Ukraine says repatriation of war dead over after 1,245 more bodies received from Russia
KYIV, June 16 (Reuters) - Ukraine received another 1,245 bodies of its soldiers killed in the war with Russia on Monday in the final stage of the repatriation of remains agreed at talks in Istanbul, Ukrainian officials said.
"Today marks the final stage of the repatriation of fallen soldiers," Defence Minister Rustem Umerov said. "Since last week, when the implementation of the Istanbul agreements began, we have managed to bring back over 6,000 bodies."
This marks one of the largest returns of war dead since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago.
The handover of the soldiers' remains is part of the agreements reached between Russia and Ukraine during their second round of talks in Istanbul at the start of the month.
Kremlin aide Vladimir Medinsky, the head of Russia's delegation at the peace talks, said that Moscow had handed back the bodies of 6,060 Ukrainian servicemen. He said that Russia has received the remains of 78 of its own soldiers in return.
Ukrainian officials said that they had received 6,057 bodies. They was no immediate explanation available on the discrepancy in numbers.
The Russian Defence ministry said that Moscow was ready to hand over another 2,239 bodies to Ukraine.
Both Ukraine and Russia said that the process of exchanging prisoners of war was still ongoing.
"We are not stopping. Ahead lies the next stage: we continue the fight to bring back our prisoners of war," Ukrainian Defence Minister Umerov said in a social media post on Facebook.
The agreements on exchanging POWs were the only concrete result during the talks between Kyiv and Moscow in Istanbul. Both sides remain far apart in their vision on how to end the war, and they also failed to agree on a ceasefire.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Trump to force NHS to pay for wonder drugs
NHS patients have been given new hope of accessing wonder drugs previously blocked in Britain as Donald Trump pressures the health service to spend more with US suppliers. Ministers are understood to be reviewing the value-for-money rules that govern which drugs the NHS can buy, amid demands from the Trump administration for the UK to be more welcoming to US pharmaceutical companies. Under the trade agreement signed between the two nations earlier this year, the Government agreed to 'endeavour to improve the overall environment for pharmaceutical companies operating in the UK'. Earlier this week, The Telegraph revealed that this could result in the NHS paying more for US drugs to see off criticism of the differences in medicine prices between the two nations. However, it is understood that discussions include not only paying more for treatments already supplied on the NHS but also making it easier for US drug giants to sell their most cutting-edge treatments to the health service. It follows a wave of high-profile rejections of so-called 'wonder' drugs in recent years. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (Nice), which approves new NHS drugs for purchase, has blocked treatments including one which stopped the progression of Alzheimer's disease and another that doubled the life expectancy for terminal breast cancer patients. Nice has rejected them based on assessments of how long they would extend a patient's lifespan and improve quality of life. To qualify under Nice rules a new treatment must deliver one extra year of perfect health, or longer for less perfect health, for no more than £30,000. This figure has not increased in line with inflation since 1999. If it had, it would be just over £53,000. Nice has maintained that, to get approval for use on the NHS, medicines 'must not only provide benefits to patients but also represent a good use of NHS resources and taxpayers' money'. However, critics say a failure to raise the threshold in-line with inflation meant life-changing drugs were being blocked. Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: 'There is growing evidence that it is becoming harder to bring new medicines to NHS patients. Increasingly, some new medicines may not be launched in the UK at all.' Companies including US giant Eli Lilly have said the regulator must rethink how 'value-for-money' is assessed. On Monday, a spokesman for the company said: 'The UK has historically focused on medicines as a cost to the NHS rather than evaluating their social and economic value.' Ministers are understood to be listening to demands from the industry for Nice to shake up its formula, with medicines such as AstraZeneca's breast cancer treatment Enhertu likely to be resubmitted for approval for NHS use if the formula is updated. Nice and AstraZeneca previously failed to reach an agreement over a price for the drug, which costs an estimated £118,000 per course of treatment. The NHS typically gets discounts, although the level is commercially sensitive. The Nice formula is being discussed after President Trump took a personal interest in the NHS issue. In trade documents between the US and UK, it said the NHS would review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president'. US officials are particularly concerned by an arrangement that sees companies pay revenue back to the NHS if costs rise faster than expected. Drug companies paid £3bn back to the NHS last year. In April, Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, said he was proud that the UK had kept prices of medicines low. However, he admitted that the UK had become too focused on cost rather than the benefits in some cases. Mr Streeting said: 'We've moved from quite rightly trying to drive a good bargain on the price of drugs and treatment to a position where sometimes people view medicine spend as a dead weight cost'.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
