Zelensky issues Russia Nato attack warning
Volodymyr Zelensky has warned that Russia could attack a Nato country within the next five years.
The Ukrainian leader suggested that Russian President Vladimir Putin might launch such an attack to test the alliance.
He criticised Nato members' plans to increase defence spending to five per cent of GDP by 2035 as "very slow".
Mr Zelensky also expressed concern that Mr Putin could develop "significantly greater capabilities" by 2030.
Watch the full video above.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Telegraph
International law makes life better for everyone, insists Lord Hermer
Abiding by international law makes life better for everyone in Britain, Lord Hermer has said. The Attorney General said Labour's commitment to international law went to the 'absolute' heart of what the Government was trying to achieve, 'which is to make life better for people in this country'. Lord Hermer argued that, without the UK's commitment to stick by international rules, it would not be able to negotiate trade and migration deals as it had with the US, India, France, Germany and Iraq. He said no one would make agreements with people 'they don't trust' because they broke their word. His comments to the BBC came before the disclosure of his legal advice that the UK should not join direct strikes by Israel against Iran, as it might breach international law. Sir Keir Starmer and David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, have refused to comment on the legality of the strikes on Iran either by the US at the weekend or by Israel. Lord Hermer said Sir Keir had avoided a 'Love Actually' approach towards his relationship with Donald Trump, where he could have sought to oppose to secure 'short-term' political gain. Instead, he had sought to ensure the UK's relationship with the US remained warm. In the 2003 film Love Actually, a fictional prime minister, played by Hugh Grant, contradicts a US president during a press conference to the delight of his advisers, political supporters and the public. The approach to the law taken by Lord Hermer, a long-standing legal friend of the Prime Minister, has been a persistent controversy during Sir Keir's premiership. Last month, he was forced to apologise after comparing politicians who wanted to leave the European Convention on Human Rights to the rise of Nazi Germany. Asked whether international law was a 'red line' for Sir Keir in foreign policy, Lord Hermer replied: 'If you ask me what's Keir's kind of principal overriding interest, it is genuinely to make life better for the people of this country. 'Is international law important to this Government and to this Prime Minister? Of course it is. It's important in and of itself, but it's also important because it goes absolutely to the heart of what we're trying to achieve, which is to make life better for people in this country.' 'Government is completely united' He added that he was 'absolutely convinced' that 'the Government is completely united on this', adding: 'Actually, by ensuring that we are complying with all forms of law – domestic law and international law – we serve the national interest.' Lord Hermer said the UK could only enter trade deals with the US, India and the EU 'because we're back on the world stage as a country whose word is their bond'. He told the BBC: 'No one wants to do deals with people they don't trust. No one wants to sign international agreements with a country that's got a government that's saying, well, 'we may comply with it, we may not'. 'We do. We succeed. We secure those trade deals, which are essential for making people's lives better in this country. 'We secure deals on migration with France, with Germany, with Iraq, that are going to deal with some of the other fundamental problems that we face, and we can do that because we comply, and we're seen to comply and indeed lead on international law issues. 'Being a good faith player in international law is overwhelmingly in the national interests of this country.' Speaking about the UK's relationship with the US, Lord Hermer said it was 'absolutely vital' despite 'various different pressures'. 'I think the approach that Keir has taken, which is never to give in to that kind of Love Actually instinct for short-term political gain, but rather to ensure that our relationship with the United States remains warm, that channels of communication are always open, that there is mutual respect between us. 'I think that is overwhelmingly in this country's interests.'
Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The academics muzzled by cancel culture
'You should expect to face views you might find shocking or offensive, and you should be aware that's part of the process of education,' said Arif Ahmed, a Cambridge philosophy lecturer and the Government's 'free speech tsar'. Ahmed is the director of freedom of speech and academic freedom at the Office for Students (OFS), the university regulator. His remarks were addressed to students last week as the body published new guidance on protecting free speech at universities, ahead of incoming legislation which will take effect in August. For the students, academics and support staff who have found themselves caught up in academia's battle with intolerance, they were welcome words. But for others they were too little, too late. Alongside the guidance, the OFS commissioned a YouGov poll which found that one in five academics does not feel 'free' to discuss challenging subjects, while nearly a quarter fear they could be physically attacked for broaching controversial topics, including transgender ideology. 'Higher-education providers and constituent institutions should have a high tolerance for all kinds of lawful speech,' states the new guidance, which provides examples of how institutions should respond to scenarios such as protests, the investigation of staff and student complaints and ensuring speakers are not prevented from expressing their opinions. 'There should be a very strong presumption in favour of permitting lawful speech.' Academics have welcomed the changes, which they hope will provide some much-needed clarity in a notoriously difficult area. Edward Skidelsky, a philosophy lecturer at the University of Exeter and the director of the Committee for Academic Freedom, is one of them. He praised the 'reassuringly robust' new guidance, which makes it clear that students and academics will not be punished for speaking their mind. 'Students feel very constrained when it comes to certain topics,' he tells The Telegraph. 'I teach sexual ethics as part of one of my courses and it is difficult to get a discussion going. They clam up. I discuss Catholic views of homosexuality, and I'll often say, 'Does anyone want to defend these views?' because I think everything should be up for debate. But no one ever does. 'Even though I'm sure there are people in the class who agree with those views, they won't defend them publicly, mainly because they are frightened of what other students might think of them. Some will talk to me privately and be more open, but they feel constricted in front of other students. They worry they'll be cut out of social networks and friendship groups. People won't want to talk to them in the bar. They'll be ostracised.' Skidelsky says he has seen a marked change since his own time as an undergraduate, when identity politics was much less fraught. 'When I was an undergrad in the 1990s, politics didn't really matter. You didn't choose your friends according to their political views. It was something you talked about out of interest but it wasn't integral to your identity in the way it's become now. That's the big difference. People really divide into groups according to whether they are conservatives or liberals.' Modern university culture has been influenced by the desire to create more equitable spaces for students, who come from a wider variety of backgrounds. But the desire for tolerance has spilt over into intolerance of arguments that are seen to run counter to the prevailing progressive views. In the latest such case, the University of Bristol was on Monday accused of failing to protect one of its own professors after he was falsely accused of Islamophobia. Professor Steven Greer had taught at the institution for 36 years when he was said to have insulted Islam and the Koran during a discussion with students about the Islamist attacks on France's Charlie Hebdo magazine in 2015. Six months later, a student who had not attended the discussion lodged a complaint about alleged Islamophobia, which the university then acted on, launching a five-month inquiry which ultimately wholly exonerated Greer. Despite this, the university scrapped the module in question, titled 'Islam, China and the Far East'. Greer was meanwhile subject to a campaign of abuse that resulted in him temporarily leaving his home due to concerns for his safety. He ultimately resigned and has since accused the university of endangering his life to avoid being seen as anti-Muslim, warning his case could have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. Remi Adekoya, who teaches politics at the University of York, says that, ironically, it can be ethnic minorities who feel the chill most powerfully. Indeed, the YouGov poll commissioned by the OFS found the percentage of those who do not feel free to broach controversial topics rises to a third for academics from ethnic minority backgrounds. 'Students said they felt afraid of offending someone,' says Adekoya. 'One interesting answer came from an ethnic minority student, who said, 'The reason I don't want to discuss issues around race and colonialism is because very often I am the only ethnic minority in the classroom, and I feel anything I say about race the class will simply agree with me because that's what they have to do. That doesn't make sense to me.' Students don't like to sense people are walking on eggshells around them. 