
We took action in Kosovo. Why should Gaza be any different?
The UK continues to supply arms, materials and surveillance for Benjamin Netanyahu's regime and instructs the police to arrest anyone who supports Palestinian Action, an activist group calling for an end to the ethnic cleansing and massacres in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Israel is going even further with raids and attacks on Syria and Lebanon, not to mention Iran.
Why doesn't the UK Government have the guts to call for military action against [[Israel]]?
Roll back to 1999 when Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic attempted to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of Kosovar Albanians. There were pictures of tens of thousands fleeing, some with all their belongings piled on the back of tractors.
There was then a massacre at a village called Racak when 43 civilians were killed, prompting Nato to intervene and effectively end the war.
I was there reporting for Reuters and Sky News and saw the victims and knew this was a defining moment.
Why hasn't the same happened in response to Israel's refusal to accept international law in Gaza?
Yes, the attack by Hamas in October 2023 was appalling but since then more than 50,000 Palestinians have been killed, their homes destroyed, settlers are taking over whole villages, Americans are eyeing up seaside lots, olive groves have been ripped out (by settlers) and fishermen refused access to the waters.
There are dozens of innocent people being killed every day.
Surely it couldn't be anything to do with race or religion could it?
Andy Stenton, Glasgow.
Read more letters
Corruption in Ukraine
I note that your front-page article on President Zelenskyy's latest olive branch to his Russian counterpart ("Zelenskyy repeats his offer to meet with Putin to negotiate peace deal", The Herald, July 23) makes no mention of the first public protests against him since the war began. These took place in a number of cities after the parliament backed a bill limiting the power of anti-corruption agencies.
With Ukraine already in lowly 105th place on Transparency International's corruption-perceptions index, this bill should be a warning to investors. Unfortunately Keir Starmer has a bombastic 100-year deal with Ukraine.
George Morton, Rosyth.
Take tough action on migrants
I have long argued through the courtesy of your Letters Pages that the only sure way to stop the small boats invasion is to kill off the demand (illegal migrants) which in turn will kill off the supply (the gangs). That could be achieved by legislating that anyone arriving illegally is automatically disqualified from staying, no ifs, no buts. With its huge Westminster majority, the Labour Government should have no problem in passing this legislation and thus fulfilling its stated 'duty" to stop this illegal invasion.
The only question is why are Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper not doing that immediately rather than fiddling about with unrealistic schemes such as ' one in, one out" and grand-sounding but placebo-like 'international co-operation agreements" to 'smash the gangs" which will never stem the demand which fuels the flow across the Channel?
For anyone who doubts the seriousness of the small boats invasion, I commend a report recently on Talk TV (why not our national broadcaster the BBC?) by an investigative journalist with a camera crew (filming apparently covertly) from around the migrant camps near Calais. The report revealed that thousands of mainly young men are camping out there waiting to cross, with these numbers increasing as more and more are brought in daily by large coaches. This illegal invasion of the UK is huge and growing. We don't know who they are and it is high time the Government took the gloves off to deal with it.
Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.
Our leaders have no idea
It is patently obvious the current Labour Government has no idea how to fix Britain. All it does is to make things worse. People always claim they go into politics to make things better. Surely these same people must realise when they are out of their depth?
Admitting this is never a consideration but it really should be. This argument holds good in Scotland too, when after 18 years of trying, the SNP has achieved precious little. Politicians really must take responsibility for the powers they wield. It seems these days very few do. This should worry us all.
Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.
We must focus on nuclear
David Hay (Letters, July 23) tries to rubbish nuclear power as being unecological.
His figures of Norway generating 85% of its electricity from hydro electric power stations ignores the fact that 90% of Norway's population lives in the near coastal regions, leaving the mountainous valleys available for such schemes. Doing so in Scotland would require Highland clearances on a biblical scale.
The Netherlands might be targeting 2030 for generating 70% of its power by wind but that requires the wind to blow, otherwise the wind turbines are merely sculptures of steel and carbon.
