But the ayatollahs are unlikely to change course on their nuclear ambitions if they believe they share a common interest with Britain and its allies in targeting the Israelis.
