标签： Europe

LONDON — Just eight months after securing a landslide general election victory, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is fighting for his political survival, confirming to his Cabinet on Tuesday that he refuses to step down even as internal dissent within his own Labour Party reaches a fever pitch.

The current crisis erupted last week after the Labour Party suffered devastating losses across local elections nationwide. Political analysts warn that if the poor performance is replicated in a future national vote, the party could be swept out of power in a historic rout. The disappointing results laid bare long-simmering frustrations with Starmer’s leadership, triggering a wave of calls for his departure from within party ranks.

So far, more than 70 Labour backbench members of Parliament — nearly one-fifth of the party’s total representation in the House of Commons — have publicly called on Starmer to either resign immediately or outline a clear timeline for his exit. Notably, no lawmaker has yet launched a formal leadership challenge against Starmer, a move that would require meeting a minimum threshold of parliamentary support under party rules. Even so, the number of lawmakers calling for change signals deep and widespread discontent across the party.

The rebellion gained traction on Tuesday when junior minister Miatta Fahnbulleh resigned from her post in the housing, communities and local government department. A prominent figure on the Labour left, Fahnbulleh issued a public statement urging Starmer to “do the right thing for the country” and make way for new leadership. In her resignation notice, she argued the current government has failed to deliver the transformative change voters mandated in last year’s general election, and has not governed with a clear, consistent set of core Labour values. “Nor have we governed as a Labour Party clear about our values and strong in our convictions,” she wrote.

Starmer’s rapid drop in popularity since his July 2024 landslide victory stems from a range of interconnected issues. Critics point to repeated policy missteps, a widespread perception that the prime minister lacks a clear governing vision, ongoing stagnation in the British economy, and major questions over his political judgment — most notably his controversial appointment of Peter Mandelson as U.K. Ambassador to the United States, despite Mandelson’s well-documented personal ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Last week’s local election results also underscored a dramatic shift in the United Kingdom’s political landscape: the traditional two-party system long dominated by Labour and the Conservative Party is fracturing, with Labour losing significant support to both the right-wing populist Reform UK (an anti-immigration party) and the left-leaning Green Party, which campaigned on an eco-populist platform.

Opening Tuesday’s emergency Cabinet meeting, Starmer acknowledged his responsibility for the poor local election results but immediately doubled down on his commitment to stay in office. He reminded his ministers that Labour’s internal rules require a formal leadership challenge to gather the support of at least one-fifth of the party’s sitting MPs — a threshold that currently stands at 81 signatures, a mark challengers have not yet hit — and that no formal ousting process has been triggered.

“The country expects us to get on with governing,” Starmer told the gathering. “That is what I am doing and what we must do.”

Under British law, the next national general election is not required to be held until 2029, and the UK political system allows parties to replace a sitting prime minister mid-term without triggering a national vote. Starmer has already moved to shore up his position, launching his fightback with a combative speech to detractors on Monday. He is also set to push forward with an ambitious slate of new legislative proposals, which will be formally announced by King Charles III during the State Opening of Parliament on Wednesday, in a bid to regain momentum and reframe his premiership.

Danica Kirka contributed reporting from London.

KYIV, Ukraine — In a move that sends significant ripples through Ukraine’s political landscape amid its bid for European Union membership, two of the country’s leading anti-corruption watchdogs have formally named former presidential chief of staff Andriy Yermak as an official suspect in a large-scale money laundering investigation.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office made the announcement public via the Telegram messaging platform late Monday, detailing that the alleged scheme involves roughly 460 million Ukrainian hryvnia, equal to around $10.5 million. Investigators confirmed that the case remains active and ongoing, with the formal suspect designation coming before any official criminal charges are filed.

Yermak, who stepped down from his post in November, previously served as Ukraine’s lead negotiator in high-stakes talks with the United States. His resignation came amid a growing political scandal that has emerged as the most significant challenge to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s administration since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of the country in 2022.

Once one of Zelenskyy’s closest and most trusted confidants, Yermak held considerable power within the Ukrainian government. Zelenskyy for months resisted widespread calls to remove Yermak from his role, a fact that makes the current corruption probe deeply politically damaging for the president as he works to advance Ukraine’s EU accession agenda. Long-standing systemic corruption is widely cited as one of the key barriers slowing Kyiv’s progress toward membership, a process that is already projected to take years to complete.

