UK foreign secretary on Russia's latest attack on Ukraine: not the actions of a country seeking peace
UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy has condemned Russia's latest large-scale attack on Ukraine.
Source: Lammy on X, as reported by European Pravda
Details: Lammy stressed that these are not the actions of a country that seeks peace.
Quote: "Russia targeted Ukraine again last night – with 14 missiles and hundreds of drones across the country. Another night of terror for Ukrainian civilians, with yet more injured and more homes destroyed. These are not the actions of a country seeking peace."
Background:
The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russia had launched 14 Iskander-M/KN-23 ballistic missiles and 250 attack drones against Ukraine on the night of 23-24 May.
Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna reacted to the large-scale Russian attack on Kyiv and said that Russia's continuous aggression has a simple explanation: "It hasn't faced enough pressure to stop".
Katarina Mathernova, the European Union's Ambassador to Ukraine, has advised those who doubt Russia's intentions to read the news.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
29 minutes ago
- Forbes
Does Elon Musk's Borrowing Show A Super Low Tesla Stock Valuation?
CANNES, FRANCE - JUNE 19: Elon Musk attends 'Exploring the New Frontiers of Innovation: Mark Read in ... More Conversation with Elon Musk' session during the Cannes Lions International Festival Of Creativity 2024 - Day Three on June 19, 2024 in Cannes, France. (Photo by) A practice of Elon Musk and Tesla's board raises questions about the company's governance and the possible low valuation that private capital markets are putting on its shares. At the heart of the issue is how the company's CEO borrows money and whether he pledged an astoundingly large percentage of his shares — close to 7% of all outstanding stock — as collateral for a sum under 4% of the market value. The question is also not just about Tesla, but all public companies where executives and directors might pledge stock for borrowing in ways that could affect the market caps of the corporations. Because this has been a potential and actual problem across companies over time. Chief executive officers often borrow money against their shares as a tax-avoidance measure. Borrowing doesn't typically trigger income recognition requirements, so it is a mechanism for gaining liquidity without causing a taxable event. The interest paid on the loan is likely far less than the capital gains tax that would otherwise be required. Boards accept the approach for two major reasons. Generally, stock is considered to be a way to 'align the interests, ' as typically put, of executives and shareholders. But executives don't want to sit on shares without access to their value. Stock as collateral offers a balance. The other reason is to avoid a company's leader dumping shares. Such a situation could affect the stock's price, both because of supply and demand, and also from the psychological impact of an assumed loss of confidence by leadership. However, a problem appears if the market value of the shares falls and the lender makes a margin call in which the borrower must increase the amount of collateral against the loan, whether that is more shares, other assets of value, or cash. The board won't want a large sale of shares because of the effect on the overall stock price, and yet they may also be concerned about the executive tying up even more shares as collateral. In 2016, The Wall Street Journal wrote about margin debt on company stock held by the CEO of trucking firm Swift Transportation. A share price downturn in 2015 left him with margin calls, some of which he met by pledging more company shares. The board had to raise its limits on pledging multiple times and approved a stock buyback to raise share prices as part of the response. The CEO had pledged what was a quarter of all outstanding shares. Sumner Redstone sold 20% of his stake in Viacom and CBS in late 2008 to meet margin calls. Aubrey McClendon, founder and former CEO of Chesapeake Energy, had to sell 94% of his shares to cover loans. In 2015, Goldman Sachs called in $100 million of share-backed loans to Valeant's CEO, the Journal separately reported. Business Insider in 2022 wrote about 'cash-poor but equity-rich tech founders' who borrowed heavily and then faced a stock plunge. They mentioned eight such people who pledged more than 10% of their stakes and then were hurt by falling share prices. The potential for an executive to get caught out by falling share prices and the need to backstop collateral for loans they've taken is broader than one might think. Michael Chadwick of Fiscal Wisdom Wealth Management says that many corporate executives amass an overconcentration in their companies' shares. 