Ukraine-Russia war latest: Germany to bankroll Kyiv-made long-range missiles in new military pact
Germany is set to finance the production of long-range missiles in Ukraine after the two countries agreed a defence-sector pact.
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky made the the announcement alongside German chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin, as Kyiv pushes to shore up its own defence industry to continue fighting off the Russian invasion.
Asked whether Germany had agreed to send its Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine, a topic of growing speculation, Mr Merz said Berlin wanted to enable the joint production of long-range missiles – but he would not disclose the details publicly.
News of the agreement prompted the Kremlin to accuse Berlin of provocation.
Mr Zelensky was earlier met with military honours at Germany's federal chancellery, a day after Mr Merz said he believed the war would drag on because Russia refused to negotiate.
The Ukrainian leader warned that Russia was massing at least 50,000 troops near the Sumy region in Ukraine's northeast.
The build-up follows reports that Russia appears to be gearing up for a summer offensive in Ukraine while Kyiv waits for Moscow to present a memorandum laying out its conditions to proceed with ceasefire talks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The best beers to buy at Lidl, tried and tasted
It's 30 years since German supermarket Lidl first opened its doors in the UK. In that time it has gained a reputation for offering some cracking, keenly priced food items and superstar wines, but what of the beer aisle? I put Lidl's beer range through a rigorous taste test to mine for quality bargains. This included a selection of Lidl's own-label products as well as some of the well-known brands it offers. The range leans heavily towards lager, as you might expect with research suggesting that over 70 per cent of Brits prefer it to ale. However, it does have a compact but well chosen offering for ale lovers, too. And keep an eye out in the fabled Middle of Lidl for occasional specials; I've seen four-packs of Thornbridge's legendary Jaipur IPA in there at a bargain-basement price and the large 'selection pack' of German beers that is usually released around Oktoberfest is always hotly anticipated. Examining the range as a whole, I quickly noticed that almost every bottle is labelled 'premium'. To paraphrase The Incredibles, if everything is super then nothing is – the descriptor loses all meaning. I therefore tasted the range blind, to prevent undue influence from the packaging or my own personal bias. My final list features those I consider the very best available – as well as a couple that miss the mark and are best avoided. After the big reveal, my verdict is that Lidl offers a number of extremely successful big-name duplicates that offer a lot of flavour at a very competitive price. So if you're accustomed to sticking to your usual brand of beer, perhaps it's time for a taste test of your own. Skip to: Why you can trust us The Lidl beer taste test winners – and losers Cheaper than Madri Cheaper than San Miguel Cheaper than Guinness The five-star beers Why you can trust us Laura Hadland is an award-winning drinks writer, a regular Telegraph correspondent, and author of 50 Years of CAMRA, named the Best Beer Book in the World 2022 by Gourmand International. Her latest book, Beer Festivals, is out now. Read more of her work here.
