Connect with us

Published

on

Sir Keir Starmer has talked up the US-UK relationship after a White House meeting with Joe Biden, but questions remain over Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles.

The prime minister travelled to Washington this week to meet with President Biden to discuss the wars in Ukraine and Gaza – among other issues.

Speaking before the “long and productive” meeting held in the White House on Friday, Sir Keir said the two countries were “strategically aligned” in their attempts to resolve the war.

Afterwards, he skirted around questions regarding Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles, saying: “We’ve had a long and productive discussion on a number of problems, including Ukraine, as you’d expect, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific, talking strategically about tactical decisions.

“This isn’t about a particular decision but we’ll obviously pick up again in UNGA (UN General Assembly) in just a few days’ time with a wider group of individuals, but this was a really important invitation from the president to have this level of discussion about those critical issues.”

Ukraine war latest: Putin threatens NATO with ‘war’

Decisions loom for Ukraine’s key Western allies as Volodymyr Zelenskyy has recently increased pressure on them to permit his forces to use long-range missiles to strike inside Russian territory.

More on Joe Biden

However, despite repeated calls for a decision, the West has so far resisted green-lighting the use of the missiles.

Sir Keir Starmer and David Lammy speaking to the media outside the White House. Pic: PA
Image:
Sir Keir Starmer and David Lammy speaking to the media outside the White House on Friday. Pic: PA

Two US officials familiar with the discussions said they believed that Sir Keir was seeking US approval to let Ukraine use British Storm Shadow missiles for expanded strikes into Russia, according to Reuters news agency.

They added that they believed Mr Biden would be amenable.

The president’s approval would be needed because Storm Shadow components are made in the US.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Military analyst Sean Bell looks at how serious Putin’s threats could be

But when speaking to journalists after the meeting, Sir Keir was repeatedly pressed on the long-range missile question but evaded giving a firm decision.

“This wasn’t a meeting about a particular capability. That wasn’t why we got our heads down today,” he said.

The US has been concerned that any step could lead to an escalation in the conflict and has moved cautiously so far, however, there have been reports in recent days that Mr Biden might shift his administration’s policy.

It wasn’t much, but it’s a start

There wasn’t much to say at the end, but it’s a start.

Both sides in these discussions had spent some time playing down expectations and the Americans were insistent their stance wasn’t changing on Ukraine and long-range missiles.

“Nothing to see here” seemed to be the message.

Only, there clearly was – a glance at the headlines gave that the lie.

It’s not every day a Russian president threatens war with the West.

The UK and US were discussing a change in strategy because they must – anything less would be a dereliction of duty for two leaders pledging a commitment to Ukraine’s fight.

Just ask Kyiv’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Following the meeting, Sir Keir Starmer said they’d talked tactics and strategy.

It will have had missiles, range, and Russian territory at the heart of it.

That is the material change in strategy demanded by Ukraine and supported widely among its backers.

A plan discussed by both sides of the special relationship will now be floated to other, allied nations in an effort to build a coordinated coalition behind a change in strategy.

And they’ll do it against the clock.

There is the unpredictability of the war itself in Ukraine and no less certainty surrounding the political battle at home.

A Trump victory in November’s US election would change the picture – here and there.

Vladimir Putin previously threatened the West, warning that allowing Ukraine to use long-range missiles to strike inside Russian territory would put Moscow “at war” with NATO.

Speaking to Russian state television, he insisted the decision would “significantly change” the nature of the war.

President Joe Biden, left, hosts a bilateral meeting with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, right, in the Blue Room of the White House, Friday, Sept. 13, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Image:
Pic: AP

He added: “This will be their direct participation, and this, of course, will significantly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict.

“This will mean that NATO countries, US, European countries are at war with Russia.

“If this is so, then, bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us.”

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

When asked about the threats, Mr Biden brushed them aside, saying: “I don’t think much about Vladimir Putin.”

Read more:
Biden ‘not ruling out’ allowing Ukraine to fire into Russia – Blinken

Iran supplying Russia with ballistic missiles – Blinken
Analysis: Russia’s links with Iran are growing stronger

There remains some scepticism within the US over the impact that allowing Kyiv to unleash long-range missiles would have.

