Read the daily news to learn English

Zelenskyy to negotiate with Trump over US-Russia peace deal requiring painful concessions

The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has said he will negotiate with Donald Trump on a US-backed peace plan that called on Kyiv to make painful concessions in order to end the Kremlin’s invasion of his country. Zelenskyy’s office on Thursday confirmed that he had received the draft peace plan, which was prepared by US and Russian officials, and that he would speak with Trump in the coming days about “existing diplomatic opportunities and the main points that are necessary for peace”. “We agreed to work on the points of the plan so that it would bring a worthy end to the war,” Zelenskyy’s office said in a statement. The cautious response from Ukraine’s presidential administration followed angry denouncements of the plan by some Ukrainian officials who called it “absurd” and unacceptable. Zelenskyy’s public statement came as he held talks on Thursday with a high-ranking US military delegation, led by the army secretary Dan Driscoll. Driscoll – a former classmate of US vice-president JD Vance – arrived in Kyiv bearing important messages from the White House, US sources indicated. He is likely to travel to Moscow at the end of next week to discuss the plan with the Kremlin, they said. American diplomats said Donald Trump was trying to achieve peace “with an incredible sense of momentum”. His administration was pursuing an “aggressive timeline” with the Ukrainians to reach an agreement, they added, and wanted to achieve this in the “shortest possible” period. After an hour-long, one-to-one meeting between Driscoll and Zelenskyy, the charge d’affaires at the US embassy in Kyiv, Julie Davis, said: “We have witnessed today a remarkable pace of diplomatic activity. We are going to continue these efforts today and tomorrow and keep at this.” Officials in Kyiv were unimpressed. They said the proposal reportedly drafted by Kirill Dmitriev, a close ally of Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff was a “provocation”, the aim of which was to stir up division and “disorientate” Ukraine’s allies, they added. “There are currently no signs that the Kremlin is ready for serious negotiations. Putin is trying to stall for time and avoid US sanctions,” said Oleksandr Merezhko, the chair of Ukraine’s foreign policy parliamentary committee. He dismissed Dmitriev as a “nobody”. Ukraine’s first deputy foreign minister, Sergiy Kyslytsya, called the initiative unrealistic. He suggested it was a classic Soviet-style information operation to influence opinion and sow panic. “It means capitulation, for Ukraine, for Europe and for America,” Roman Kostenko, a Ukrainian commander and politician, added. According to media reports, the sweeping 28-point proposal closely resembles demands made by Moscow soon after its full-scale invasion in early 2022. It was reportedly drawn up by Russian and US officials, with support from Trump. Kyiv was not consulted. One European diplomat said they only learned of the plan when they turned on the news. It envisages Ukraine giving up the northern part of the Donbas region, which it controls, to Russia, and cutting the size of its army in half. Ukraine would also be forced to relinquish its long-range weapons, used to strike military targets inside Russia. No foreign troops would be allowed on Ukrainian soil, a condition that rules out a post-deal peacekeeping force led by the UK and France. But the US would provide unspecified security guarantees, according to Axios. The Russian language and Russian Orthodox church would be given formal status under longstanding Kremlin demands. Ukrainian officials said the document amounted to the effective end of its existence as an independent country. It comes nearly four years after Russian troops tried, and failed, to seize Kyiv, and as efforts by the Trump administration to end the conflict remain stalled. Last week, Trump named Driscoll as his new “special representative”. His mission to Kyiv included explaining the White House’s latest peace plan, as well as military meetings and discussions concerning battlefield innovation, a US official said. Two four-star generals travelled with him. Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special representative to Ukraine, has reportedly announced his resignation, saying he would leave in January after a year in the post. Kellogg is regarded as being broadly sympathetic to Ukraine and has been consequently left out of direct US-Russian talks. The White House’s renewed push to force Ukraine to make significant concessions in pursuit of “peace” comes at a difficult time for Zelenskyy, who is embroiled in the biggest political scandal since he became president in 2019. His former business partner Timur Mindich and at least two government ministers are accused of involvement in a large-scale bribery scheme. Several deputies from Zelenskyy’s own Servant of the People party have called on the president to dismiss Andriy Yermak, his powerful chief of staff. One western diplomat said the Russians were seeking to take advantage of Ukraine’s domestic crisis. “It seems Dmitriev has spun this plan at a time when Zelenskyy is weak. The Russians are good at exploiting things,” they said. “It feels like every other Russian plan. I don’t think it’s going to fly with Ukraine.” The diplomat said the Kremlin’s demands concerning the Russian language were a “hook” it could later exploit. The proposal did not offer the kind of security assurances Ukraine would need from the US and its European allies for any deal to stick, they added. European leaders meeting in Brussels said they had not been warned in advance about the latest White House initiative. The Trump administration no longer provided direct military aid to Kyiv, a fact that reduced its ability to impose a Moscow-friendly peace settlement on Ukraine, one source noted. “We commend peace efforts, but Europe is the main supporter of Ukraine and it’s, of course, Europe’s security that’s at stake. So we expect to be consulted,” said Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said Europe welcomed any efforts to achieve a long-lasting and just settlement of the war, but stressed: “For any plan to work, it needs Ukrainians and Europeans on board.” Kallas said the Dmitriev-Witkoff proposal did not envisage Russia making any concessions. “We have to understand that in this war, there is one aggressor and one victim. If Russia really wanted peace, it could have agreed to an unconditional ceasefire already some time ago.” The British government said it backed Trump’s desire to “bring this barbaric war to an end”. But it emphasised that “only the Ukrainian people can determine their future” and said Russia could end the fighting tomorrow by pulling out troops and ending its “illegal invasion”. The White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, declined to comment on the peace plan. “I would agree that that’s an issue which the president has continued to put at the forefront of our foreign policy goal, which is to reach a settlement in the Ukraine-Russia war, so that we can have peace in Europe and we can end the killing and the slaughter of so many innocents,” he said. US efforts to broker peace have hit roadblocks since Trump met Putin in Alaska in August. The US president subsequently imposed sanctions on Russia’s oil industry, in an apparent attempt to push Putin to the negotiating table. Trump said last month that he was putting on hold his plan for a meeting with the Russian president in Budapest because he didn’t want it to be a “waste of time”. On Wednesday, Zelenskyy and the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, met in Ankara, saying they were committed to finding a peaceful settlement. In recent months Russia has increased its systematic attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, plunging much of the country into darkness. On Wednesday it bombed several western cities, including Ternopil, where 26 people, including three children, were killed in their homes.

