Poland's Duda arrives in Ukrainian capital Kyiv to meet Zelenskiy
WARSAW/KYIV, June 28 (Reuters) - Polish President Andrzej Duda arrived in Kyiv on Saturday for a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Duda's office said, as Kyiv aims to build support among allies at a critical juncture in its grinding war with Russia.
Duda, a vocal supporter of Ukraine whose term ends in August, was greeted at the train station by Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, who called the Polish leader "Ukraine's true friend".
Ukraine is struggling to fend off Russian advances on the battlefield and intensifying missile and drone attacks on its cities as diplomatic efforts to end the war, now in its fourth year, have faltered.
Duda's successor, President-elect Karol Nawrocki says he remains committed to helping Ukraine's defence effort but opposes Kyiv joining Western alliances such as NATO.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Just when the world desperately needs wise elders, its fate is in the hands of old and ruthless patriarchs
Let's attempt something delicate: talking about age without slipping into ageism. Never before in modern history have those with the fate of the world in their hands been so old. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are both 72. Narendra Modi is 74, Benjamin Netanyahu 75, Donald Trump 79, and Ali Khamenei is 86. Thanks to advances in medical science, people are able to lead longer, more active lives – but we are now also witnessing a frightening number of political leaders tightening their grip on power as they get older, often at the expense of their younger colleagues. This week, at their annual summit, the leaders of Nato – including Emmanuel Macron and Mette Frederiksen (both 47), Giorgia Meloni (48) and Pedro Sánchez (53) – were forced to swallow Trump's demand for increased military spending. The average age of Nato heads of state is 60. Germany's Friedrich Merz is 69, Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is 71. All bowed to a new 5% defence spending target – an arbitrary figure, imposed without serious military reasoning or rational debate, let alone serious democratic debate at home. It was less policy, more deference to the whims of a grumpy patriarch. Nato's secretary general, Mark Rutte – himself just 58 – went so far as to call Trump 'Daddy'. That's not diplomacy. That's submission. This generational clash plays out in other arenas. Ukraine's 47-year-old president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is resisting the imperial ambitions of septuagenarian Putin. Septuagenarian Xi eyes a Taiwan led by a president seven years his junior. Netanyahu, three-quarters of a century old, is overseeing devastation in Gaza, where almost half the population is under 18. In Iran an 86 year old rules over a population with an average age of 32. Cameroon's Paul Biya, 92, has been in power since 1982 in a country where the median age is 18 and life expectancy just 62. There is no gerontocratic conspiracy at work here – no senior citizens' club bent on global domination. But there is something disturbing about a world being dismantled by the very people whose lives were defined by its postwar architecture. Khamenei was six when the second world war ended. Trump was born in 1946, the year the United Nations held its first general assembly. Netanyahu was born a year after Israel was founded. Modi was born in 1950, as India became a republic. Putin entered the world in October 1952, months before Stalin died. Xi in June 1953, just after. And Erdoğan was born in 1954, two years after Turkey joined Nato. These men are the children of the postwar world – and as they near the end of their lives, they seem determined to tear it down. It almost looks like revenge. Dylan Thomas urged us to 'Rage, rage against the dying of the light'. Rarely has the line felt so literal. Yes, the rules-based international order was always messier in practice than on paper. But at least the ideal existed. There was a shared moral framework – shaky, yes, but sincere – built on the conviction that humanity must never repeat the atrocities of the first half of the 20th century and that dialogue and diplomacy were better. That conviction has now evaporated, not least in the minds of those who should cherish it most. This is an unprecedented moment. The architects of the previous global disorder – Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao – were all in their 30s or 40s when they rose to power. A new generation built a new world, and lived with its consequences. Today, that new world is being unmade by an old generation – one that will not live to see the wreckage it leaves behind. It's easier to shout 'drill, baby, drill' when you're statistically unlikely to experience the worst of climate collapse. Après nous le déluge, as the French say. You might think that a generation so fortunate to benefit from longevity would leave behind a legacy of care, gratitude and global stewardship. Instead, we are witnessing the worst resurgence of repression, violence, genocide, ecocide and contempt for international law in decades – waged, more often than not, by ruthless septuagenarians and octogenarians who appear more interested in escaping prosecution than preserving peace. But it doesn't have to be this way. After leaving office, Nelson Mandela founded the Elders, a network of