New German chancellor wants to visit Ukraine soon
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz plans to visit Ukraine in the near future.
Source: European Pravda; Tagesschau, a German television news service
Details: The trip is currently being coordinated, and Merz said that he wants to "do everything possible within the European Union to ensure a lasting ceasefire after the coming weekend so that a peace agreement with Russia can be concluded".
The chancellor stressed that there is one main question at the moment: whether Russia is ready to agree to a 30-day ceasefire.
Merz also linked the issue of German security guarantees for Ukraine to the fact that the sides must first agree on a long-term ceasefire in Ukraine.
Merz said it is important that the US remains involved in this process, "as well as in the further provision of security guarantees for Ukraine", and "that the Americans stay in the game".
The chancellor hopes that the US will "continue to honour its commitments" within NATO and to Ukraine.
Background:
Friedrich Merz first visit as a chancellor was to Paris, which was followed by a visit to Warsaw.
On Friday 9 May, Merz is expected to arrive in Brussels to meet with the president of the European Council and the head of the European Commission.
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
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump vs. California
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Under Donald Trump, the federal government is like a bad parent: never there when you need him but eager to stick his nose in your business when you don't want him to. The relationship between Trump and California has always been bad, but the past few days represent a new low. On Friday, CNN reported that the White House was seeking to cut off as much federal funding to the Golden State as possible, especially to state universities. That afternoon, protests broke out in Los Angeles as ICE agents sought to make arrests. By Saturday, Trump had announced that he was federalizing members of the National Guard and deploying them to L.A., over the objections of Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat. Americans have seen the National Guard called out to deal with the aftermath of riots in the past, but its involvement over the weekend represents a dramatic escalation. The National Guard was deployed to L.A. in 1992, during riots after the acquittal of four police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The scale of the destruction in that instance, compared with scattered violence in L.A. this weekend, helps show why Trump's order was disproportionate. (National Guard troops were also deployed in Minneapolis during protests after the murder of George Floyd, at the request of Governor Tim Walz. Trump has falsely claimed that he deployed the troops when Walz wouldn't.) In all of these recent cases, however, governors have made the call to bring out the National Guard. A president has not done so since 1965, when Lyndon Johnson took control of the Alabama National Guard from the arch-segregationist Governor George Wallace and ordered it to protect civil-rights leaders' third attempt to march from Selma to Montgomery. The situations aren't even closely analogous. Johnson acted only after local leaders had demonstrated that law enforcement would violently attack the peaceful marchers. By contrast, the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department have plenty of experience and sufficient man power to deal with protests of the weekend's size, and military forces are a riskier choice because they aren't trained as police. This morning, Newsom said he will sue the administration over the deployment. Elizabeth Goitein, a scholar at the Brennan Center for Justice who has written extensively in The Atlantic about the abuse of presidential emergency powers, told The Washington Post that Trump's order 'is completely unprecedented under any legal authority.' 'The use of the military to quell civil unrest is supposed to be an absolute last resort,' she added. Trump is doing this, as my colleague Tom Nichols writes, because he wants to provoke a confrontation with California. The president sees tough immigration enforcement as a political winner, but he also wants to use the face-off to expand the federal government's power to control states. Trump's vision is federalism as a one-way street: If states need help, they might be on their own, but if states believe that federal intervention is unnecessary or even harmful, too bad. If the president wants to shut off funds to states for nothing more than political retribution or personal animus, he believes that he can do that. (A White House spokesperson told CNN that decisions about potential cuts were not final but said that 'no taxpayer should be forced to fund the demise of our country,' a laughably vague and overheated rationale.) If states have been struck by major disasters, however, they'd better hope they voted for Trump, or that their governors have a good relationship with him. Some of these attempts to strong-arm states are likely illegal, and will be successfully challenged in court. Others are in gray areas, and still others are plainly legal—manifestations of what I call 'total politics,' in which officials wield powers that are legal but improper or unwise. This is a marked shift from the traditional American conservative defense of states' rights. Although that argument has often been deployed to defend racist policies, such as slavery and segregation, the right has also argued for the prerogative of local people to stave off an overweaning federal government. Conservatives also tended to view Lyndon Johnson as a boogeyman, not a role model. Kristi Noem, now the secretary of Homeland Security, bristled at the idea of federalizing the National Guard just last year, when she was serving as governor of South Dakota. But Trump's entire approach is to centralize control. He has pursued Project 2025's plan to seize new powers for the executive branch and to establish right-wing Big Government, flexing the coercive capacity of the federal government over citizens' lives. Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, has suggested that he wouldn't hesitate to arrest Newsom, and Trump endorsed the idea today. And Trump allies have proposed all sorts of other ways to force state governments to comply, such as cutting off Justice Department grants or FEMA assistance for states that don't sign up to enforce Trump's immigration policies, an issue where state governments do not traditionally have a role. This duress is not limited to blue states. Just last week, under pressure from the DOJ, Texas agreed to trash a 24-year-old law (signed by then-Governor Rick Perry, who later became Trump's secretary of energy) that gives in-state college tuition to some undocumented immigrants. If nothing else, the Trump era has given progressives a new appreciation for states' rights. Democrat attorneys general have become some of the most effective opponents of the Trump White House, just as Republican ones battled the Obama and Biden administrations. On Friday, Newsom mused about California withholding federal taxes. This is plainly illegal, but you can see where he's coming from: In fiscal year 2022, the state contributed $83 billion dollars more to the federal government than it received. If California is not getting disaster aid but is getting hostile deployments of federal troops, Californians might find it harder to see what's in it for them. No wonder one poll commissioned by an advocacy group earlier this year found that 61 percent of the state's residents thought California would be better off as a separate nation. Secession isn't going to happen: As journalists writing about aspiring red-state secessionists in recent years have noted, leaving the Union is unconstitutional. But the fact that these questions keep coming up is a testament to the fraying relationship between the federal government and the states. Trump's recent actions toward California show why tensions between Washington and the states are likely to get worse as long as he's president. Related: David Frum: For Trump, this is a dress rehearsal. Tom Nichols: Trump is using the National Guard as bait. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: An uproar at the NIH The real problem with the Democrats' ground game Where is Barack Obama? Today's News President Donald Trump's travel ban is in effect, affecting nationals from 19 countries. Israel intercepted a high-profile aid ship en route to Gaza and detained those on board, including the activist Greta Thunberg. They have been brought to the Israeli port of Ashdod, according to Israel's foreign ministry. Officials from America and China met in London for a second round of trade-truce negotiations. Dispatches The Wonder Reader: Summer is heating up. Isabel Fattal compiles stories about an invention that changed the course of human life: the AC unit. Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read What's So Shocking About a Man Who Loves His Wife? By Jeremy Gordon The first time that someone called me a 'wife guy,' I wasn't sure how to react. If you are encountering this phrase for the first time and think wife guy surely must mean 'a guy who loves his wife,' you would be dead wrong. The term, which rose to popularity sometime during the first Trump administration, describes someone whose spousal affection is so ostentatious that it becomes inherently untrustworthy. 'The wife guy defines himself,' the critic Amanda Hess has written, 'through a kind of overreaction to being married.' The wife guy posts a photo of his wife to Instagram along with several emojis of a man smiling with hearts in place of his eyes. He will repeat this sort of action so many times that even his closest friends may think, Enough already. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic The Democrats have an authenticity gap. The Wyoming hospital upending the logic of private equity Helen Lewis: The Trump administration's nasty campaign against trans people Culture Break Read. These six books are great reads for anybody interested in the power of saying no. Examine. Money is ruining television, Sophie Gilbert writes. Depictions of extreme wealth are everywhere on the small screen, and, well, it's all quite boring. Play our daily crossword. P.S. My colleague Katherine J. Wu's latest wrenching dispatch from the dismantling of the federal scientific establishment was published today. Katherine writes about a letter from more than 300 National Institutes for Health officials criticizing the NIH's direction in the past few months. One official, who both signed the letter and spoke with Katherine anonymously, told her, 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state.' The official added, 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' That quote struck me because it dovetails directly with the mindset that Trump demonstrates in his dealing with the states: Parts of the federal government are most valuable to him when they can be used not to provide services to citizens, but to serve as a cudgel. — David Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The impact of Medicaid, SNAP cuts in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