Investigators allege that Yermak was complicit in laundering illicit funds through a series of construction projects located in the outskirts of Kyiv. Authorities executed a search of Yermak’s personal residence back in November, and no additional suspects have been publicly named as part of the investigation to date.

Zelenskyy has so far declined to issue any public comment on the anti-corruption agencies’ announcement. His press spokesperson, Dmytro Lytvyn, stated that with the investigation still unfolding, it is too premature to draw any definitive conclusions about the case. A final decision on whether to file formal criminal charges against Yermak could still be months away, according to official updates.

At the time of Yermak’s departure from the presidential office, Zelenskyy framed the resignation as part of a broader restructuring of his administration, publicly thanking Yermak for his work leading international peace negotiations.

LONDON – Just eight months after securing a landslide national general election victory, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer finds himself locked in a battle to hold onto his office, following a catastrophic string of losses for his Labour Party in last week’s local elections. Political analysts warn that if the poor local election performance is replicated at the next national vote, Labour will be swept out of power entirely.

Starmer has borne the brunt of growing frustration within the party over plummeting public approval, with multiple factors driving the downward trend. Critics point to a string of poorly executed policy missteps, a widespread perception that the prime minister has failed to articulate a clear, compelling long-term vision for the country, and ongoing turbulence in the British economy. Additional questions have been raised about Starmer’s political judgment, most notably over his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as British ambassador to Washington, despite Mandelson’s well-documented connections to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

While the next UK general election is not constitutionally required to be held until 2029, British parliamentary rules allow a governing party to replace its leader mid-term without triggering a full national vote. A growing bloc of Labour lawmakers is now pushing for an immediate leadership change, arguing it is the only way to steady the beleaguered government and fend off electoral threats from both the far right and far left of UK politics.

“We have to change and we have to do it quickly,” said Labour Member of Parliament Catherine West. “We have to lay out a timetable and we have to turn this ship around.” Despite the growing calls for departure, ousting a sitting Labour leader is far from a simple process, as the party has no recent institutional history of removing mid-term leaders, unlike the main opposition Conservative Party.

There are multiple pathways that could lead to Starmer’s exit, varying widely in complexity. The most straightforward scenario would see Starmer voluntarily announce his resignation, which would automatically trigger a formal leadership contest. Such an announcement could come as soon as this week, if Starmer’s own Cabinet members deliver a clear message at their weekly Tuesday meeting that he has lost the confidence of the parliamentary party.

If Starmer steps down immediately, the Cabinet and Labour’s National Executive Committee would appoint an interim prime minister and interim party leader, typically a figure not running in the leadership contest. Current Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy is widely seen as a likely fit for this temporary role.

Under Labour’s formal rulebook, any candidate for leader must secure the backing of at least one-fifth of the party’s sitting House of Commons lawmakers – a threshold that currently stands at 81 supporters. More than 70 Labour MPs have already publicly called on Starmer to lay out a departure timetable, a clear signal of widespread internal discontent, even though no formal challenge has yet been launched.

Once candidates meet the parliamentary support threshold, they must then secure backing from 5% of local Labour constituency parties, or from at least three major affiliated groups including trade unions and cooperative societies. After that, eligible party members and affiliate representatives vote through a ranked-choice electoral system, with the first candidate to win a majority of votes declared the winner. The final step would see King Charles III formally invite the new leader to form a government and take office as prime minister.

Thus far, Starmer has shown no willingness to step aside. On Monday, he reaffirmed his refusal to resign, arguing that leaving office mid-term would “plunge the country into chaos”. If Starmer digs in, he could still face a formal leadership challenge from one or more sitting Labour MPs.

West was the first lawmaker to openly signal a potential challenge, saying Saturday that she would launch a leadership bid if the Cabinet failed to remove Starmer by Monday. She has acknowledged that she currently falls far short of the 81 parliamentary backers needed to force a contest, framing her move instead as an effort to pressure higher-profile potential contenders to enter the race.

