Russia accused of ramping up use of chemical weapons in Ukraine
Russian soldiers use chloropicrin and riot control agent CS against sheltering Ukrainian soldiers to force them out into the open where they are more easily picked off, according to the findings. Dutch defence minister Ruben Brekelmans called for more sanctions against Moscow, and continued military support for Kyiv . Mr Brekelmans, who stayed on in a caretaker role after the Dutch government collapsed last month, said that he does not want to see the use of chemical weapons become normalised.
Lowering the threshold for use 'is not only dangerous for Ukraine, but also for the rest of Europe and the world', he said in a statement. Russia has signed up to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans the use of chloropicrin and CS as weapons. The convention's watchdog, The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has found several incidents in Ukraine involving CS but the group has not conducted a full investigation, which must be requested by the member states.
The executive committee for the OPCW is holding a regular meeting next week, where it is expected to discuss the conflict in Ukraine. Russian authorities have denied using chemical weapons in the past, instead alleging that Ukraine has used the banned substances. According to Ukraine, Russia has carried out 9,000 chemical weapons attacks in the country since the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022.
In 2024, the US State Department said that it had recorded the use of chloropicrin against Ukrainian troops. Tear gas, also known as CS, is banned during wartime under the Chemical Weapons Convention, which both Russia and Ukraine are signatories of. However, last year Ukrainian soldiers claimed that Russian troops were regularly dropping K-51 grenades, which according to experts are typically filed with tear gas.
Ihor, a commander of a Ukrainian reconnaissance team, told The Telegraph that they were getting 'one or two gas grenades dropped on them' every day. According to training documents that emerged in 2024, Ukrainian troops are now being told to stay where they are and endure the first few minutes of exposure to tear gas. While fleeing may give their position away, after the first few minutes the effect of the gas weakens. Russia on Friday said that it sees no immediate diplomatic way out of the war in Ukraine, hours after pummelling the war-torn country with its largest ever drone and missile barrage of the invasion.
The hours-long bombardments sent Ukrainians scurrying for shelters across the country and came after a call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, which ended without a breakthrough. Trump also said he had made no progress in discussions with Putin on ending more than three years of bitter fighting since the Kremlin ordered its troops into neighbouring Ukraine. The Kremlin said Friday it was 'preferable' to achieve the goals of its invasion through political and diplomatic means.
'But as long as that is not possible, we are continuing the special operation,' spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a briefing, referring to Russia's invasion. Zelensky said air alerts began echoing out across the country as the Trump-Putin call was getting under way.
'Yet again, Russia is showing it has no intention of ending the war and terror,' he said on social media. In Kyiv, concerns mounted over whether the US would continue delivering military aid, which is key to Ukraine's ability to fend off the drone and missile barrages.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Sweden invented ‘flight shaming'. Now it is begging airlines to return
The country that invented 'flight shaming', a concept championed by climate activist Greta Thunberg, has scrapped its air tax in a bid to boost its ailing economy. As of July 1, Sweden has dropped the levy of 76–517 krona (£5.50–£37.40) per passenger per flight, an eco measure introduced by the centre-left government in 2018. The U-turn will be seen as a disaster by environmentalists, and it exposes a tension at the core of the aviation versus climate debate. When jumbo jets disappear emissions drop, but other things begin to dwindle too: regional growth, connectivity and – it appears in Sweden – public support for eco concerns. The emptying of Swedish skies Sweden introduced its air tax in the same year that a 15-year-old Greta Thunberg organised her first solo climate protest outside Swedish Parliament. In a short period of time the 'flight shaming' ('flygskam') movement took hold. A survey in 2019 showed that nearly a quarter of Swedes were abstaining from flying in a bid to reduce their climate footprint, up from 17 per cent the year before. The impact on Sweden's aviation industry was stark. Swedavia AB, which runs 10 Swedish airports, saw passenger numbers drop for seven consecutive months in 2019. The country witnessed its slowest growth in airline passenger numbers for a decade. Meanwhile, state train operator SJ saw passengers leap to 32 million citing 'big interest in climate-smart travel.' In the seven years that followed, international flights dropped by a third. Smaller airports, particularly in the wild and remote northern regions, saw fewer arrivals as airlines scaled back operations. Ryanair ceased all domestic flights in Sweden, while the domestic-focused Bromma Airport near Stockholm came to the brink of closure. Today, only one regional airline, Västfly, still uses the airport. The pandemic was the catalyst for change. The country suffered a recession in 2023 and the economy shrank by 0.3 per cent between April and July 2024. It was within this economic climate that the new right-wing government, elected in 2022, said that there were 'few reasons to feel flight shame' as they announced plans to invest £76m into the aviation sector and drop the air tax entirely. Airlines were quick to praise the decision. Ryanair promptly re-introduced two new aircraft to its Swedish fleet and added ten new routes. EasyJet said 'we strongly welcome the abolition of taxes on passengers to help keep flying affordable' and Norwegian announced it would add new routes from Norway to Sweden. 