Putin suggests Russia open to direct talks with Ukraine

Russian president Vladimir Putin has for the first time proposed direct peace talks with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky.

Mr Putin has previously claimed he would only negotiate peace with Ukraine if the country held elections to form a new government, a factor that has frustrated US president Donald Trump’s efforts to broker a quick ceasefire deal.

The new statement from the Russian president came as representatives from Ukraine, the UK, France and the US were set to meet in London on Wednesday to continue talks on a potential ceasefire.

While Mr Zelensky did not directly respond to Mr Putin’s proposal, he emphasised in his nightly video address that Ukraine “was ready for any conversation” that would stop strikes on civilians.

“Actions always speak louder than words,” he posted on X.

Russia has resumed its aerial attacks on Ukraine after a 30-hour Easter truce, declared by Moscow over the weekend, which both sides accused each other of violating. At least three people were killed in a Russian strike in the southern Kherson region on Monday.

Harvard sues Trump over $2.2 billion funding freeze

Harvard University is suing the Trump administration for violating its free speech rights by freezing federal funding to punish it for its refusal to take action against students for their beliefs.

U.S. officials said last week they would withhold $2.2 billion in research grants and contracts after Harvard defied their demands to crack down on student protests and screen international applicants for their opinions about Palestine.

The administration has claimed that Harvard is breaking U.S. civil rights laws by failure to combat antisemitism, commanding it to immediately end all DEI programs while also, in effect, implementing affirmative action for conservatives.

But Harvard’s lawyers on Monday asked the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts to block the freeze and bar the federal government from further attempts to dictate Harvard’s actions against particular students the administration doesn’t agree with..

“Defendants’ actions threaten Harvard’s academic independence and place at risk critical lifesaving and pathbreaking research that occurs on its campus, and they are part of a broader effort by the Government to punish Harvard for protecting its constitutional rights,” reads the university’s complaint.

“The government has not — and cannot — identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation,” it added.

The lawsuit targets numerous federal appointees and agencies including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Education Secretary Linda McMahon, and their respective agencies.

It comes after furious Trump officials reportedly threatened to revoke an additional $1 billion in federal funding because the school had dared publish the administration’s latest list of demands.

Later reports suggested that the second letter was actually sent by “mistake,” triggering a “frantic” phone call to Harvard from someone inside the administration.

The White House is now standing by the letter of demands.

Last year, an entire town’s primary schools banned smartphones. This is what happened

For Matthew Tavender, head of schools at Cunningham Hill primary schools, the problem wasn’t children using their phones during school hours, it was the pervasive influence of social media when his pupils left the classroom.

“We were dealing with the fallout on Monday morning”, he explains. “In the past 10 years that smartphones have been around, I’ve not heard one in school. But what we were seeing was the damage smartphones were having outside of school, and the impact of that inside”.

Last May, his primary school – along with 32 others in St Albans, Hertfordshire – decided to address the problem themselves. They sent out a joint letter to families, declaring their schools smartphone-free and urging parents not to give their children the devices until at least the age of 14.

The benefits, Mr Tavender says, have been clear to see.

A check-in before Christmas to assess smartphone use among his pupils revealed that just seven per cent of year 6 pupils have a smartphone, down from 68 per cent the year before.

“Our older children, who would have had a smartphone but now don’t – their attention is much better,” Mr Tavender says. “There is a definite improvement in their relationships. They talk more, play more, whereas a lot of our year 6s (aged 10 or 11) were quite sedentary before.”

Research from regulator Ofcom last year found that children aged eight to 11 are more likely to own a smartphone than not, with 59 per cent having them.

Once children go to secondary school, this is almost universal. At Cunningham Hill Schools, they had some children in year 3 (aged seven or eight) with their own smartphones, and this was not uncommon.

Ofcom found that around a quarter of five-to-seven-year-olds have a smartphone. Usage of social media apps and messaging tools is also increasing year-on-year for primary school-age children, and a recent YouGov poll found 23 per cent of children aged eight to 15 spend more than four hours a day using screens.

Before Cunningham Hill took action, staff were seeing a lot of problems coming from WhatsApp use, Mr Tavender says.

