Starmer and Macron reject Russian demands regarding ceasefire: no preconditions
The coalition of the willing has rejected Russia's demand that Western countries halt arms supplies to Ukraine as a condition for a ceasefire, stressing the need for a 30-day ceasefire without preconditions.
Source: UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron at a meeting of the Coalition of the Willing in Kyiv, as reported by European Pravda with reference to Interfax-Ukraine
Quote from Starmer: "Putin has in the last few hours sought to put conditions on a ceasefire. It's really important that we make clear that an unconditional ceasefire is a ceasefire without conditions, and we reject the imposition of conditions."
Quote from Macron: "It means an unconditional ceasefire in the sky, on land and at sea, that should be long enough and that could be renewable. It should be completed with appropriate provisions for monitoring and with arrangements for the distancing of forces along the line of control [...] with the assistance of all those who want to join."
We firmly reject the possibility of making any concessions [...]. And there is no precondition: neither stopping the delivery of arms [...] or any prejudging of any type of negotiation. And we have to be clear that if Russia does not comply, it must face consequences, with additional sanctions and further support for Ukraine."
Background:
Earlier, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia would demand the cessation of US and European arms supplies to Ukraine during any potential ceasefire.
Following the summit on 10 May, the coalition of the willing demanded that Russia agree to an unconditional ceasefire for 30 days starting 12 May.
The EU and the US plan to ramp up sanctions against Russia if Putin refuses to comply with the ceasefire.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What's behind Keir Starmer's decision to back nuclear power?
Keir Starmer has committed the UK to its first significant stake in a new nuclear power plant since the 1980s. The decision to invest almost £18bn of taxpayer money into the Sizewell C nuclear power plant in Suffolk was welcomed by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, as the beginning of a 'golden age' of nuclear investment that would be critical to the government's net zero goals. The government said on Tuesday it would commit £14.2bn to the project, including the £2.7bn it earmarked for Sizewell C in the autumn budget. It has already committed £3.6bn to Sizewell over the past two years. Britain's nuclear renaissance will also include spending about £2.5bn of taxpayer money building some of Europe's first small modular reactors (SMR), after the government gave the green light to plans for Rolls-Royce to build three in the UK by the early 2030s. For critics, the technology's high costs and lengthy construction time have always eclipsed the benefits of abundant low-carbon electricity, given Hinkley Point C's current price tag of up to £35bn and its repeated delays. There are also persistent concerns over the safety of nuclear reactors, and the disposal of nuclear waste. But questions over whether countries can meet the growing demand for electricity without fossil fuels, and avoid blackouts, mean many governments now believe nuclear represents a price worth paying. Megawatt for megawatt, nuclear power is far more expensive than most renewable energy technologies. But, unlike wind and solar farms, nuclear reactors do not need investment in battery backup technologies to provide a steady, reliable source of low-carbon power. The guaranteed electricity price offered to Hinkley Point C was initially £92 per megawatt-hour but this will fall to £89.50/MWh with the go-ahead for Sizwell C, under the terms of the government's contract with French state-owned EDF. By contrast, the guaranteed price for offshore windfarms that were successful in last year's subsidy auction was just under £59 per megawatt-hour. 'The upfront cost [of nuclear] is undoubtedly high,' said Dr Iain Staffell, an associate professor at Imperial College London. '£14bn could fund around 10 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind versus just 3.2 GW of nuclear. But, these reactors will run day and night, especially valuable when the wind is not blowing.' Prof Mark Wenman, also at Imperial College London, added that the costs needed to be balanced against the fact that these reactors 'will produce low-carbon electricity for 80 or possibly 100 years, 24/7, providing around a 10th of the current UK electricity needs'. 'Once paid for, nuclear reactors produce the cheapest electricity of any kind, so this investment should be seen as future-proofing the UK electricity system,' Wenman said. Experts believe that powering a country on 100% renewable energy is technically possible. But there is clear evidence that grid systems running predominantly on wind and solar power can be more expensive in the long run, and could be at higher risk of blackouts. This is because renewable energy cannot help to keep the electrical frequency of the grid stable at around 50Hz in the same way that the spinning turbines of power plants have done in the past, by creating inertia. The answer, according to the government's National Energy System Operator (Neso), is to encourage renewables to become the backbone of the energy system while keeping alternatives such as nuclear, biomass and gas to provide backup for when renewable resources are low and grid stability is needed. The government's independent climate advisers agree. The Climate Change Committee recommends that the UK's nuclear capacity doubles by 2050 because while it is 'relatively expensive on a levelised cost basis' it can provide 'valuable zero-carbon generation at scale'. Britain risks losing the benefits offered by nuclear plants by shutting its ageing nuclear reactors faster than it can build new ones – leaving a gap in the UK's supplies of low-carbon electricity at a time when demand for clean energy is growing. The UK's five existing nuclear power reactors generated 14% of the country's electricity last year, down from the industry's late-1990s peak, when 18 nuclear reactors provided more than a quarter of Britain's power. Four of these plants are due to close before the end of the decade, even with plans to extend their lifetimes, while only one nuclear power plant is under construction. Hinkley Point C in Somerset was originally due to begin generating electricity by 2017 but it has been delayed until the early 2030s. Driving Britain's nuclear renaissance is the tech industry's appetite for nuclear power. Starmer unveiled plans for a once-in-a-generation nuclear expansion earlier this year alongside an open invitation to tech companies such as Google, Meta and Amazon to invest in AI datacentres in Britain, which could be powered by small modular reactors. This is because the world's biggest tech companies are investing in extending the life of nuclear plants and building small modular reactors to help meet the enormous power demands of their datacentres. This growing demand is expected to accelerate with the adoption of artificial intelligence. Earlier this month Meta struck a deal to keep one nuclear reactor of a US utility company in Illinois operating for an extra 20 years, to help supply the company's datacentres with low-carbon power. It follows a similar deal from Google to supply its datacentres with nuclear power from half a dozen small reactors built by a California utility company. Microsoft has paid for the restart of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, the site of the most serious nuclear accident and radiation leak in US history. 'They are very keen to get the datacentres in and they're very alive to the fact that the power is a big issue,' Starmer said.