British Council cuts are a false economy that would erode the UK's global influence
Soft power takes decades to build and no time to squander. As we ramp up defence spending, it would be incoherent to try to part-pay for it by hollowing out the British Council. The British Council is at the heart of Britain's global influence – fostering education, English-language skills, cultural exchange and mutual understanding in more than 100 countries. Yet funding pressures and the burden of a £197m loan now mean that it may close its doors in as many as 60 countries (British Council 'may have to close in 60 countries' amid cuts to aid budget, 8 June). As the United States retreats and rival states expand their global presence, this is the moment to invest in institutions such as the British Council and the BBC World Service, not to make false economies. Shuttering British Council offices would be a failure to recognise the obvious truth that hard and soft power work in a complementary and mutually reinforcing way. One secures borders and deters enemies; the other opens minds and wins friends. The UK cannot hope to remain globally influential without JohnsonFormer minister for universities, science, research and innovation Curtailing the work of the British Council overseas would be a very shortsighted move. The dividend in influence and goodwill for the UK from minimal financial investment is significant and beneficial. I spent 25 years working on pro-democracy missions in 35 new and emerging democracies across four continents and I experienced at first-hand the gratitude of local people for the projects run by the British Council. In addition to its many English language and literature courses, it tailored its smaller projects to the particular needs of each country. I particularly appreciated the flexibility of the modest budgets controlled by the local British Council boss to back up the work on electoral practice, governance and representation by providing grants for training, civic education and similar needs. One thing is sure: such is the desire for literacy and education in developing countries, young people will seek to find it in the programmes offered by other MeadowcroftLeeds Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
GCSEs are outdated. It's time to ditch them
Sally Weale cogently questions why we need to continue with the outdated GCSE examination, being the only country in Europe to have such an assessment ('They are making young people ill': is it time to scrap GCSEs?, 11 June). There are two additional reasons that support the case for abolition. First, the cost. GCSEs are a billion-pound-plus industry. Few people realise that, per student, we spend more on the exam entry than on providing resources to study the subject. Second, most importantly, GCSE results are standardised as a bell curve of results. A third or more of young people receive below-average results because the statistical model so determines. The government wants to improve technical and vocational education, but this will not happen while hundreds of thousands of young people are told that they 'didn't do very well at school'.Bob MoonEmeritus professor of education, Open University Re Sally Weale's article on the effect of GCSEs on young people, I attended a traditional grammar school in Colchester in the 1970s. We had a forward-thinking headteacher who believed that seven GCE O-levels were enough. One of these, English language, was taken in year 10, which left only six at the end of year 11. No formal English literature exam was taken, but pupils spent year 11 writing an extended essay on a literary subject of their choosing. This was marked by the school, and a grade, though not recognised externally, was given. It made for a more leisurely year 11. Ironically, my brother, who was in the top stream at his secondary modern school, had far more exams, with a mixture of both GCE O-levels and CSEs. At the time, most students left school at 16, whereas now they are in full-time education or training until 18. So it would seem that the GCSE is an outmoded exam that needs to be KilvertHull GCSEs were intended to recognise what pupils know, understand and can do – they do not. They were supposed to be assessed fairly – they are not, as grades are based on norm referencing. They were designed as a rite of passage at 16 for pupils at the end of their statutory education – but 90% of pupils stay in education until they are 18. We need school-based diagnostic and formative assessment systems from 11 to 18, which can guide young people on to their next best stage of learning, not expensive and stressful GCSEs. Age 18 is the time for the summation of a young person's schooling, not 16. And at 18 we need proper recognition of where young people really are as they continue their learning journey into and through adult NewhoferOxford The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, which argues for the scrapping of GCSEs, is named after the man who rejected a golden opportunity to do so and replace them with a diploma-based system when he was prime minister, based on the 2004 Tomlinson report. If it is 'a decade's work' to come up with a new qualification framework, we might now have been a decade into one if New Labour had made the change when it had the CameronStoke-on-Trent In the current round of exams, my grandson had to sit three in one day. How is that fair? How can it be justified? Where's the sense in it? Yes, it's time to scrap Colin RichardsFormer HM inspector of schools Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