“That was the biggest cause of bullying and issues with friendship in the school,” he explains. “WhatsApp groups were getting bigger and bigger, some had about 90 people in, and half of them weren’t in our school.

“The interactions between our children were very negative on there – lots of inappropriate language, inappropriate pictures being shared. Nothing sexual, but there were comments on violence and race and things like that.

“We were having a number of our year 6s talking about Andrew Tate, and certainly some of the boys revering who he was.”

Twenty years ago, if children fell out in the playground, they could remove themselves from the fight at the end of the school day. Now grievances follow them home through instant messaging apps, Mr Tavender explains.

While issues generated from children’s social media use have reduced significantly in the first year of the experiment, they haven’t disappeared completely, he adds.

In October last year, problems cropped up among the small group of children who still had smartphones, with parents having to be warned about inappropriate messages being shared.

By the time Graham Dill’s 10-year-old son moves into year 6 next year, he’s hopeful that almost none of the class will have smartphones. “Taking something away is a lot harder than not letting people have it in the first place,” he says.

As a parent at Cunningham Hill who also works as a private tutor, Mr Dill has two different perspectives on the impact of smartphones and social media on children.

He tutors children who don’t go to school; some with behavioural issues, others who are too anxious to attend.

Maintaining his pupils’ attention can be tough in a post-smartphone age, he explains: “I’m working with kids from around 13-to-16-years-old and they are extremely distracted.

“It affects their concentration and their ability to take some deep breaths and be present on a task. They need that task to go right immediately, or want other stimulation if it is too boring.

“With one boy, it’s a constant default to take his phone out of his pocket and it is a constant reminder. ‘No, put the phone away’.”

When Cunningham Hill announced to parents that they would go smartphone-free, Mr Dill was delighted. Each year group in the school has a smartphone-free ambassador to relay information to other parents and keep them sticking to the pact.

Mr Dill’s children, George and Thomas, are aged 10 and eight and he believes that if parents get on board when their children are younger it is easier to maintain the pledge to keep them smartphone-free.

“If most people are not doing it [giving their children phones], then it becomes a lot easier,” he explains. “We’re having this battle at the moment with Fortnite. They all want Fortnite and we [Mr Dill and his wife, Rachel] don’t really want them to play that.

“It’s because their friends are playing Fortnite that they want to do it, and I think that’s the same with phones down the line”.

His boys are also starting to recognise the low mood that can be generated from too long spent online. “The comedown is such that they can recognise that they are dysregulated at that point,” he explains. “We’re trying to get them to understand when they need to come off a device”.

Parent ambassadors at the St Albans primary schools have now set their sights on local secondary schools, and are hoping to lobby headteachers to push them to take more action.

Deputy head of Queens Park Community School in London, Paul Drummond, has three children at a secondary school in St Albans. Their school, Samuel Ryder Academy, allows students to bring phones to school, but they shouldn’t be seen in lessons, and shouldn’t be for personal use on site.

At Queens Park, the policy is stricter. Children are not allowed smartphones in years 7, 8 or 9. At key stage 4, pupils are allowed them but they can’t be seen on the school site. At key stage 5 or A levels, students are allowed their phones, but they shouldn’t be seen and can be used in lessons only when the teacher allows it.

He explains: “Since we’ve banned phones from being on site at key stage 3, the expectation is that if students need a phone so parents can track them, they should use an old Nokia.

“One of the problems with that is that there can be racial stereotyping of children with old Nokias, with members of the public thinking they are burner phones. Some of the parents are very worried about that.

“But since we’ve banned phones at key stage 3, the safeguarding issues, bullying, and other problems have been reduced quite significantly,” Mr Drummond says.

“We agonised over banning them. We’ve got quite a large site and at break time it’s a much happier place now there’s no phones.”

A recent survey of more than 15,000 schools found that 99.8 per cent of primary schools and 90 per cent of secondary schools have some form of phone ban.

Academics at the University of Birmingham also concluded in a study published in February that just banning smartphones in schools doesn’t improve children’s grades or wellbeing, or reduce their overall phone use.

