Ukraine

Mind your own business and leave people alone.

Americans should heed that admonition, same as anybody else. We've often strayed from it, and we need to get better at not fuckin' with everybody else's bananas.

I like it when people are free to make their own way in the world. But we all have to live here on this shrinking planet, and so we all have to get together and make rules we can all follow - rules that are just - and applicable to everybody in the same way.

So while I love thinking Europe is stepping up and being smarter about things, I have to hope we're not giving up too much of our influence. We have a stake in everything that happens in every part of the world. We all do. So let's try a little harder to drop the imperialist conquest bullshit and figure out how to find the balance between 'I-don't-care-what-you-do-just-don't-do-it-to-me', and getting everybody a seat at the table, with a full plate.

The battle to bring Europe’s biggest military into the EU

Volodymyr Zelensky has the green light for formal membership negotiations – but a long road lies ahead

Ukraine began its long journey out of Russia’s shadow and towards Europe in Kyiv’s historic Maidan square.

More than 100 protesters were killed and over 1,000 injured on the barricades of Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) in 2014 as they demanded an end to Moscow’s malign influence.

Some 12 years and an invasion later, more than 100,000 people have died fighting for freedom.

And now, the EU has given Ukraine the green light to start formal membership negotiations with Volodymyr Zelensky’s government.

It is a once-unthinkable step on a long and difficult road of deep reforms and painful scrutiny amid high-stakes diplomacy and an existential war.

Ukrainians at the Maidan, where portraits of fallen protesters stand opposite a vast memorial to the war dead, told The Telegraph it was a fair reward for their sacrifice.

“I was part of the Maidan protests,” Nataliia Kharchenko said at the foot of the Alley of Heroes of the Heavenly Hundred, which was renamed in honour of slain activists.

“Ukraine has earned its membership with blood and tears. I can’t answer for the European community, but I know what we want and what we’re fighting for.”

Oleh Kovalenko, 27, said: “Ukraine belongs to Europe, we have a common character, common culture. But even more than that we have defended the border to Europe. It cost us so many lives, so much blood.”

The programmer added: “I hope the EU will keep our promises to us but I think we need to see some signals to have faith. If there’s a club, we should be part of it, and it shouldn’t be seen as a favour to us, it’s our right.”

Earlier this year, amid hopes that a peace deal could be struck between Ukraine and Russia, the US pressured the EU to fast-track Ukraine’s membership bid.

The putative peace deal was expected to call for Ukraine to join the EU by 2027, which would have been impossible if the usual rules had been followed – the full process can take more than a decade.

The EU could not be seen to block the peace deal, so officials brainstormed possible solutions.

They alighted on “reverse enlargement”, effectively giving Ukraine membership in name only and filling in the rights and obligations afterwards as Ukraine completed the necessary domestic reforms.

This was deeply uncomfortable for member states, which did not want any shortcuts to membership.

One EU diplomat told The Telegraph: “It’s just unacceptable across so many member states because it rips the whole merits-based approach to shreds. We all love [Volodymyr] Zelensky, but he’s going to go at one point.

“And then what? Who comes next? And if we have no guarantees on the rule of law, if we have no guarantees on the oligarchy, on the anti-corruption stuff. The concern is, what are we bringing into the EU?”

The EU had no intention of granting Ukraine EU membership after the Maidan protests, which led to the fall of Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Kremlin president, in February 2014.

Instead, it signed a treaty and free-trade deal with Kyiv that stopped far short of bloc membership.

Vladimir Putin’s invasion in 2022 changed things. Four days after his tanks crossed the border, Mr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, applied to join the EU.

But EU governments are not prepared to tear up the rule book, even if many in Brussels accept that Ukrainians have died so Europeans do not have to.

Mariia, 31, speaking in the Maidan, said in response: “I understand they don’t give out membership for free. And there there should be some reforms. But I can say our goal is not going to change.

“I can’t say if Ukraine’s sacrifice is appreciated. I can say I have friends, their husbands are at the front, brothers and fathers, and we are fighting for our security and our future. Maybe Europe understands that, maybe it doesn’t.”