ST. LOUIS – Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued its analysis of President Donald Trump's so-called 'big, beautiful bill.' The CBO predicted the legislation would increase the federal deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade and leave nearly 11 million people without health insurance. 'They're asking the poorest Americans to tighten their belts, so that the richest Americans can loosen their belts, and that's what makes it so extra unfair,' Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, said. Kogan says the president's tax bill could feature the largest Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cuts in history. 'By putting up so much red tape, tons of people who're doing everything right fall through the cracks,' Kogan said. 'These are incredibly meager benefits and all of the sudden, lots of people are going to lose them.' Police crackdown on reckless, disabling dozens of cars Kogan says the bill freezes Medicaid provider taxes, which many states use to help pay for large portions of their Medicaid programs. 'Already, a lot of hospitals are struggling, and this would definitely make the situation much worse,' he said. Senator Josh Hawley warned this could force rural hospitals to close. 'You've got some senators who now want to change this bill to cut Medicaid benefits. That's ridiculous. That's insane. 1.3 million people in Missouri are on Medicaid, including hundreds of thousands of kids. These are working people who cannot afford health insurance otherwise,' Hawley said in a June 5 interview. Last week, Hawley posted on his X social media account, 'Just had a great talk with President Trump about the big, beautiful bill. He said again, no Medicaid benefit cuts.' 'Failure is not an option. And we intend to deliver, along with the president, for the American people,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said. With Senate Republicans planning to get the bill to the president's desk by July 4, Kogan fears the fallout. 'There's a lot at stake here and a lot of people's livelihoods could be upended, so I hope the senators could see differently,' Kogan said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Fires Entire Panel of Vaccine Experts
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has fired a panel of 17 medical and public health experts that advised the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccine policy, and is expected to replace them with individuales aligned with his own vaccine skepticism. In a statement issued on Monday, the Department of Health and Human Services wrote that the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices will be restaffed with 'new members currently under consideration.' 'A clean sweep is necessary to reestablish public confidence in vaccine science,' Kennedy wrote, alleging the committee — which helped coordinate the CDC's annual flu prevention program — had been compromised by conflicts of interest. Members of the committee are required to file ethics disclosures, which are prominently displayed on its website. 'The Biden administration appointed all of the 17 sitting ACIP members. Thirteen of them were appointed in 2024. These appointments would have prevented the current administration from choosing a majority of the committee until 2028,' Kennedy added. The move comes after Kennedy promised Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) that he would make no changes to the committee in order to secure the senator's support for his confirmation. Earlier this year, the annual meeting of the ACIP was postponed without explanation and rescheduled for June. The months-long delay prompted concerns that the timeline for passing along recommendations to manufacturers and communicating with insurance companies would have negative repercussions to patients. In an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal, Kennedy wrote that 'the new members won't directly work for the vaccine industry. They will exercise independent judgment, refuse to serve as a rubber stamp, and foster a culture of critical inquiry — unafraid to ask hard questions.' Last month, Kennedy's 'Make America Healthy Again' commission released a report that reiterated his own conspiracies about vaccines — and was riddled with citation errors and outright fake research. The so-called MAHA report alluded to disproven claims from vaccine skeptics that the vaccine schedule recommended for children in the United States is overloaded and potentially harmful. The attack against the independent vaccine advisory board is the latest instance in which Kennedy has attempted to mold the nation's leading public health systems around his own pseudoscientific agenda — with the health of millions of Americans in the balance. More from Rolling Stone RFK Jr.'s MAHA Report Cites Research Studies That Don't Exist Why Are Health Influencers Drinking Raw Milk and Honey Shots at the White House? RFK Jr. and Republicans Are Dismantling a Health Achievement: Fluoride in Water Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