Instead, they argued that any bans need to be part of a wider strategy to lower phone use among students.

As a parent, Mr Drummond has experienced the difficulties of trying to reduce the family’s social media use. A plan to have no screen time together during the evening, and a ban on phones going upstairs, went out of the window when Covid hit, he says.

In his view, restricting phone access should be coupled with education about usage for both his children and pupils. His school has introduced a tutorial every week for the whole school on the big news stories of the week, which is teaching children discernment, Mr Drummond says.

“We spent 20 minutes discussing the news story, where it came from. We talk about misinformation, reliability and the importance of developing an opinion and political engagement.

“The bottom line is that if someone has access to the internet, they can look at anything they want to really. So we’re trying to get people to understand the perils but also to understand why it is great to look things up and find things out.”

Ofcom research has found that children’s engagement with news and current affairs is low and comes almost exclusively via social media.

Netflix Adolescence has recently sparked national debate over the dangers of children’s access to digital spaces.

The series follows 13-year-old Jamie Miller, whose exposure to misogynistic online communities may have contributed to his killing a female classmate.

While prime minister Sir Keir Starmer has supported the screening of Adolescence in schools, he has said that a government-led phone ban is “completely unnecessary”.

For Mr Tavender, stricter measures from government would be very helpful.

“If the government were to say we are banning phones, then it would make it very easy to get that message across, because that is just the way it is,” he says.

He’s against a “postcode lottery” where some schools have stricter measures than others: “It should be a national decision like in other countries, to ban phones and social media for children. From an education point of view, we are crying out for that support.”

In the meantime, he’s keen to keep the grassroots movement going and persuade local secondary schools to also ask parents to delay giving their children smartphones.

The school is also trying to go beyond phone use and convince more of their students to get outside, and encourage outdoor play.

Mr Dill feels the same. While he’s been encouraged by the changes that St Albans primary schools have made, he wants politicians to get on board.

“I think rather than bottom up it, needs to come from top down, but I guess we won’t see that until we have enough people from the bottom raising their hands and saying they want things done,” he says.

‘Pure excitement’: Jubilant Leeds secure Premier League promotion

Leeds captain Ethan Ampadu said Premier League promotion felt “amazing” and said the club will now target securing the Championship title.

The Whites thrashed Stoke 6-0 at Elland Road to remain top of the table and the players then stayed to watch Burnley’s 2-1 win over Sheffield United at Turf Moor, which confirmed promotion for both Leeds and the Clarets.

Leeds fans gathered outside the ground in their thousands to celebrate their top-flight return.

Ampadu said: “It’s amazing. If you look at the scenes here, as it was after the final whistle, just pure excitement.

“Within ourselves we’ve got another target, so we can enjoy this now, but we’ve got another target we want to achieve. But right now, it’s very good.”

Joel Piroe grabbed four goals for Leeds against hapless Stoke, including the club’s fastest ever league hat-trick with strikes in the sixth, eighth and 20th minutes. He added his fourth before half-time after Junior Firpo had put Daniel Farke‘s side 4-0 up in 26 minutes.

Willy Gnonto headed the hosts’ sixth in the second half to help seal Leeds’ Premier League return after a two-year absence.

Leeds came up short during last season’s run-in, dropping out of the top two before losing to Southampton in the play-off final, and Ampadu said that heartache had helped fuel Farke’s side this time round.

“Definitely. The lads that were here last year – we all felt that hurt,” he said.

“After the game at Wembley we wanted to put it right straightaway and we’ve had to wait another season. The lads who came in have been excellent, joining in with what we wanted to achieve.

“Thankfully one part is done. Everyone knows what the next part is, but it’s fantastic.”

Ampadu’s Wales team-mate Joe Rodon said he was “buzzing” for everyone involved with the Elland Road club.

Rodon said: “For me it hasn’t sunk in yet. I don’t think it will until the end of the season, but I’m just delighted for everyone involved with the club, the fans and what it means to them.

“It’s what everyone has worked for all season and I’m buzzing.

“(Last season) didn’t sit right with me. The boys who have come in have been brilliant and we set out to do what we’ve done. I’m just delighted for everyone.”

