Fury as Labour peer accuses 'out of control' Ukrainian president Zelensky of 'scuppering' Russia peace deal with drone strikes on Kremlin airfields
A Labour peer triggered outrage today by suggesting Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky was 'out of control' and jeopardising efforts to end the war with Russia by approving a major drone strike.
Octogenarian Lord Dale Campbell-Savours stunned the House of Lords by suggesting Mr Zelensky had been 'allowed to run amok' with his country's celebrated weekend attack on Russian airfields.
The former MP suggested the embattled war leader had 'scuppered' the chances of reaching a truce in the deadly conflict being sought by US president Trump.
Ukraine's Security Service claim the attack, dubbed operation Spider Web, destroyed or damaged 41 Russian aircraft, including strategic bombers.
At the same time, Russia has continued to carry out strikes across Ukraine, including the targeting of residential areas.
Lord Campbell-Savours, whose son is a Labour MP, was swiftly rebuked in the Lords by figures on all sides, including foreign minister Baroness Chapman of Darlington.
Former defence chief Lord Stirrup, who led the Armed Forces from 2006 to 2010, icily said: 'Has the minister noticed any reticence or reluctance on the part of President Putin to killing Ukrainian civilians while so-called peace talks continue?
'And has she identified any actions at all on the part of the American administration to try and compel President Putin down that path of reticence?'
US President Donald Trump said this week Mr Putin had told him 'very strongly' in a phone call that he would respond to Ukraine's daring drone attack on Russian air bases.
Mr Zelensky, who has accepted a US ceasefire proposal and offered to meet Mr Putin in an attempt to break the stalemate in negotiations, wants more international sanctions on Russia to force it to accept a settlement.
But Mr Putin has shown no willingness to meet Mr Zelensky and has indicated no readiness to compromise.
US-led diplomatic efforts to end the long-running war have so far failed to make any significant progress.
Raising the issue in Parliament, Lord Campbell-Savours said: 'Whilst recognising the sheer bravado of those who executed operation Spider Web, we have to accept that action has undermined Trump's wider initiative, jeopardised his offer on the provision of security guarantees, and hardened Russia's attitude on conflict resolution.
'How can we ever secure a settlement and avoid substantial defence costs being imposed on European taxpayers, if Zelensky is allowed to run amok with unilateral actions, therefore scuppering any prospect of an early settlement.
'Why can't we, with our long experience in diplomacy, think out of the box and engage with Trump's people in discussions with Russia over measures to end this war.
'We can't rely on Zelensky. He's out of control.'
However, the peer's controversial view was rejected outright by Baroness Chapman, who said she 'profoundly' disagreed and repeated the UK Government's staunch support for Kyiv.
She pointed out it was Russia's leader Vladimir Putin who could end the war, which he had triggered by his full-scale invasion in 2022.
She added: 'President Trump wants to see peace. We want to see peace. President Zelensky has agreed to a ceasefire.
'The person who could achieve that ceasefire, who could bring peace to Ukraine, who could see the children return to their homes, is President Putin.'
Her Tory counterpart Lord Callanan said: 'I completely agree with the minister's sentiments.
'I think Lord Campbell-Savours is absolutely wrong, and all of us who are strong supporters of Ukraine were greatly encouraged by the recent audacious attack on the Russian airfields, in which nobody was killed by the way, it was just equipment that was damaged.
'But to secure Ukrainian sovereignty in the longer term, it is vital that Ukraine possesses armed forces which have a strong strategic and tactical advantage in the region.
'So could the minister please update the House on the steps that the Government is taking to support the Ukrainian military, to ensure that it has troops which are well trained, well equipped in the longer term to our high standards to help deter further Russian aggression?'
Lady Chapman pointed out the UK had committed £3 billion a year for as long as Ukraine needed it and also signed a '100-year' pact, which formalised economic and military support provided by Britain.
She also highlighted UK efforts to establish a peacekeeping mission that would enforce a possible future ceasefire in Ukraine, a so-called coalition of the willing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Middle East situation ‘perilous', says Lammy amid calls for more talks
The situation in the Middle East is 'perilous', the Foreign Secretary said as he urged Iran to negotiate with the US. David Lammy flew from Washington to Geneva on Friday to meet Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi alongside his French and German counterparts as the UK continued to press for a diplomatic solution to the Middle East crisis. The talks followed US President Donald Trump's announcement that he would delay a decision on joining Israeli strikes against Iran for up to two weeks. Speaking after the meeting, Mr Lammy told reporters: 'It is still clear to me, as President Trump indicated yesterday, that there is a window of within two weeks where we can see a diplomatic solution.' Urging Iran to 'take that off ramp' and talk to the Americans, he said: 'We have a window of time. This is perilous and deadly serious.' He added that the US and Europe were pushing for Iran to agree to zero enrichment of uranium as a 'starting point' for negotiations. But Mr Araghchi said Iran would not negotiate with the US as long as Israel continued to carry out airstrikes against the country, and insisted his country's nuclear programme was entirely peaceful. Both sides continued to exchange fire on Friday, with Iranian missiles targeting the city of Haifa while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tel Aviv's military operation would continue 'for as long as it takes'. Meanwhile, the UK Government has announced it will use charter flights to evacuate Britons stranded in Israel once the country's airspace reopens. Mr Lammy said work is under way to provide the flights 'based on levels of demand' from UK citizens who want to leave the region. The move follows criticism of the Foreign Office's initial response, which saw family members of embassy staff evacuated while UK citizens were not advised to leave and told to follow local guidance. The Government said the move to temporarily withdraw family members had been a 'precautionary measure'. On Friday, the Foreign Office announced that UK staff had also been evacuated from Iran, with the embassy continuing to operate remotely. But the Government continues to advise British nationals in the region to follow local advice, rather than urging them to leave. The US evacuated 79 staff and families from the embassy in Israel on Friday local time, according to the Associated Press. Mr Trump told reporters his national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard was 'wrong' when she told lawmakers in March that US intelligence officials did not believe Iran had been building a nuclear weapon. The president also suggested it would be 'very hard to stop' Israeli strikes on Iran to negotiate a ceasefire.