US officials, according to Reuters, have pointed out that Ukraine already has the capability to strike into Russia using drones, and while US missiles would enhance that they are too costly and limited in number to change the overall picture.

Continue Reading

World

Trump warns Hamas – and claims Israel has agreed to 60-day ceasefire in Gaza

Published

on

By

Trump warns Hamas - and claims Israel has agreed to 60-day ceasefire in Gaza

Analysis: Many unanswered questions remain

In the long Gaza war, this is a significant moment.

For the people of Gaza, for the hostages and their families – this could be the moment it ends. But we have been here before, so many times.

The key question – will Hamas accept what Israel has agreed to: a 60-day ceasefire?

At the weekend, a source at the heart of the negotiations told me: “Both Hamas and Israel are refusing to budge from their position – Hamas wants the ceasefire to last until a permanent agreement is reached. Israel is opposed to this. At this point only President Trump can break this deadlock.”

The source added: “Unless Trump pushes, we are in a stalemate.”

The problem is that the announcement made now by Donald Trump – which is his social-media-summarised version of whatever Israel has actually agreed to – may just amount to Israel’s already-established position.

We don’t know the details and conditions attached to Israel’s proposals.

Would Israeli troops withdraw from Gaza? Totally? Or partially? How many Palestinian prisoners would they agree to release from Israel’s jails? And why only 60 days? Why not a total ceasefire? What are they asking of Hamas in return? We just don’t know the answers to any of these questions, except one.

We do know why Israel wants a 60-day ceasefire, not a permanent one. It’s all about domestic politics.

If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to agree now to a permanent ceasefire, the extreme right-wingers in his coalition would collapse his government.

Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have both been clear about their desire for the war to continue. They hold the balance of power in Mr Netanyahu’s coalition.

If Mr Netanyahu instead agrees to just 60 days – which domestically he can sell as just a pause – then that may placate the extreme right-wingers for a few weeks until the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, is adjourned for the summer.

It is also no coincidence that the US president has called for Mr Netanyahu’s corruption trial to be scrapped.

Without the prospect of jail, Mr Netanyahu might be more willing to quit the war safe in the knowledge that focus will not shift immediately to his own political and legal vulnerability.

Continue Reading

World

Women’s Euros: Extreme heat warnings in place as tournament kicks off

Published

on

By

Women's Euros: Extreme heat warnings in place as tournament kicks off

The Women’s Euros begin in Switzerland today – with extreme heat warnings in place.

Security measures have had to be relaxed by UEFA for the opening matches so fans can bring in water bottles.

Temperatures could be about 30C (86F) when the Swiss hosts open their campaign against Norway in Basel this evening.

Players have already seen the impact of heatwaves this summer at the men’s Club World Cup in the US.

Players take a drink during a training session of Spain soccer team at the Euro 2025, in Lausanne, Switzerland Tuesday, July 1, 2025 Pic: AP
Image:
The Spain squad pauses for refreshments during a training session. Pic: AP

It is raising new concerns in the global players’ union about whether the stars of the sport are being protected in hot and humid conditions.

FIFPRO has asked FIFA to allow cooling breaks every 15 minutes rather than just in the 30th minute of each half.

There’s also a request for half-time to be extended from 15 to 20 minutes to help lower the core temperature of players.

More on Football

FIFPRO’s medical director, Dr Vincent Gouttebarge, said: “There are some very challenging weather conditions that we anticipated a couple of weeks ago already, that was already communicated to FIFA.

“And I think the past few weeks were confirmation of all worries that the heat conditions will play a negative role for the performance and the health of the players.”

Football has seemed focused on players and fans baking in the Middle East – but scorching summers in Europe and the US are becoming increasingly problematic for sport.

Chloe Kelly celebrates with Beth Mead, right, after scoring her side's sixth goal at Wembley Stadium, in London, Friday, May 30, 2025. AP
Image:
England are the tournament’s defending champions. Pic: AP

While climate change is a factor, the issue is not new and at the 1994 World Cup, players were steaming as temperatures rose in the US.

