Connect with us

Published

on

How much have America, Britain and the rest paid Ukraine in aid since the Russian invasion? And do they have any hope of getting money back in return?

These are big questions, and they’re likely to dominate much of the discussion in the coming months as Donald Trump pressurises his Ukrainian counterparts for a deal on ending the war. So let’s go through some of the answers.

First off, the question of who has given the most money to Ukraine rather depends on what you’re counting.

War latest: Ukraine agrees minerals deal with US – source

If you’re looking solely at the amount of military support extended since 2022, the US has provided €64bn, compared with €62bn from European nations (including the UK).

But now include other types of support, such as humanitarian and financial assistance, and European support exceeds American (€132bn in total, compared with €114bn from the US).

Divide Europe into its constituent nations, on the other hand, and none of them individually comes anywhere close to the US quantity of aid.

More on Donald Trump

That being said, simple cash numbers aren’t an especially good measure of a country’s ability to pay.

Look at US support as a percentage of gross domestic product and it comes to 0.5% of GDP. That’s almost precisely the same as the aid from the UK.

Looked at through this prism, it’s other countries which are clearly the most generous: Denmark, Estonia and much of the Baltics providing around 2% of their GDP – a far bigger amount versus their ability to finance it.

Still, compare the aid this time around with previous amounts spent in other conflicts and they are nowhere close.

Lend-Lease during WWII, aid during the Vietnam and Korean Wars, and even the first Gulf War, involved significantly bigger outlays than currently being spent on Ukraine.

That goes not just for the US but also for the UK, Germany and Japan, all of which provided more aid to the Kuwaitis and other affected nations during the first Gulf War.

Even so, it’s clear that the US and others have put significant resources towards Ukraine.

President Trump has been talking recently about recouping $500bn from Ukraine in the form of revenues from mining rare earth metals.

This is, on the face of it, slightly odd. Rare earth metals represent an obscure corner of the periodic table and play a small if important role in electronics and military manufacturing.

The entire market is small – making it essentially implausible that, even if Ukraine suddenly produced the majority of the world’s supply, the president could expect that amount of revenue back in return.

More to the point, while there are a couple of rare earth deposits in Ukraine, they have languished, unexploited, for years. They are so expensive to mine no-one has worked out how to extract the elements and make a profit at the same time.

And even if you presumed they could do, Ukraine would still be a relative minnow in global rare earths production.

Map of Ukraine minerals

Read more:
What minerals does Ukraine have?

Assuming, as one probably should, that Donald Trump didn’t just mean rare earths, but was talking more broadly about “critical minerals” (the two are different things, but let’s not get too pedantic here), there are also one or two other promising mine sites in the country.

There is an old, shuttered alumina plant seized from Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. There is a large lithium resource which could, if all went well, be the single biggest lithium mine in Europe.

Yet even taking this into account, Ukraine would still be a relatively small player in global lithium. Not nothing – but not world changing either. Certainly not enough to generate the hundreds of billions of dollars Mr Trump is seeking.

Then again, Ukraine has other resources at its disposal too: vast seams of coal in the Donbas, large iron ore reserves in the south of the country.

Both of these are in or close to Russian occupied areas – which might, from the Ukrainians’ perspective, actually be the point. Old fashioned as this stuff is, it does actually generate significant revenue. It might be Donald Trump’s best hope for some payback.

Continue Reading

Business

Harrods plots legal action against estate of former owner al-Fayed

Published

on

By

Harrods plots legal action against estate of former owner al-Fayed

Harrods is preparing to take legal action against the estate of its former owner, Mohamed al-Fayed, as the multimillion-pound legal bill for compensating his sexual abuse victims continues to escalate.

Sky News has learnt that the Knightsbridge department store, which has been owned by a Qatari sovereign wealth fund since 2010, plans to file a so-called passing-over application in the High Court as early as next week.

The intention of the application is to secure the removal of Mr al-Fayed‘s estate’s current executors, and replace them with professional executors to administer it instead.

Professional executors would be expected to investigate the assets and liabilities of the estate, while Harrods insiders claimed that the current executors – thought to be close family members of the deceased billionaire – had “ignored” correspondence from its lawyers.

