Putin cannot be trusted, No 10 warns before his summit with Trump
Putin cannot be trusted 'as far as you could throw him', No 10 said on Monday, as Britain pushed for guarantees to ensure that any pause in the fighting agreed at the meeting between the two presidents is not used by Russia simply as a breathing space to prepare for a new offensive.
European leaders urged Trump over the weekend to allow Ukraine to take part in the talks, nervous at what he might cede to Putin at the summit.
The structure of the talks was described by UK government sources as 'fluid' after Trump signalled that he might be willing to include President Zelensky in the meeting taking place in Alaska. The Ukrainian leader has said that anything agreed without him will be 'dead'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump mixes up Russia and Alaska ahead of peace talks with Putin
Donald Trump appeared to confuse Russia with Alaska while announcing his upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The meeting is scheduled for Friday in Alaska, with the primary aim of discussing an end to the war in Ukraine. 'You know, I'm going to see Putin. I'm going to Russia on Friday,' Trump told reporters at a Monday press conference in Washington D.C. This will be the first encounter between a US president and Putin since 2021, and Putin's first visit to the US in a decade, despite an International Criminal Court arrest warrant. Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski expressed cautious optimism about the summit, while Russian officials welcomed the choice of location due to historical connections.
Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The full story of why Palestine Action was proscribed as a terror group
It was no ordinary break-in. On June 20, under the cover of darkness, two activists entered what should have been one of Britain's most secure military bases, RAF Brize Norton, and vandalised two Voyager planes. There was no question as to who was behind the attack: Palestine Action, a pro-Palestinian direct-action organisation formed in 2020, quickly admitted responsibility. And the response from the Government was almost as swift. Three days after the attack, Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, told MPs that Palestine Action would be banned using powers under the 2000 Terrorism Act – the legal terminology is 'proscribed'. At first glance, it appeared to be an uncharacteristically quick move. The case for proscription typically takes months, if not years, to build. But the attack on Brize Norton, which ministers said had caused £7m of damage, was far from the only reason why the Government decided to class Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation – where it is now listed alongside 83 banned international groups, including al-Qaeda, Hamas and Islamic State, and 14 linked to Northern Ireland, such as the pro-republican IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries, the UVF. Indeed, proscription of Palestine Action had been under consideration for some time as the organisation ramped up its drive against Britain's defence sector, targeting companies linked to Israel in particular. Now, the Government is facing a backlash over the move, with the arrest of hundreds of supporters of the group over the weekend fuelling accusations its response has been 'draconian'. But insiders and experts have pushed back, arguing the decision would not have been taken lightly and suggesting the Government is likely to have an extensive dossier of troubling evidence about the group's true, sinister nature – one that may include links to Iran and perhaps even the explicit targeting of Jewish-owned businesses. 'Unacceptable criminal damage' A large amount of information about Palestine Action has already been put into the public domain. In her Commons statement, Cooper said the Brize Norton attack was the 'latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage' committed by the group. Among more than 300 incidents which Palestine Action has claimed responsibility for was an attack on the Thales defence factory in Glasgow in 2022 which caused over a million pounds of damage to submarine parts. Lord Walney, the Government's independent adviser on political violence and disruption from 2020 to 2025, told The Telegraph that Palestine Action had carried out a 'five-year long campaign of criminal sabotage' and had been allowed to operate 'with impunity' for too long, live-streaming its attacks on social media. In May 2024, the former Labour MP wrote a report, Protecting our Democracy from Coercion, warning that prosecutions of Palestine Action activists appeared to be having 'little impact' on the group's determination to shut down Elbit UK, a defence technology company targeted for its links to Israel. Walney called on the government to do more to protect the defence sector from 'sustained ideologically motivated criminal campaigns', though he stopped short of recommending proscription for Palestine Action. He has since changed his mind. 'They meet the bar,' he says. 'We need to educate people that sabotage can constitute terrorism as well as violence against individuals.' What altered Walney's thinking and helped convince the Home Secretary to ban Palestine Action is evidence of a serious escalation in its activities, including an attack in May on a Jewish-owned business in Stamford Hill, north London, an area with a large community of Orthodox Jews. The premises was daubed with red paint and had its shop window smashed. Palestine Action said the property was linked to Elbit, a claim the business denies. Sir Keir Starmer outlined his own concerns that the group was targeting Jewish companies at a meeting of Labour's National Executive Committee last month, reportedly telling its members that he was not going to 'apologise' for proscribing the group. Adding to alarm about Palestine Action is a lack of clarity about its funding sources. It has been reported that Home Office officials have been investigating whether the Iranian regime or proxy groups linked to Iran have been supporting it financially. While Palestine Action has described claims to that effect as 'baseless smears', it has received public backing from the Iran-aligned Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC). The IHRC – which has been described as an 'Islamist group ideologically aligned with the Iranian regime' that has a history of 'terrorist sympathies' in a government review of the counter-terror Prevent programme – has repeatedly campaigned in support of a number of Palestine Action activists over the past year. A spokesman for the IHRC has said it has 'no institutional or financial link' with the Iranian government, and that allegations suggesting otherwise are 'baseless'. Assertions that it was 'ideologically aligned' with Iran was 'not evidence – it is opinion, and a deeply prejudiced one at that', the spokesman added. In July, Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee warned of Iran's growing influence in Britain through proxy groups, criminal networks and militant organisations. The committee said in a report that there had been 15 murder or kidnap attempts against British citizens or UK-based individuals between 2022 and August 2023 with an increased threat to Jewish and Israeli interests. As for what Whitehall is seeing behind the scenes that has caused such alarm, No 10 is keeping schtum. Many people 'may not yet know and understand the reality of this organisation', the Prime Minister's official spokesman told The Telegraph on Monday, but it is 'very clear' that it is not 'non-violent'. Chris Phillips, who headed the National Counter Terrorism Security Office for six years, says the Government will have received secret intelligence about Palestine Action that it is unable to disclose alongside reports of recent incidents. 