Poland's Duda arrives in Ukrainian capital Kyiv to meet Zelenskiy
WARSAW/KYIV, June 28 (Reuters) - Polish President Andrzej Duda arrived in Kyiv on Saturday for a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Duda's office said, as Kyiv aims to build support among allies at a critical juncture in its grinding war with Russia.
Duda, a vocal supporter of Ukraine whose term ends in August, was greeted at the train station by Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, who called the Polish leader "Ukraine's true friend".
Ukraine is struggling to fend off Russian advances on the battlefield and intensifying missile and drone attacks on its cities as diplomatic efforts to end the war, now in its fourth year, have faltered.
Duda's successor, President-elect Karol Nawrocki says he remains committed to helping Ukraine's defence effort but opposes Kyiv joining Western alliances such as NATO.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Starmer urged to act after Trump threatens Commonwealth ally Canada
Keir Starner is facing calls to act after Donald Trump cut off talks with Canada and threatened the Commonwealth country with more trade tariffs. Just weeks before president Trump is due to meet King Charles, Canada's official head of state, on a visit to the UK, he claimed he had 'such power' over the country but added 'I'd rather not use it.' In a move that caused market turmoil amid fears of a renewal of Trump's trade war, he said he would tell Canada the levies they will have to pay on goods entering the US '....within the next seven day period.' The call for Starmer to intervene comes after a similar diplomatic row exploded earlier this year when the PM declined to back Canada against Trump's ambitions to turn it into the 51st state of the USA. A Conservative MP in Canada and a former ambassador were among those to criticise the UK prime minister for failing to stand up for their country. The latest attack on Canada comes at a a difficult time for the Labour leader. He is hoping to woo President Trump on a historic second state visit to the UK in September, when he will meet the King, a keen champion of the Commonwealth. Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper said: "Once again, Donald Trump has shown contempt for his allies by continuing his damaging war on trade. With such an unreliable partner in the White House, the government needs to strengthen our economy, by establishing a bespoke UK-EU Customs Union, and work closer with our European and Commonwealth allies to create a coalition of the willing to end Trump's trade war." SNP MP Stephen Gethins said: 'The Trump project, just like Brexit, is about throwing up barriers to trade with our partners that will cost jobs and damage public finances. The UK needs to be building bridges with states like Canada and the EU that will help deliver sustainable economic growth. There have to be serious questions around the Labour government's judgement over the offer of a state visit to Trump.' The latest row erupted over Canada's plans for a digital services tax. In a post on Truth Social, the president complained that he had 'just been informed' of the move, which could leave some American technology companies with large bills. Trump called the plans 'a direct and blatant attack on our Country.' 'They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us, also,' he wrote, added that as a result the US was 'hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately.' Trump later claimed the US has 'a great relationship with the people of Canada' but that its government, headed by the former governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney, had made things 'very difficult'. He added: 'We don't want to do anything bad, but ... economically ... we have such power over Canada. I'd rather not use it, but they did something with our tech companies today, trying to copy Europe.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Albanian PM: We'll take every criminal back if Farage is right
Albania's prime minister has pledged to take back all his country's prisoners in the UK in an escalating row with Nigel Farage over how many of them are in jail. The Reform UK leader challenged Edi Rama on Friday to take back Albanian criminals after accusing him of hypocrisy over comments he made about Britain having become a 'dark place' after withdrawing from the EU. Mr Farage said it was hypocritical to describe the UK as a dark place when one in 50 Albanians in Britain were currently in prison in the UK. The Reform leader, who was shown on opinion polls to be the public's favourite to be the UK's next prime minister on opinion polls, urged Mr Rama to 'show some goodwill and take them all back tomorrow'. Mr Rama, who stands at 6ft 7in tall, has now taken to X to post his response, saying that if Mr Farage's figure was right, he would take all the criminals back and if wrong, he would invite him to Albania as his guest of honour as long as he promised never to badmouth the country again. 'Ooopsss… Mr Nigel Farage himself has just challenged me on the facts!' said Mr Rama in his tweet. 'What an honour – for a 'giant man', as he described me (meaning, of course, from a 'tiny country') – to earn the attention of Britain's unrivalled virtuoso of headline politics. 