Brazilian president will take fossil fuel phase-out plan to G20 summit

The Brazilian president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has told Cop30 delegates that he will take his fossil fuel transition roadmap to the G20 in Johannesburg this week to campaign for it, despite reports that petrostates have said they will not accept the plan. Before leaving Cop30 in Belém, the figurehead of the global south told civil society representatives he was ready to fight for the proposal to phase out oil, coal and gas in whatever forum was necessary. “Lula told me that he was all in on the roadmap and that he would campaign for it everywhere, in the G7 and G20,” said Marcio Astrini, director of the Climate Observatory campaign group. “It’s his proposal. He’s worried about those who are threatened by extreme climate events. That’s what moves him. He understands the climate crisis is a machine that worsens poverty and inequality.” Climate conferences are always games of three-dimensional chess as the world’s governments juggle priorities and haggle over commitments. But the prospect of Lula opening a new front for his campaign in Johannesburg adds an intriguing transcontinental twist. It would also lift the stakes. The G20 brings together more powerful world leaders than Cop, where negotiations are mainly conducted by ministers. There is certainly a need for more impetus. Eighty-two governments signed up to the roadmap on Tuesday, but they only account for 7% of global fossil fuel production. The roadmap has since been knocked backwards, with sources close to the negotiations saying that Russia, China, India and South Africa jointly had told the Brazilian Cop presidency they would not accept the plan. The “like-minded developing countries” grouping, which includes coal and oil producers, has also expressed reservations. As a result, the Guardian understands the proposal has been stripped out of the latest draft of the main negotiating text. Others claim the roadmap is already roadkill. Nobody is entirely sure because the Brazilian presidency has gone into a secretive mode. Despite promising transparent “mutirão” collective negotiating, observers say the past day’s talks have mainly been behind closed doors with the hosts only showing portions of the text to each group of nations. There may also still be room for manoeuvre. In private discussions outside the presidency’s meetings, sources say Saudi Arabian and Chinese diplomats have shown openness to the idea of a roadmap as long as each country can choose their own pathway. India has reportedly been more hesitant. Less developed countries might also be persuaded to move if the European Union and other industrialised countries make a clearer commitment on finance. The EU has indicated that the roadmap is now a red line they are willing to defend, but they also have to be willing to pay. Throwing an extra level of complexity into the mix are the divisions within Brazil, where Lula’s scope for action is limited by a powerful petrochemical and agribusiness lobby. Different ministries within his government also have different levels of ambition for Cop30. The driving force until now has been Marina Silva, the environment minister, who persuaded Lula of the need for a roadmap and has pushed the idea in Belém. But the foreign ministry, represented by the Cop president, André Corrêa do Lago, is more cautious. Several sources told the Guardian they do not support the roadmap because of the risk of failure, and that they would rather focus on smaller, more easily achievable wins that could keep the multilateral process alive. The next version of the negotiating text was expected late on Thursday, but plans were thrown into disarray early in the afternoon when a fire broke out in the pavilion area of the conference centre. Delegations holding meetings in their rooms nearby were evacuated but the UN said no one was hurt. Firefighters controlled the blaze, but the entire venue had to be cleared from shortly after 2pm. The Guardian was told it was likely to be several hours at least before any delegates were allowed to return. The incident disrupted a carefully choreographed series of meetings between the presidency and the main negotiating groups. The Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis) had been scheduled to meet the presidency shortly before 4pm, but that was cancelled. The EU was due to hold a ministerial coordination meeting at 6pm prior to meeting the presidency at 9pm, but that timetable was thrown into doubt. The severity of the disruption at this stage of the talks is likely to make it impossible to stick to the Brazilian timetable, and may push the talks well into overtime.

Ukraine’s Zelenskyy receives ‘draft plan’ from US and expects to talk with Trump in coming days – as it happened

… and on that note, it’s a wrap! The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, expects to discuss the diplomatic opportunities for ending the war in Ukraine with US president Donald Trump in the coming days, according to his office (17:15). His office confirmed that Ukraine has received a draft US peace plan, and will work on the details of the proposals included there further to align them with their “fundamental principles” (17:28). The 28-point plan, as reported in the media, appeared to include a number of proposals violating Ukraine and the EU’s red lines (12:56), which would need to be addressed before it can be agreed. The move comes after EU foreign ministers insisted no peace deal can be agreed by the US and Russia without the participation of Ukraine and the EU (14:14, 16:09, 16:24, 16:40, 16:54) Elsewhere, French public prosecutors are investigating allegations by government ministers and human rights groups that Grok, Elon Musk’s AI chatbot, made statements denying the Holocaust (17:40). Spain has marked the 50th anniversary of Francisco Franco’s death with an absence of official events but with a call from the prime minister to heed the lessons of the dictatorship and defend the democratic freedom “wrenched from us for so many years” (14:59). Around 5o people were hurt after two trains have collided in southern Czech Republic this morning, with two people seriously injured, according to local emergency services (10:21). And that’s all from me, Jakub Krupa, for today. If you have any tips, comments or suggestions, email me at jakub.krupa@theguardian.com. I am also on Bluesky at @jakubkrupa.bsky.social and on X at @jakubkrupa.