former world leaders working to promote peace, justice and human rights. Inspired by African traditions of consensus and elder wisdom, the Elders are an example of how age can bring clarity, compassion and conscience – not just clout. The problem isn't old age. It's how some have chosen to wield it. The world doesn't need more ageing strongmen clinging to power. It needs elders who are willing to let go – and guide. The kind who think about legacy not as personal glory, but as the world they leave behind. In this age of age, what we need is not domination, but wisdom. And that, in the end, is what separates a ruler from a leader. David Van Reybrouck is philosopher laureate for the Netherlands and Flanders. His books include Revolusi: Indonesia and the Birth of the Modern World and Congo: The Epic History of a People Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘Worse than anything under the Tories': changes to welfare bill anger disability campaigners
'As a community we feel totally let down and these last-minute concessions do nothing to make up for that,' Andy Mitchell, a disability campaigner and a member of Unite Community, says. 'My friends are scared. Some have spoken about suicide. This is worse than anything that happened under the Tories.' With the government offering major concessions to the welfare bill, ministers will be hoping critics have at last been appeased. But many campaigners have reacted with anger and concern over the changes. Disabled people's organisations, such as Inclusion London, WinVisible and Long Covid Advocacy, have told the Guardian that plans to exempt only existing claimants from the cuts will create a 'two-tier' benefit system that 'condemns' future disabled people to poverty. 'Protecting entitlements for current recipients is the right thing to do and if it's right for current recipients then it has to be the right thing for future claimants too,' says Tracey Lazard, CEO of Inclusion London. 'Even with these concessions, the bill before parliament is not a reform – it's still rationing. There is no moral or economic case for balancing the books on the backs of disabled people. MPs must not condemn future disabled people to the poverty and indignity these devastating planned cuts will cause.' Claire Every, spokesperson for Long Covid Advocacy said: 'A last-minute napkin deal will not assure safety for disabled people. The concessions create an unfair two-tier system – it is unethical to only throw some people under the bus. 'These changes will negatively impact people with long Covid as they discriminate against those with fluctuating disabilities and will see those who contract the illness in the future receive less support than those who fell ill earlier in the pandemic,' she added. Some campaigners warn that a system that treats new and old claimants differently could lead to future legal challenges against the government. 'How can you justify someone with the same impairments getting two different rates of social security payments based solely on [when they applied or how long they've been ill]? Is it even legal?' says Linda Burnip from Disabled People Against Cuts. 'The concessions are ridiculous and [effectively mean] anyone not already ill or disabled in Britain can't become ill or disabled and expect to have enough money to live on in the future.' Others have accused the government of trying to sow division within the disabled community to quell opposition to the bill. 'We refuse the government's divide-and-rule between old and new claimants, and MPs should keep voting against the horrendous cuts they are planning,' says Claire Glasman from WinVisible. 'We won't stop campaigning – new claimants lose out massively across Pip and universal credit, especially women with invisible and fluctuating conditions. Labour is still going after sick and disabled people. 'These offers of concessions are a glimpse into the window of the soul of the government; that they think people are protesting these cuts for their own gain not the wellbeing of all disabled people,' says Cherylee Houston, co-founder of the #TakingThePIP campaign. It is still unclear whether the concessions will protect eligibility for the connecting benefits to Pip, such as carer's allowance, she added. 'We don't agree to anything which doesn't safeguard future disabled people from abject poverty and despair. How can they draw a line to which people who become disabled after a certain date will not receive the support they need?' The government has pledged the entire criteria system will be reviewed in conjunction with disabled people, but disability groups told the Guardian they are concerned any changes from the review will not be made before the bill passes, while MPs will not have sufficient time to consider proposals. 'MPs are going to be voting on these concessions without people having a decent enough time to look and understand them,' says Mitchell. 'One of the points from the amendment was that disabled people hadn't been properly consulted, so how can it be right when these concessions have not been consulted on at all?' 'If concessions are possible, so is proper reform,' added Lazard. 'Fast-tracking a bill with such major consequences is irresponsible and cruel. It denies parliament, disabled people and the public real scrutiny. We urge MPs to stand your ground, stop this dangerous bill and demand better for everyone.'
