Volodymyr Zelensky announces Ukraine's next PM
Ms Svyrydenko, currently first deputy prime minister and economic development minister, is set to replace Denys Shmyhal, who is poised to become the defence minister.
The reshuffle comes as Ukraine aims to revive its cash-strapped economy and boost its arms industry.
Earlier this year, Ms Svyrydenko brokered a significant minerals deal with the US, fulfilling a crucial demand from the Trump administration and helping to repair diplomatic ties.
The deal, signed on 30 April, grants the US preferential access to Ukraine's critical minerals and establishes a reconstruction investment fund.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Deal or no deal? World leaders walk tightrope in tariff negotiations with Trump
It was grip-and-grin time for Ursula von der Leyen as she sat across from Donald Trump in Scotland last week, with the two announcing a deal for 15% tariffs on European imports that would avert a transatlantic trade war – but came at a stiff price for the 27-country bloc. After committing to a unilateral US raise on tariffs that came on the heels of a Nato commitment to increase defense spending to 5% of national GDPs, von der Leyen then thanked Trump 'for his personal commitment and his leadership to achieve this breakthrough'. 'He is a tough negotiator, but he is also a dealmaker,' she said, as the US president beamed. The EU was one of just a number of parties to strike a deal with Trump before his temporary pause on new tariffs came to an end this week. And like many others, the guiding principle for the EU appeared to be: it can always get worse. 'This is clearly the best deal we could get under very difficult circumstances,' Maroš Šefčovič, the EU trade chief, said. Others had a far bleaker interpretation of the dynamics, as Trump has wielded the threat of sky-high tariffs to cudgel his trading partners into submission. 'It is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, brought together to affirm their common values and to defend their common interests, resigns itself to submission,' wrote the French prime minister, François Bayrou. Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán put it another way: 'It was Donald Trump eating Ursula von der Leyen for breakfast,' he said on his podcast. Later, he called her a 'featherweight'. World leaders have been forced to adopt a position of appeasement and pragmatism as they've approached the Trump administration, which has swung between imposing staggering tariffs on imports and then announcing last minute pauses and exclusions that suggest there is little rhyme or reason to the White House's tariff strategy. But the key factor for Trump appears to be taking whatever he can get. Countries across Asia exporting to the US were quickest to begin negotiating new trade deals with the White House. Vietnam was desperate to cut a 46% tariff imposed on the country, and Trump early last month announced that he had negotiated a 20% rate with Vietnamese negotiators. Except, it turned out, they believed that they had negotiated an 11% rate, Politico reported. And treasury secretary Scott Bessent this week admitted that he had never seen the deal, which the Vietnamese authorities have never confirmed. Trump reportedly used the trade threats along with other incentives in order to broker a recent peace between Thailand and Cambodia after fighting broke out along the border between the two countries. He soon announced a 19% rate – a significant cut from 49% for Cambodia and 36% for Thailand – which appeared more motivated by international politics than trade considerations. But while many countries in the region will breathe a sigh of relief as they avert sky-high tariffs, some see a new danger in the arbitrary redrawing of the US's trade relationship with the world. 'What we felt during this negotiation is that the US trade environment is fundamentally changing,' South Korean trade minister Yeo Han-koo said shortly after a deal was made to tariff imports at 15%, down from a threatened 25%. The two sides had made a verbally agreement but had not made a formal draft, he said, because the deal had to be struck so quickly. 'I think we are entering a new normal era,' he said. 'So, although we have overcome this crisis, we cannot be relieved, because we do not know when we will face pressure from tariffs or non-tariff measures again.' Leaders who have stood up to Trump are having the hardest time. Among others, Trump has focused his ire on Canada, which he has blamed for the fentanyl crisis in the US, a charge that Canada's prime minister Mark Carney has rejected. Trump on Friday announced that he would raise tariffs on Canada, a top trading partner, to 35%, as tough negotiations between the two sides continued. Carney, who had coined the elections slogan 'Elbows up, Canada' as a signal of defiance against Trump's tariff and annexation threats, said he was 'disappointed'. 'While we will continue to negotiate with the United States on our trading relationship, the Canadian government is laser focused on what we can control: building Canada strong,' Carney said.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Labour's border chaos is fuelling public fury and fear as dangerous foreign offenders vanish into thin air
Labour's not smashing it IT is little more than a year since Labour came to power promising to smash the people-smuggling gangs. Instead they have smashed the economy — with inflation up, unemployment up and business confidence at a record low. The only significant growth is in the number of illegal migrants coming here in small boats. Already over 25,000 have arrived this year — a 50 per cent rise on the 2024 figure by this stage, which was shocking enough. That number is dwarfed by the UK's astonishing 700,000 population increase in just a year — almost entirely due to legal immigration — which itself is utterly unsustainable. The arrival of thousands of mostly undocumented illegal migrants is symptomatic of just how badly Britain has lost control of its borders. It's not just the millions of pounds it costs taxpayers every day to shower the migrants with handouts and put them up in hotels, nor the fact that so many of them find black market jobs. Most of the arrivals are young men of fighting age — yet the authorities seem to have little idea who they are, even if they end up in court. National