‘Chaotic and indecisive’: key findings of report on UK’s Covid response under Tories

“Too little too late” is the key finding of Heather Hallett’s second report from the Covid public inquiry, which focused on politicians and the decisions they made at important points during the pandemic. At 760 pages long, there is no shortage of detail on exactly what went wrong and when in the UK during those tumultuous months in 2020 and 2021, and how the actions of those in the heart of power had severe consequences for millions of people. Here are the key points from the inquiry’s findings: There was chaos in No 10 Some of the report’s strongest criticism was directed at the then prime minister, Boris Johnson, and the “toxic and chaotic culture” of his government during its response to the pandemic. Giving evidence, the former head of the civil service Simon Case said “good people were just being smashed to pieces”, while others claimed there was a sexist culture where “junior women being talked over or ignored”. The inquiry found that Johnson’s chief adviser Dominic Cummings “materially contributed to the toxic and sexist workplace culture” and “poisoned the atmosphere in 10 Downing Street”, rebuking him for the “offensive, sexualised and misogynistic language” he used in messages. Johnson came under fire for not seeking to “restrain or control” Cummings, and for “intentionally seeking to foster conflict and a chaotic working environment”. The report concluded: “As a result of the poor culture at the centre of the UK government, the quality of advice and decision-making suffered.” Decision-making was too slow The report is unequivocal in its conclusions around decision-making and how if leaders had acted quicker, lives could have been saved. It describes February 2020 as a “lost month” and said that by 12 March 2020 the situation was “little short of calamitous”. If a mandatory lockdown had been imposed a week earlier in March 2020, there would have been about 23,000 fewer deaths, it concluded. During the second wave in September and October 2020, it said Johnson “repeatedly changed his mind on whether to introduce tougher restrictions and failed to make timely decisions”, and that a second lockdown in England could have been “reduced in length and severity” if he had acted quicker. The report said that in future emergencies, “interventions must be imposed earlier and ‘harder’ than might be considered ideal”, and recommended central taskforces be created in each nation to help with decision-making. The Welsh government was also found to have implemented a two-week “firebreak” lockdown too late and lifted measures too quickly, which contributed to a high mortality rate in the country from August to December 2020. In Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, the then first minister, was criticised for her overly centralised decision-making process, in which she held “gold command” meetings with a small group of advisers that “reduced transparency” during the pandemic. On Northern Ireland, the report said a politically divided Stormont executive led to “chaotic decision-making” during the pandemic and the country’s response was “deeply divided along political lines and beset by leaks, leading to an incoherent approach”. Vulnerable people weren’t protected The report said several key groups who were more at risk from Covid, such as disabled people and people from some ethnic minorities, were not sufficiently protected owing to a lack of data and policy failures. The government failed to “act sufficiently speedily to mitigate some risks to disabled people”, the report said, such as by not adding people with Down’s syndrome to the shielded patient list until September 2020. It also criticised the redeployment of members of the race disparity unit and the government equalities office to help with the pandemic response, even though it was known from April 2020 that people from ethnic minority groups were at a heightened risk of becoming infected. Messages were confusing Confusing messaging to the public was a key theme of the report, with Johnson criticised for his “expressions of over-optimism”. The inquiry found that he had “failed to convey a proper sense of caution, thereby undermining his government’s public health messaging” on some occasions, such as when he talked about how he had shaken people’s hands in hospital the day before launching a handwashing campaign. The “eat out to help out” campaign, which encouraged people back to bars and restaurants with discounts, “might have contributed to a belief that the pandemic was effectively over, even though the government was aware of the significant risk that there would be further waves of the virus”. It also said the mantra of “following the science” that was used by politicians throughout the pandemic “downplayed their responsibility for their own decision-making” and suggested scientific advice was being heeded at the cost of all other considerations when that wasn’t true. Finally the report said that rule-breaking by senior government officials, such as Cummings’ trip to Barnard Castle, “undermined public confidence in decision-making and significantly increased the risk of the public failing to adhere to measures designed to protect the population”. Politicians didn’t understand the science The inquiry heard that “many ministers lacked confidence in their ability to understand technical material”, with Johnson in particular singled out for struggling with scientific concepts. In notes from the time, the government’s chief scientific adviser, Patrick Vallance, said Johnson was “bamboozled” and that watching him “get his head around the stats was awful”. Ministers often confused “scenario modelling” – which examined the consequences of worst-case scenarios – with forecasts of what would probably happen. This resulted in reputational damage and modellers being considered “over-pessimistic doom-mongers”. The report recommended a training course on “core scientific concepts” for politicians that could be provided at the outset of an emergency. There was no support for experts The inquiry said it was “striking that the burden of providing advice to ministers fell on the shoulders of a few individuals, especially in the devolved nations”. Scientific experts described their workloads as “excessive” and “relentless”, and the inquiry emphasised how most of them were not paid for their advice, which they had to fit in around their jobs. They were also subjected to “threats and intimidation” via social media, emails, phone calls and letters. Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, was assaulted in a park in June 2021. His deputy, Jonathan Van-Tam, said he had never expected his family to be threatened with having their throats cut. The inquiry said there was a “real risk that intrusive media coverage, coupled with online abuse, other forms of malicious communication and physical harassment, will dissuade talented people from contributing to the provision of scientific advice”. UK should prepare for next pandemic The report’s recommendations suggested new structures need to be urgently put in place to improve decision-making in any future national emergency. It said the response to a future whole-system civil emergency should be coordinated by central taskforces in the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with responsibility for commissioning advice, and there should be more scrutiny of emergency powers such as those used to impose lockdowns. Other suggestions included better inclusion of experts from the devolved nations in discussions, creating a register of experts who can be drawn upon for scientific advisory groups and creating an online portal for restrictions and guidance in each area.

