Ukrainians in Cumbria mark third anniversary of Russian invasion
The war has killed tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians, and destroyed swathes of Ukraine.It began when Russia launched a full-scale invasion in February 2022 following its earlier annexation of Ukrainian territory.Ms Stoica added: "It's an opportunity for us to commemorate the people who died for our freedom."
'Hard to adapt'
The UK welcomed many displaced people under the government's Homes for Ukraine scheme.Now closed, it allowed Ukrainian nationals and their immediate family members to apply for permission to come to the country if they had an approved sponsor.Among those in Carlisle on Sunday to have used it was Olga Leintovea, who has two teenage sons."It was very hard for them to adapt," she said. "It took a while, but now we are more or less settled."I work in a school, they go to school, so at least we are here safe."
Ms Leintovea said recent remarks by US President Donald Trump around peace talks had proved worrying.Mr Trump last week called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a "dictator", blamed Ukraine for starting the war and said he believed Russia had "the cards" in any peace talks because it has "taken a lot of territory"."It's heart-breaking to hear that after all the support we've had from the Western world," Ms Leintovea said."Of course it's frustrating for us. That's why we need to be united - all Ukrainains, all Europeans - to stand for freedom and for peace."
Follow BBC Cumbria on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
3 hours ago
- New Statesman
It's time for angry left populism
Illustration by Rebecca Hendin / Ikon Images 'Populism, I'm very sceptical of,' said Adrian Ramsay in the New Statesman's Green Party leadership hustings. 'I… don't want to see the kind of politics you get from populism which often brings about a divisive, polarising approach: Green politics is about bringing people together, respecting different views, having respectful discussion,' added the MP, and current party co-leader. On the contrary, countered Zack Polanski, the party's current deputy and London Assembly member, who's running for the top job promising 'bold leadership' and 'eco-populism'. 'Populism just means the 99 per cent vs the 1 per cent,' he said. He was reviving the old slogan of the Occupy movement. But he was also stating a clear position on a debate which has wracked the intellectual left for more than a decade. If Polanski's right, and if he wins, then there's more at stake than the leadership of England's fifth party. Should they adopt the attitude of their insurgent new political star, then the Greens have an opportunity to change the political climate in Britain, pointing the way to a durable populism of the political left. It's not just the Green Party; a similar phenomenon is emerging across civil society. Under newish, millennial co-directors, Greenpeace UK have adopted an angrier, anti-elite tone. 'Did you know that one of the richest billionaires in the UK is destroying our oceans with plastic?' the NGO asked in one recent online post, linking a traditionally soft-focus issue to spikier class politics. The most significant academic advocates of left-populism have been the Belgian political scientist Chantal Mouffe and her late husband and academic collaborator, the Argentine philosopher Ernesto Laclau. They saw populism as 'a political strategy based around constructing a frontier' between the privileged and the downtrodden, and 'appealing to the mobilization of the 'underdog' against 'those in power''. Mouffe argued that neoliberalism has impoverished not just the working class, but also the middle class, has depoliticised the bulk of the population, and produced what she calls 'oligarchisation' – that is, both radical wealth inequality, and also the political dominance of a growing international billionaire class. This context, she argued in 2016, produced a 'populist moment', one which led to radical political changes on right and left: as well as Trump, Brexit and (later) Johnson, there were Corbynism, Syriza, Bernie Sanders, Podemos, and Jean Luc Mélenchon. Even the more successful centrists of that era – Emmanuel Macron (during his first election) and Nicola Sturgeon – painted themselves as direct opponents of 'those in power'. Nearly a decade later, much of that post-2008 context remains, to which we could add the surge in anxiety about the environmental crisis in 2019, the anger with elites which emerged from the pandemic, and the daily nausea millions of us feel watching a Western-backed genocide livestreamed through our phones. In this context it's absolutely vital, as Mouffe argues, that the left try to mobilise the overwhelming majority of people together against that oligarch class and those in power who protect them. Doing so will require telling clear political stories about the world, which express the tension between 'us' – the majority of people – and 'them' – the oligarchs and their allies. