Britain 'will send troops to defend Ukraine's skies and ports under security deal' - as Putin launches new attacks and NATO chiefs prepare to meet in Washington
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, chief of the defence staff, is taking part in NATO talks as military leaders from across the alliance gather to discuss what support can be offered to Kyiv.
Thirty chiefs of staff are involved in the discussions, which are expected to shape what a future security deal for Ukraine could look like.
Although Radakin is set to make clear that the UK will commit troops for logistical help and training, he will insist that he will not place British forces directly in harm's way.
The focus will be on protecting Ukrainian airspace and ports rather than risking combat with Russian soldiers. Britain has not been involved in a major combat operation since the Afghanistan war ended in 2014. More recent missions have focused on training, protection and peacekeeping.
Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin launched new savage attacks on Ukrainians overnight, casting doubts on his commitment to seek a peace deal.
The terror strike was on Okhtyrka, some 28 miles from the border, where 13 homes were hit.
Earlier, it was believed that as many as 30,000 troops had been talked about, but that number has been scaled back following concerns in Europe.
NATO military heads are set to meet to iron out details of the security guarantees that EU leaders say are essential before any peace deal is made in the Ukraine war
According to The Guardian, one official in the know said: 'Wednesday is a really important moment.
'Nothing happens in Washington without the president giving the green light, so Trump giving his support to security guarantees on Monday kickstarted a lot of activity.'
The meeting today comes at a critical point where NATO chiefs are working out what security guarantees can be put in place for Ukraine, a step many in Europe see as vital to making any peace deal with Moscow possible.
US president Donald Trump already signalled his backing during his meeting with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky and other European leaders on Monday.
However, he has also said there will be no American troops involved in active combat in war-weary Ukraine.
The recent attacks on Ukraine, which officials say were 'directed against the civilian population', will underscore the importance of security guarantees for the country.
In the Odesa region, Russian strikes hit a Triton oil depot and port infrastructure in Izmail.
A fire train was battling to extinguish the blaze after involving ballistic missiles and Shahed drones.
In the Kherson region, the Russians wounded a woman pensioner,70, in an artillery strike on Bilozerka village.
The strikes come after many critics have been left wondering what the security guarantees may be. Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, indicated that it may be based on the principle of Article 5, where an attack on one ally must be seen as an attack on all.
Downing Street confirmed that Starmer hosted a call with more than 30 world leaders on Tuesday morning to update them on what had been discussed in Washington.
Britain is expected to use today's session to underline to Washington what it is willing to do if a peace deal is signed.
Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters on Tuesday that he expected agreements to be ready soon, saying he believed they would be finalised in the next 'week or 10 days.'
Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters on Tuesday that he expected agreements to be ready soon
Despite the optimism, there is growing doubt over how Moscow will respond - Vladimir Putin has long made it clear that he sees NATO's expansion into Ukraine as a direct threat.
Russia has repeatedly warned that it does not want Ukraine to ever join the alliance, calling such a move unacceptable.
Some European analysts believe Putin is unlikely to accept even a limited NATO deployment inside Ukraine, and that the ideas of security guarantees is just a way of putting him under more pressure.
