European leaders mull new sanctions on Putin, UK government says
The government said the so-called Coalition of the Willing, which met virtually on Tuesday, had agreed that their planning teams would meet with U.S. counterparts in the coming days to advance plans for security guarantees for Ukraine.
They would also discuss plans to "prepare for the deployment of a reassurance force if the hostilities ended", a spokesperson for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's office said.
They added: "The leaders also discussed how further pressure – including through sanctions – could be placed on Putin until he showed he was ready to take serious action to end his illegal invasion."
Ukraine and its European allies have been buoyed after U.S. President Donald Trump told President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Monday that the United States would help guarantee Ukraine's security in any deal to end Russia's war, though the extent of any assistance was not immediately clear.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
How people in Epping reacted to closure of migrant hotel
Locals in Epping have welcomed an injunction to block asylum seekers from being housed at a nearby hotel, but raised concerns the decision would only 'kick the can down the road'. Epping Forest District Council was granted a temporary High Court injunction on Tuesday blocking asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, a then-resident at the hotel, was charged with trying to kiss a teenage girl, which he denies. Following the decision on Tuesday, a crowd of about a dozen people gathered outside the hotel brandishing flags, shouting 'We've won' and popping sparkling wine, while passing traffic honked their horns at them. A few police cars were parked nearby with officers standing outside the hotel, which is fenced in. Other residents gave a mixed reaction to the injunction, with some saying they were glad to 'see it gone'. But others cited concerns about where the asylum seekers currently housed inside the hotel would be moved to in light of the court's decision. Callum Barker, 21, a construction worker who lives next to the hotel, was handing out leaflets at the protest including the names of three men staying at the Bell Hotel who are alleged to have committed criminal offences. He said he was in favour of the injunction. Mr Barker told the PA news agency: 'Our community's in danger and we don't want these people here. 'I'm ecstatic; I haven't stopped smiling. For five years, this hotel's blighted us. Everyone's had their complaints and reservations about it and I'm really glad to see it gone. 'I think nationally there will be more protests; I hope so. We want people to get out into their communities, get rid of these hotels. 'It's not right they're here on taxpayers' dime while British people struggle. 'They get three meals a day and a roof over their head while kids go hungry in school and have to rely on free dinners and I think it's terrible. The asylum system is broken.' In the town centre, Charlotte, 33, a solicitor living in Epping, said: 'I think it's kicking the can down the road because where are they going to go? 'Personally, I have lived here for four years and I've never had an issue, never noticed any problems with any asylum seekers living in the hotel a mile away. 'With the injunction today, I don't know what the long-term solution is going to be because they have to be housed somewhere so what's the alternative? 'I don't partake in (the protests). I think people are allowed to have a right of free speech but what annoys me about them is I'm on community groups on Facebook and it seems if you're not speaking about it you're presumed to be completely for it when I think a lot of people are in the middle. 'There are extremists at these protests every week.' Michael Barnes, 61, a former carpenter from Epping, said he was happy about the High Court's decision. He said: 'The question is, where does it go from here? I don't love them on my doorstep but, in fairness, they've got to live somewhere. 'I don't think it's all of them, it's just the minority of them that get up to no good.' Gary Crump, 63, a self-employed lift consultant living just outside of Epping, said: 'I was quite pleased it's actually happened. 'I don't think they should be housed in the hotels like they are. 'We haven't got the infrastructure here. The doctors' surgery is filled up in the mornings with people from there with translators. Everything is pushing the limits. We're an island. We're full. 'I've got no reason to be against people coming into the UK but I do think that the reasons given are not true in a lot of cases.' Ryan Martin, 39, who runs a natural health business, said: 'It's a good thing. When people spend a lot of money to live in this area, they want to feel safe. 'Them shutting it down probably happened because of the noise that was made about it and the reaction they saw from people because there was a strong reaction. 'It was taking a while to happen but people finally got up to protest against them being here.'
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
New pics of Trump holding court in Oval Office branded ‘embarrassing' as world leaders sit around his desk: ‘Like schoolchildren'
New pictures showing Donald Trump sitting in the Oval Office in front of major world leaders has been criticized as an "embarrassing" power play by the president, in what should have been a display of global unity. Some on social media noted that the set up, with Trump behind the Resolute Desk and his European counterparts on chairs opposite him, presented the president as hosting a bunch of 'unruly schoolchildren.' The president was joined for the photo-op by leaders including British prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, French president Emmanual Macron, German Chancellor Freidrich Merz, Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni and Finnish president Alexander Stubb. Also in attendance were European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. Another photo showed a smiling Trump posing with a new golf club, gifted to him by Zelensky. However, the meeting of the circled leaders drew the ire of social media users, with some commenting that the staging and White House mantra of of 'peace through strength' was 'deeply disrespectful to U.S. history itself.' 'Permenant peace is never truly obtained through strength. It may hold for a while under pressure, but it won't last,' wrote one user. 'What a breathtakingly rude, narcissistic asshole,' another said. 'Instead of a conference table where everyone can meet equally, Chump lined them up like unruly school children in a row with himself as the authority figure. Chump can just f*** all the way off.' Others questioned how the leaders, who came to Washington D.C. as 'equals' had allowed such a belittling set up. 'Embarrassing,' wrote one user, with another going further, writing 'I cannot believe they let Trump seat them like a bunch of schoolchildren. 'Do none of these 'leaders' have any testosterone whatsoever or PR teams that can approve/reject seating arrangements. Most embarrassing thing I've ever seen for the EU.'
Sky News
6 minutes ago
- Sky News
What would US-backed security guarantees for Ukraine look like?