emergency We discovered earlier this week that the number of foreign sex offenders and violent criminals in prison in England and Wales is at a record high, and that 40 per cent of people charged with sex attacks in the capital were foreign nationals. Now we learn foreign criminals are simply walking free mid-trial and disappearing under false names because of a dangerous 'disconnect' between prosecutors and immigration enforcement. It is little wonder that people — not least mothers — worry about migrant hotels on their doorsteps, or that protests are growing, or that polls show immigration is the number one issue concerning voters. So what is the Government doing about this national emergency? Reform UK's rising star Laila Cunningham It seems to have no plan, beyond a sketchy one-in-one-out deal with France and setting up a spy unit to track anyone on social media discussing anti-migrant sentiment or two-tier justice. While Britain continues to house soaring numbers of uninvited guests in four-star hotels, America has seen a massive drop in illegal border crossings because tough detention centres and deportations await those who do. President Donald Trump has shown the problem CAN be tackled, if only the political will exists. The Government, which ditched the Rwanda scheme — the only viable deterrent — as its first act in power, has shown precious little will so far. It's about time Sir Keir Starmer realised the urgency of the situation... and started taking tough action of his own. 1
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Putin is more likely to start a nuclear war than many are prepared to admit
We've grown used to blood-curdling nuclear threats from Russia's leadership – but this time, Donald Trump has very publicly reacted to them by moving two nuclear-armed submarines closer to Russia. Russia has primarily used nuclear sabre-rattling as part of its information warfare to scare the West. Sadly, it has delivered results. Western states moved cautiously after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, in part because of the Kremlin's nuclear threats. Trump's submarine move is a direct response to social media posts by Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president. Many Russians believe that Medvedev is a heavy drinker, and some have suggested that some of his posts were written while drunk. His role within the Russian regime hierarchy is now as a snarling attack dog, hurling blood-curdling threats at the Kremlin's enemies. It is good that Trump is beginning to see through the Russian regime. He is clearly angry that his policy of appeasing the Kremlin hasn't worked – despite his extraordinary tactic of offering, over the heads of the Ukrainians, a peace deal that would have allowed Vladimir Putin to pay virtually no price for the appalling actions of his armies. It is perhaps not so good that Trump has made it clear that he is reacting directly to Medvedev's nuclear bluster. The Russian regime now knows that it is possible to goad the president into real-world actions if they can upset him enough online. They have spent years studying the president and their understanding of human motivation is deeply researched. There is a risk that nuclear policy – which historically has been agonised over by experts due to its extraordinary importance and the terrible risks of getting it wrong – is now part of high stakes 'trash talking' on social media. While the risk that Putin will order the use of nuclear weapons is small, it is not non-existent. Ever since the Russian leader began his political and military conflict with Ukraine back in 2005 to force it into eventual unification with Russia, he has escalated crises when he has failed to achieve his aims. The Russian leader did so in 2014 with the partial invasion of eastern Ukraine, and then in 2022 with the full invasion. Will he escalate again with nuclear weapons? There is a much-speculated-on secret nuclear theory in Russia called 'escalate to de-escalate', in which nuclear weapons are used to regain control of a conflict, forcing an enemy to surrender, or face annihilation. Confidential Russian papers have suggested that a first stage might involve a 'demonstration strike', perhaps a one-off strike on water. The second would be the targeting of a low-population site on land, potentially an abandoned town or city. The third would be a 'deterrence-demonstration' on a potential military target such as a transport hub. From there, nuclear use would escalate to multiple tactical nuclear strikes across a theatre of operations. Putin has already weakened the grounds for using nuclear weapons. Russia's 2014 Military Doctrine gives two main grounds for using nuclear weapons: either in response to their use by others or when the existence of the Russian Federation is threatened. A more recent 2020 document allowed for a nuclear strike if Russia is facing an imminent nuclear attack (so pre-empting a pre-emptive strike), or if Russia would lose control of its arsenal via, for example, multiple, conventional precision strikes. Both are inherently dangerous. Twice in the Cold War, junior officers of the then-Soviet Union refused to react when technology or their superiors told them to prepare nuclear weapons. Their brave actions saved the world from a potentially catastrophic escalation. Last year, Putin lowered Russia's nuclear weapon threshold again, decreeing that an attack on Russia with conventional missile systems might justify a nuclear response, although Ukraine's infamous Spider's Web attack on his bomber fleet this June did not result in a nuclear response. Ukrainians have long argued that Russia's threats are a bluff to hide a failing army weighed down by a million casualties. What can be done? There are no good options, and this crisis may get more dangerous yet. Putin's regime is bent on war – there is no simpler way to say it. He doesn't want peace. I have been in Kyiv this week discussing my book on Russia's new form of warfare and the city is under regular and, on occasions, prolonged missile attack. Putin has strung Trump along. The best bet for the West is for Ukraine – with allied support, especially in air defence to protect its resilient but suffering citizens – to fight Russia to a standstill and (hopefully) force a snarling Russian leader to end the war. Most of the alternatives don't bear thinking about.