BreakingNews.ie
an hour ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Ukraine ready to resume talks with Russia but wants clarity on Kremlin's terms
Ukraine is ready to resume direct peace talks with Russia in Istanbul on Monday, a top adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky has said, following days of uncertainty over whether Kyiv would attend a further meeting proposed by Moscow. But Ukrainian officials have insisted that the Kremlin provides a promised memorandum setting out its position on ending the war, before the two delegations sit down to negotiate. Advertisement 'Ukraine is ready to attend the next meeting, but we want to engage in a constructive discussion,' Andrii Yermak said in a statement on Thursday on the website of Ukraine's Presidential Office. 'This means it is important to receive Russia's draft. There is enough time – four days are sufficient for preparing and sending the documents,' Mr Yermak said. Ukraine and its European allies have repeatedly accused the Kremlin of dragging its feet in peace efforts, while it tries to press its bigger army's battlefield initiative and capture more Ukrainian land. Kyiv's western partners, including the US, are urging Moscow to agree to an unconditional ceasefire, something Kyiv has embraced while the Kremlin has held out for terms more to its liking. Advertisement Ukraine's top diplomat, Andrii Sybiha, also told reporters on Friday that Kyiv is waiting for Russia to clarify its proposals ahead of a next round of talks. 'We want to end this war this year. We are interested in establishing a ceasefire, whether it is for 30 days, 50 days or 100 days. Ukraine is open to discussing this directly with Russia,' Mr Sybiha said at a joint news conference in Kyiv with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan. Mr Sybiha and Mr Fidan also held the door open to a future meeting between Mr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin, possibly also including US President Donald Trump. Mr Fidan said the ongoing peace push in Istanbul could be 'crowned with' such a meeting. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Friday told reporters that a Russian delegation will head to Istanbul and stand ready to take part in the second round of talks on June 2. Advertisement Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday publicly invited Ukraine to hold direct negotiations with Moscow on that date. In a video statement, Mr Lavrov said Russia would use Monday's meeting to deliver an outline of Moscow's position on 'reliably overcoming' what it calls the root causes of the war. Russian officials have said for weeks that such a document is forthcoming. Ukrainian defence minister Rustem Umerov on Wednesday said that Ukraine is not opposed to further direct talks with Russia, but that they would be 'empty' if Moscow was to fail to clarify its terms. Mr Umerov said he had personally handed a document setting out Ukraine's position to the Russian side. Advertisement Low-level delegations from Russia and Ukraine held their first direct peace talks in three years in Istanbul on May 16. The talks, which lasted two hours, brought no significant breakthrough, although both sides agreed to the largest prisoner exchange of the war. It was carried out last weekend and freed 1,000 captives on each side. On Friday Mr Fidan voiced a belief that the successful swap has 'proved that negotiations can yield concrete results'. 'There are two paths in front of us. Either we will turn a blind eye to the continuation of the war, or we will reach a lasting peace within the end of the year,' he told reporters in Kyiv.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Labour's slavish obedience to international legalism prevents us from defeating Putin
Don't you know there's a war on?' This challenge, usually directed at someone who was being selfish and demanding, was frequently thrown at people during the Second World War. I want to ask the same question today, the war being that in Ukraine. It needs to be asked of all Nato countries, both in Europe and North America. Once again, it is, sort of, a rhetorical question. Almost everyone knows there's a big war on. Nobody can state accurately how many people have died in the Ukraine war, but if you guessed more than 250,000 dead, most would say you were underestimating. Russia has invaded, massacred and tortured. It has repeatedly and deliberately bombed civilians and abducted about 20,000 children. Although the Balkan wars of the 1990s were grim, with more than 100,00 people dying, the invasion of Ukraine is much the largest and most serious war in modern Europe. It was started by a great European power. In this, it is unique since 1939. Not only is it the engine of death and destruction; it is also a massive, deliberate violation of the entire post-1945 legal, political and military European peace which was designed to prevent the alteration of borders by force. We know this, and most of us, in Britain at least, hate it. Polls show popular support for Ukraine remains very high. But there is an unresolved question about how much we believe it involves us. Shortly before he went off to appease Hitler at Munich in September 1938, Neville Chamberlain self-contradicted on precisely this point. He acknowledged Britain's responsibility for ensuring peace, yet he also lamented being dragged toward war 'because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.' His word 'quarrel' implied equal fault on both sides rather than identifying one side's aggression. Such what's-it-got-to-do-with-us? ideas lurk somewhere in our collective psyche about Ukraine, even