Leeds boss Farke, who won promotion to the Premier League twice with Norwich in 2019 and 2021, said he was “lost for words”.

Farke, enjoying a celebratory beer, said: “It doesn’t happen that often.

“You can see the atmosphere here, it’s incredible. It’s well deserved, 94 points at this stage is unbelievable. The lads should celebrate, all our supporters should celebrate.

“It’s difficult on such an emotional day to reflect too much, but it was a long road. It’s not easy to stabilise the ship after relegation and to deal with that.

“We played fantastic last season, with 90 minutes, before the heart-breaking game at Wembley, but to show resilience and keep going, we deserve today to celebrate.”

Parking machines ‘set up to trap people’ as thousands sent tickets

Drivers across England say they are being sent demands for up to £170 from private parking companies because of faulty machines.

One campaigner says “thousands” of people have been affected.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander described the issue as “a problem that needs to be tackled”, while the RAC called for a Government-backed code of conduct to be reintroduced.

Many car parks require users to input their vehicle registration when purchasing a ticket from a machine.

This is supposed to prevent them being sent a PCN when their vehicle is detected by automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras.

But there have been numerous cases of drivers who insist they entered their registration correctly but still received a PCN.

Each had initial appeals rejected, despite submitting a photograph of their ticket, which shows an incorrect registration was printed.

Matt Chambers, a 35-year-old business owner, received a £100 PCN from Excel Parking after using a car park in Worksop, Nottinghamshire, in February.

He said: “They say I only registered the letter B for my number plate.

“That’s not right. I’m adamant I put the whole number plate in because I’ve used that car park several times before, and it’s the exact same process every time.

“I know how to use the machine.”

He said he is continuing to challenge the PCN but “sometimes it feels easier to pay just to make them go away” even though “I’ve done nothing wrong”.

Retired chef Lee Rogers, 67, suffered a similar problem.

He received a PCN from Euro Car Parks after using a car park in Rye, East Sussex, in August last year, and later realised the ticket he bought only had one digit of his registration printed on it.

He said: “I did not stand there and key in just the first digit.

“Hundreds of others have had the same problem.”

He said he told Euro Car Parks he would “very much like to go to court” over the issue as “they know I’ve paid”.

His partner is feeling “trepidation that someone might come knocking at the door”, he added.

Mary Hawken, 79, was sent a PCN after using a car park in Praa Sands, Cornwall, in July 2024.

She said: “I noticed that the WK didn’t print (on my ticket) but I thought, I’ve got a receipt anyway, and the rest of the registration is on it, so that’s fine.

“A week later I had a PCN. I thought, I’m not paying it, you can take me to court.

“I religiously pay for car parks. I’m not going to be bullied into this.”

The amount being demanded reached £170, until the case was dropped four days after she contacted her MP, Andrew George, who intervened on her behalf.

There has also been evidence of similar situations involving car parks in Leicestershire, Somerset and West Yorkshire.

Campaigner Lynda Eagan has been researching the issue for around a decade after receiving a PCN she felt was “undeserved”.

She assists drivers who join a Facebook group named Private Parking Tickets – Help and Advice, which has 47,000 members.

Asked how many people in the UK she believes have been sent tickets because of faulty machines, she replied: “Literally thousands.”

She said: “We’ve got unfair PCNs issued to people simply because the machine didn’t work properly.

“It’s a totally filthy business. It’s just wrong.”

Ms Eagan said most machine faults involve “sticky keys” – when the buttons pressed are not correctly recorded – or devices which “encourage you to pay” before the full registration has been entered.

The latter machines are “set up to trap people”, she claimed, as they accept payment even if only the first letter of a registration is entered.

RAC head of policy Simon Williams said: “Sadly, it’s abundantly clear from the multitude of examples that some parking companies are wrongly demanding ‘fines’ from drivers who have legitimately paid to park.

“Whether it’s a faulty payment machine that records the wrong vehicle registration or an innocent mistake keying in their number plate, these people shouldn’t have to pay the £100 parking charge notices they are sent.

“Many cases seem completely unjustified and should be thrown out at appeal, but sadly they so often aren’t.