Promises of security guarantees for Ukraine have been lauded as "game-changing" and "historic" in the hope of bringing an end to the war with Russia. As all eyes moved from Donald Trump's summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska to talks with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Washington, the White House claimed Russia has agreed to the US providing 'NATO-style protection' when the fighting ends. Although there has been no confirmation from the Kremlin, Ukraine, the UK, and other Western allies say details of a post-war security agreement will be finalised in the coming days. What has been said so far? Security guarantees have long been talked about as a way of ensuring peace in Ukraine when fighting comes to an end. Since March, when the UK and France spearheaded a largely European 'coalition of the willing' and potential peacekeeping force, many have claimed it would be ineffective without American backing. The US has repeatedly refused to be drawn on its involvement - until now. Two days after Mr Putin travelled to Alaska for talks with the Trump team, US special envoy Steve Witkoff claimed Russia had agreed to Ukrainian security guarantees. He claimed that during the summit, the Kremlin had conceded the US "could offer Article-5 like protection", which he described as "game-changing". Article 5 is one of the founding principles of NATO and states that an attack on any of its 32 member states is considered an attack on them all. This was bolstered by the US president himself after he met his Ukrainian counterpart in Washington on Monday. He said the pair had "discussed security guarantees", which would be "provided by the various European countries" - "with coordination with the United States of America". Writing on X the following day, the Ukrainian leader said the "concrete content" of the security agreement would be "formalised on paper within the next 10 days". US reports say security agreement talks will be headed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. 5:57 What would security guarantees look like? Very few details have emerged so far, despite the series of high-profile meetings. Speaking to Fox News on Tuesday, Mr Trump said European nations are going to "frontload" the security agreement with soldiers. "They want to have boots on the ground", he told the broadcaster, referring to the UK, France, and Germany in particular. He insisted the US would not send ground troops, adding: "You have my assurance and I'm president." Sir Keir Starmer said the coalition of the willing is "preparing for the deployment of a reassurance force" in the event of "hostilities ending". This was the original basis for the coalition - soldiers from various European and allied nations placed strategically across Ukraine to deter Russia from launching future attacks. But troops alone are unlikely to be enough of a deterrent for Vladimir Putin, military analyst Sean Bell says. "This is all about credibility and I don't think boots on the ground is a credible answer," he tells Sky News. Stationing soldiers along Ukraine's 1,000-mile border with Russia would require around 100,000 soldiers at a time, which would have to be trained, deployed, and rotated, requiring 300,000 in total. The entire UK Army would only make up 10% of that, with France likely able to contribute a further 10%, Bell says. Several European nations would feel unable to sacrifice any troops for an umbrella force due to their proximity to Ukraine and risk of further Russian aggression. "You're not even close to getting the numbers you need," Bell adds. "And even if you could, putting all of NATO's frontline forces in one country facing Russia would be really dangerous - and leave China, North Korea, Iran, or Russia free to do whatever they wanted." History of failed security agreements in Ukraine Current proposals for Ukrainian security guarantees are far from the first. In December 1994, Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum alongside the UK, US, and Russia. The Ukrainians agreed to give up their Soviet-inherited nuclear weapons in exchange for recognition of their sovereignty and a place on the UN's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Twenty years later in 2014, however, Russia violated the terms with its illegal annexation of Crimea and the war between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian in the Donbas region. Similarly, the Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015 were designed to bring an end to the Donbas war. Mediated by France and Germany, they promised a ceasefire, withdrawal of weapons, and local elections in the separatist-occupied Donbas, but were repeatedly violated and failed to result in lasting peace. 'Article 5-like protection' When Mr Witkoff first mentioned security guarantees again, he described them as "Article 5-like" or "NATO-style". Article 5 is one of the founding principles of NATO and states that an attack on any of its 32 member states is considered an attack on them all. It has only ever been invoked once since its inception in 1949 - by the US in response to the 9/11 attacks of 2001. Russia has repeatedly insisted Ukraine should not be allowed to join NATO and cited the risk of it happening among its original reasons for attacking Kyiv in 2022. NATO general-secretary Mark Rutte has said Ukrainian membership is not on the table, but that an alternative "Article 5-type" arrangement could be viable. The alliance's military leaders are due to meet on Wednesday to discuss options. It is not clear how such a special security agreement and formal NATO membership would differ. Bell says that negotiations on this - and any surrendering of Ukrainian territory - will be the two most difficult in ending the war. But he stresses they are both key in providing the "flesh on the bones" to what the coalition of the willing has offered so far. "It will be about trying to find things that make the Western commitment to the security of Ukraine enduring," Bell adds. US airpower, intelligence and a better Ukrainian military Other potential options for a security agreement include air support, a no-maritime zone, intelligence sharing, and military supplies. Imposing either a no-fly over Ukraine or no-maritime zone across the Black Sea would "play to NATO's strengths" - as US air and naval capabilities alone far outstrip Russia's, Bell says. Sharing American intelligence with Kyiv to warn of any future Russian aggression would also be a "massive strength" to any potential deterrence force, he adds. Ukraine is already offering to buy an extra $90bn (£66.6bn) in US weapons with the help of European funds, Mr Zelenskyy said this week. And any security agreement would likely extend to other military equipment, logistics, and training to help Ukraine better defend itself years down the line, Bell says. "At first it would need credible Western support, but over time, you would hope the international community makes sure Ukraine can build its own indigenous capability. "Because while there's a lot of focus on Ukraine at the moment, in five years' time, there will be different governments and different priorities - so that has to endure."