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump attack on Left-wing bias on TV sparks ‘constitutional crisis'
Elon Musk may have stepped aside, but Donald Trump still has a Doge problem. The US president's plan to run a scythe through up to $425bn (£316bn) of government spending could be gutted or even vetoed in the Senate, where just a few rebel Republicans could scupper the cuts. But Trump and Russell Vought, his budget tsar, have hatched a scheme, called a 'pocket rescission', that might keep the Doge (department of government efficiency) dream on track. And it could even shift the constitutional balance of power between president and Congress towards a testy Trump. It's a high-risk, high-stakes strategy. The outcome will determine whether the Doge spending reductions can go ahead, helping to pay for Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax cuts without blowing out the budget and rattling the bond markets. But the unprecedented procedure takes the White House and Capitol Hill into uncharted legal waters. So it is likely to end up in the courts – joining a raft of litigation that will either reinforce the institutional checks on the president's power or unleash him. 'It's a challenge to Congress,' says Sarah Binder, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution and George Washington University. 'I don't like to throw around the term 'constitutional crisis', but it's not a great position for lawmakers and institutions.' Under the constitution, Congress has the so-called power of the purse, meaning that lawmakers, not the president, are the final arbiter of what the government spends or does not spend. If the president wants to cut funding or programmes that Congress has already authorised, his only option is to launch a rescission procedure – a formal request for the cuts, which both houses of Congress must approve. The rescission process was introduced in a law called the Impoundment Control Act, which had the overall aim of making it hard for Richard Nixon, the then-president, and his successors from delaying or withholding funds once Congress had green-lighted them. Rescission has seldom been used. Ronald Reagan used it to secure $15.2bn of spending cuts as president in the early 1980s, but later in the decade, Congress tended to ignore or refuse his rescission messages. Trump tried it on with a $15bn-plus request in his first term, but was stymied in the Senate. The Democrats then got control of Congress in the midterms and pushed back another $27bn salvo. Now Trump is trying again. The initial proposal – Vought says it will be 'the first of many' – is to scuttle $9.4bn of spending on public broadcasters and international aid programmes. This rescission was flagged back in March but formally put to Congress only this month. In an executive order early last month, Trump said he wanted to terminate all public funding of National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which accounts for about $1bn of this first rescission package. 'Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens,' Trump said. 'Today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.' The White House has until July 18 to persuade Congress. The rescission scraped through the House of Representatives by 214 votes to 212, but the Senate is the real test. If just four Republicans in the 100-seat upper house swap sides, the spending stays in place. It's not looking promising for Trump. Several Republicans have already voiced concern about at least some of the cuts. The dissenters include Senator Susan Collins, who chairs an influential Senate finance committee that will consider the cuts at a session on June 25. There could be fireworks. Vought will appear before the committee and, in recent weeks, he has started airing the possibility of bypassing Congress altogether through an untested and almost unknown variant of rescission: the so-called pocket rescission. 'It's a provision that has been rarely used, but it is there,' Vought told CNN. 'And we intend to use all of these tools.' The trick with the pocket rescission is to make the request to Congress right before the end of the fiscal year, which runs to Sept 30. The White House reckons that the Impoundment Control Act's wording creates a loophole: if Congress does not act on the request before Sept 30, then even if the window is well short of 45 days the spending approval will lapse automatically on that date. The case for pocket rescissions was made recently by Wade Miller, of the Center for Renewing America (CRA), a Right-wing think tank. 'A rescission is a viable tool for carrying out the broader political mandate to curb unnecessary spending,' he wrote in a briefing paper. 'If the executive branch decides to use this process, the deployment of a rescission with fewer than 45 days remaining in the fiscal year is a statutorily and constitutionally valid strategy.' The CRA was set up by Vought himself, after he served as director of the Office of Management and Budget in the final six months of Trump's first term. He returned to the White House with the president this January, in the same role. But other Washington think tanks trenchantly oppose the CRA's position. 'Calling it a pocket rescission implies that it's like an actual functional tool under the law, in a way that it's actually not. It is a strategy that the person who is running the Office of Management and Budget has articulated to evade the law,' says Cerin Lindgrensavage, a lawyer at Protect Democracy. She says the whole purpose of the Impoundment Control Act was to stop any presidential ploy to skirt its strictures. 'One of the reasons why they might want to do this is because they're afraid they don't have the votes to actually make the cuts the legal way.' Binder, from Brookings, says that the Act doesn't explicitly deal with what happens if a president makes the request right before the end of the fiscal year. 'There's certainly room here for an aggressive Office of Management and Budget and an aggressive administration to try to stretch – others might say manipulate – the silence in the budget law,' she says. 'But the logic of the matter suggests that pocket rescissions are not legal under the Act and I would imagine there's a strong argument that they are unconstitutional under Congress's power of the purse.' Binder suspects Vought is looking to get a test case into the courts. Given there could be a constitutional principle at stake, it could go all the way to the Supreme Court, where a majority of judges are Republican appointees. In the meantime, litigants could get restraining orders or injunctions to prevent the Doge cuts. But they can't necessarily get the White House to respect these. The stage is set for a constitutional showdown. The question is whether Trump and Vought will really pull the trigger. And then, whether the weapon will actually work.