“We desperately need the Government to introduce the Private Parking Code of Practice to bring much-needed scrutiny to the sector.”

A Bill to enable the introduction of a Government-backed code for private parking companies received royal assent under the Conservative government in March 2019.

The code was withdrawn in June 2022 after a legal challenge by parking companies.

It included halving the cap on tickets for most parking offences to £50, creating a fairer appeals system and banning the use of aggressive language on PCNs.

Ms Alexander called for private parking companies to make a “dramatic improvement” in the way they deal with the public.

She urged them to do “simple things” such as having “machines and equipment that work”, and being contactable rather than providing “addresses that no-one answers letters from”.

Ms Alexander went on: “Government is working on a code of practice because we recognise that we need to drive up standards in the private parking industry.

“People’s experience is not good enough at the moment.

“I’m working with colleagues in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government on this, and I do accept that this is a problem that needs to be tackled.”

Analysis of Government data by PA and motoring research charity the RAC Foundation in November last year found an average of more than 41,000 PCNs were being sent to drivers in Britain by private companies every day.

A spokesperson for trade body the British Parking Association declined to respond to the claims of faulty machines, but said someone who receives a parking charge they believe was issued in error should first contact the parking operator and provide “all the information that would be relevant for an appeal”.

Excel Parking did not provide a response, while Euro Car Parks did not respond to requests for a comment.

Why ‘Disagreeing Well’ Could Save Us All

You’re laughing with friends, perhaps enjoying a few drinks down the pub, when all of a sudden, one of those friends drops a clanger of a comment that hits you sideways. Maybe it’s political, maybe it’s personal, but whatever it is it’s a gut punch that lands in direct opposition to something you strongly believe in.

An awkward silence. Your jaw tightens. You scan their face for a trace of irony, but there’s none to be found. Now what?

In that moment, you have a choice. Do you launch into a rebuttal, flinging facts and stats like ninja stars, risking an evening of tension and raised voices? Or do you shut down, politely nod, change the subject, and leave the disagreement to fester quietly beneath the surface?

This moment, with all its visceral discomfort, is something we all recognise. The physical response to conflict is real: adrenaline surges, heart races, breath quickens. We’re wired for fight or flight, and difficult conversations trigger both instincts. Either we go to battle or we retreat.

And therein lies the problem: we’re losing the ability to do anything in between.

Nuance versus viral outrage

Social media supercharges this dynamic. Platforms supposedly designed to connect us can drive individuals further apart, with disagreement online becoming less about discussion and more about demolition. A 2021 study by the Pew Research Center found that 64% of people say social media has a mostly negative effect on how things are going in their country, with political division and misinformation topping the list of concerns. It’s a space where nuance is drowned out by viral outrage and where algorithmic echo chambers reinforce rather than challenge our views.

In this climate, it’s easy to point fingers; to blame “them” for being unreasonable, misinformed, or even dangerous. But the hard truth is, it’s not just them, it’s all of us. We’re all participants in this culture of binary thinking whether we realise it or not. And if we want things to change, we have to start by looking inward and recognising our own reflexes and assumptions, and then choosing to engage rather than to avoid.

The stakes are too high not to. We’re living through volatile, uncertain and complex times. From the cost-of-living crisis and global conflicts to the climate emergency and the rise of fake news, the challenges we face require cooperation, not competition. We need solutions, not slogans, and we sure won’t find those solutions by shouting past each other or retreating into ideological corners.

A fractured global landscape

The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2025 paints a sobering picture of our current trajectory. Societal polarisation ranks as the fourth most severe risk over the next two years, closely tied to inequality, which holds the seventh spot. These fractures are not just social, they’re systemic, threatening to destabilise political and economic institutions worldwide.

What’s more, nearly one in four experts surveyed identified armed conflict as the most pressing global risk for 2025, surpassing concerns like extreme weather and economic instability. This escalation underscores how deeply divisions, be they ideological, political, or social, can erode the foundations of global cooperation.