Sources close to Harrods said the passing-over application paved the way for it to potentially seek to recover substantial sums from the estate of the Egyptian tycoon as it contends with a compensation bill likely to run to tens of millions of pounds.

In a statement issued to Sky News on Saturday, a Harrods spokesperson said: “We are considering legal options that would ensure that no doors are closed on any future action and that a route to compensation and accountability from the Fayed estate remains open to all.”

Mr al-Fayed is believed to have raped or sexually abused hundreds of women during his 25-year tenure as the owner of Harrods.

More on Mohamed Al Fayed

He died in 2023, since when a torrent of details of his abuse have been made public by many of his victims.

Earlier this year, Sky News revealed details of the compensation scheme designed by Harrods to award six-figure sums to women he abused.

In a form outlining the details of the Harrods redress scheme overseen by MPL Legal, which is advising the department store, it referred to the potential “for Harrods to recover compensation paid out under this Scheme from Mohamed Fayed’s estate”.

“You are not obliged to assist with any such claim for recovery,” the form told potential claimants.

“However, if you would be willing to assist Harrods including potentially by giving evidence against Fayed’s estate, please indicate below.”

This weekend, there appeared to be confusion about the legal representation of Mr al-Fayed’s estate.

In March, the BBC reported that Fladgate, a UK-based law firm, was representing it in an article which said that women who worked for him as nannies and private air stewards were preparing to file legal claims against the estate.

This weekend, however, a spokesman for Fladgate declined to comment on whether it was acting for Mr al-Fayed’s estate, citing confidentiality restrictions.

A source close to the law firm, meanwhile, insisted that it was not acting for the estate.

KP Law, another law firm acting for some al-Fayed abuse survivors, has criticised the Harrods-orchestrated process, but has itself faced questions over proposals to take up to 25% of compensation awards in exchange for handling their cases.

Harrods insiders said there was a growing risk that Mr al-Fayed’s estate would not be responsibly administered given that the second anniversary of his death was now approaching.

They added that as well as Harrods itself seeking contribution for compensation paid out for Mr al-Fayed’s abuse, its legal action would also potentially open way for survivors to claim directly against the estate.

Victims with no direct connection to Harrods are not eligible for any compensation through the store’s own redress scheme.

Even if Harrods’ passing-over application was approved by the High Court, any financial recovery for the department store would be subject to a number of additional legal steps, sources said.

“The passing-over action would achieve the goals of acknowledgement and accountability from the estate for survivors who don’t have the resource to undertake a passing-over application themselves,” an insider said this weekend.

Continue Reading

Business

High street lender Metro Bank receives takeover approach

Published

on

By

High street lender Metro Bank receives takeover approach

The high street lender Metro Bank has been approached about a private equity-backed takeover in a move that could lead to the disappearance of another company from the London Stock Exchange.

Sky News has learnt that Metro Bank was approached in the last fortnight about an offer to take it private spearheaded by the financial services-focused buyout firm Pollen Street Capital.

Pollen Street is one of the major shareholders in Shawbrook, the mid-sized bank which in the past has approached Metro Bank about a merger of the two companies.

In recent months, Shawbrook’s owners have stepped up efforts to identify a prospective corporate combination, holding tentative talks with Starling Bank about a £5bn tie-up, while also drawing up plans for a stock market listing.

The takeover approach to Metro Bank comes as it puts a traumatic period in which it came close to insolvency firmly behind it.

In November 2023, the lender was rescued through a £925m deal comprising £325m of equity – a third of which was contributed by Jaime Gilinski Bacal, a Colombian billionaire – and £600m of new debt.

Mr Gilinski now holds a near-53% stake through his investment vehicle, Spaldy Investments, and sits on the company’s board.

More from Money

Since the bailout deal, Metro Bank has cut hundreds of jobs and sold portfolios of loan assets, at the same time as chief executive Daniel Frumkin has improved its operating performance.

Shares in Metro Bank have more than trebled in the last year as its recovery has gathered pace.

On Friday, the stock closed at 112.2p, giving it a market capitalisation of just over £750m.