though part of the answer hit us directly in 2022 when energy prices exploded. In Donald Trump's America, there is a disturbing strand which thinks the conflict was got up by President Zelensky to get the United States to pay. That mode of thought leads to dreams of some quick deal about material advantages rather than a just – and therefore lasting – peace. Even when President Trump this week rounded on Putin for bombing Ukrainian cities more heavily than ever, his tone was not that of a man repelled by wickedness, but of an exasperated friend: 'I don't know what the hell happened to Putin. I've known him a long time.' He distributed blame equally between Putin, Zelensky and Joe Biden. Why the surprise? Russia's attempt to flatten every Ukrainian city is horribly consistent with Putin's declared war aims. Our current Labour Government, like our previous Conservative one, has not fallen into the Chamberlain/Trump trap. It is clear about the central issue. Putin is the aggressor, says Sir Keir Starmer. Britain can accept no deal which does not satisfy the people of Ukraine. We will do – the phrase endlessly repeated – 'whatever it takes'. This is not insincere, and there are some in the Government, notably the Defence Secretary, John Healey, who are really working for Ukraine to prevail. Nevertheless, if the Government believes it is doing 'whatever it takes', it has not plumbed the depth of the problem. This was brought home to me on Thursday when I attended a conference organised by Policy Exchange about the Law of Armed Conflict. Under the Ottawa Treaty, the signatories are forbidden to use anti-personnel mines. A comparable convention also restricts the use of cluster munitions. The conference, partly private, was addressed by the leading retired US general David Petraeus, by political and military leaders from frontline states such as Poland, Estonia and Finland, and by many of our own top brass and legal experts. The consensus was that these agreements, forged in the piping time of peace, now seriously disadvantage all Nato signatories. Russia ignores all such rules and tries to cover Ukraine with landmines. It was its vast use of mines which stalled the Ukrainian counter-offensive planned for late summer 2023. If Ukraine had not responded in kind, including not only landmines but its effective use of cluster munitions against Russian tanks, it would by now have been overrun. Those Nato frontline states countries with the most vivid and direct experience of Russian attitudes and tactics are now withdrawing from the relevant agreements. They know it is illegal to do so once a war has started: they think a Russian attack is likely, so they are withdrawing now. Yet Britain, though their most significantly engaged European defender, still purses its lips and reiterates its support for the treaties. This is what General Petraeus characterised as 'legal freeloading'. The need to repudiate Ottawa is, as he puts it, a 'no-brainer'. At the very same time as this highly practical, war-focussed and well-informed gathering, elsewhere in Westminster, the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, was addressing the Royal United Services Institute. Although he made much of the need to counter Putin in Ukraine, he spoke as if it would be international law, rather than allied political, economic and military strength, which would do the trick. Recalling his visit to Bucha, scene of Putin's worst massacre, he seemed to see the solution in the hope that international justice would hold the guilty to account. One shares that hope, but what Lord Hermer did not acknowledge was that Putin has so far got away with these horrors precisely because the rules-based international order, which includes Nato, has let him do so. As in the 1930s, we are acting as if we do not fully accept that there is a war on. Indeed, we have even less excuse than did the Western democracies then. When Chamberlain flew to Munich, he was talking to a man who, clearly evil though his intentions were, had not yet waged aggressive war. Putin has done so for more than three years, arguably for 11 years, and still we have not concerted to stop him. Lord Hermer says he wants to 'depolarise' our disputes in this country about international law and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Even he now dimly senses that his absolutism and that of his chief legal and political patron, Sir Keir, on this point, is divisive and unpopular. Nevertheless, the strongest focus of attack in his RUSI lecture was not on warmongers abroad, such as Putin, but on what he called the 'pseudo-realists' at home. These wicked people are those Conservatives and Reform supporters who think we should leave the ECHR. Such persons, says Lord Hermer, may have patriotic motives, but are falling for the trap of the Nazi legal thinker, Carl Schmitt, who invented spurious philosophical justification for the exercise of 'raw power'. This incendiary comparison is unworthy of the sober-sided role of a law officer. It shows how the mind of the human-rights extremist – the school of thought in which Sir Keir spent his whole professional life – works. The people who disagree with you are Nazis. The threat from the true 'raw power' merchants of the modern world – Putin, Hamas, North Korea – is sidelined. Surely at the top the hierarchy of wrongs which international law is designed to prevent is aggressive war. Rules which prevent allies resisting aggression with the necessary weapons objectively assist the aggressor. There is just such a war on. If, like Lord Hermer, we apply self-righteous legalism to the problem, we cannot win it.