There is now more awareness of the need for mitigation measures among players and their international union.

FIFPRO feels football officials weren’t responsive when it asked for kick-off times to be moved from the fierce afternoon heat in the US for the first 32-team Club World Cup.

FIFA has to balance the needs of fans and broadcasters with welfare, with no desire to load all the matches in the same evening time slots.

Electric storms have also seen six games stopped, including a two-hour pause during a Chelsea game at the weekend.

This is the dress rehearsal for the World Cup next summer, which is mostly in the US.

Players are also feeling the heat at the Club World Cup in the US. Pic: AP
Image:
Players are also feeling the heat at the Club World Cup. Pic: AP

The use of more indoor, air conditioned stadiums should help.

There is no prospect of moving the World Cup to winter, as Qatar had to do in 2022.

And looking further ahead to this time in 2030, there will be World Cup matches in Spain, Portugal and Morocco. The temperatures this week have been hitting 40C (104F) in some host cities.

Read more:
Ex-England boss receives knighthood
Football star mural unveiled

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Wildfires erupt in Italy and France amid heatwave

FIFA said in a statement to Sky News: “Heat conditions are a serious topic that affect football globally.

“At the FCWC some significant and progressive measures are being taken to protect the players from the heat. For instance, cooling breaks were implemented in 31 out of 54 matches so far.

“Discussions on how to deal with heat conditions need to take place collectively and FIFA stands ready to facilitate this dialogue, including through the Task Force on Player Welfare, and to receive constructive input from all stakeholders on how to further enhance heat management.

“In all of this, the protection of players must be at the centre.”

Continue Reading

World

Trump’s USAID cuts could lead to 14 million deaths, report warns

Published

on

By

Trump's USAID cuts could lead to 14 million deaths, report warns

Around 14 million people could die across the world over the next five years because of cuts to the US Agency for International Development (USAID), researchers have warned.

Children under five are expected to make up around a third (4.5 million) of the mortalities, according to a study published in The Lancet medical journal.

Estimates showed that “unless the abrupt funding cuts announced and implemented in the first half of 2025 are reversed, a staggering number of avoidable deaths could occur by 2030”.

“Beyond causing millions of avoidable deaths – particularly among the most vulnerable – these cuts risk reversing decades of progress in health and socioeconomic development in LMICs [low and middle-income countries],” the report said.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

March: ‘We are going to lose children’: Fears over USAID cuts in Kenya

USAID programmes have prevented the deaths of more than 91 million people, around a third of them among children, the study suggests.

The agency’s work has been linked to a 65% fall in deaths from HIV/AIDS, or 25.5 million people.

Eight million deaths from malaria, more than half the total, around 11 million from diarrheal diseases and nearly five million from tuberculosis (TB), have also been prevented.

USAID has been vital in improving global health, “especially in LMICs, particularly African nations,” according to the report.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Queer HIV activist on Trump and Musk’s USAID cuts

Established in 1961, the agency was tasked with providing humanitarian assistance and helping economic growth in developing countries, especially those deemed strategic to Washington.

But the Trump administration has made little secret of its antipathy towards the agency, which became an early victim of cuts carried out by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – formerly led by Elon Musk – in what the US government said was part of a broader plan to remove wasteful spending.

Read more:
USAID explained
USAID ‘a bowl of worms’ – Musk

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

What is USAID?

In March, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said more than 80% of USAID schemes had been closed following a six-week review, leaving around 1,000 active.

The US is the world’s largest humanitarian aid donor, providing around $61bn (£44bn) in foreign assistance last year, according to government data, or at least 38% of the total, and USAID is the world’s leading donor for humanitarian and development aid, the report said.

Between 2017 and 2020, the agency responded to more than 240 natural disasters and crises worldwide – and in 2016 it sent food assistance to more than 53 million people across 47 countries.

The study assessed all-age and all-cause mortality rates in 133 countries and territories, including all those classified as low and middle-income, supported by USAID from 2001 to 2021.

Continue Reading

Trending