Fast Company
19 minutes ago
- Fast Company
OpenAI and Anthropic are getting cozy with government. What could possibly go wrong?
While the world and private enterprise are adopting AI rapidly in their workflows, government isn't far behind. The U.K. government has said early trials of AI-powered productivity tools can shave two weeks of labor off a year's work, and AI companies are adapting to that need. More than 1,700 AI use cases have been recorded in the U.S. government, long before Elon Musk's DOGE entered the equation and accelerated AI adoption throughout the public sector. Federal policies introduced in April on AI adoption and procurement have pushed this trend further. It's unsurprising that big tech companies are rolling out their own specialist models to meet that demand. Anthropic, the maker of the Claude chatbot, announced last week a series of models tailored for use by government employees. These include features such as the ability to handle classified materials and understand some of the bureaucratic language that plagues official documents. Anthropic has said its models are already deployed by agencies 'at the highest level of U.S. national security, and access to these models is limited to those who operate in such classified environments.' The announcement follows a similar one by OpenAI, the makers of ChatGPT, which released its own government-tailored AI models in January to 'streamline government agencies' access to OpenAI's frontier models.' But AI experts worry about governments becoming overly reliant on AI models, which can hallucinate information, inherit biases that discriminate against certain groups at scale, or steer policy in misguided directions. They also express concern over governments being locked into specific providers, who may later increase prices that taxpayers would be left to fund. 'I worry about governments using this kind of technology and relying on tech companies, and in particular, tech companies who have proven to be quite untrustworthy,' says Carissa Véliz, who researches AI ethics at the University of Oxford. She points out that the generative AI revolution so far, sparked by the November 2022 release of ChatGPT, has seen governments scrambling to retrofit rules and regulations in areas such as copyright to accommodate tech companies after they've bent those rules. 'It just shows a power relationship there that doesn't look good for government,' says Véliz. 'Government is supposed to be the legislator, the one making the rules and enforcing the rules.' Beyond those moral concerns, she also worries about the financial stakes involved. 'There's just a sheer dependency on a company that has financial interests, that is based in a different country, in a situation in which geopolitics is getting quite complicated,' says Véliz, explaining why countries outside the United States might hesitate to sign on to use ClaudeGov or ChatGPT Gov. It's the same argument the U.S. uses about overreliance on TikTok, which has Chinese ties, amid fears that figures like Donald Trump could pressure U.S.-based firms to act in politically motivated ways. OpenAI didn't respond to Fast Company 's request for comment. A spokesperson for Anthropic says the company is committed to transparency, citing published work on model risks, a detailed system card, and collaborations with the U.S. and U.K. governments to test AI systems. Some fear that AI companies are securing 'those big DoD bucks,' as programmer Ashe Dryden put it on Mastodon, and could perpetuate that revenue by fostering dependency on their specific models. The rollout of these models reflects broader shifts in the tech landscape that increasingly tie government, national security and technology together. For example, defense tech firm Anduril recently raised $5 billion in a new funding round that values the company at over $30 billion. Others have argued that the release of these government-specific models by AI companies 'isn't [about] national security. This is narrative laundering,' as one LinkedIn commenter put it. The idea is that these moves echo the norms already set by big government rather than challenging them, potentially reinforcing existing issues. 'I've always been a sceptic of a single supplier for IT services, and this is no exception,' says Andres Guadamuz, an AI researcher at the University of Sussex. Guadamuz believes the development of government-specific AI models is still in its early phase, and urges decisionmakers to pause before signing deals. 'Governments should keep their options open,' he says. 'Particularly with a crowded AI market, large entities such as the government can have a better negotiating position.'
New York Times
29 minutes ago
- New York Times
Palestinian Authority President Says Hamas Must Exit Gaza
Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, has called for Hamas to 'hand over its weapons,' immediately free all hostages and cease ruling Gaza, the French presidency said on Tuesday after receiving a letter from him. The letter was addressed to President Emmanuel Macron of France and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, who will jointly chair a U.N. conference in New York next week to explore the creation of a Palestinian state. Mr. Macron has set a number of conditions for the possible French recognition of such a state at that meeting, including the disarmament of Hamas. 'Hamas will no longer rule Gaza and must hand over its weapons and military capabilities to the Palestinian security forces,' Mr. Abbas said in the letter, according to a statement from the Élysée Palace. He added that the Palestinian forces would oversee the removal of Hamas with Arab and international support, an undertaking that is certain to provoke skepticism in Israel, and probably also in Washington. 'Hamas must immediately release all hostages and captives,' the letter said, reiterating a demand that Mr. Abbas has made before. A bitter feud has divided Mr. Abbas's Palestinian Authority, which administers parts of the West Bank, and Hamas in Gaza for many years. The rival factions in the two Palestinian territories have defied several attempts at reconciliation, something that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has seized on to dismiss a two-state solution. Mr. Abbas condemned the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that killed about 1,200 people in some of the strongest terms that he has used, calling it 'unacceptable and reprehensible.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