'In other societies I've lived in, people have public opinions and private opinions,' he adds. 'In the UK, people have public opinions, private opinions and secret opinions. There are some things which people won't say even in a room full of colleagues.' With regard to the new guidance, he says: 'Any move towards entrenching academic freedom in UK universities is a good thing.' The new guidance was issued after requests from universities for clarity on how they could uphold freedom of speech. In March, the University of Sussex was fined £585,000 after its policy on trans and non-binary equality was ruled to have had a chilling effect on free speech. Kathleen Stock, a prominent gender-critical academic, had previously resigned over its policies. (The university is appealing against the decision.) For academics who have fallen foul of the intolerance in British academia in recent years, however, the shift is too little, too late. In January, Martin Speake, a renowned saxophonist, resigned from his teaching position at Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance in Greenwich after he said the college had made his position 'untenable'. The row began in early 2024, when he replied to an email from the principal of the conservatoire stating that there was racial inequality in jazz music and supporting the Black Lives Matter movement. The principal invited feedback. 'I shared my experience, which was nothing like what he mentioned,' Speake says. In his email, he wrote that he wanted to discuss the broader issue and that 'black musicians in jazz and many other styles of music are definitely not under-represented in the UK' and in fact 'have far more opportunities than many others'. For him, he wrote, 'opportunity is about class, not skin colour'. Speake never had a direct reply to his email, but he showed it to a student, who read it to 'three or four' other classmates. Word started to get out. Speake's classes were suspended. The day after a fractious meeting of the students to discuss the case, Speake says the director of music told him: 'I fear for your safety.' As anger spread in the student body, Speake was signed off sick. Venues cancelled his gigs and a record label refused to put his album out. 'It was very, very disturbing and stressful,' he says. 'Nobody would talk to me in the corridor. I'd say hello, some students would ignore me, others would say hello.' Other teaching work at the Guildhall and the Royal Academy of Music dried up, too. 'The students have changed,' he says. 'Mainly it's to do with fees, but it's also to do with the ideology people call woke.' Speake is bringing a case for unfair dismissal against Trinity Laban. 'The main thing is betrayal,' he says. 'I feel huge betrayal by the institutions, the students, and old friends and musicians. I'm stronger because of it, but it's very sad. I've lost a lot.' (Trinity Laban was approached for comment. The institution has previously contested Speake's version of events. A spokesman stated that 'no disciplinary actions were taken against Mr Speake on the basis of his personal views'.) For other academics, the issue has not been their personal views but the curriculum. Almut Gadow taught law at the Open University for nearly a decade before she was summarily dismissed in 2022 for misconduct. She had posted messages on a university noticeboard critical of changes to the law curriculum, which she said would 'indoctrinate students in gender ideology theory'. 'The discussion started around the fact that for one law tutorial they had created a fictitious scenario, which was supposed to be around GBH, where the perpetrator identified as gender-neutral, so 'they/them' pronouns were supposed to be used,' Gadow recalls. 'I asked why. The law does not recognise a third gender, so why should I, a trained lawyer, recognise a third gender. This was a criminal law scenario where you pretended to be a prosecutor. The role of a prosecutor in court is to present fact. The sex of the offender and victim might be relevant; the gender identity is not. It is not the role of the prosecutor or court to affirm the defendant's gender identity.' Her posts in question were removed before she was dismissed for violating inclusivity policies. The university initially countered that Gadow had made 'offensive and spurious allegations online which we reject in the strongest of terms', but settled the case in March for an undisclosed amount. 'It was tremendously unfair,' she says. 'It flies in the face of everything a university should be. You shouldn't be sacked from your university for not wanting to promote particular social and political ideologies in your classroom. That's not how free universities in free countries work.' With German and Peruvian heritage, Gadow is aware of the risks of using universities for ideological ends. 'I was told that [the gender issue] was not relevant to the teaching of law but helps achieve broader aims of liberating the curriculum,' she says. 