'We congratulate the Swedish government for abolishing the aviation tax. It is excellent news, which recognises that taxation of air passengers is counterproductive economically and ineffective environmentally,' was the international aviation body IATA's response to the news. The climate lobby, however, is disheartened by the news. Justin Francis, co-founder and executive chair of Responsible Travel, tells The Telegraph: 'Some governments' short-term attitudes to regulating aviation have shifted, but the science hasn't, and aviation will account for an ever-increasing percentage of total global carbon emissions and the massive costs of climate change to business and society.' The European countries banning domestic flights No doubt politicians in neighbouring countries will be watching keenly from the sidelines to see how Sweden's U-turn plays out. That's because since Sweden introduced its eco-war against aviation, other countries have followed suit. In 2020, Germany increased its domestic and intra-European flight taxes by 75 per cent, while Belgium imposes a €10 'boarding tax' for flights of less than 500km (310 miles). In the Netherlands passengers must pay a departure tax of €29.40 per flight, regardless of the destination. Denmark is the latest to join the party. As of January 1 this year, passengers have had to pay 50DK (£5.73) for intra-European flights, 310DK (£35.83) for medium-haul and DK410 (£47.55) for long-haul flights. Ryanair was quick out of the blocks to criticise the tax. The Irish airline publicly described it as a 'discriminatory, fake eco-tax', criticising Denmark for penalising short-haul passengers while not taxing transfer passengers travelling far greater distances. The airline has scrapped its services from Billund and Aalborg, in response. Other countries are clamping down on short-haul aviation through other means. In 2023, France passed a law banning domestic flights on routes where the journey could be made by rail in less than 2hr 30m. While this was hailed as a 'domestic flight ban', effectively ruling out air travel between Paris Orly and Nantes, Lyon and Bordeaux, some argued they could have been more ambitious by extending the train travel time to four hours, or to measure from city to city rather than airport to airport. In its current form, where you can still fly from Paris Charles de Gaulle to Nantes, Lyon and Bordeaux. Because of this, the domestic flight ban has been criticised for being more gestural than anything else. Spain is considering mirroring the policy, banning flights where you can make the same journey in 2hr 30m. This would rule out 11 domestic air routes, reducing the country's domestic aviation emissions by an estimated 10 per cent. But, as in France, climate activists said it didn't go far enough, with the group Ecologistas en Acción describing the measures as 'purely symbolic'. The question is where these countries will go next. Clearly the Swedish U-turn highlights the complexities around marrying green policies with national interconnectivity and regional prosperity. 'Until electric planes and emissions-free aviation are viable options, we all need to fly less,' says Justin Francis. 'Aviation fuel needs to be taxed in line with other transport fuels. The industry has had a free pass here for too long, and the proceeds need to be ring fenced for investment in lower-carbon aviation and improving rail infrastructure.'
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Stormont's end of term report card - could do better?
This week, with no fanfare, the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly wrote to members informing them things were about to move up a Poots said a number of Executive Bills had been introduced over the past few weeks, which would change the focus of business in the second half of 2025 and reduce the time for Private Members' other words, Stormont would cease to be the meaningless talking shop many say it has become and look more like the legislative assembly it is supposed to be."About time", some critics will say. "Too little too late", others will chime. When Stormont reached the first anniversary of its return following the two-year hiatus of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) boycott there was a little self-congratulation, but also the realisation that mere survival would no longer cut short, the honeymoon was over. Almost immediately there was a marked rise in sharp exchanges across the chamber over issues like Casement Park and stasis is still the pervading feeling. Stormont's inability to get the big things done is embodied by a lack of movement over things like Casement Park (not entirely Stormont's fault, but undoubtedly now its problem) and the upgrading of the A5 - a major infrastructure project -hamstrung because it fell foul of Stormont's own climate change could not make it even when the four-party executive manages to achieve what predecessors have failed to achieve it is seen by critics to fall first Programme for Government agreed in more than a decade was said to lack finally produced an Anti-Poverty strategy, albeit nearly 20 years instead of winning praise, a group of local charities say it was so flawed it was worse than no strategy at all. What has the executive achieved in its 500+ days back? Apart from still being no particular order:A total of £688m allocated for public sector payAn extra £1.3 billion secured through successful negotiations with the TreasuryA £25m plan for a new Childcare Subsidy SchemeA strategic Framework to End Violence Against Women and GirlsBut still, Stormont's capacity to achieve defeat from the jaws of victory was encapsulated by the gleaming new edifice known as Belfast's Grand Central Station - all £340m of sooner were the parties basking in the reflected glory than the DUP and Sinn Féin were at each other's throats over a plan by the Sinn Fein Infrastructure Minister Liz Kimmins to introduce Irish language signage. This week at her final first minister's questions of this term Michelle O'Neill and the Social Democratic and Labour Party's leader of the opposition Matthew O'Toole clashed over what had - and had not - been achieved.O'Toole told her: "With respect, first minister, staged photo ops and platitudes are not enough anymore. You are, with respect, an elected leader, not a royal. "You are blaming others when your ministers have failed to do the basics. "If the government in Dublin had the delivery record of the government that you lead here, your party would