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This is not a time to tell citizens to 'calm down, dear'. It's a time to focus righteous rage into change. This will require rhetorically 'constructing a boundary' between 'the 99 per cent' and 'the 1 per cent' and their outriders on the right. It's drawing this boundary to which Ramsay and, in another debate, his running mate Ellie Chowns, object when they describe populism as 'polarising'. But any good story needs conflict and villains, and the real world has plenty for Polanski to point to. Oligarchs and their allies must be curtailed, and we're not going to do that by 'having respectful discussions' with them. Anger has to be focused upwards, or the political right will channel it down. In the context of environmental crisis, economic inequality becomes even more urgent. As Oxfam calculated in 2024, billionaires emit more carbon every three hours than the average British person does in a lifetime. The richest 1 per cent of humanity are responsible for more emissions than the poorest 66 per cent, and are increasingly insulating themselves from the impact of the disaster they've created, flitting around between air-conditioned mansions in private jets while the rest of us swelter. Despite this, Reform's fossil fuel financed anti-environmental populism has managed to rhetorically spin action on climate change – framed as the technocratic sounding 'net zero' – into an 'elitist' project, one which they can blame for rising energy bills, neatly deflecting blame from the fossil fuel industry and energy companies. As Polanski himself pointed out during the New Statesman debate, Ramsay is happy to call for a wealth tax, and clearly wants to curtail the oligarch class. So what's he's afraid of? Perhaps the most articulate intellectual opponent of populism is the Dutch social scientist Cas Mudde, who defines it as an ideology which divides society into two groups, 'the pure people' and 'the corrupt elite', and which regards politics as 'an expression of the general will of the people'. While he sees it has a role in bringing issues that elites don't want discussed to the fore, he worries that it ultimately undermines systems of liberal democracy. And it's this that Ramsay and Chowns really fear: if you channel anger at elites and the system which sustains them, you risk attacking those systems of democracy that we have, and replacing them not with more democracy, but less. But to me – certainly in Britain and the United States – this fear is itself dangerous. Britain has astonishingly low levels of trust in our political system for a simple reason: Westminster stinks. Too often, in Britain (as in America), the left ends up defending that system from right-wing attacks, because the right wants to replace it with authoritarianism, or market rule. Which means voters see us propping up an obviously rotten system, and turn to the right to replace it. This is how Trump won twice, it's how Johnson crushed Corbyn in 2019, and it's why Farage is ahead now. For an alternative strategy, look across the Channel. In France's 2024 legislative elections, the left-wing New Popular Front came first after making radical constitutional change a central message, promising an assembly to write a new constitution, and launch a sixth Republic. Progressives – including Greens – shouldn't fear hatred of our politics any more than we should worry about anger at our economic system, rage at rising bills, or horror at genocide in Gaza. We should express that collective fury, and channel it into serious ideas for the radical change we need. [Further reading: Are the Greens heading left?] Related
Leader Live
4 hours ago
- Leader Live
Wrexham MP addresses concerns around asylum seekers
MP for Wrexham I receive communication from constituents about a wide range of issues. One of the concerns expressed is around asylum seekers. This is also a topic which sees substantial disinformation and misinformation across media and social media. Language and terminology is really important and I want to address some of the common questions that I receive on this subject. 'Asylum' means 'protection given by a country to someone fleeing from persecution in their own country' (House of Commons Library). A person seeking asylum is often awaiting refugee status. If they do not qualify for refugee status, they may still be granted leave to remain in the UK for humanitarian or other reasons. 'Why are hotels and luxury apartments being used to house immigrants when there is a housing crisis in the UK?' This is an example of a question I have received from a constituent recently. It is worth noting that there are 3,253 asylum seekers in Wales and 107 in Wrexham according to figures as of March this year. Where hotels are used, the accommodation is dormitory style, all facilities are closed and not available, food is provided but not choice of menu. To be clear, there are no asylum hotels in Wrexham and those seeking asylum are in dispersed accommodation. This means the Home Office gives contracts to the private sector not councils to find accommodation. This accommodation is a flat or room in an HMO for example. Asylum seekers do not have access to the welfare system or any benefits. They receive a weekly subsistence payment rate of £49.18 per person for people living in self-catered accommodation or £8.86 a week for those in full-board accommodation like a hotel. The weekly amount is credited