Unlike the Conservatives, which removed sitting prime ministers Margaret Thatcher in 1990 and Boris Johnson in 2022, Labour has no recent tradition of mid-term leader ousters. No sitting Labour prime minister has ever been forcibly removed from office, though former prime minister Tony Blair did announce his planned resignation in 2006 following years of low-level internal pressure.

If a formal challenge is launched, any eligible candidates would need to meet the same support thresholds outlined above, while Starmer would automatically be placed on the ballot as the incumbent leader.

Multiple high-ranking Labour figures are already seen as potential contenders if a leadership contest opens up. Health Secretary Wes Streeting has long been linked to leadership ambitions, as has former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, who stepped down from her post last year after admitting she underpaid taxes on a property purchase; an official investigation into the matter is still ongoing.

Andy Burnham, the widely popular mayor of Greater Manchester, is often cited as one of the strongest potential candidates, but he is currently ineligible to stand for leader because he does not hold a seat in Parliament. Earlier this year, Labour party officials blocked Burnham from running in a special parliamentary by-election, but political insiders say a path could be cleared if Starmer signals he will step down by Labour’s annual autumn conference in September. In that scenario, a sitting Labour MP in a safe seat could resign to trigger a by-election, giving Burnham a chance to win a seat in the Commons. Even that would be no guarantee, however, given the scale of Labour’s recent losses in local contests.

Nearly seven weeks after UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer vowed to deploy British military forces to board sanctioned Russian vessels operating in UK maritime territory, an independent investigation by BBC Verify has uncovered that almost 200 blacklisted ships linked to Russia’s shadow oil fleet have traversed UK waters, with zero publicly confirmed interceptions or boardings carried out to date.

Starmer first announced the aggressive new enforcement policy in March, stating that British armed forces had been granted authority to intercept and board any sanctioned vessels passing through the UK’s maritime zones. But between March 25 and 15:00 BST on May 11, BBC Verify’s analysis of publicly available ship tracking data from MarineTraffic identified 184 UK-sanctioned vessels making a total of 238 separate trips through UK waters. As of the investigation’s publication, the UK government has not released any public statement or evidence confirming that any of these vessels have been boarded, despite Starmer’s high-profile pledge.

All 184 vessels in question appear on the UK Foreign Office’s official sanctions list, with documented ties to Russia. The shadow fleet, a loose network of vessels with deliberately obscured ownership and registration structures, was established by Moscow to evade harsh international sanctions imposed on its crude oil and energy exports following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The UK’s sanctions regime bars these vessels from entering UK ports, and prohibits British businesses and individuals from offering financial, insurance or brokerage services to any ship involved in transporting Russian oil. The government has framed this pressure on Russian oil revenues as a core measure to cut off funding for Moscow’s military campaign in Ukraine.

Of the tracked vessels, 173 were oil tankers, 10 were liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers, and one was classified as a multi-purpose offshore vessel. Every vessel tracked entered the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), a maritime area extending up to 200 nautical miles off the UK’s coastline, with the vast majority of transits occurring through the busy English Channel. In at least 94 of those journeys, the vessels crossed briefly into UK territorial waters, the 12-nautical-mile zone directly adjacent to the UK coast. BBC Verify confirmed that Starmer’s announced interception policy explicitly applies to both territorial waters and the EEZ.

MarineTraffic gathers its location data from vessels’ onboard Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponders, a mandatory tracking technology for most large commercial ships. However, AIS signals can be intentionally disabled by crews to hide a vessel’s true identity and location. The data shows significant gaps in tracking for many of the sanctioned vessels west of Scotland and Ireland, a common pattern for shadow fleet vessels attempting to avoid detection.

The investigation also uncovered one notable incident: satellite imagery analyzed by experts from intelligence firm MAIAR confirms that a sanctioned oil tanker named *Universal* was escorted through UK waters by a Russian frigate, almost certainly the Russian warship *Admiral Grigorovich*, in early April. Ship tracking data shows *Universal* entered UK waters in the early hours of April 8 before transiting the English Channel.