'We have a [client] who's a director for a big pharmaceutical company,' Chadwick says. The person bought a house and got a loan from a non-bank lending company with his shares as collateral. Now the share price is down sharply, and he received a margin call. Tesla's stock plunged about 8.5% by 2:20 p.m. on Thursday. As Forbes reported, this seems to be a result of the relationship between Must and President Donald Trump appearing to unravel, with each attacking the other. The Tesla 10-K for fiscal year 2024 cites Musk's borrowing as one of its risk factors: 'If Elon Musk were forced to sell shares of our common stock, either that he has pledged to secure certain personal loan obligations, or in satisfaction of other obligations, such sales could cause our stock price to decline.' In the eyes of some, that might not be enough. 'The valuation issue is a really important one,' says Nell Minow, an expert in corporate governance and chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an institutional investor advisory firm. 'Were representations made to the lenders contrary to what is being told to the shareholders?' She adds that 'stock valuations should recognize any restrictions on a significant portion of the stock.' And the amount of collateral that lenders, including big banks, want could be an indicator of concern over the stability of share prices, the direction of the company, and how much they can trust the CEO. Page 20 of Tesla's 10-K/A, filed January 30, 2025, for the company's fiscal year that ended December 31, 2024, explains the board's rules for 'directors and executive officers to pledge Tesla stock for personal loans and investments' as something 'inherently related to their compensation due to our use of equity awards and promotion of long-termism and an ownership culture.' Directors and executive officers can pledge stock (not including warrants, options, restricted stock units, or other rights to purchase stock) as loan or investment collateral. Everyone other than the CEO is limited to borrowing no more than 15% of the total value of the pledged stock. Musk, by name, has a more complex limitation: the lesser of $3.5 billion or 25% of the total value of the pledged stock. 'It's an area where boards play a critical role, because there aren't any laws or rules that regulate pledging of shares by CEOs,' says Larry Cunningham, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. 'All the rules that exist are disclosure rules. The SEC requires companies to disclose information about a CEO pledging shares.' Tesla's board explicitly notes on page 21 that 'such pledging does not indicate the extent to which there may be actual borrowings against such shares as of such date, which may be substantially less than the value of the shares pledged.' The total amount collateralized by all directors and officers 'was less than 1% of the total value of the pledged shares.' According to Tesla public documents, the company's management 'monitors compliance with the policy by regularly reviewing and requesting updates from the applicable director or executive officer on his or her pledged stock amount and loan amount.' Then, 'if necessary,' management reports to the board or its committees the extent of pledging. 'We believe that this monitoring is effective and includes appropriate controls, and we have confirmed that each of our directors and executive officers who have pledged stock are and have been compliant with this policy since our last confirmation,' they further said. Tesla did not respond to multiple requests for more insight into the situation. Also, PwC, the audit firm involved with the 10-K, said that it doesn't comment on organizations or clients. On page 23 is the list of beneficial owner names with at least 5% of shares, as well as named executive officers and directors, who may have less than 1%. As of December 31, 2024, Musk owned 714,754,706 shares, or 20.3% of all shares. That includes 410,794,076 shares in the Elon Musk Revocable Trust dated July 22, 2003, and 303,960,630 issuable on exercise of options within 60 days after December 31, 2024. As of then, all of the shares that Musk owned outright were in that revocable trust. They include 235,998,721 shares pledged against his personal loans. The opening value Tesla shares on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, was $347.35. The value of the shares pledged is $81.97 billion. Round it to $82 billion. A quarter of that amount is $20.5 billion. According to the board's rule, Musk can have borrowed no more than $3.5 billion against all that stock, or 4.3% of the shares' total value. Furthermore, the shares he's pledged are 6.7% of all Tesla shares. If the board approved the borrowing because the loaned amount was far lower than the value of the shares, the question of potential impact on the valuation of the company's market cap remains. Not just for Tesla, but any company whose executives could pledge significant amounts of stock for low valuations. 'Banks typically require 50-70% loan-to-value ratios on stock collateral, with daily mark-to-market,' says Giacomo Santangelo, a senior lecturer in economics at Fordham University. 