EU diplomats point out that any shortcuts given to Kyiv will also be claimed by the six Western Balkan countries that applied to join years before Ukraine.

The European Commission wants Ukraine to undertake reforms to fight corruption, guarantee judicial independence and align with all EU finance, single market and agricultural laws before joining.

Large swathes of EU law must be transposed on to national law books. Finances and budgets must be pored over by Brussels.

‘Clusters’ on road to membership

The formal membership negotiations that have just been green-lit are to be divided into six “clusters”, starting with talks over democracy and the rule of law aimed at safeguarding Ukraine from failing into authoritarianism.

Each cluster has to be closed before Ukraine can take the next step to becoming a member – and all this in war-time.

And Ukraine presents more difficulties than other candidate countries for the EU – for one thing, no one knows where its final borders will be.

Its substantial agriculture sector would be an asset to the EU but also presents a headache for the bloc’s agricultural subsidies, which are based on acreage.

With a population of as many as 39 million, Ukraine would have real influence on EU policymaking, which not all member states would welcome.

Freedom of movement could lead to a “brain drain” of Ukrainians to the bloc, where they could claim welfare and other benefits.

Then there is the substantial cost of post-war reconstruction, estimated at £445bn, and the effect on the EU cohesion funds designed to raise living standards across the bloc.

EU sources suggested such issues could be finessed with the strategic use of transition periods. But they also admitted the EU would have to make reforms of its own to incorporate Ukraine successfully.

Kyiv has much to offer the EU, not least a defensive wall from further Russian aggression. It has a larger military than any of its European allies, a highly developed defence industry and expertise in drones and warfare that is coveted in a Europe racing to rearm.

But the accession process can be delayed or derailed at any moment, as was the case when Viktor Orban, as prime minister of Hungary, vetoed the formal opening of membership negotiations.

During his unsuccessful campaign for Hungary’s election in April, the pro-Putin Mr Orban accused Peter Magyar, his challenger, of being in cahoots with Mr Zelensky to drag Hungary into the war.

Mr Orban also said ethnic Hungarians in Ukraine were being affected by laws making Ukrainian the primary language in schools and public administration.

After Mr Magyar won a landslide victory to end 16 years of Orbán rule in April, he quickly did a deal on language rights with Mr Zelensky and dropped Budapest’s veto on the negotiation clusters.

Rapid progress

Ukraine has made much faster progress towards membership than most candidate countries.

Marta Kos, the EU’s enlargement commissioner, said last week: “No country has ever achieved such progress on the path to accession while fighting Russia’s most brutal atrocities on its territory.”

In part, that is down to the Ukrainians’ determination to complete the domestic reforms required by the EU as quickly as possible, front-loading some of them before the formal talks began.

However, last week’s EU summit in Brussels gave the strongest sign yet of European leaders’ unwillingness to fast-track Ukraine’s membership.

Before the European Council, Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, wrote that enlargement was a “geopolitical necessity” but would take too long.

He sketched out a vision for “associate membership” for Ukraine. This would involve associate membership of the European Commission, European Parliament and participation in European Council meetings, albeit without voting rights.

These observer roles would go hand in hand with gradual alignment to EU law and common foreign policy. There would also be a “snap-back clause” in case of backsliding on the EU’s democratic values.

But EU leaders moved to slam on the brakes in closed-door discussions in Brussels, removing a reference from the final joint declaration that had called for more progress to be made “as soon as possible”.

Mr Zelensky continued to demand fast-track membership, telling EU leaders: “Ukraine merits it because it has paid more than any other European country for its right to be free, independent and European.”

Hungary the sticking point

Numerous diplomatic sources named Mr Magyar as the reason why further progress was not made during the membership debate, which ran for several hours.

They said he had to manage the resentment of Mr Zelensky and Ukraine among Hungarians who had supported Mr Orban.

The new Hungarian prime minister had consented to the first six negotiating clusters being opened, but the next tranche was said to be “too much for him to swallow”.

Kyiv, backed by a handful of EU states, including Germany, wants to open the remaining five clusters as soon as possible.