Time to lean in

So what’s the answer? It all starts with accepting the discomfort of disagreement, asking better questions and listening with the aim of understanding rather than winning. That doesn’t mean compromising our values or avoiding difficult truths. It means being curious about how others see the world, recognising the humanity behind every opinion, and searching for common ground, however small. It means moving forward together, even – maybe especially – when we don’t see eye to eye.

This isn’t a new idea, of course. More than 2,000 years ago, Socrates was already showing us how it’s done. He understood that disagreement “done well” was essential to the pursuit of truth. His method of asking questions, challenging assumptions and encouraging others to do the same, wasn’t about scoring points. It was about progress, growth and building something better through conversation. Although we’ll never know how long old Socrates might have lasted on X before begging Zeus to lightning bolt the lot of us…

The spirit of open, critical dialogue has long been associated with universities. They are, in many ways, the heirs to Socrates’ legacy; spaces where ideas are tested, where disagreement is part of the learning process, and where diverse perspectives are meant to coexist in meaningful tension.

In today’s climate, that ideal is being tested. Protests, polarisation, and real concerns about safety, speech, and belonging have created complex and often painful challenges on campuses around the world. But in spite of these difficulties, and in many ways, because of them, universities remain among the best places we have to model what it means to disagree well: to be rigorous but respectful, passionate but principled, open but discerning.

They remind us that the goal isn’t to be right all the time, but to get it right eventually. It’s a process, and it requires courage, humility, and a willingness to sit across from someone who sees the world differently and still choose to talk.

Moving forward together

And that’s what we need more of right now. Not more dead certainty, outrage, or noise, but more conversation. Messy, thoughtful, honest conversation, whether it’s in the pub with friends, across the seminar hall or being represented on our screens and streets.

Disagreeing well isn’t about who wins, it’s about how we move forward together. In an age defined by division, the ability to sit with difference, to challenge without contempt, and to talk without tearing down isn’t just a nice-to-have, it’s essential. “Why disagreeing well could save us all” isn’t hyperbole or just a catchy headline; it’s a quiet truth hiding in plain sight.

Civil debate – honest, open, and grounded in respect – might just be one of the most powerful tools we have. The question is: are we ready to use it?

Israeli army admits ‘professional failures’ over killing of Gaza medics

The Israeli military has admitted “professional failures” and “breaches of orders” over the killing of 15 Palestinian medics in Gaza last month.

An investigation by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) into the incident on 23 March found the deaths of the aid workers were a result of an “operational misunderstanding”. A commanding officer is to be reprimanded and a deputy commander to be dismissed, the military said.

The International Red Cross/Red Crescent called it the deadliest attack on its personnel in eight years. Eight Red Crescent personnel, six Civil Defense workers and a UN employee were killed when Israeli forces opened fire on emergency vehicles in Tel al-Sultan, a district of the southern Gaza city of Rafah.

Footage showed the convoy of vehicles, with lights flashing and logos visible, pulling up to help an ambulance that had come under fire earlier – before the vehicles came under a barrage of gunfire that lasted more than five minutes.

Israel first claimed the medics’ vehicles did not have emergency signals on when troops opened fire but later backtracked after the footage emerged from a dead medic’s phone.

The Israeli military’s investigation found the deputy battalion commander assessed that the ambulances belonged to Hamas militants “due to poor night visibility”.

The soldiers then bulldozed over the bodies along with their vehicles, burying them in a mass grave before they were later discovered by officials from the United Nations and the Palestinian Red Crescent.

The head of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society had claimed the killed medics were “targeted at close range”. Night-vision drone footage provided by the military shows soldiers were 20 to 30 metres away from the ambulances.

The Israel initially said nine of the 15 medics were Hamas militants. But as part of its investigation, the military now says, without providing evidence, that six of them were “Hamas terrorists”. Hamas has rejected the accusation.

The investigation also found that the decision to crush the ambulances was wrong, but said that it was not an attempt to conceal the event.

Major General Yoav Har-Even, in charge of the military’s investigative branch, said the bodies and vehicles were removed from the road because the military wanted to use it for an evacuation route later that day.

No paramedic was armed and no weapons were found in any vehicle, Maj Gen Har-Even said.

“The examination found no evidence to support claims of execution or that any of the deceased were bound before or after the shooting,” the report said.