Wind turbine blades have a 'time-life' where they have to be replaced before the fatigue they experience breaks them catastrophically. Originally 25 years, this is now 15 to 20 years because the designers seemed ignorant of the fact that a leading edge doing 300 miles per hour into rain, dust, hailstones and birds causes damage which is escalated by frost. This requires expensive maintenance and downtime as steeplejacks apply sticking plasters for as long as they dare. In the 1920s Tommy Sopwith was putting steel deflectors on the leading edge of his wooden propellers but that information was either not in the designer's computers, was ignored or was treated as an irrelevance.
University studies tell us that right now we are scrapping 200,000 tonnes of time-lifed blades per annum and as a result of the exponential growth in the industry this will be 30 million tonnes by 2030 and 50 million tonnes by 2050. These blades cannot be recycled or put to landfill, they will last millions of years so what part of 'eco' do they fit into? Where are they going to go? In the USA they are being buried in vast tracts of land but even that is a limited resource.
Mr Hay might also be unaware that the replacement carbon fibres and resins require oil as a source for the raw material and concrete for the bases, whose creation is a major producer of CO2.
The waste from a nuclear plant is limited and can be stored safely. Hitachi is currently working on a reactor that will produce waste with a half life of 1,000 years instead of 30,000 years, a big step forward. We are a clever species, we should be working on reducing that further.
We are currently in a situation where overcapacity of wind generation requires generators to be paid to stop generating, sending our hard-earned cash to the overseas corporations that own the windfarms.
This is utter madness. We should also be charging them for their inability to supply in times of low wind speeds and cloudy days because regardless of the eco-qualities we still need a generating capacity to cover the shortfall and that will require gas or nuclear generation. For the last 50 years nuclear power has supplied a steady 40% of our base generation. It should remain so.
Peter Wright, West Kilbride.
The Torness nuclear power station (Image: Getty)
Nationwide alert
I was delighted to read that the CEO of Nationwide Building Society is to earn just over £19,000 per day for her sterling work in helping to run a business ("Nationwide customers angry at 'controversial' decision", heraldscotland, July 21). Obviously she is much more important than nurses, midwives, doctors, and the general female population.
Running a business, to the uneducated, seems a fairly straightforward task, but we all know that without paying these people extraordinary amounts of money the country would collapse. As she laughs her way to the bank, every day, she may well think "ordinary people are so thick that they believe all our nonsense that we must pay indecent amounts of money or life would never be the same again".
B McKenna, Dumbarton.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New Statesman
12 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Trump reverses course on Ukraine, again
Photo byIf it wasn't already clear before the events of the past few days, the bad news for Ukraine is that Donald Trump appears to have only the most cursory grasp of the complexities of the existential war it is currently fighting, and a strong proclivity to adopt the views of the person he spoke to last. This is also the good news. Before his much hyped, but ultimately underwhelming, summit with Vladimir Putin last week, Trump was certain that his main objective was to secure a ceasefire in Ukraine, ideally then and there. 'I want to see a ceasefire rapidly,' Trump declared on board Air Force One as he flew to Alaska on 15 August. 'I don't know if it's going to be today, but I'm not going to be happy if it's not today.' This was one of the five key principles he had agreed in an emergency video conference with Volodymyr Zelensky and other key European leaders 48 hours earlier, along with a commitment that territorial concessions could only be negotiated by Ukraine. Yet after three hours with Putin, Trump had dispensed with the idea of a ceasefire altogether. 