Minister 'not going to speculate' on alleged UK involvement in Ukrainian drone attack
More than a hundred drones were used to attack sites inside Russia over the weekend, leading to more than 40 warplanes being destroyed.
Speaking to The World With Yalda Hakim on Sky News following the attack, Russia's UK ambassador warned it could risk escalating the conflict to "World War III".
5:58
Andrei Kelin pointed the finger at the UK because of the nature of the strike.
"[This] kind of attack involves, of course, provision of very high technology, so-called geospaced data, which only can be done by those who have it in possession. And this is London and Washington," he told Hakim.
"I don't believe that America [is involved], that has been denied by President Trump, definitely, but it has not been denied by London.
"We perfectly know how much London is involved, how deeply British forces are involved in working together with Ukraine."
Asked if the UK had provided Ukraine with this technology, Steve Reed, the environment secretary, told Sky News: "I'm not going to speculate on something when I don't know what the facts were."
He said that "we as a government, cross-party actually, are standing foursquare alongside Ukraine as they fight - try to defend themselves - against a brutal, unprovoked and illegal attack and invasion".
Mr Reed added: "We want there to be peace talks. We want this conflict to end. But it's quite right that we should support Ukraine."
Challenged if this escalation could risk Britain getting sucked into the conflict with Russia more directly, the cabinet minister responded: "I do know that the people of this country and the government of this country, want to stand alongside Ukraine.
"We need peace to happen in that region, we can't allow Russia to get away with invading any more countries."
It comes at a time of escalating tensions in the region, with both Russia and Ukraine upping their attacks. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said his country's drone strikes at the weekend "will undoubtedly be in history books".
3:55
The blow is seen as one of the most daring of the war so far, though the US estimated only around 10 Russian bombers were blown up - and Russia said none were.
Overnight, Russia claimed it downed 174 Ukrainian drones and three cruise missiles across the country.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian authorities said Russia attacked towns and cities across Ukraine overnight.
Mr Zelenskyy said the assault was formed of more than 400 drones and 40 missiles.
2:37
US President Donald Trump had urged Mr Putin not to retaliate on Thursday. He told reporters: "I don't like it, I said don't do it, you shouldn't do it, you should stop it."
In response to the allegations of British involvement, a Downing Street spokesperson said: "We never comment on operational matters at home or abroad."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Notting Hill face-recognition technology will be used without bias
Metropolitan Police boss Sir Mark Rowley has said live facial recognition (LFR) technology will be used without bias amid concerns about it being deployed at this year's Notting Hill Carnival. In a letter to the commissioner, 11 groups had said the technology is a 'mass surveillance tool that treats all carnival-goers as potential suspects' and has 'no place at one of London's biggest cultural celebrations'. It also said that LFR technology was 'less accurate for women and people of colour' in certain settings. Responding to the concerns, Sir Mark said the technology will help locate any dangerous individuals attending Notting Hill carnival over the August bank holiday weekend. He wrote that when the technology was used at the carnival in 2016 and 2017, it 'did not build public confidence', but has since 'significantly improved' and now performs to a 'much higher standard'. Sir Mark acknowledged concerns about bias in facial recognition technology, adding that the force has selected the algorithm it uses 'with care' and knows how to use it in a non-discriminatory way. It comes after the letter, signed by groups including Liberty and Big Brother Watch, said there is 'no clear legal basis' for Scotland Yard's use of LFR. The letter added: 'Notting Hill Carnival is an event that specifically celebrates the British African Caribbean community, yet the MPS (Metropolitan Police Service) is choosing to use a technology with a well-documented history of inaccurate outcomes and racial bias.' Rebecca Vincent, interim director at Big Brother Watch, said she is 'deeply disappointed' that the Met 'has chosen to dig its heels in' after the call to scrap the 'Orwellian' technology. She added: 'We all want criminals off the streets, but turning (the) carnival into a mass police line-up is not the way to do it.' About 7,000 officers and staff will be deployed each day over the weekend. LFR cameras will be used by police at the carnival to search for people who are marked as being wanted on the police national computer. Meanwhile, a UK retail facial recognition system has reported its highest-ever monthly total of suspect alerts, its operators say. In July 2025, Facewatch sent 43,602 alerts to subscriber retail stores – the equivalent of more than 10,000 suspects flagged every week for the first time and a 134.8% increase compared to July 2024 (18,564). Over the 12 months to July 31, Facewatch said it recorded 407,771 alerts in total, with current live data already showing the rising trend continuing into August. Nick Fisher, chief executive of Facewatch, said: 'July's record numbers are a further stark warning that retailers and their employees are facing unprecedented levels of criminal activity, including violent and aggressive behaviour.' A spokeswoman for Big Brother Watch said: 'This technology turns shoppers into walking barcodes and makes us a nation of suspects, with devastating consequences for people's lives when it inevitably makes mistakes.'