But Hungary is not alone. Poland and Slovakia joined a chorus of countries voicing concerns over low public support for enlargement in talks between EU ambassadors before the summit.

Polling by the European Council on Foreign Relations think tank revealed that a majority of voters in Hungary, Bulgaria, Austria, Germany and even Estonia – one of Ukraine’s staunchest allies – believed the EU’s eastward expansion was a bad idea.

Several sources suggested that the final shape of Ukraine’s membership would only become clear when there was a peace deal.

Whenever and however Ukraine completes its accession negotiations, it will not have cleared the final hurdle.

A joining country must have the unanimous backing of all 27 member states. Some, including Hungary, hold referendums on new members, increasing the jeopardy and uncertainty.

In the Maidan, Daria Sydor, a 20-year-old student, laid flowers at the makeshift memorial to fallen soldiers.

She said: “Joining the EU is our return to our home, it’s very hard because you must change your mindset, change your rules, laws, legislation.

“We have this history of war, we had a lot of revolutions, and Ukrainians always wanted this, but… it’s like a long trip to come home.”

Overheard

The average American's lifespan is 78 - so middle age is 39.

But the Plutocrats fooled us into thinking it's 50 or more so we wouldn't bitch about having to work until we turn 65 - which is a solid 10 years past the time most of us can expect to contract a fatal disease, or have a massive heart attack.

They've been fucking us with our pants on for a very long time now. 

Heather Cox Richardson

Lean and hungry looking men at large in the capital.

The Fat Orange Monster

 ...And The Pool Of Sorrows

The fat orange monster and the pool of sorrows pic.twitter.com/eMA9PYjsJn

— MAGA Cult Slayer🦅🇺🇸 (@MAGACult2) June 24, 2026

Erika Jordan

Who can turn a profit from the way you react to what happens?

The Real World Cup

I didn't understand it back in the 70s, and I still don't - but it makes me laugh every time.

Coin-Operated Politicians

Since the Citizens United decision, outside spending (Super PACs, dark money, etc) has increased by almost 700%.

They're plutocrats, and they're already talking in terms of a "post-government world order".

Billionaires are parasites.

If we don't tax them now

 we'll have to eat them later.

Futurecasting

We are the Plutocrats.

We own everything.

Get Up And Go

Five-minute walk offsets the harm of sitting too long

Regular ‘exercise snacks’ boost mood and reduce fatigue without affecting work performance, according to US researchers

A five-minute “exercise snack” every hour can offset the damage of sitting down for long periods, researchers have said.

Walking or moving for five minutes at regular intervals boosted mood, reduced fatigue, and did not affect work performance, a large study revealed.

The health benefits of getting up from an office desk every so often were already known, but this was the first study to test how often five-minute walking breaks should be taken and the respective effect.

Authors, led by Columbia University in New York, said that adults in high-income countries now spend 11 to 12 hours per day sitting down or “sedentary”, which equates to “three-quarters of the waking day”.

“Excessive sedentariness has emerged as a significant public health concern that incurs increased risk of many chronic conditions, poorer mental health and mortality and poses a substantive economic burden to healthcare systems,” they wrote.

Sitting for prolonged periods is thought to have a negative effect on the lower limbs because of the reduced activity in the skeletal muscles and arteries.

However, moving at regular periods can undo or prevent these damaging effects by improving blood flow and reactivating the body’s metabolic processes, such as using fat and glucose for energy.

‘Improve psychosocial well-being’

The researchers said their results suggested “that brief, regular movement breaks (i.e., interruptions to prolonged sitting achieved by walking, such as a five-minute walk every half-hour) can counteract the harmful cardiometabolic effects of prolonged sedentary behaviour and improve psychosocial well-being”.

To test the theory, they examined data from 11,484 people taking part in a US nationwide challenge aimed at moving more by undertaking little movement breaks.

People followed their usual routine for seven days, then chose five-minute walking breaks either every 30 minutes, every 60 minutes, or every two hours for 14 consecutive days.

During the 21 days in total, people filled in questionnaires on their fatigue, mood and work performance.

A random sample of 1,200 full-time employees received five text messages every day at 9am, noon, 3pm, 6pm and 9pm to assess the immediate effect of movement breaks.