'It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement,' Trump wrote on Truth Social on 16 August, 'which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.' By 'all' he seems to have meant the Russian and American delegations. There were no Ukrainians present. Zelensky was thus, understandably, concerned, when he was summoned to Washington on Monday (18 August) to learn 'all the details,' presumably including how much of his country he would be expected to surrender in exchange for 'peace'. Rumours swirled that Putin was prepared to contemplate freezing the conflict along its current lines if Kyiv surrendered the entirety of Luhansk and Donetsk. (Ukraine still controls around a quarter of the Donetsk region, which includes key defensive strongholds and heavily fortified territory that functions as a bulwark against further Russian advances.) His European allies, too, were sufficiently alarmed to rush to the US capital en-masse in an attempt to head off another damaging Oval Office showdown between Zelensky and Trump. Their last White House meeting, six months earlier, had ended with Trump yelling at Zelensky that he did not 'have the cards' and having him removed from the premises. But this time, the encounter went better than any of them could have dared to hope. Zelensky had clearly learned the lessons of his previous experience, when his combat-style fatigues – which he was worn since the start of the conflict in solidarity with the Ukrainian military – seemed to upset the US president. When he stepped out of his motorcade outside the White House wearing in a black suit, specially designed by a Ukrainian tailor, Trump was delighted. 'I can't believe it,' he exclaimed, gesturing at Zelensky. 'I love it!' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The meeting itself, at least the part in front of the cameras, was perfectly cordial. Zelensky kept his answers short, taking every available opportunity to compliment Trump, and skirted around any difficult questions. The Ukrainian president's priority was clearly to shower Trump with praise and gratitude, and to take him up on what seemed to be the nascent suggestion, emerging in the days since the Alaska summit, that the US might be prepared to offer some sort of security guarantees for Ukraine as part of any peace deal. Zelensky mentioned this multiple times, making sure also to echo Trump's recent calls for a trilateral meeting with Putin, which he knew the Russian president would be reluctant to grant. Trump appears suddenly to have warmed to the prospect of US involvement in providing security guarantees, which he had previously seemed to reject, presumably wary of drawing the country into another open-ended commitment when he has styled himself as a president who ends 'forever wars'. 'There's going to be a lot of help,' he assured Zelensky during their meeting. The European forces would be the 'first line of defence,' Trump said. 'But we are going to help them out. We are going to be involved.' During the wider meeting that afternoon in the East Room – attended by British prime minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French president Emmanuel Macron, Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni, Finnish president Alexander Stubb, Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte, and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen – the European leaders reinforced Zelensky's call for security guarantees. One after the other, they praised Trump's leadership and then repeated, mantra-like, the need to 'stop the killing' by providing strong security guarantees to Ukraine. (Only Merz and Macron dared also to push for a ceasefire.) By this stage in the second Trump presidency, the world's diplomats are already fluent in the required terms of flattery, where it is safer to err of the side of extreme obsequiousness and the only limit is one's own dignity. Putin, in Alaska, supposedly told Trump that he had made America as 'hot as a pistol'. Von der Leyen duly began her remarks by reminding Trump that they had just completed the 'largest trade deal ever agreed'. She then delivered a moving appeal, 'as a mother and a grandmother,' for the assembled leaders to prioritise returning the thousands of Ukrainian children who are believed to have been abducted and taken to Russia. But when she finished speaking, it was the size of the trade deal that Trump remarked upon. The reason for Trump's apparent volte-face on the issue security guarantees is difficult to parse, but probably best explained by his sense that a deal to end the war is finally within reach. By his own, questionable account, he has resolved six wars in a little over six months and has his now sights set on a seventh, and the Nobel peace prize that he has long suggested should rightly then follow. (Trump's claim to have stopped six wars is heavily disputed.) He seems to believe that he has already pulled off a masterstroke by convincing Putin to meet him in Alaska, when in fact, the Russian president had been hinting they should meet since January. And while