Israel said a deputy commander would be dismissed for providing an “incomplete and inaccurate report” of the incident.

The statement on the findings concluded by saying the Israel’s military “regrets the harm caused to uninvolved civilians”. The one survivor from the incident was detained for investigation and remains in custody for further questioning.

Israel has previously accused Hamas of moving and hiding its fighters inside ambulances and emergency vehicles, as well as in hospitals and other civilian infrastructure. It argues that this justifies the strikes on them. Medical personnel deny the accusations.

Israeli strikes since 7 October 2023 have killed more than 150 emergency responders from the Red Crescent and Civil Defense, most of them while on duty, as well as over 1,000 health workers, according to the United Nations.

Palestinians and international human rights groups have repeatedly accused Israel’s military of failing to properly investigate misconduct by its troops.

Additional reporting by agencies

Starmer backs Ukraine ceasefire call as Russia’s ‘Easter truce’ ends

Ukraine is sending a delegation to London on Wednesday for talks with Western allies on finding a resolution to the war with Russia, Volodymyr Zelensky said on Monday – as Vladimir Putin separately raised the possibility of bilateral talks with Kyiv for the first time in years.

The Ukrainian president said he had had a “good and detailed conversation” with Sir Keir Starmer, who supports calls for a full ceasefire.

“We are ready to move forward as constructively as possible,” Mr Zelensky said, adding that a 30-hour Easter truce proclaimed by Moscow, which each side accused the other of violating, showed that it was Russia’s actions “that are prolonging the war”.

Putin, under pressure from Washington to show willingness to make peace in Ukraine, told a TV reporter in Russia that Moscow was open to any peace initiatives and expected the same from Kyiv.

“We always have a positive attitude towards a truce, which is why we came up with such an initiative,” Putin said.

The Kremlin has so far resisted calls for a full ceasefire, while never fully ruling it out, and has delayed implementing more limited agreements covering the Black Sea, insisting that sanctions on Russia are eased first.

A Downing Street spokesperson said the prime minister had spoken to Mr Zelensky to emphasise his “iron-clad” commitment to Ukraine and discuss plans for the “coalition of the willing” led by Britain and France.

The spokesperson added: “[Sir Keir] said that the UK supports Ukraine’s calls for Russia to commit to a full ceasefire, and that now is the time for Putin to show he is serious about ending his brutal war.”

Mr Zelensky said: “Already this Wednesday, our representatives will be working in London. Ukraine, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States – we are ready to move forward as constructively as possible, just as we have done before, to achieve an unconditional ceasefire, followed by the establishment of a real and lasting peace.”

It comes after the end of a 30-hour “Easter truce” unilaterally declared by Putin on Saturday.

The Russian president claimed he was declaring a truce due to “humanitarian considerations”, shortly after US officials suggested Washington could end its efforts to mediate an end to the conflict if there were no signs of progress soon.

Mr Zelensky welcomed talk of a truce, challenging Putin to extend it to 30 days as a previous US-Ukrainian proposal had suggested.

But each side has accused the other of violating the temporary ceasefire, with Mr Zelensky saying Russia had breached its terms more than 2,900 times, shelling Ukrainian positions and carrying out drone attacks.

Oleksandr Prokudin, governor of Ukraine’s Kherson oblast, said Russian attacks during the ceasefire had killed three people in his region.

Mr Zelensky said: “An unconditional ceasefire must be the first step toward peace, and this Easter made it clear that it is Russia’s actions that are prolonging the war.”

Russia’s defence ministry denied that its forces had breached the truce, and accused Ukraine of committing 4,900 violations.

Overnight into Monday, Russian forces fired three missiles at Ukraine’s southern regions of Kherson and Mykolaiv, as well as sending 96 Shahed drones to target other parts of the country, Ukraine’s air force reported. It said it had downed 42 drones, while 47 others were jammed mid-flight.

Four civilians also sustained injuries in the partially occupied Donetsk region, according to regional head Vadym Filashkin, who said the Russian forces had shelled settlements in the region five times over the past 24 hours.

Reuters and Associated Press contributed to this report