'I replied that including things that aren't relevant to the subject because it helps achieve broader ideological objectives is something that might be very familiar to people who hail from totalitarian regimes.' A spokesman for the Open University said: 'We don't comment on cases post-settlement, preferring instead to be mindful of the confidentiality of that settlement and the privacy of the individual involved.' The YouGov survey makes startling reading. More than a quarter of respondents said their university had become less tolerant of a range of viewpoints during their tenure. Less than half think their university would prioritise freedom of speech over not causing offence. And two thirds believe their university would prioritise staff and/or students feeling safe over freedom of speech. But despite the sense of gloom, there have been signs that the mood might be changing already. Adekoya says things are 'improving' in terms of 'a slightly freer atmosphere for academic debate'. On gender, in particular, Skidelsky says the Cass Review in April last year and the Supreme Court ruling in April have helped reopen debate. 'There has been a big push-back on [the transgender issue],' he says. 'People are more free to speak their minds than they were a few years ago. People do feel safer to say that trans women are not real women.' But he warns that there is plenty of work left to do in other areas. 'I'm not sure if the general direction of travel is back towards liberalism,' he says. 'On DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion], universities are pushing that even harder as a reaction to the Trump presidency. 'It damages universities' authority with the public as they're seen as bastions of wokery, they're not trusted by people in the way they used to be. I think it makes them less attractive to students, so they're struggling to maintain numbers. Students are deciding they're better off not going at all. And it interferes with the core purpose of universities, which is to discover the truth. If people are always being judged on their allegiance to ideology, they're not free to pursue the truth.' Under the new legislation, the OFS will be able to sanction universities, with the potential for fines to run into millions of pounds, if they are found to have failed to uphold freedom of speech. But even if academics feel more relaxed as a result, any renewed sense of freedom will take a while to filter down to students. In the social media era, the threat of social censure remains just as potent. They may be allowed to speak their mind, but that is not the same thing as doing it.
ITV News
13 minutes ago
- ITV News
World leaders gather for Nato summit in the Netherlands
World leaders have gathered in the Netherlands for the start of a historic two-day Nato summit, with big defence spending pledges expected. Sir Keir Starmer is set to commit to defence spending of 5% of GDP by 2035, in an announcement at the summit. France and Germany have already committed to the 5% goal, and the Netherlands is also on board. The target, expected to be formally agreed by the 32-nation military alliance at a summit in The Hague this week, includes spending 3.5% on 'core defence' and another 1.5% on 'resilience and security'. It represents a significant jump from the current 2% Nato target, and from the UK Government's aim of spending 2.5% of GDP on defence from 2027 and 3% at some point after the next election. But the figure is in line with the demands of US President Donald Trump, who has called for Nato allies to shoulder more of the burden of European defence. Spain however has said it cannot, calling the target "unreasonable", while Trump has said the US should not have to. Israel accused Iran of breaking a ceasefire deal hours after it came into effect, while Iran has denied firing missiles after the agreed deadline. Israel says it will "respond forcefully" to Iran's "violation" of the ceasefire deal. All eyes will be on President Donald Trump, who is making his first appearance at Nato since returning to the White House. His arrival was supposed to centre on how the US secured the historic military spending pledge from other members of the alliance. However, the spotlight instead will now be on the Middle-East. The President on Tuesday morning expressed his fury at the ceasefire between Israel and Iran failing, saying he was "not happy" and that he thought "they both violated it". Sir Keir Starmer has insisted Israel and Iran must "get back" to the ceasefire they had agreed, as he travelled to the summit. The Prime Minister told reporters: "I want the ceasefire to continue, and therefore, obviously, the sooner we get back to that the better, and that's the message that I'm discussing with other leaders today. "We've got a ceasefire. We need to get back to that ceasefire, which is consistent with what I've been saying about de-escalation for quite some time now." Ukraine has suffered as a result of the conflict in the Middle-East. It has created a need for weapons and ammunition that Kyiv desperately wants, and shifted the world's attention away from what is happening in Ukraine. Past Nato summits have focused almost entirely on the war in Ukraine, now in its fourth year. Still, the Secretary General of Nato Mark Rutte insists that Ukraine remains a vital issue for the security alliance, and that the allies can manage more than one conflict. 'If we would not be able to deal with ... the Middle East, which is very big and commanding all the headlines, and Ukraine at the same time, we should not be in the business of politics and military at all," he said. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is in The Hague, but is not expected to be around the Nato table. He instead will attend a series of meetings.