Daily Mirror
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
What happens next as Donald Trump plans Putin-Zelensky talks over Ukraine war
Donald Trump has claimed to be organising a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky in an attempt to reach a peace deal. The Mirror looks at what could happen next Keir Starmer said today European and US leaders are drawing up "robust" plans to defend Ukraine if a peace deal is struck with Moscow. Less than 24 hours after crunch White House talks, the Prime Minister and French President Emmanuel Macron chaired a meeting of the 'Coalition of the Willing'. Earlier this year Mr Starmer insisted that Britain is prepared to put boots on the ground and planes in the air in the event of a deal to end the three-year conflict. After the meeting wrapped up, A No10 spokesman said the PM had told those on the call "there was a real sense of unity and shared goal of securing a just and lasting peace for Ukraine" during meetings with President Trump. READ MORE: Donald Trump issues Putin 'VERY severe consequences' warning if Ukraine war doesn't end The PM also said the Coalition's military planning teams will "meet with their US counterparts in the coming days to further strengthen plans to deliver robust security guarantees and prepare for the deployment of a reassurance force if the hostilities ended". Here The Mirror looks at what could happen next. What happened at the White House? European leaders flanked Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky for crunch talks at the White House on Monday evening in an unprecedented show of unity. Donald Trump updated them on the US-Russia summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday where the Russian tyrant was given the red-carpet treatment. European allies had feared a repeat of the Ukrainian wartime leader's first visit to the Oval Office back in February where he was ambushed by Mr Trump and Vice President, JD Vance. But Monday's high-stakes meeting was a far more cordial affair with promises of further talks. Keir Starmer left the White House saying there had been a 'real significant breakthrough' in security guarantees to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal. The Prime Minister also said there had been 'real movement' on the next stage of negotiations. What happens next? One of the key takeaways from Monday's meeting was Mr Trump's claim to be brokering a one-to-one meeting between Ukraine's Zelensky and Mr Putin. If the meeting goes ahead - and it's a big if - it will only be the second time the pair have met and the first since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine back in February 2022. READ MORE: The German Chancellor has suggested the meeting could take place within two weeks - but there has been no public commitment from the Kremlin so far. The French President, Emmanuel Macron, has suggested they should meet in a 'neutral country' and said he was pushing for Geneva, in Switzerland. The US President has then proposed a 'trilateral' meeting to follow - between the United States, Russia and Ukraine to discuss next steps. What did the 'Coalition of the Willing' discuss? European leaders are busy at work on military planning in the event of a peace deal. A group of 30-plus nations - the Coalition of the Willing - have signed up to help defend Ukraine if a deal is struck. Its aim is to act as a deterrent for future attacks from Moscow. Keir Starmer has previously said he is willing to put UK troops on the ground and planes in the sky as part of any peacekeeping force in Ukraine. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister and Mr Macron updated the countries on talks at the White House as they chaired a meeting of the group. During the meeting Mr Starmer said military planning teams will soon meet with US teams to 'strengthen plans to deliver robust security guarantees' to Ukraine. What is the US prepared to do? European allies have long insisted the US is vital to guaranteeing Ukraine's security. Donald Trump swerved a question in the Oval Office on Monday on whether the US would be willing to put boots on the ground in Ukraine to help secure any peace deal. He suggested on Tuesday the US would offer air support to Ukraine, bragging that there was no other country with the 'kind of stuff we have'. Will there be a peace deal between Moscow and Kyiv? Downing Street has always insisted Putin has never been serious about the prospect of peace. That appeared evident when Moscow's drones and missiles rained down on Ukraine - even as European leaders met at the White House to discuss the possibility of an end to three-year war. Reports also suggested Putin's price for peace would be for Ukraine to hand over land the Kremlin does not occupy - something Mr Zelensky has dismissed. The US President himself said on Tuesday it is 'possible he [Putin] doesn't want to make a deal'. The coming weeks will be crucial but it is clear European leaders are pushing to ramp up sanctions to turn the screws on Moscow's war machine once again if talks collapse.