The complete lack of confirmed boardings has drawn sharp criticism from defense and maritime experts. Tom Sharpe, a former Royal Navy warship commander, described the inaction as “utterly confusing” and “pathetic.” Sharpe told BBC Verify that the UK possesses all the necessary military assets to carry out the pledged interceptions, including warships, specialized boarding teams, and customs enforcement capabilities. “We’ve got no maritime spine in us,” he said. “I see it time and time again with the way we operate our warships. We are risk averse, we’re poorly coordinated.”

However, legal experts note that significant international maritime law constraints may explain the government’s reluctance to carry out boardings. James M Turner KC, a leading shipping lawyer at Quadrant Chambers, explained that under standard international law, coastal states are generally prohibited from seizing or boarding vessels that are legally flying the flag of another sovereign nation, regardless of sanctions status. “The position with very few exceptions is that you can’t seize vessels that are flying the flag of another country,” Turner said. “If a ship travels through UK waters under a flag it is entitled to fly then there is very little a coastal state can do – regardless of whether the vessel has been sanctioned or is carrying sanctioned goods.”

Turner added that the policy appears to be unenforceable in all but a small number of edge cases, such as vessels sailing without a flag or falsely reporting their registration. “This is a case where rhetoric and reality do not coincide,” he said.

Alessio Patalano, professor of war and strategy at King’s College London, noted that while no boardings have occurred, the policy has already had a measurable deterrent effect. The investigation found that multiple sanctioned vessels have altered their standard routes to avoid UK waters entirely. For example, the *Yi Tong*, an oil tanker registered to a Chinese shipping firm based in Shandong province, previously made regular trips between Russia’s Port of Ust-Luga and China via the English Channel. In the weeks following Starmer’s announcement, the vessel took a far longer route around the west of Ireland and north of Scotland, completely avoiding the Channel and UK territorial waters. Longer routes increase fuel costs and transit time for cargo operators, cutting into the profits of Russian energy sales.

“The Russians are probably already thinking how to test the UK more, and we should expect ships taking a longer route bringing some measure of challenge to UK defences and infrastructure,” Patalano said. He also noted that the Russian naval escort of *Universal* could be interpreted as a sign that the UK’s policy is already putting Moscow under pressure.

The Kremlin has already condemned the UK’s interception policy as “another deeply hostile step directed at Russia” and warned that such aggressive actions “have consequences.”

When approached by BBC Verify for comment on its findings, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) declined to directly answer whether any interceptions or boardings had been carried out since March 25. Instead, the MoD stated it is “disrupting and deterring” shadow fleet vessels, and claimed that more than 700 suspected vessels have been “challenged” since October 2024. The department added that it would not comment on specific operational details “as this could compromise our ability to successfully take action against these ships.” Follow-up questions asking the MoD to clarify what constitutes a “challenge” were not answered with additional detail. The Royal Navy has confirmed it continues to monitor Russian vessels transiting UK maritime territory.

Months after a sharp diplomatic crisis triggered by former President Donald Trump’s controversial threat to take control of Greenland by force, high-level talks between the United States and Denmark are moving forward to expand Washington’s military footprint on the Arctic island, according to multiple sources familiar with the closed-door discussions.

Earlier this year, U.S. Vice President JD Vance visited Pituffik Space Base, the only active U.S. military facility currently operating on Greenland’s territory, a semi-autonomous region under Danish sovereignty. In January, Trump reignited debate over U.S. policy in the Arctic by stating that the U.S. needed to “own” Greenland to block growing influence from Russia and China, adding that the acquisition could happen through the “easy way or the hard way”—language widely interpreted as a threat of forcible seizure.

The White House has confirmed that the current administration is engaged in top-tier talks with Danish and Greenlandic authorities, but has declined to disclose specific details of the negotiations. A senior White House official told the BBC that the administration remains optimistic the discussions are moving toward a mutually acceptable outcome. Denmark’s foreign ministry also acknowledged the ongoing diplomatic process, noting that “there is an ongoing diplomatic track with the United States” and declining to share further details at this stage.

Multiple U.S. officials involved in the talks have proposed a framework that would designate three planned new bases in southern Greenland as formally U.S. sovereign territory, one insider with direct knowledge of the negotiations confirmed. The proposed outposts would be positioned along the GIUK Gap—an critical strategic stretch of the North Atlantic between Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom—and their core mission would be conducting enhanced surveillance of maritime activity by Russia and China in the region.