Hours ahead of their meeting on Monday, Trump told Zelensky that there would be 'no going into NATO by Ukraine' as part of a deal for peace.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Zelensky condemns ‘indecent' Russian attack as American-owned Ukraine factory is hit
Ukraine said a Russian drone and missile attack on its western territory, hitting targets including an American-owned electronics plant, showed Vladimir Putin is trying to avoid peace talks. The aerial assault was one of Russia's biggest this year and came amid Moscow's objections to key aspects of proposals that could end the war it started in February 2022. Volodymyr Zelensky condemned the attack, saying it was carried out 'as if nothing were changing at all.' 'The signals from Russia are simply, to be honest, indecent,' he told Ukrainians in his nightly presidential address. A US electronics plant near the Hungarian border was struck, according to Andy Hunder, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine. The Flex factory is one of the biggest American investments in Ukraine. At the moment of impact, 600 night shift workers were on the premises, and six were injured, Mr Hunder added. Russian attacks on Ukraine since it launched its invasion have damaged property belonging to more than half of the chamber's roughly 600 members, he said. 'The message is clear: Russia is not looking for peace. Russia is attacking American business in Ukraine, humiliating American business,' Mr Hunder said. Russia's defence ministry said the strikes targeted 'enterprises of the Ukrainian military-industrial complex'. It claimed the attack hit drone factories, storage depots and missile launch sites, as well as areas where Ukrainian troops were gathered. Russia has repeatedly denied targeting civilian areas of Ukraine. In Lviv, one person was killed and three were injured as the attack damaged 26 residential buildings, a nursery school and administrative buildings, regional head Maksym Kozytskyi wrote on Telegram. The regional prosecutor's office said three Russian cruise missiles with cluster munitions struck the city. Moscow has shown no signs of pursuing meaningful negotiations to end the war, Mr Zelensky said. He urged the international community to respond with stronger pressure on Moscow, including tougher sanctions and tariffs. Plans for security guarantees will become clearer by the end of next week, Mr Zelensky said, by which time he expects to be ready to hold direct talks with Mr Putin for the first time since Russia's full-scale invasion. Donald Trump discussed the war with Putin in Alaska last week before hosting Mr Zelensky and European leaders at the White House on Monday. Mr Trump questioned Mr Putin's commitment to ending the war, saying the Russian leader 'talks nice and then he bombs everybody'. Russia has fired nearly 1,000 long-range drones and missiles at Ukraine since Monday's White House talks, according to Ukrainian tallies. European countries are discussing how they can deploy military assets to deter any post-war Russian assault on Ukraine, but the Kremlin will not accept the deployment of any troops from Nato countries, and foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said on Wednesday that making security arrangements for Ukraine without Moscow's involvement was pointless. Mr Putin is ready to meet with Mr Zelensky to discuss peace terms, Mr Lavrov said on Thursday, but only after key issues have been worked out by senior officials in what could be a protracted negotiating process because the two sides remain far apart. US secretary of state Marco Rubio plans to host a conference call on Thursday with the national security advisers of European countries expected to play a role in future security guarantees for Ukraine, a senior US official said. Military leaders from Ukraine, the US, the UK, Finland, France, Germany and Italy met on Tuesday and Wednesday in Washington to work out military options, said Joseph Holstead, a spokesman for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.
BBC News
31 minutes ago
- BBC News
Ukrainecast Q&A: Security Guarantees, Ukrainian Elections and Putin's Trump Whispering
After headline-grabbing meetings in Alaska and Washington, members of the world's media are on high alert, as Donald Trump talks up the chances of a summit between Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin. So, has a change in tone from the US on security guarantees moved the needle? Is a temporary ceasefire now less likely? And crucially, would a face-to-face encounter with a leader he's long sought to delegitimise, mark a clear concession from President Putin? This week, the Ukrainecast studio is hosting an unprecedented meeting of its own, as the BBC's Russia editor Steve Rosenberg, and Ukraine correspondent James Waterhouse unite in person for the first time. They join Jamie to answer all of your questions, and consider where we stand following this latest diplomatic frenzy. Today's episode is presented by Jamie Coomarasamy. The producers were Laurie Kalus and Polly Hope. The technical producer was James Piper. The series producer is Tim Walklate. The senior news editor is Sam Bonham. You can fill out our audience questionnaire here: Email Ukrainecast@ with your questions and comments. You can also send us a message or voice note via WhatsApp, Signal or Telegram to +44 330 1239480 You can join the Ukrainecast discussion on Newscast's Discord server here:
Times
31 minutes ago
- Times
Rising food prices mean hefty obesity costs