to a pre-paid debit card which can use be to pay for goods or withdraw cash. According to the House of Commons Library, in 2024, asylum seekers and refugees made up around 16% of immigrants to the UK. It is important to understand that most people who migrate to the UK do so legally for work or family reasons. There is a shortage of skilled workers in the UK, as we have seen in the NHS. Work is ongoing to address this. The small boat crossings must be addressed along with the problems in the asylum system where the backlog is unacceptable. The UK Government has recently made an agreement with France and this new pilot scheme will see small boat arrivals being detained and returned to France. An equal number of migrants will then be able to come to the UK from France through a new legal route. Those coming into the UK must be fully documented and go through a stringent security check as opposed to uncontrolled entry such as small boats. In addition to the asylum process, the UK has operated various routes for people seeking humanitarian protection in the past. The three recent examples of this are the Afghan, Syrian and Ukrainian resettlement programmes. Like other countries, the UK follows the 1951 Refugee Convention that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom and that there are minimum standards for how refugees should be treated including a right to housing, work and education. As ever, if you have any queries or concerns or you have an issue that you would like me to try and assist you with, please do not hesitate to contact me on 01978 788854 or
Daily Mirror
12 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Russia warns US 'be very careful' in chilling response to Trump's nuclear move
Donald Trump last week ordered the 'repositioning' of US nuclear submarines in response to former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's 'highly provocative' social media comments Russia has urged caution following Donald Trump's recent statement ordering the 'repositioning' of US nuclear submarines. The US president last Friday demanded that two submarines should be "positioned in the appropriate regions". Trump's move was a response to what he deemed "highly provocative" comments on social media by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev concerning the risk of war between the nuclear-armed adversaries. However, the Kremlin today played down the significance of the US leader's remarks, adding that it didn't want to get into a public argument with him. It comes after Putin warns of nuclear war after unleashing another night of hell on Ukraine. READ MORE: Donald Trump accused of 'throwing shade' at Prince Harry and Meghan with cryptic quip Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov indicated that the US should be "very careful" when talking about nuclear capabilities. ' Russia is very cautious about nuclear nonproliferation matters, and we believe everyone should be very careful about nuclear rhetoric,' he said. In addition, the Russia Foreign Ministry today issued a statement 'on the moratorium on the deployment of ground-based-intermediate-range [INF] and short-range-missiles'. In 2019, the US formally withdrew from the INF treaty - an arms control pact - which had been in place between the Americans and Russia since 1987. However, the Kremlin has now accused the 'US and its allies' of building a collection of 'destabilising' INF missiles in 'regions adjacent to the Russian Federation'. The statement added that this creates, 'a direct threat to the security of our country, and of a strategic nature. 'In general, such a development of events carries a serious negative charge and significant harmful consequences for regional and global stability, including a dangerous escalation of tensions between nuclear powers.' It went on, saying that 'the Russian Foreign Ministry notes the disappearance of the conditions for maintaining a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of similar weapons and is authorised to declare that the Russian Federation no longer considers itself bound by the corresponding previously adopted self-restrictions.' The Kremlin finished by saying that any 'response measures' would be made by the Russia's 'leadership' based on the, 'scale of deployment of American and other Western land-based intermediate-range missiles, as well as the general development of the situation in the area of international security and strategic stability.' However, despite the Kremlin's press release regarding the moratorium Peskov said that Russia did not see Trump's recent statement as an escalation in any nuclear tension between the two countries. He said: "We do not believe that we are talking about any escalation now. It is clear that very complex, very sensitive issues are being discussed, which, of course, are perceived very emotionally by many people." Peskov went on to seemingly distance Putin from Medvedev, a longtime prime minister under him who is now the deputy chairman of the national Security Council. He said: "On the whole, certainly, we absolutely wouldn't like to engage in such polemics, nor would we like to comment on that in any way," before adding: 'There can be no winner in a nuclear war."
