Zelensky dons new look to meet King Charles ahead of Nato summit
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky visited the UK for meetings ahead of a Nato summit.
During his visit, Mr Zelensky met with King Charles at Windsor Castle, swapping his characteristic military fatigues for a black blazer for the royal meeting.
He also met with Sir Keir Starmer to discuss Ukraine's defences and strategies to increase pressure on Russia.
Zelensky's visit follows recent Russian drone and missile attacks on Ukraine, which killed at least 10 civilians.
He said preliminary reports indicated Russia used North Korean missiles and described Russia, North Korea, and Iran as a "coalition of murderers".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
21 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
GRAHAM GRANT: 'See me after class'? No, Jenny Gilruth should be expelled from the cabinet for her failures over the scourge of school bullies
There was a shudder of fear and apprehension last week when Jenny Gilruth unveiled her new discipline crackdown. But the Education Secretary's plan for taming classroom thugs is unlikely to have inspired dread among the troublemakers.
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Macron: Trump air strikes against Iran ‘illegal'
Emmanuel Macron has branded Donald Trump's air strikes against Iran 'illegal'. The French president said it could be considered legitimate to bomb nuclear facilities that pose a potential threat but that there was no legal framework, so strikes conducted by the United States and Israel were not legal. His intervention came as Sir Keir Starmer and a succession of ministers declined to explicitly state the US president had acted within international law or in a correct manner. Sir Keir was warned by Lord Hermer, his Attorney General, last week that joining a US attack on Iran could breach international law. However, the Prime Minister is coming under increasing pressure to 'get off the fence' and say whether the UK backs Mr Trump's action. The strike on Saturday evening came after a week of public and private lobbying from European leaders urging Mr Trump not to unilaterally strike Iran. Instead, the US carried out a stealth bombing raid on three Iranian nuclear sites, with the president later declaring the mission a success with the targets ' obliterated '. Mr Trump's decision to strike has led to fresh questions about the ability of Sir Keir and other Western leaders to influence his approach to international issues. The US president walked out of the G7 summit in Canada last week halfway through. He is expected to gather with many of the same leaders again at the Nato summit in the Hague on Wednesday. Mr Macron said of the US attacks: 'It may be considered legitimate... to neutralise nuclear facilities in Iran, given our objectives. 'However, there is no legal framework, no. And so we must say it as it is: there is no legality to these strikes. 'Even though France shares the objective of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, we have consistently believed from the outset that this can only be achieved through diplomatic and technical means. 'I say this because I hear many commentators who basically accuse you of inefficiency when you defend the diplomatic route on these issues. But when you are consistent, you can claim to be effective. He added: 'We continue to believe that it is through negotiation and re-engagement that we can achieve our goals.' Speaking alongside Mr Macron, the Norwegian prime minister Jonas Gahr Store echoed the sentiment. 'International law has some clear principles on the use of force. It can be granted by the Security Council or it can be in pure self-defence,' he said, noting that this meant the strikes were 'outside the realm of international law'. Mr Macron's comments were at odds with both Germany and Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, who said that pre-emptive US air strikes on Iran were not illegal. Asked twice about whether they breach international law as Russia did by attacking Ukraine in 2022, Mr Rutte said: 'My biggest fear would be for Iran to own and be able to use and deploy a nuclear weapon to be a stranglehold on Israel, on the whole region and other parts of the world. 'This is a consistent position of Nato: Iran should not have its hands on a nuclear weapon,' he added. 'I would not agree that this is against international law – what the US did.' In contrast Friedrich Merz, the German Chancellor, said on Monday there was 'no reason to criticise' Israel or America over their actions, adding: 'It is not without risk. But leaving it as it was wasn't an option either.' However, Government figures in Westminster echoed Mr Macron on Monday, with several ministers repeatedly refusing to say explicitly that the US bombing was either legal or the correct course of action. Instead, they said it was a 'good thing' that Iran was prevented from getting a nuclear bomb and talked about the importance of finding a diplomatic solution. David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, was asked about the lawfulness of the strikes on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. He said: 'Well, we weren't involved, it's for the Americans to discuss those issues.' When reminded that the UK had publicly deemed Russia's invasion of Ukraine as illegal without being involved, Mr Lammy insisted: 'There isn't a moral equivalence here.' Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, batted away similar questions on Sky News, saying: 'It is up to the US to make that case. We weren't involved in those actions and of course we would never comment on the legal advice that the Government receives.' Meanwhile, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said that preventing Tehran from obtaining a nuclear bomb was a 'good thing' for the UK, but also declined to comment on whether the US strikes complied with international law. Sir Keir is facing growing criticism for failing to clarify the UK's position. Kemi Badenoch said the Government was showing a 'complete absence of moral clarity and in fact moral courage' by failing to offer a verdict on the US strikes against Iran. The Conservative leader said: 'They clearly don't think it is lawful because if they did they would have come out and said so.' Priti Patel, the Conservative shadow foreign secretary, said: 'Once again David Lammy and the Labour Government have tried to hide and obfuscate on whether or not they support the US's action to ensure that the despotic regime of Iran never obtains nuclear weapons. 