At one point in 2018, the lender – which promised to revolutionise retail banking when it opened its first branch in London in 2010 – had a market capitalisation of £3.5bn.

Metro Bank became the first new lender to open on Britain’s high streets in over 100 years when it launched in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

Its branch-based model, which included gimmicks such as offering dog biscuits, proved costly, however, at a time when many rivals have been shifting to digital banking.

Reporting first-quarter results last month, Mr Frumkin said: “During the first quarter of 2025, we have continued to deliver the strategic repositioning of Metro Bank’s business, maintaining strong cost control while driving higher net interest margin by changing the mix of assets and remaining disciplined about deposits.”

“We have seen further growth in our corporate and commercial lending, with Metro Bank’s relationship banking and breadth of services creating differentiation for us in the market.”

Metro Bank operates from about 75 branches across the country, and saw roughly 30,000 new personal and business current accounts opened during the last quarter.

In 2019, customers formed sizeable queues at some of its branches after suggestions circulated on social media that it was in financial distress.

Days later, it unveiled a £350m share placing in a move designed to allay such concerns.

The company has had a chequered history with City regulators, despite its relatively brief existence.

In 2022, it was fined £10m by the Financial Conduct Authority for publishing incorrect information to investors, while the PRA slapped it with a £5.4m penalty for similar infringements a year earlier.

The lender was founded in 2009 by Anthony Thompson, a financial services entrepreneur, and Vernon Hill, an American who eventually left in controversial circumstances in 2019.

Last month, it sailed through a shareholder vote unscathed after drawing opposition to a proposal which could see top executives paid up to £60m apiece.

Metro Bank and Pollen Street both declined to comment on Saturday

Continue Reading

Business

Rachel Reeves ‘a gnat’s whisker’ from having to raise taxes, says IFS

Published

on

By

Rachel Reeves 'a gnat's whisker' from having to raise taxes, says IFS

Rachel Reeves is a “gnat’s whisker” away from having to raise taxes in the autumn budget, a leading economist has warned – despite the chancellor insisting her plans are “fully funded”.

Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said “any move in the wrong direction” for the economy before the next fiscal event would “almost certainly spark more tax rises”.

‘Sting in the tail’ in chancellor’s plans – politics latest

Speaking the morning after she delivered her spending review, which sets government budgets until 2029, Ms Reeves told Wilfred Frost hiking taxes wasn’t inevitable.

“Everything I set out yesterday was fully costed and fully funded,” she told Sky News Breakfast.

Her plans – which include £29bn for day-to-day NHS spending, £39bn for affordable and social housing, and boosts for defence and transport – are based on what she set out in October’s budget.

That budget, her first as chancellor, included controversial tax hikes on employers and increased borrowing to help public services.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Spending review explained

Chancellor won’t rule out tax rises

The Labour government has long vowed not to raise taxes on “working people” – specifically income tax, national insurance for employees, and VAT.

Ms Reeves refused to completely rule out tax rises in her next budget, saying the world is “very uncertain”.

The Conservatives have claimed she will almost certainly have to put taxes up, with shadow chancellor Mel Stride accusing her of mismanaging the economy.

Taxes on businesses had “destroyed growth” and increased spending had been “inflationary”, he told Sky News.

New official figures showed the economy contracted in April by 0.3% – more than expected. It coincided with Donald Trump imposing tariffs across the world.

Ms Reeves admitted the figures were “disappointing” but pointed to more positive figures from previous months.

Read more:
Chancellor running out of levers to pull
Growth stats make for unpleasant reading
Your spending review questions answered

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Tories accuse Reeves over economy

‘Sting in the tail’

She is hoping Labour’s plans will provide more jobs and boost growth, with major infrastructure projects “spread” across the country – from the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk, to a rail line connecting Liverpool and Manchester.

But the IFS said further contractions in the economy, and poor forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, would likely require the chancellor to increase the national tax take once again.

It said her spending review already accounted for a 5% rise in council tax to help local authorities, labelling it a “sting in the tail” after she told Sky’s Beth Rigby that it wouldn’t have to go up.

Continue Reading

Trending