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Labour's next reversal must be on non-doms before it's too late
The abolition of the non-dom tax regime could turn out to be the worst decision taken in Rachel Reeves's first Budget. The Chancellor was convinced that few of the 83,000 foreign entrepreneurs and investors would leave the UK after its abolition and that they would still contribute £12bn in taxes over the course of the parliament. The reality is turning out to be starkly different. Non-doms are leaving in their thousands, and taking their tax contributions, investments and potential to create jobs with them. The latest report into the abolition of non-dom status by a former Treasury economist found that more than 10pc of non-doms have already left the UK. This follows analysis from the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) that found that once 25pc of non-doms have departed, the policy will end up actually costing the Treasury money. Tax advisers are predicting that 40pc, possibly more, of non-doms will leave the country. This will have a huge impact on our public finances, leaving the Chancellor with a multibillion-pound shortfall in tax receipts, which every other taxpayer will have to pick up. While Britain is showing these highly productive people the door, other countries are rolling out the tax red carpet. Italy recently introduced a flat tax regime for foreign investors, allowing them to pay a fixed annual payment of €200,000 (£170,000). In Greece, they are charged a flat annual tax of €100,000 if they invest in the country. America is planning to expand its golden visa programme and the UAE has built one of the world's fastest growing and dynamic economies by fostering an exceptionally welcoming environment for international entrepreneurs. As an entrepreneur with investors and clients based internationally, I am acutely aware of how this policy is damaging the UK's standing. Britain has huge advantages that can attract the world's best entrepreneurs to come here, especially our outstanding schools and universities. But the message I hear constantly from those affected by this tax change is that the UK is not somewhere that welcomes them. That perception urgently needs to be addressed. Despite the prevailing narrative that they are not paying their fair share, the somewhat inconvenient facts are very different. Non-doms currently contribute disproportionately to public finances. In 2022-23, the average non-dom paid 21 times more income tax than the median UK worker. They are not just taxpayers, they are economic catalysts. They build businesses, invest in start-ups, create jobs and contribute to philanthropic causes – hospitals, the arts, charities and even football clubs. Their financial footprint extends beyond income tax to VAT, capital gains tax and National Insurance. The CEBR estimates that in 2023 alone, this group generated £7.7bn in total revenue across all tax types and consumer activity. It is unrealistic to expect the Chancellor to backtrack completely on what was a flagship policy, even considering the enormous economic harm it is causing. Another reversal would likely be too embarrassing after the welfare debacle this week. But there are practical steps she can take to ensure Britain has a competitive offer in comparison to other countries, while ensuring these individuals pay their fair share of tax. Two changes would send an important message that Britain wants entrepreneurs and investors here. First, altering the rules so non-doms do not have to pay inheritance tax (IHT) on all their worldwide assets. These are businesses or assets they built away from Britain and before they came here – not only is it excessive overreach, but it is the single most uncompetitive policy a government could implement in a modern highly fluid and global world. The Government should ensure that the value of non-UK assets accrued by non-doms before 2025 will not be included in future IHT assessments. Returning to the rules before this year that ensured these assets were not subject to tax is the crucial first step in winning back confidence in Britain. Second, the Government bodged a Budget measure it thought would attract non-domiciled people to stay - the temporary repatriation facility. This was supposed to enable them to bring all their worldwide capital into the UK at a preferential 12pc rate. The problem is that tax advisers are warning, understandably, that they fear the government will find a way to tax this capital at higher rates in the future – retrospectively. A simple amendment to the next Finance Bill could offer greater certainty and security, but without it, few foreign entrepreneurs will want to risk bringing their global assets into the UK. The real question is whether the UK wants to remain a hub for global capital and entrepreneurship, or whether it's prepared to watch that capital and the entire ecosystem that depends on it move elsewhere. If the Chancellor doesn't fix this issue fast, the question will not be 'how many are leaving?' but 'why would they ever return?'.