Analysis of the results suggested that all three break times were seen by people as doable, acceptable and appropriate, although fewer breaks were seen as more obtainable.

People were more likely to report good mood from taking breaks, with every 30-minute break leading to the highest improvement, while fatigue and low mood scores fell across all break times.

Overall, taking a five-minute break every hour offered the best balance between what people thought was achievable day-to-day and effectiveness for health, researchers said.

Taking short breaks also did not affect work performance, the survey results suggested.

“Concerns that movement breaks might disrupt work productivity have been documented as a perceived barrier to implementation/adoption. However, our findings counter this perception,” the experts said.

Emily McGrath, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said: “This study looked at how movement breaks affect mood and fatigue, but we also know that sitting for long periods increases the risk of heart and circulatory disease and early death.

“Taking regular ‘energy snacks’, like a five‑minute walk each hour, can boost mood and support heart health.

“While busy schedules can make this challenging, the findings suggest that simple additions of movement can improve overall health.

“However, the study relied on self-reported data and was short-term, so longer research is needed to confirm its impact on heart health.”

The study was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

We'll See

... but the times they are a-changin'.

Mamdani Emerges as Kingmaker, Pushing His Slate to a Primary Sweep

Mayor Zohran Mamdani shook the Democratic establishment by helping drive three progressive candidates to victory.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his allies swept a series of congressional primaries in New York City on Tuesday in a remarkable show of strength for the insurgent left that sent shock waves through the Democratic Party.

Mr. Mamdani’s candidates toppled a pair of incumbents backed by the city’s political establishment, including major labor unions and the House Democratic leader. Another candidate backed by the mayor won an open House seat, and a handful of democratic socialist challengers he supported were winning down the ballot.

For months, Mr. Mamdani threw himself and his energized political organization into the three marquee congressional contests, campaigning late into the night in the race’s final days and calling the election a referendum on the direction of the party.

All the winning candidates share Mr. Mamdani’s progressive economic platform, and they each ran campaigns that focused intently on ending American support for Israel, a sign of how far public opinion has shifted on the issue, even in New York.

Late Tuesday night, the mayor stood beaming at a victory party in Brooklyn, where supporters chanted “Free, free Palestine” and “D.S.A.” After embracing many of the same advisers who led his own successful campaign last year, he declared “a new chapter in our party’s history.”

“A year ago, it was not the end of a political movement,” he said. “It was the beginning.”

Mr. Mamdani’s deep involvement amounted to an audacious gamble for a brand-new mayor trying to lead an already fractious city. He alienated key allies along the way, but the payoffs were far-reaching.

At home, the outcome will now cement him as the unquestioned political kingmaker of the nation’s cultural and financial capital and the Democratic Socialists of America as a formidable force.

The results also shook the foundations of the Democratic Party far beyond the five boroughs. When they are certified, Mr. Mamdani, 34, and his movement will be on track to double the number of socialists in Congress from two to four. The outcome will also force a Democratic Party, already searching for its identity, to reckon with its ascendant, unapologetic left.

“It’s seismic,” said Jon Paul Lupo, a Democratic consultant who was a top adviser to the city’s last progressive mayor, Bill de Blasio.

The races do not necessarily suggest Mr. Mamdani has expanded his appeal. Each of the contests in which he endorsed took place in areas where the mayor won comfortably in last year’s election and remains deeply popular.

But Tuesday’s results showed two things about his young mayoralty. Mr. Mamdani has a high tolerance for political risk-taking, well beyond that of any of his modern predecessors. And, at least for now, he has the ability to transfer his high-wattage political brand onto other candidates in a way that only a few politicians in any office have been able to.

Brad Lander, 56, a close ally whom Mr. Mamdani urged to run for Congress, ran up a staggering 30-point margin in the affluent 10th District in Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan. He defeated Representative Daniel Goldman, a wealthy Levi Strauss heir who had opposed the mayor in last year’s elections and had close ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby.