'A 20% stock decline on a 60% loan-to-value loan means the borrower must immediately post additional collateral or face forced liquidation. This creates cascade risk, where small declines trigger margin calls, forcing either more pledging or open-market sales, putting more pressure on the stock.' Santangelo adds that from a share valuation perspective, 'traditional models miss this entirely' as they typically assume continuous liquidity. 'But pledged shares behave more like restricted stock with embedded put options held by creditors,' meaning there are two constraints. One is on the shareholder's ability to turn the shares into cash through a sale. The other is of a potential forced sale. Depending on the circumstances, banks can look for other assets, whether securities, real estate, cash, or even alternative assets like art. If an executive is caught on a margin call from borrowing, where the equity of the stock pledge is worth less than a set baseline, the person will have to pony up more cash, offer alternative assets, or sell off additional shares to cover the balance. This can happen when a stock's price drops. Tesla has seen downward pressures on its shares. As Yahoo Finance reported, Tesla electric vehicle registrations (a proxy for sales) were down 49% year-over-year in Europe even as overall EV registrations were up 34.1%. Citi Analyst Jeff Chung noted that recent sales in China were down about 16% year over year, as Barron's reported. Shares did jump on Tuesday, May 27, on Musk saying that he would return to the office rather than spending more time in politics. In 2022, Forbes reported that out of the Forbes 400 list of 2021, 32 billionaires pledged shares of public companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq where they were either directors or significant shareholders (at least 5% of total shares of a company). Musk reportedly pledged a greater amount than the other 31 billionaires combined. He was fueling business deals like the Twitter takeover. According to that Forbes report, he pledged $62.5 billion in Tesla stock as collateral for margin loans of $12.5 billion. In the 2022 proxy statement, the board wrote that it limited loans with stock collateral to 25% of the pledged stocks. 'We believe this cap places sufficient limitation on any potential risk attendant to pledging stock, while still allowing flexibility in the use of equity awards to promote long-termism and ownership culture,' they wrote at the time. Also, the statement noted that a proxy advisory firm had 'concerns about the Board's risk oversight with respect to Tesla's policy regarding pledging of shares by directors and officers.' The proxy advisory was also concerned over 'hypotheticals of increasing share pledges.' In 2023, the board added the $3.5 billion cap to Musk's borrowing. Whether that applied in retrospect is unclear. If so, it would suggest that Musk had to repay a massive sum to keep within the new bounds. There seems to be nothing to indicate that his previous borrowing was grandfathered. If it were, there should be some documentation to that effect. Had he repaid that money, it would seem unlikely that vast number of shares would still be pledged. If he did repay the previous amounts, then under the Board's rules, the value of the shares to the maximum he could borrow, $3.5 billion, would be a roughly 23-times collateral coverage. According to Santangelo, that would signal that the lender saw an extreme risk in the pledged shares. What is clear is that in 2023, Musk had 238,441,261 shares pledged — 2,442,540 shares more than in 2024. That was a big jump from 2022, when Musk had pledged 92,331,125 shares, just under 39% of the 2023 figure. Also, the total shares he had in 2022 was 172,608,251, 21.2% of the total shares. There a large increase in the total number of shares as well, from 1,033,507,611 in 2022 to 3,164,102,701 in 2023. 'The whole point of caring about how much stock the executives and directors have is so investors can assess how well the interests of insiders align with theirs,' Minow says. 'Using stock as collateral arguably provides even more of an incentive to keep the price up, unless, as apparent in the Twitter purchase, the board is willing to open the spigot to make up for any squeezes.'
Washington Post
41 minutes ago
- Washington Post
After Putin call, Trump suggests Ukraine, Russia should ‘fight for a while'
President Donald Trump's comment about inevitable Russian retaliation following his phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin has been widely interpreted in Russia as a tacit endorsement of Moscow's right to strike back after a spectacular Ukrainian drone operation, without even a note of caution about civilian casualties. It was turnaround for Trump after recent Russia-related posts on Truth Social had reprimanded Putin for strikes against civilians, but as has happened after past phone calls between the two leaders, Putin appeared to have swayed Trump over to his views on the conflict. Trump called it a good conversation, 'but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace. President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.'
