Ukrainian boxer Oleksandr Usyk sends invitation to Trump over Russian war
Oleksandr Usyk has challenged Donald Trump to spend a week in Ukraine, at his home, to witness firsthand the realities of the conflict.
The invitation comes after Trump claimed he could resolve the war "in 24 hours" before became US president. With the conflict now past its third year since Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion, Usyk believes Trump needs a deeper understanding of the situation.
Speaking to the BBC, Usyk, the current WBC, WBA, and WBO heavyweight champion, painted a stark picture of life in Ukraine. He stated, "I advise American president Donald Trump to go to Ukraine and live in my house for one week, only one week."
'Watch what is going on. Every night there are bombs, rockets flying above my house.
'People who don't live in Ukraine, who don't support Ukraine, who haven't watched what's going on, don't understand what's going on.'
Usyk, who has won all 23 of his professional contests, is currently in a training camp to prepare for a rematch with IBF champion Daniel Dubois on 19 July at Wembley Stadium.
'I worry about what happens in my country,' 38-year-old Usyk added.
'It's very bad because Ukrainian people have died. It's not just military people – children, women, grandmothers and grandfathers, too.'
Russian forces launched two devastating attacks on Kharkiv, Ukraine's second-largest city, on Saturday.
President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Vladimir Putin of "pure terrorism" following the strikes, which allegedly targeted civilians.
The initial overnight missile and drone strikes, described by Kharkiv's mayor Ihor Terekhov as the "most powerful attack" of the war so far, resulted in at least three deaths and 21 injuries, including a six-week-old baby and a 14-year-old girl.
Kharkiv was struck again later on Saturday afternoon with guided aerial bombs, killing at least one person and wounding more than 40 others.
Zelensky condemned the attacks, saying: "This is another savage killing. Aerial bombs were dropped on civilians in the city – there is even a children's railway nearby... This makes no military sense.
'This is pure terrorism. This cannot be turned a blind eye to. And this is not some kind of game. Every day, we lose our people only because Russia feels it can act with impunity. Russia must be firmly forced into peace."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
3 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.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Serbia's Moscow-friendly president visits Ukraine but refuses to sign 'anti-Russian' declaration
Serbia's Russia-friendly leader made a surprise visit to Ukraine on Wednesday for a summit on strengthening European support for Kyiv 's fight against Russian aggression, but he refused to sign a joint declaration calling for tougher sanctions against Moscow. It was President Aleksandar Vucic 's first visit to Ukraine since taking office over a decade ago. He attended the summit between Ukraine and 12 Southeast European states in Odesa. While saying he wants Serbia to join the European Union, Vucic has maintained close relations with Russia. He defied EU warnings and attended Russia's Victory Day parade in Moscow on May 9. EU officials said it was inappropriate for Vucic to stand side by side with President Vladimir Putin, considering Moscow's invasion of Ukraine. Vucic told Serbian media on Wednesday that the signing of the 'anti-Russian' declaration wasn't 'easy and simple for us," and he abstained, noting its mention of sanctions as one reason. 'But I would like to once again express my full gratitude to President (Volodymyr) Zelenskyy for the exceptional hospitality here in Odessa," Vucic added. Serbia, which relies almost fully on Russia for its energy supplies, has refused to join Western sanctions on Russia imposed after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, though it officially supports Ukraine's territorial integrity. Vucic's visit to Ukraine comes weeks after Russia accused Serbia of exporting arms to Ukraine, calling it a stab in the back by its longtime Balkan ally. The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service alleged that the exports were going through NATO intermediaries, 'primarily the Czech Republic, Poland and Bulgaria. Recently, exotic options involving African states have also been used for this purpose.' Serbia has neither admitted nor denied reports that it has been providing ammunition to Ukraine, but it has promised Russia it would open an official investigation into the matter.
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Rachel Reeves may have just killed Nato
There will be a moment, some time in the next few years when the US will genuinely consider leaving Nato. And if it does, we should not be surprised. It wasn't as if they didn't warn the rest of us. About the only thing Donald Trump and Barack Obama ever agreed on was that Europe must make a much bigger financial contribution to Nato. In 2014 at the Cardiff Summit, the Treasury furiously resisted the demands. All sorts of tricks were pulled and definitions were stretched to get the UK to 2 per cent of GDP. The Americans, in their polite way, asked nicely. They've been asking ever since. Because as they command all Allied forces in Nato they knew the truth about the state of everyone's forces. While public scrutiny was kept at bay using secrecy and 'operational reasons', SACEUR – Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the military boss of Nato and always an American – grew increasingly concerned as Russia got more and more aggressive. And still European capitals, including London, carried on cutting. Not until 2019 and Boris Johnson did the Ministry of Defence turn the corner with real money and real reform. Previous Conservative and Labour governments had used the Red Arrows and Trooping the Colour to pretend that all was well. But Ukraine found us out. Nato and the international community needed to act: and as we examined our inventory ministers could see just how weak we had become. I remember when we debated gifting the AS90 155mm long range artillery to Ukraine I was informed that while we had 73 guns on the books only 19 worked! Or when I tried to increase the number of tanks to be upgraded to Challenger 3s I was told it was impossible because so many of our tanks had already been stripped of parts to keep others running. You might say that I should have known all that detail on day one. But you'd be surprised how well the services can hide bad news when they want to. Last week we witnessed Labour's first defence review for more than 20 years. It was heralded by re‑announcing many Conservative procurements. As a review it was weak: clearly budget-led not threat led. The big decisions had been made beforehand, and without 3 per cent by 2030 the review would clearly be hollow at birth, as it was. It was also an insult to the men and women of the Armed Forces and the equivalent of sticking two fingers up to the White House. Today's spending review confirmed what we all feared. Rather than making tough decisions on public spending priorities, Rachel Reeves chose to use Treasury tricks to deceive us all. The Government has folded in intelligence spending, Ukraine spending and even Foreign Office money to the notional 'defence' figure. The result is that core defence spending will not even be 2.5 per cent as promised: not even close. There was no path to 3 per cent either. It was just a con all along. If John Healey spent as much time battling the Treasury as he did repeating my government's plans or deceiving the public with spin then he might have had some success. But it is clear he is Labour first and UK defence second. How dare this Government avoid the solemn duty to defend our shores and properly equip the men and women of the armed forces. Labour was the government that sent our troops to war in Snatch Land Rovers and they are destined to repeat that betrayal. Next week Donald Trump will arrive in Holland for the Nato summit. He will bring with him a message that we must all spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on actual defence, not counting spies or diplomats. The Donald will not be bought off with Treasury tricks. I was in Washington last week and some very senior people in the White House and the Pentagon genuinely believe Trump may leave Nato in two years. They are serious. So we need to either demonstrate we are pulling our weight or we need to compensate for the 70 per cent loss to Nato capability if the US leaves. Based on Rachel Reeves's efforts we will do neither. History may point to this as the moment when the UK surrendered its place in Nato and triggered its demise. And all the while, Putin and Xi will be licking their lips. Waiting for their moment. For that little bit of Estonia or Finland. The best Donald Trump can do next week is say that Nato is a club with a subscription. No money should mean no entry.