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
RAF base's only defence against Palestine Action was 6ft wooden fence
For almost 80 years, RAF Brize Norton has been one of the country's most important military airfields, serving as an embarkation point for members of the Royal family and senior politicians as they fly around the globe. So one could be forgiven for expecting security around the Oxfordshire airbase to be watertight. In reality, however, things are a little more porous, with sections of the eight-mile perimeter protected only by a six-foot wooden fence that would not look out of place surrounding a suburban garden. In the early hours of Friday morning, two members of the protest group Palestine Action – which will now be proscribed as a terrorist organisation – took advantage of the seemingly lax defences to enter the airfield and attack two military aircraft. Video footage posted by the group showed two people using electric scooters to cross the base's runway. One can be seen approaching an aircraft and spray-painting its engine, before driving away down the empty airstrip. They were then able to disappear into the night, leaving the RAF red-faced and the Ministry of Defence to announce an urgent review of security. Brize Norton serves as the hub for UK strategic air transport and refuelling, including flights to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. It is also where the aircraft used by dignitaries, including the monarch and prime minister, are based. As would be expected, large parts of the base, especially near the gates, are surrounded by high metal fences topped with menacing-looking razor wire. The perimeter in these areas also bristles with security cameras and hi-tech CCTV to monitor the comings of goings of all personnel. Armed guards patrol the gates in a show of strength aimed at deterring anyone who has no lawful business. But just a short stroll along a grass verge, the barbed wire comes to an abrupt end, to be replaced by a panel fence that looks like it could have been purchased from a DIY store. The section in question is plain to see for anyone travelling the four miles between the villages of Carterton and Bampton along station road. Stretching for around 170 metres, it skirts along the end of the runway and is protected from the road by just a small line of wooden and concrete bollards. One resident said: 'I've lived in this area for years and every time I drive past the fence I think: 'That would be easy to break into'.' It is not topped with barbed wire or any other anti-climbing defences, and would provide little resistance to a determined terrorist with a spring in their step. There is even a hole in the fence at one point for anyone who cannot quite manage the climb. Red warning signs attached to the fence declare: 'No unauthorised access. Protected site under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Trespass on this site is a Criminal Offence. This site is also regulated by military bylaws.' At one end of the section, kennels belonging to the RAF Police's dog section are located. But, while a number of RAF Police vehicles were parked close by, there were no visible personnel patrols on Friday afternoon during the three hours that reporters from The Telegraph were at the site. On the other side of the fence, and just a short distance from the road, Airbus Voyager aircraft, the air-to-air refuellers targeted by Palestine Action, can be seen on the tarmac. Security for the Brize Norton airfield is the responsibility of the RAF Police and Military Provost Guard Service (MPGS), which secures Army, Navy and RAF bases. But former members have suggested the unit is poorly funded and does not have the resources to effectively secure such large sites. One RAF source told The Telegraph the level of security across all military was not up to standard, and that 'more dogs, more coppers and more money' was needed to properly secure the sensitive sites. 'We have barbed wire around the bases and cameras, but is its perimeter fence completely covered for the miles it takes up?' the source said. 'No, because Brize Norton is f---ing huge.' He added: 'If we could have another 50 coppers and 50 dogs the security at Brize Norton would improve. But is the security as tight at a fast jet base? Not really. 'To have watertight security at a base like Brize Norton, you'd have to invest countless people and god knows the amount of money. But maybe that's what we have to do now if this is the way things are going.' The source added: 'MPGS are responsible for recruiting the right people and getting them in the right places, but they haven't done that. ' It's a symptom of a lack of investment on security. We don't have tens of millions of pounds to put up CCTV across all the bases.' Another former military source added: 'The security at these non-nuclear bases can be very patchy. The perimeter fences are too long to be able to have them under surveillance 24 hours a day. 'But when Glastonbury's fence is harder to breach than RAF Brize Norton, you know you have an issue. 'While it may be challenging to secure an entire eight-mile perimeter, you would think they ought to be able to protect aircraft sitting on the runway. Someone's head is going to have to roll over this.'