Claire Valdez, 36, a little-known state assemblywoman also recruited by Mr. Mamdani to run, ran up larger than expected margins for the open seat in the Seventh District in a gentrifying swath of Brooklyn and Queens so far left it has been nicknamed the “Commie Corridor.”

She defeated Antonio Reynoso, the Brooklyn borough president, who had far deeper roots in the district and the support of the popular congresswoman, Representative Nydia Velázquez, who is retiring; the left-leaning Working Families Party; and nearly every major labor union in the city.

And Mr. Mamdani’s allies even won in the predominantly Black and Dominican 13th District in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx. In perhaps the night’s most surprising victory, Darializa Avila Chevalier, 32, another democratic socialist who entered the race as a political unknown, narrowly knocked off Representative Adriano Espaillat, the influential chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

“This is a wake-up call,” said Letitia James, the state’s progressive attorney general, who supported Mr. Mamdani’s mayoral campaign but ended up opposed to him on Tuesday.

“Obviously, there’s some hurt feelings tonight, particular in communities of color,” she said, adding, “What we have to do is sit down and work with the left-leaning part of the party and see if we can come to some sort of understanding going forward.”

Where previous mayors have taken a wide berth around intraparty primaries, Mr. Mamdani dove in. Before he even clinched his own mayoral win, he began recruiting candidates to run for seats he felt were ripe for leftist wins. He headlined fund-raisers, appeared in ads and dispatched his top political advisers to run two of the campaigns.

In the race’s final days, Mr. Mamdani exhausted himself shuttling between events with Ms. Valdez and Ms. Avila Chevalier, who were in the closest races. Wherever the mayor went, large crowds seemed to materialize.

Mr. Mamdani’s aggressive interventions were not without collateral damage. His positions on some of the races put him at odds with the Working Families Party, prominent Black and Latino Democrats, major labor unions and members of the City Council, all of whom had supported his campaign for mayor and are now involved in his governing agenda.

He infuriated Ms. Velázquez, Mr. Mamdani’s first supporter in Congress, who believed the mayor should have deferred to her wishes about a successor. She came to accuse the D.S.A. in particular of trying to erase the contributions she and other progressives had made to pushing the city leftward for decades.

Others, including Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the House Democratic leader, were even more upset when Mr. Mamdani decided in May to endorse Ms. Avila Chevalier, a democratic socialist activist and Ph.D. student, and break with Mr. Espaillat.

Mr. Espaillat did not back Mr. Mamdani in last year’s primary, but afterward, he quickly endorsed him and brought along Latino support. Mr. Mamdani had privately assured Mr. Espaillat at the time that he would reciprocate if he ever needed it.

The mayor never explained his change of heart in detail, but his advisers said he watched Ms. Avila Chevalier’s momentum and believed he could make a difference in the race. Supporters of Mr. Espaillat were furious, and said they could no longer trust Mr. Mamdani’s word.

The outcome on Tuesday could pose particular problems for Mr. Jeffries, the New Yorker in line to become speaker if Democrats reclaim control of the House this year. Ms. Valdez and Ms. Avila Chevalier have not committed to supporting Mr. Jeffries’s leadership bid and could become persistent thorns in his side.

Democrats aligned with Mr. Jeffries, who fought hard to defeat Ms. Avila Chevalier, have privately raised concerns about her victory in particular. They fear that Republicans will weaponize a trove of her inflammatory old social media posts, including her saying that “all deportations are wrong” and using crude language about Kamala Harris, against more moderate Democrats running in swing districts that will decide the fate of the House this fall.

Mr. Jeffries repeatedly sidestepped the issue during an interview on NY1 Tuesday night as the results came in. Others were less reluctant to register concerns.

“Republicans will very quickly seek to elevate, as they always do, the most radical voices in the Democratic Party,” said Howard Wolfson, a former head of the House Democrats’ campaign arm and a top adviser to Michael R. Bloomberg. “And after tonight, they will have more radical Democrats to choose from.”

Mr. Mamdani and his allies saw it very differently.

Gustavo Gordillo, a D.S.A. co-chair in New York, said that his organization was already casting its attention to next year’s budget fight in Albany and beyond.

“We’re going to start thinking about 2028 and what comes next,” he said.