'He said – and I quote: 'I tell you what, Mr Rama, did you know one in 50 Albanians in Britain are in prison? So show some goodwill and take them all back tomorrow, because this is hypocrisy.' Mr Rama went on to claim Mr Farage's figure was 'bonkers' and a 'classic from the post-truth Brexit playbook'. He added that many Albanians are caught up in an 'outdated and restrictive visa system', but said their rate of criminality 'would be no higher – and likely lower than – that of the British population itself'. He continued: 'Let's both bring our numbers to the table. If your 'one in 50' claim holds water – I will personally commit to taking them all back. That's not a competing headline – it's a public pledge. 'But if your scary stat turns out to be just tabloid fuel, then no apology needed. No drama. Instead, you'll come to Albania – as my guest of honour ... And all I ask in return is the simplest public pledge from you, made while enjoying our country: next time someone badmouths Albanians, you'll be the first to tell them – in your histrionic way – not to do it again.' Ooopsss… Mr. @Nigel_Farage himself has just challenged me on the facts! What an honor — for a "giant man," as he described me (meaning, of course, from a "tiny country") — to earn the attention of Britain's unrivaled virtuoso of headline politics. He… — Edi Rama (@ediramaal) June 27, 2025 Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Farage said he would take up the challenge. 'We will hold Edi Rama to his pledge!' he said. The statistic Mr Farage cited was first reported by The Telegraph when the newspaper compiled a league table of nations based on data from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Office for National Statistics (ONS). This showed there were 10,435 foreign nationals in jails in England and Wales compared to 76,866 British nationals. Nations with fewer than 20 people in UK jails were excluded because of the low sample size. This was cross-referenced with ONS 2021 census data, from which was extracted the number of foreign nationals from each country who do not have a UK passport. There may be some margin for error as some foreign nationals could have been granted citizenship but not applied for a passport. The Albanian imprisonment rate was 232.33 per 10,000 people – or one in 50. This was calculated based on the census data showing 68,672 foreign-born Albanians lived in the UK. Excluding the 15,860 without a UK passport gives a total of some 52,000. With 1,227 in jail, it equates to two per cent of Albanians. The original spark for the row was Mr Farage's attack on Mr Rama after the socialist leader criticised post-Brexit Britain. He said Sir Keir Starmer's plan to send failed asylum seekers abroad to hubs in Europe demonstrated that post-Brexit Britain is in 'a very dark place'. Mr Rama said Britain was 'looking for places to dump migrants' – a concept he claimed would have been unthinkable a decade ago.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Prepare for economic collapse: last week the 2026 British financial crisis became inevitable
Make a note of last Friday's date: June 27 2025. It was the day that Britain's coming financial crisis became inescapable. In backing away from his attempt to slow, however feebly, the rise in benefits spending, Sir Keir Starmer was signalling to the world that Labour would never bring Britain's budget back into balance. The storm might break in 2026 or 2027 or even later. Labour politicians will do everything in their power to postpone the reckoning. But debts are not just paper liabilities; they end up being recovered. We have all just watched a hopeless and hapless PM throw away his majority and, with it, any hope of reform. And the bond vigilantes saw what we saw. What were Labour's rebels thinking? Their constituents will be hammered when the money runs out, when salaries and savings lose their value and imports become luxuries. They will be swept from office just as surely as were Greece's socialist MPs after the euro crisis. Do they even believe their own claims? Do they truly imagine that they are shielding the vulnerable? Do they picture themselves posed heroically over some wheelchair-bound child, fending off the ghost of Margaret Thatcher? I doubt it. They have, after all, seen the numbers. They know that one working-age adult in ten is now on benefits. They know that the number is rising, with a thousand people a day applying for Personal Independence Payments (PIP) – a rise which, tellingly, is not mirrored in any indices of sickness. They understand how PIP works. They know it can be accessed on grounds of, for example, anxiety, alcoholism, or ADHD (there are 50,000 claimants in this last category). They are aware that most new claims are for mental health conditions that are hard to verify. They will have seen the online videos explaining how to make a successful claim – you get this many points for saying that you have trouble getting dressed, this many for saying that you can't sit still, and so on. They might even be dimly acquainted with the age breakdown of the claimants. The fastest rise is among 25- to 34-year-olds, an incredible increase of 69 per cent in just five years. Incredible in every sense. Such a sudden and cataclysmic rise in disability would be visible on every street. Do you think Labour MPs, who meet PIP claimants in their surgeries, genuinely suppose that they are all incapacitated to the point of being unable to earn a living? No, this was never about justice for people with disabilities – still less about justice for taxpayers. Indeed, the most immediate consequence of guaranteeing existing but not future claims is to deter people from coming off benefits, knowing that there will be a lower rate if they go back. What we are seeing is the lowest and most cynical short-termism from MPs who want to keep their seats. In parts of urban Britain, Labour's election strategy involves distributing postal votes to welfare claimants along with the warnings that the Tories are coming for their benefits. From a purely partisan point of view, it suits Labour MPs to have constituents who claim state handouts. Sure, handouts are debilitating for the recipients and burdensome for the contributors; but the politicians who arrange the transfer often get an electoral reward. Labour MPs' WhatsApp groups have been pulsing with links to a study by the Disability Poverty Campaign Group which shows that, in nearly 200 Labour constituencies, the number of people claiming PIP is higher than the parliamentary majority. Among the MPs who are, so to speak, dependent on dependents, are Shabana Mahmood, Wes Streeting and Jess Phillips. You have to spend time around politicians to understand the extent to which such surveys strike icy daggers into their hearts. Never mind the moral case for self-reliance; never mind the debts we are loading onto our children. What looms in the feverish fears of MPs is having to mount the stage in their local sports centre and make a concession speech. Yet, paradoxically, they are making their defeat almost certain. The British state spends an unbelievable £52 billion a year on disability and incapacity benefits. According to the DWP, that figure will rise to £70 billion at today's prices by the end of the present Parliament. The changes that were first proposed would not have reversed that rise. They would not even meaningfully have slowed it. They would have shaved only £5 billion from the scheduled increase. In the event, that tiny dent was unacceptable to Labour MPs, fresh from running charities and NGOs, unused to hard decisions, unprepared for unpopularity, uninterested in economic reality. Asked in a BBC interview how she would make up the shortfall, one of the rebel leaders, Meg Hillier, replied airily that that was up to the Chancellor. In truth, the Chancellor's decision has been made for her. Labour backbenchers would rather pull the sky down on our heads than risk a bad local headline. Labour Whips, knowing that the only thing they have going for them is the split between the two Right-wing parties, will do anything to avoid a similar split on the Left. Labour is thus incapable of reducing expenditure. If it could not stick to its commitments on reducing the winter fuel allowance, capping child benefit or slowing the rise in PIP, it is plainly not going to attempt a radical overhaul of benefits. Without spending cuts, two options remain: yet higher taxes or yet more borrowing. Both damage growth – or at least they would if there were any growth to damage. In an economy that is flatlining (at least when we strip out the impact of immigration and consider GDP per head) they will topple us into recession. Which brings us back to the coming gilt strike. Who knows what the trigger will be? It might occur overseas. When bond markets turn, they are not interested in geography, justice or moral hazard. Rather, they look coldly for the weakest wildebeest in the herd, the spavined, limping laggard. And among major economies, that is Britain. Our politicians are shockingly complacent when it comes to the possibility of a full-scale financial crisis. We haven't had a proper one since 1976 and, frankly, even that was tame by global standards. Yes, the markets stepped in to punish Labour's profligacy, short-termism and cowardice. But our national debt back then was 47 per cent of GDP and falling; now it is 96 per cent and rising. Spending a chunk of my teenage years in South America in the 1980s, I am perhaps more alive than some of my countrymen to what a debt crisis looks like. I have seen, not just the inflation, the unemployment, the poverty – but the consequent lurch into authoritarianism. If twentieth-century South America seems too exotic, cast your mind back instead to the euro crisis. Ireland took it best, gulping down its medicine and making serious economies. Public sector salaries were reduced in real terms and there were rounds of redundancies. From cabinet ministers to claimants of child benefit, everyone had to take a cut. I suspect that, under Labour, our crisis will be more Greek than Irish. In other words, we will continue to vote 'against the cuts'. Our politicians will raise taxes in ways that would have made Charles I blush. We will elect parties that promise to 'end austerity'. And, as a result, we will end up having to make deeper cuts. And Labour? Labour will go the way of Greece's PASOK, as voters blame it for having failed to make softer savings while there was still time. It is true that voters themselves are in no mood for such savings yet; but good luck with using that as an excuse. Starmer might manage to limp on until the next election, a prisoner of the 400 standard-issue big-government Labour MPs who want him to stick to the Corbynite policies on which he was elected party leader. Either way, Labour itself is finished. Last week will be remembered as the moment when its MPs took the decision to check out.