Putin appears to have quickly dismissed the possibility of a ceasefire during their meeting, he is said to have agreed that the US and Europe could provide 'Article Five-like' security guarantees to Ukraine. (It is worth noting that this claim seems to have originated with Steve Witkoff, Trump's roaming special envoy, who has form for delivering confusing – and confused – accounts of meetings with Putin.) So perhaps Trump genuinely believes that this is an uncontroversial issue for the Russian side, and an area for possible compromise. The only problem is that even as Trump and the Europeans were discussing the importance of security guarantees at the White House, the Russian foreign ministry issued a statement making clear that it had repeatedly and strenuously objected to the idea of any troops from Nato countries being deployed in Ukraine. 'We reaffirm our repeatedly stated position of categorical rejection of any scenarios involving the presence of a military contingent from Nato countries in Ukraine,' said the foreign ministry statement on 18 August. Russia has also previously demanded to a halt to western military aid to Ukraine as a condition for any potential peace deal, along with strict limits on the size of Ukraine's military and the abandonment of its goal to join Nato. It is not clear whether the Kremlin is prepared to negotiate on these terms. Pressed later that evening on what form any western security guarantees might take given these conditions, Rutte, Nato's secretary-general, was noncommittal in an interview on Fox News. 'What it will exactly mean' and the question of US involvement, he said, would be 'discussed in the coming days'. Trump left the meeting for around 40 minutes at one point to call Putin, as one does, while the other leaders waited in the White House. Rutte later claimed that in the course of that call, Trump had persuaded Putin to agree to a meeting with Zelensky, which would then be followed by a three-way meeting hosted by the US president. Merz said Putin and Zelensky could meet within the next two weeks. But at the time of writing, the Kremlin had yet to confirm Putin would take part, merely noting that the Russian president had 'discussed the idea of raising the level of direct Russian-Ukrainian negotiations.' It is possible we are now headed towards a rapid series of summits between Putin, Zelensky and Trump that could yield an imminent end to the fighting and a genuine peace deal. In which case, Trump might finally be able to begin preparing his Nobel prize speech. But it is equally possible that the US president's sudden mad dash for peace, accompanied by none of the preparation and little understanding of the complex issues and historical fault lines behind this conflict, will just as quickly fizzle out when it becomes clear how far apart the two sides really are, and whether or not Putin was ever really interested in peace. At a time when the Russian leader believes his forces are winning on the battlefield and time is on his side, it seems unlikely that he will agree to abandon his longstanding mission to subjugate Ukraine just to placate his 'dear friend'. This may well just be an effort to string out a putative peace process and keep Trump on side, while the Russian military grinds ahead. Given that Trump has, so far, shown little sign of following through on his threats to impose greater consequences for Putin's actions, what is to stop Russia fighting on through the rest of this year and then pushing for a peace deal on more advantageous terms next year, when the US president is likely to be even more desperate for a win ahead of the coming mid-terms? Others, too, are sceptical. 'I am not convinced that President Putin also wants peace,' Macron said at a press conference as he left Washington. 'His ultimate goal is to gain as much territory as he can, to weaken Ukraine.' Still, as long as they have Trump's attention, and they are able to impress on him the importance of making serious commitments to ensure Ukraine's security beyond this war, that will count as a victory for Zelensky and his allies for now. At least until Trump's next big encounter with Putin. Then, of course, the policy could just as easily change again. [See also: The great big anti-climax in Alaska] Related


Reuters
12 minutes ago
- Reuters
Russia launched 270 drones, 10 missiles in overnight attack, Ukraine's air force says
KYIV, Aug 19 (Reuters) - Ukraine's air force said on Tuesday that Russia launched 270 drones and 10 missiles overnight in one of its largest attacks this month. The air force said it downed 230 drones and six missiles. It recorded strikes at 16 locations with four missiles and 40 drones.