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Merz avoids a blowup in the Oval, but Trump goes his own way on Russia
President Donald Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz papered over their differences, especially concerning the war in Ukraine, during their first face-to-face meeting in the Oval Office on Thursday. Merz, who just months ago responded to the administration's hostile approach toward Europe by asserting that the continent needed to gain 'independence' from the U.S., repeated to Trump that he needed the president's help to end the war in Ukraine and achieve the peace they both desire. The German chancellor said that he told Trump privately upon arrival that 'he is the key person in the world who can really do that — by putting pressure on Russia.' Merz was deferential as the two sat side by side, intent on avoiding the kind of awkward confrontation that has bedeviled other visiting world leaders. It appeared to work. Trump called Merz 'a very good man to deal with' and voiced optimism that he'd eventually reach 'a good trade deal' with the European Union. But in a riff that is sure to displease Merz and European allies, Trump suggested it might be good to let Russia and Ukraine continue fighting for a while, a marked turn from his many promises to end the war on his first day in office. Merz did not challenge the president and sat silently while Trump appeared frustrated with Ukraine over its surprise drone attack last weekend that took out a third of Russia's long-range bomber fleet. 'Something happened a couple of days ago,' Trump said, referring to the attack. Russian President Vladimir Putin intends to retaliate, said Trump, who added that he shares the Russian leader's frustration with the attack. 'He's unhappy about it,' Trump said. 'I'm unhappy about it.' The congenial meeting with a new European leader followed the conclusion of what Trump described as a productive phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping, which he'd been angling to schedule for weeks. And it was hours after a flurry of executive orders imposing a full or partial ban on travel from 19 countries and launching an investigation into former President Joe Biden's term. Merz sat back as Trump held court, responding to questions about those matters, as well as the sudden criticism from former special adviser Elon Musk. And he avoided seeing the conversation delve into Germany's internal politics and the administration's oft-voiced frustration over the mainstream's condemnation of the far-right Alternative for Deutschland party, a subject that did not come up during the public portion of their meeting. But after a lengthy soliloquy blaming Biden for the war in Ukraine, Merz spoke up, praising Trump's instincts to bring peace to Europe while treading lightly around the subject of sanctions. When Merz reminded Trump that Friday marked the 81st anniversary of D-Day, when American forces invaded France in an attack that eventually turned the tide of World War II, Trump joked that 'that was not a pleasant day for you.' The German chancellor delicately acknowledged his country's Nazi history before underlining the point he hoped to make. 'In the long run, Mr. President, this was the liberation of my country from Nazi dictatorship. 'We know what we owe you,' he continued. 'This is the reason why I am saying that America is again in a very strong position of ending this war.' Hinting that he'd prefer to have a deeper discussion once the press had left the room, he added: 'We are looking for more pressure on Russia. And we should talk about that.' But Trump, who has tried to pressure both sides into peace talks, expressed a new comfort level with the war dragging on and even escalating in the near term — even as he made clear he has no plans to greenlight bipartisan legislation to impose secondary sanctions on Moscow any time soon. Trump said that the war was like 'two young children fighting like crazy … sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart,' and that he shared that analogy with Putin during their call on Wednesday. 'I said, 'President, maybe you were going to have to keep fighting and suffering a lot, because both sides are suffering before you pull them apart, before they are able to be pulled apart.'' Trump said he planned to wait to further sanction Russia until it became clear that peace was unachievable, suggesting in an aside that he could sanction Ukraine as well in the event that peace talks fail. 'When I see the moment when it's not going to stop, we'll be very tough,' Trump said. 'And it could be on both countries.' Trump, asked about the sanction legislation sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), claimed a lack of familiarity. 'I haven't looked at it,' he said, while also describing it as a 'harsh bill, very harsh' Merz demurred when asked if he agreed with Trump's analogy likening the fighting between Russia and Ukraine to two siblings wrestling, emphasizing only that he and the president agree about the importance of ending the war itself. 'We both agree on this war and how terrible this war is going on,' Merz said. 'We are both looking for ways to stop it very soon.'