'To take the extraordinary step of proscription shows there's a great deal more that is not out in the open,' he says. 'There must be a lot of intelligence or a lot of fear about what's being planned,' adds Phillips, who served in the Metropolitan Police for 30 years before working as a security consultant. 'Proscription is the extreme – they will have gone through other options.' 'Strong security advice' The process for deciding whether to proscribe an organisation is described by insiders as 'rigorous' and involves submissions from counter-terrorism detectives, analysts at the Security Service, MI5 and other law-enforcement agencies. The information is pulled together by specialists in the Joint Terrorism Assessment Centre (JTAC), which is based in MI5. Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said his force had 'laid out to government the operational basis' for proscribing Palestine Action which he described as an 'organised, extremist criminal group'. Cooper said the decision followed 'strong security advice' and an assessment from JTAC that the group 'prepares for terrorism'. She cited 'concerning information referencing plans and ideas for further attacks', but said the details could not be revealed publicly because of ongoing legal proceedings. 'Many people may not yet know the reality of this organisation,' the Home Secretary added. The Prime Minister's spokesman added that proscription followed an 'assessment from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre that concludes that Palestine Action has committed three separate acts of terrorism'. One of Cooper's predecessors, Amber Rudd, who held the post from 2016 to 2018 under the Conservatives, says she is 'confident' there is material which has not been made public but which supports the decision to ban the group. 'The Home Secretary has… to take the toughest line that is legally possible,' says Rudd. 'She has done exactly the right thing.' Yet even the Conservatives – who are firm supporters of the decision to ban Palestine Action – have floated the idea that more information could be put into the public domain to explain why the decision has been taken. Without doing so there's a risk the measure will lose public support, they argue. 'Palestine Action has used violence to advance its political agenda including sabotaging RAF planes, smashing up property and attacking a police officer with a sledgehammer. In this country we decide issues through debate and elections, not violence,' says Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary. '[But] it is important the Government maintains public confidence and it should always put relevant information into the public domain where possible.' Political fallout Some Labour MPs echo those concerns, saying privately that they fear the Government is losing control of the narrative in the absence of a full explanation of what it knows about Palestine Action. 'I don't think the people of the country feel threatened by Palestine Action because there is no explanation about why they should be,' says one Labour MP on the socialist wing of the party, who argues that the scenes which played out in Parliament Square on Saturday will have done little to help matters. Half of those arrested during the demonstration were aged 60 or above, according to police figures. 'When people see 90-year-old pensioners and blind people in wheelchairs being pulled away gently by police officers, those images stay with you,' the Labour MP says. The same source wondered whether the political fallout from the move to ban the group and the weekend's arrests, however jarring the intelligence the Home Office is seeing behind the scenes, could lead No 10 to consider a U-turn on proscription. But with intelligence and law enforcement experts giving ministers their backing there is no sign of that at the moment. Lord Carlile, Britain's first independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, from 2001 to 2011, said the Government had national security in mind when it proscribed Palestine Action and had done the 'right thing', though he questioned whether the police had dealt with Saturday's protest proportionately. 'There should be more of, 'If you go home we won't arrest you, if you do it again we will',' said the crossbench peer. 'If I was advising the police, I'd say, do it with a softer touch.' But as the debate spurred by the weekend's scenes raged, the Home Secretary defended her position, hinting that she was privy to disturbing information about Palestine Action that would change people's perceptions about her decision, once it was out in the open. 'There may be people who are objecting to proscription who don't know the full nature of this organisation, because of court restrictions on reporting while serious prosecutions are under way,' Cooper said. 'But it's really important that no one is in any doubt that this is not a non-violent organisation.'
Daily Mail
12 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Joy Reid's substack following climbs after MSNBC firing
On Monday, the former Reid Out host announced that she was a 'Substack Bestseller with thousands of paid subscribers.' While it's unclear how many of her 168,000-plus followers shell out the $8 monthly subscription fee, even a small percentage of paying customers would potentially net Reid six figures per month. 'At the start of the year, I had a grand total of nine thousand subscribers, who mostly came to this page (then called "And another thing with Joy") to read my occasional posts, and to live chat with me as I sat on set at 30 Rock during MSNBC special coverage,' Reid wrote on Monday. 'That modest growth ended abruptly in January, when my then boss, the MSNBC president, told me I wasn't allowed to have a Substack. Other paid plans for her Substack musings include an annual subscription for $80 and a yearly 'Founding Member' subscription for $240. Substack takes a 10 percent commission from each of its authors - as well as a four percent surcharge per payment - leaving Reid with plenty left over to pay the bills. Even if just 5,000 of her subscribers opted for the yearly plan, she would still be raking in a cool $360,000 a year. That doesn't account for any revenue earned from her YouTube series, The Joy Reid Show, which launched on June 9 and counts more than 243,000 subscribers. Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta, for example, has amassed just over 300,000 subscribers on Substack after his resignation from the network in early January. Reid, who rankled MSNBC brass with her extreme online rants, was fired in late February by the network's new boss. An insider at MSNBC told Politico that her controversial social media posts - including shamed Latino Republican's for voting for Trump and claiming the media's preoccupation with Russia's invasion of Ukraine was motivated by the victims being 'white and largely Christian' - 'gave the Standards Department heartburn.' In January, Reid compared President Donald Trump to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler on Holocaust Remembrance Day.