South Wales Guardian
41 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Starmer hails ‘real progress' made during White House summit on Ukraine war
The Prime Minister was one of several European leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, French President Emmanuel Macron and Nato secretary general Mark Rutte, in attendance for the discussions in Washington on Monday. US President Donald Trump said he spoke directly with Vladimir Putin to begin planning a meeting between the Russian leader and Mr Zelensky, which will then be followed by a three-way meeting involving himself. He also said Moscow will 'accept' multinational efforts to guarantee Ukraine's security. Speaking after the event, Sir Keir described the talks as 'good and constructive', adding: 'There was a real sense of unity between the European leaders that were there, and president Trump and president Zelensky'. The Prime Minister highlighted 'two material outcomes' from the talks, firstly that the coalition of the willing 'will now work with the US' on security guarantees. 'That's really important for security in Ukraine, for security in Europe, and for security in the UK,' Sir Keir said. 'The other material outcome was the agreement that there will now be a bilateral agreement between president Putin and president Zelensky, that was after a phone call between president Trump and president Putin during the course of this afternoon, followed by a trilateral which will then add in president Trump. 'That is a recognition of the principle that on some of these issues, whether it's territory or the exchange of prisoners, or the very serious issue of the return of children, that is something where Ukraine must be at the table. 'These were the two outcomes that were the most important coming out of today. They're positive outcomes, there was a real sense of unity. We've made real progress today.' Posting on his Truth Social platform after the meeting, Mr Trump also described the talks as 'very good', adding: 'During the meeting we discussed security guarantees for Ukraine, which guarantees would be provided by the various European countries, with a coordination with the United States of America. 'Everyone is happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia/Ukraine. 'At the conclusion of the meetings, I called president Putin and began arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between president Putin and president Zelensky. 'After the meeting takes place, we will have a trilat which would be the two presidents plus myself.' Before the White House talks, the US president said he would 'probably' be able to find common ground with the leaders on a plan to ward off future attacks on Ukraine. He previously met with Mr Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday, where he declared there was 'no deal until there's a deal' to end more than three years of fighting in eastern Europe. 'The Alaska summit reinforced my belief that while difficult, peace is within reach and I believe, in a very significant step, President Putin agreed that Russia would accept security guarantees for Ukraine,' Mr Trump said on Monday. 'And this is one of the key points that we need to consider.' He later said: 'We also need to discuss the possible exchanges of territory taken into consideration the current line of contact.' Mr Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, had suggested measures similar to Nato's article five mutual defence provision – that an attack on one member is an attack on the entire bloc – could be offered by the US without Kyiv joining the alliance. 'We were able to win the following concession: that the United States could offer article five-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in Nato,' Mr Witkoff told CNN over the weekend, as he spoke about the Alaska summit. Future three-way talks 'have a good chance' of stopping the conflict, the US president claimed. But the president appeared to share conflicting views on whether a ceasefire was necessary to stop the war. 'I don't think you need a ceasefire,' he had originally said, before later explaining that, 'all of us would obviously prefer an immediate ceasefire while we work on a lasting peace'. During the discussions, Sir Keir welcomed plans for a security guarantee, after Mr Trump introduced him at the negotiating table as a 'friend' on Monday. He said: 'Your indication of security guarantees, of some sort of article five-style guarantees, fits with what we've been doing with the coalition of the willing which we started some months ago, bringing countries together and showing that we were prepared to step up to the plate when it came to security. 'With you coming alongside, the US alongside, what we've already developed, I think we could take a really important step forward today – a historic step, actually, could come out of this meeting in terms of security for Ukraine and security in Europe.' Sir Keir also described potential future trilateral talks as appearing to be a 'sensible next step' and continued: 'So, thank you for being prepared to take that forward, because I think if we can ensure that that is the progress out of this meeting – both security guarantees and some sort of progress on (a) trilateral meeting of some sort to bring some of the difficult issues to a head – then I think today will be seen as a very important day in recent years.' The PA news agency understands the Prime Minister disrupted his holiday plans over the weekend to join calls, including with Mr Trump and Mr Zelensky, before he headed to Washington, as reported in The Times. Following the talks, Mr Trump said he also discussed 'the massive worldwide problem of missing children' with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Responding on X, Mr Zelensky said: 'This issue lies at the heart of the war's humanitarian tragedy – our children, broken families, the pain of separation. At least 20,000 children were taken. 'We are working tirelessly to bring every child home. The same applies for our prisoners of war and civilians held in Russia for years, some since 2014, in very bad conditions. Thousands of people still need to be freed – and this is a part of making peace. 'We will work to negotiate all-for-all prisoners of war exchange, and we are grateful to have strong friends who help.' Mr Zelensky, whom Mr Trump greeted at the door of the West Wing with a handshake earlier in the evening, wore a black shirt with buttons and a black blazer to the meeting at the White House. His attire had appeared to become a point of irritation for Mr Trump during a previous meeting in February. Early in the meeting, the Ukrainian described the talks as 'really good', saying they had been 'the best' so far. Mr Zelensky said: 'We are very happy with the president that all the leaders are here and security in Ukraine depends on the United States and on you and on those leaders who are with us in our hearts.'