'Hiding behind the weak pretences of legal advice and vague language is simply not good enough – the British public deserve to know if their government supports degrading the threat of Iran to us and our allies, or whether it is all too happy to sit on the moral fence.' Nigel Farage, the Reform leader, said he was 'pleased that the Americans have intervened', calling the Iranian regime 'brutally evil'. Richard Tice, the Reform deputy leader, questioned why Mr Lammy was not 'thanking the United States and Israel for degrading the Iranian nuclear weapons programme'. Criticism also came from within Mr Lammy's own party, with Labour Left-wingers calling for a more critical stance towards Washington. Richard Burgon, the Labour MP for Leeds East, said: ' Iraq showed the grave dangers of following a Right-wing US president into an illegal war for regime change. 'The consequences were hundreds of thousands dead, mass destruction, mass devastation, regional chaos and wasted resources. Many fear that the same thing is happening now.' On Monday evening, explosions were witnessed over Qatar as an apparent Iranian attempt to hit a US air base in retaliation was intercepted by anti-air strike defences. Iran was thought to be targeting Al Udeid, the US air base that has been used by British military personnel in the past. The Foreign Office was monitoring the situation on Monday night, but one senior Government insider said there was relative 'calm' because no British soldiers were stationed at the base.
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Series of public inquiries on Troubles incidents ‘not the way forward'
The legacy of Northern Ireland's past is not going to be dealt with by a series of public inquiries, Secretary of State Hilary Benn has said. He came under questioning over the Government's handling of legacy cases during a meeting of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on Monday. Mr Benn insisted that a reformed Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) will be able to deal with the cases. The body led by Sir Declan Morgan, a former lord chief justice for Northern Ireland, was set up by the former government's Legacy Act after scores of legacy inquests and other court cases relating to the Troubles were halted. The Kingsmill massacre and the Guildford pub bombings are among cases it is currently looking at. Mr Benn told MPs they are working to change disclosure arrangements and to make it compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 'In the end, we're not going to deal with legacy with a whole series of public inquiries,' he said. 'We're doing all this work to try and create a body which is capable of delivering justice for all, information for all, answers for all. 'That is what I am trying to do at the moment because of the incompatibilities identified.' He was asked about his decision not to call a public inquiry into the circumstances around the murder of GAA official Sean Brown in 1997. In May the UK Government confirmed it will seek a Supreme Court appeal over a court ruling that ordered it to hold a public inquiry into Mr Brown's murder. The 61-year-old then-chairman of Wolfe Tones GAA Club in the Co Londonderry town of Bellaghy was ambushed, kidnapped and murdered by loyalist paramilitaries as he locked the gates of the club in May 1997. No-one has ever been convicted of his killing. Preliminary inquest proceedings last year heard that in excess of 25 people had been linked by intelligence to the murder, including several state agents. It was also alleged in court that surveillance of a suspect in the murder was temporarily stopped on the evening of the killing, only to resume again the following morning. Asked about Mr Brown's case, Mr Benn told MPs: 'It's an awful, awful case. 'The murder of Sean Brown was shocking, deeply violent, and this has caused immense suffering to the family, to his widow Bridie and to the wider community, including the GAA family, because of the role that he undertook. 'But I came to the conclusion that the commission reformed would be capable of looking into it, and there's an issue of principle here in respect to the court ruling. 'Up until this moment, the courts accepted that it is for governments to decide whether public inquiries are ordered, not for the courts. 'What the courts have tended to say is, this is the test that has to be met, the way in which the government chooses to meet that test is a matter for governments to decide. 'There is a margin of appreciation that is made available. 'In this particular case, the court has decided to order a public inquiry. 'We're seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court because of that fundamental principle, which is, courts do not order public inquiries, governments do, and that is very important because of the nature of the mandatory order I am not able to do anything else other than order a public inquiry, which I made it clear that the Government is not going to do, because I believe there's another means of dealing with this case.' Mr Benn said there are five other cases that are in the same position. 'People say the Sean Brown case is unique. All murders are unique and uniquely painful for the family, but it is not a unique case,' he said. 'This is not a unique case, and I would also say we are not going to deal with legacy by having a whole series of public inquiries. 'That is not a way forward. That is why we have to make the reform of the commission to win public confidence. 'To make it ECHR compliant is so important because then you have a mechanism that you can use to deal with all of them and all of us, the committee, the whole team, everybody needs to be concerned about justice for everyone.' He added: 'It is open to the Brown family to go to the commission today, the commission will start work on investigating.'