Stung by the price of olive oil? Burnt by the cost of your coffee? You are not alone. The cost of food and drink is increasing fast, faster than prices in general. This is a bigger problem, politically, socially and economically, than any politician has yet noticed. The government in particular should be paying attention to food bills, and taking action. The Office for National Statistics this week put the annual inflation rate at 3.8 per cent, but also showed that food and drink prices are rising at 4.9 per cent. The average household spends a bit more than £5,000 annually on food, so those numbers add up to about £250 a year. ONS tracking of public opinion shows that the cost of living remains the number one concern for the public, with more than 90 per cent of people citing rising food bills as a reason — well above the share who cite energy bills as an inflationary worry. Being reminded that things are getting more expensive — meaning that you feel poorer — every time you fill your shopping basket is not a happy experience. Food prices rising faster than the cost of other purchases has been a dismally common feature of the UK economy since 2022, for several reasons: war in Ukraine; too much rain; not enough rain; higher energy costs; not enough migrant workers to pick fruit and veg; higher taxes. The public's daily dismay at food prices, I'd bet, is a bigger reason for Britain feeling generally dissatisfied than noisier issues like immigration or crime. Yet it gets curiously little political attention, given how much it matters to voters' lives and outlook. Labour's spin team should give more thought to finding someone else to blame for rising food bills, not least because the problem is going to get worse. The Bank of England reckons food inflation will hit 5.5 per cent by the end of the year, while the British Retail Consortium says 6 per cent. Get ready for a winter of headlines about the painful cost of your Christmas lunch. Looking further ahead, the problem is even worse, reaching beyond simple political unease into questions of fairness, public health and economic performance. Rising food prices affect some groups more than others, with the poorest facing both the greatest financial pain but also the worst long-term consequences. The worst of these is rising obesity levels. Perhaps that will surprise some readers. How do rising food prices make poor people fat? Surely if it's getting harder to buy food, people will eat less of it and get thinner? In fact, a wealth of evidence shows that when low-income households face rising food prices, they trade quality for quantity, buying more cheap foods that are high in calories but low in nutrients. Social scientists grandly call this the 'food insecurity obesity paradox' but it's arguably just the human version of a common animal instinct to put on fat when times are tough and a hard winter is coming. • From peanuts to pomegranates — the 19 foods that will keep you young Almost a third of UK adults are obese, with rates highest among the poorest. There are many links between obesity and poverty but raw economics is a significant factor. According to the Food Foundation, a campaigning charity founded by former Tory MP Laura Sandys, recent years of inflation have made it almost impossible for poorer people to eat healthily. The foundation reckons that the poorest households would need to spend almost half of their disposable income on food to afford a healthy diet high in fruit and veg with limited sugars and fats. For poor parents, a healthy grocery shop could cost 70 per cent of disposable income. Healthier foods are just more expensive per calorie than stuff that's full of sugar and fat. Government calculations show that cauliflower and broccoli might cost almost 2p per calorie; for cheap biscuits it's less than half as much. Obesity means more sickness — diabetes and heart disease, in particular — and shorter lives. It means misery for individuals and mounting costs to taxpayers. My back-of-an-envelope calculations suggest that just a one percentage point increase in the obesity rate (roughly 550,000 more people getting too fat) costs the state more than £3 billion over ten years in higher NHS and care costs. We must make good food cheaper for poorer people, but that's far easier said than done. Continuing education to overcome ignorance about nutrition helps but new ideas are needed. What about Nutrition Impact Bonds? Building on NHS 'social prescribing' models, public and private investors could pay upfront for subsidised or even free healthy food for poorer households, then be paid back from the savings the state makes from lower obesity spending. The causes of higher food prices are big, complicated and long-term. Likewise the public health challenge of obesity and poor diets. It follows that fixing them will be a long-term project, the sort of job that no government, especially an unpopular one worrying about its next election, rushes to tackle. • Eating home-cooked food 'helps you lose twice as much weight' But Labour should lift food prices and obesity up its agenda, because they interact with the government's emerging economic focus. Ministers are planning an autumn drive on productivity, correctly identifying Britain's basic economic effectiveness — how much stuff do we generate from each hour of work we do? — as a national priority. Helping business to finance and deploy technology and training to make workers more effective is a key part of productivity, but so too is ensuring the availability of a healthy workforce. And our fatter, sicker population is emerging as a drag on productivity, as more and more people go off sick or leave work outright. Last month a paper by Nesta, a think tank, and Frontier Economics put the cost of productivity lost to obesity at £31 billion a year. The study shows that obesity doesn't just drag on the economy by taking people out of the workforce through sickness. Boldly, it says that obese people just aren't as effective at work as healthy colleagues and cost the economy almost £10 billion a year, it estimates. The government rightly wants to increase productivity but the fact is that Britain is simply too fat and ill to be fully productive. And in large part that's because of bad and increasingly expensive diets. Sadly, the cost of food is even higher than you think. James Kirkup is a senior fellow of the Social Market Foundation