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The British Right should put Kent before Kyiv
Shortly after the local elections, in which the Conservative Party suffered one of its worst electoral defeats in living memory, I addressed a small group of shell-shocked Tories and warned them that the results indicated their party faced an existential challenge unlike any it had faced in its long history. To my astonishment, the post-speech discussion veered instantly towards the war in Ukraine and the US vice-president's perceived incivility towards President Zelensky. Momentarily losing my composure, I accused them of suffering from 'Ukraine Brain' and argued that polling in the run-up to the elections had made it unambiguously clear that the British people would rather its leaders prioritise 'the defence of Kent over the defence of Kiev [sic]'. There followed a stunned silence that was broken eventually by an aggressively whispered ' Kyiv.' The furious intensity with which so many Tories of a particular age follow every twist and turn of the Russia-Ukraine conflict – even when staring in the face of electoral oblivion – can be hard to understand. Perhaps the most plausible explanation is that it is psychological displacement, a way to sidestep the spectre of national decline by chasing the phantom of a geopolitical influence that has long since faded. The incident returned to my mind when reading Charles Moore's bracing column last weekend, in which he warned that National Conservatives like the US vice-president and myself were, as the headline theatrically put it, flirting with 'a perverted patriotism that may yet lead to neo-fascism'. In a Gallic modulation of Godwin's Law, Moore claimed he had detected an echo of the Vichy slogan ' Famille, Travail, Patrie ' ('Family, Work, Country') in the title of a speech I had given – 'Faith, Family, Flag, Freedom' – in which I argued that the New Right should adopt a version of Augustine's ordo amoris as the organising principle for a conservative politics of home and belonging. I did not mention Ukraine or Russia once, but my discussion of the importance of family and nationhood at a major conservative conference was to his mind evidence that I was a Pétainiste and so, by extension, a Poutiniste. He then cited my accurate observation that more people face penalties for free speech in Britain than in Russia as proof of my sympathy for the latter, when my point was to underscore the severity of Britain's free-speech crisis by comparing it to the most notoriously oppressive regime I could think of. (And, in any event, to note that X is worse than Y in respect of Z is not to endorse Y in any respect.) Baffled though I was by his reasoning, I found it hard to disagree with Moore's claim that a tension is indeed emerging across the Western world on the Right, on the neuralgic question of how to weigh national interest against risky and costly involvement in faraway conflicts. He was right too to note that the issue has become a key point of contention among National Conservatives, a global movement of the New Right numbering thousands of Right-wing politicians, academics, and commentators from dozens of countries. Where he went wrong was thinking that there is a single leading figure in the movement who does not unequivocally condemn Russia's unprovoked violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, or salute the extraordinary courage that nation has shown in defending itself against Putin's shameless aggression. Some view support for Ukraine as a moral and strategic stand against authoritarianism and are convinced that appeasement through negotiations with Russia will only embolden further aggression. Others argue that Western support is prolonging an unwinnable war and inflicting far greater suffering and destruction on Ukraine than might have been avoided had peace negotiations been pursued more vigorously early on. The debate highlights the principled realism of the New Right, a realism that tries to balance the claims of justice with the competing priorities of nations affected in different ways and to different degrees by geopolitical conflict. Regrettably, that is an approach that seems to enrage the Old Right, which insists on refracting almost every geopolitical crisis through the prism of the 1930s and 1940s. Steeped in the post-war myths of British exceptionalism – Chamberlain's folly, Churchill's heroism, the grit of the Blitz – they insist on treating Putin as Hitler, Zelensky as Churchill, Ukraine as Poland, and any pursuit of peaceful resolution as the appeasement of a Chamberlain or the collaboration of a Pétain. This mindset – 'World War Two Brain,' in the idiolect of the Right-wing Zoomers who are most mystified by it – motivates hopelessly muddled thinking and ignores the realpolitik of Russia's longstanding paranoia over Nato, the conflict's devastating effects on European energy prices, and the disastrous realignment of Russia with China. It is fuelling a confrontation that is inflicting damage on Ukraine from which it will take decades to recover, it is straining Britain's resources amidst a flurry of domestic challenges unprecedented in living memory, and it is demonising voices calling for peace and restraint. Thankfully, this is a mindset that the US vice-president unequivocally rejects. He understands that dewy-eyed idealism and anachronistic analogies are a recipe for conflict and instability, and that America must pursue peace through strength as it navigates a multipolar world that could not be more different from the geopolitical landscape that vanished nearly a century ago. As for the emerging figures on Britain's New Right, it is they alone who seem to understand that the time has come to rally behind politicians who will put Kent before Kyiv, Glasgow before Gaza, and Bournemouth before Beijing.