Sources emphasize that no final agreement has been reached, and the total number of new bases could shift before any deal is finalized. One of the proposed sites is already penciled in for Narsarsuaq, the location of a decommissioned U.S. military base that currently hosts a small civilian airport. Security analysts note that all planned new facilities are likely to be built on existing infrastructure, including pre-existing airfields and ports, cutting construction costs significantly compared to breaking ground on entirely new sites.

Contrary to Trump’s earlier public threats, U.S. negotiators have not raised the prospect of seizing full control of Greenland during discussions, a move that both Denmark and NATO have publicly rejected outright. Despite the initial diplomatic uproar, both sides have made consistent progress on negotiations over recent months, with talks being held by a small, low-profile working group of officials based in Washington. The quiet negotiation process has continued largely out of public view even as the administration has focused heavily on the ongoing war in Iran.

Initial broad confirmation of the push for new bases came from U.S. Northern Command chief General Gregory Guillot during congressional testimony in March, but sources with direct access to the talks have shared new details showing a consistent schedule of high-level meetings that have delivered tangible progress in recent months. Leading the sensitive diplomatic effort is Michael Needham, a senior U.S. State Department official tapped to craft a deal that meets Trump’s demands while also respecting Denmark’s non-negotiable red lines on protecting its territorial sovereignty.

“Needham is running point” on all Greenland-related negotiations, a senior diplomat with knowledge of the process confirmed. Behind the scenes, the administration has approached the talks in a “very professional” manner, the source added. Since mid-January, negotiating teams have met at least five times. Needham typically attends with one or two additional officials from the State Department or National Security Council, while the Danish side is led by Jesper Møller Sørensen, Denmark’s ambassador to the U.S., and Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland’s top diplomatic representative in Washington.

Notably, Jeff Landry, Republican Governor of Louisiana and Trump’s appointed special envoy for Greenland, has not participated in any negotiating sessions and remains largely sidelined from the diplomatic process, three separate sources confirmed. A close ally of Landry, speaking on condition of anonymity, noted that Landry was cast as a public advocate for the idea of U.S. expansion, framing the effort as a show of American strength to take control of Greenland as a strategic security asset, but “has never been to any of the actual talks.” Landry’s office did not respond to requests for comment on his absence from negotiations.

The U.S. currently only maintains one active military facility in Greenland, a sharp drawdown from the 17 operational bases the U.S. ran here at the height of the Cold War. Pituffik Space Base, located in remote northwestern Greenland, supports NORAD’s missile monitoring mission but lacks the infrastructure and positioning to conduct large-scale maritime surveillance in the GIUK Gap, the core strategic priority driving the push for new southern bases.

Some current and former U.S. officials, as well as independent Arctic security experts, have criticized the Trump administration’s approach, arguing that Washington could have advanced its strategic goals in Greenland without issuing aggressive threats against a fellow NATO ally. “Why threaten an ally with a military operation or invasion when what you want is something that could be negotiated quite easily?” one former senior U.S. defense official asked.

Other retired defense leaders have backed the expansion effort and the ongoing cooperation between Washington and Copenhagen. Retired General Glen VanHerck, who led U.S. Northern Command and NORAD from 2020 to 2024, told the BBC that “Wherever the US and our allies leave a vacuum, that vacuum is often filled by China and Russia.”

Negotiators are currently working to craft a compromise that falls within the framework of a long-standing bilateral security agreement between the U.S. and Denmark first signed in 1951. That existing pact grants the U.S. broad latitude to expand its military operations in Greenland, requiring only formal Danish approval for any new infrastructure. Arctic security experts note that Denmark has historically supported U.S. military activity on the island and has never rejected a U.S. request to expand its presence.

Representatives of the Greenlandic government in Washington and the U.S. State Department both declined to comment on the record about the ongoing talks. Trump first raised interest in expanded U.S. access to Greenland during his first presidential term, and his renewed public push earlier this year exposed open tensions between the administration and other NATO alliance members amid the initial diplomatic crisis.