have, rightly, roasted them."She countered: "I have heard the member at this all day. He talks flippantly about an end-of-term report. "Well, let me tell you about your end-of-term report. "I have heard three things from the now funded and resourced opposition. I repeat: the funded and resourced opposition. "The three things that I have heard are negativity, negativity and negativity." When the former DUP First Minister Peter Robinson returned recently to unveil his portrait in the Great Hall he gave a more optimistic prognosis from the outside."It almost seems normal around here," he said."Obviously more can be done and as a small country you should be able to turn things around more quickly."The fact that you have roughly the same composition of government means you should be able to have more long term planning because you're not moving from one government to a different government."At least it's a variation on the "what can you do in a four-party coalition comprised of parties with competing agendas?" as Speaker Poots reminded MLAs this week, when they return from summer recess there will be little more than 18 months before the Assembly dissolves for the next you know what elections can mean for inter-party relations.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Just raise tax? No, there's only one way out of this mess
On Wednesday, fears that Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' would further swell America's towering public debt triggered a sharp sell-off in government bonds across the advanced world. As anxiety swept global markets, UK gilts were hit especially hard, with US jitters coinciding with Labour's failed welfare bill. Before reversing on Thursday, government borrowing costs in the UK increased by even more than in the US. You would be hard-pressed today to find a serious investor who believes that Rachel Reeves's fiscal arithmetic adds up. The only question ahead of the autumn Budget now seems to be not whether, but by how much, she will raise taxes to balance the books. This week's cover of the New Statesman captures the view from the Left. It reads 'Just raise tax'. Since our ageing population is adding to the demands on public healthcare systems and welfare, Left-of-centre analysts argue that Britain simply needs to face the facts and increase taxes to finance the necessary spending. The solution put forward by the Right is not to raise tax thresholds but to cut them. Have you not heard of the Laffer curve? They say that the way to increase tax receipts is to reduce tax rates. Both sides are wrong. Putting taxes up would not only be wildly unpopular, but it would further weaken Britain's already mediocre growth rate. Cutting taxes in a major way is also a non-starter – Liz Truss tried that already, and remember what happened. Across the whole spectrum of British politics, policymakers have become prisoners of their own economic ignorance when it comes to the causes and solutions of our present fiscal dilemma. Is this situation hopeless? Not at all. There is, in fact, a way to increase tax yields and hence finance higher public spending without raising tax rates. But the debate needs to refocus on the underlying causes of the fiscal gap and escape the siloed thinking about whether tax rates should go up or down, as if that is the only choice. The Government faces a serious constraint because of its promise not to raise rates on the big three taxes – on income, employee National Insurance and VAT. But this does not mean that policymakers have no options to increase the tax yields in these areas. Britain's persistent tax shortfall is a symptom of a persistent growth shortfall, caused by the excessive weight of misguided rules and regulations that arbitrarily slow and even prohibit all sorts of economic activities that would otherwise take place. Remove the economic straitjacket on our factors of production – land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship – and the fiscal problems will be solved. Needlessly restrictive and complex planning and zoning regulations prevent a much-needed increase in the stock of housing, transport infrastructure, factories and offices. We have left the EU only to discover that our Eurosclerosis is home-grown. The surest way to boost the revenues to the Exchequer from income tax and National Insurance would be to implement pro-employment policies that increase the number of people in jobs. Instead, with the Employment Rights Bill, minimum wage increases and the uplift in employers' National Insurance, Labour has delivered the most anti-employment policies in a generation. The unemployment rate has risen from 4.1pc to 4.6pc during Labour's first year in office and looks likely to rise further. Over the coming years, any rise in employment and incomes will be lower than it could have been. Economists have long known that increasing the ratio of capital to workers is the only way to increase productivity in the long run. But capital, which includes vehicles, machines and computers, needs power. The more cheap power is available, the greater the opportunities for capital to deepen and productivity growth. However, under our dogged decarbonisation push, we have reduced the availability of electricity to the economy by around a fifth since the peak in 2005. This decline has occurred due to the planned decommissioning of electricity production facilities powered by coal, oil, and even nuclear. Ahead of the election, Labour was making all the right noises. But the early promises to focus on growth with a pro-business message seem to have given way to a damaging and self-defeating cycle of growth disappointments and tax increases. Fears over higher taxes encourage saving and lacklustre spending and investment, which lowers tax yields across the board. Chronically fearful consumers are saving more than 10pc of their income, despite average annual real wage gains of nearly 2pc for over two years while businesses sit on near-record cash balances. Taxes, like public services, are a second derivative of the real economy. We depend on the profits and investment of British industry, as well as the incomes and spending of private sector workers, to finance our public sector. The UK does not need to raise taxes; it needs to raise supply. Cutting red tape to promote these activities is the path to fiscal sustainability.