MI5 ‘very relaxed’ about proposed Chinese super-embassy in London, sources say

MI5 officers told the House of Commons speaker at a private meeting that they can tackle the risks of a proposed Chinese super-embassy in London, opening the door to its approval. The Guardian understands that in a meeting held with Lindsay Hoyle in the summer, senior figures from the Security Service indicated they were “very relaxed” about the prospect of a 20,000 sq metre embassy being constructed at Royal Mint Court near Tower Bridge. It is considered that the espionage risks stemming from the large outpost can be managed. China has long had a diplomatic presence in the UK, with its existing embassy on Portland Place dating back over a century. Keir Starmer is planning to travel to China for his first bilateral visit in January or February next year, according to several people briefed on the plans, but insiders believe that any trip is contingent on the embassy being greenlit next month. In October, when asked about the espionage risk posed by the new embassy, Ken McCallum, the spy agency’s director general, indicated the Security Service believed the development was something it could deal with. “MI5 has more than a century of experience of dealing with the national security risks, which do flow from the presence of foreign embassies on British soil,” he said. “This is something which you would expect MI5 to have a view on. You would expect us and GCHQ and others to have deep expertise around.” The Security Service will not disclose details of the advice it has given to ministers as the planning decision nears, but it is understood that its opinions will have been passed up to the Home Office, its sponsor department. A government source said the message that the security services were relaxed about the proposed development had been communicated to ministers. A spokesperson for the Commons speaker declined to comment. Opponents of the project have cited security concerns, including regarding the presence of cables beneath the site connecting to the City of London, as a reason it should be rejected. There are also concerns about the traffic and safety implications for local residents, and critics have questioned the optics of allowing China to build its biggest diplomatic outpost in London. However, a former senior British intelligence officer said that, while it was well-known that “embassies are nests for spies”, their location “also presented an opportunity” for potential surveillance. Ministers are weighing up whether to approve the super-embassy by 10 December, having already pushed back the decision twice. The delays have drawn the ire of the Chinese government, which demanded last month that the UK “immediately fulfil its obligations and honour its commitments otherwise the British side shall bear all consequences”. Beijing is blocking extensive renovation works at the British embassy in Beijing while the fate of its own embassy building in London is being decided. The Guardian disclosed that Boris Johnson, while he was foreign secretary, wrote to his Chinese counterpart in 2018 saying he was “committed to ensuring that our projects develop alongside each other”. Richard Moore, who stepped down as chief of MI6 in September, indicated in a series of interviews this month that a compromise was likely to be reached. “I’m sure there has to be a way through where they get an appropriate embassy and we are allowed to retain and develop our own, excellent embassy in Beijing,” he told Bloomberg. “We need [an embassy] in Beijing and it’s important that we have that, so it’s right and proper that the Chinese should get their embassy. Whether it’s this one or not isn’t really for me to judge.” Nigel Inkster, a senior adviser at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and former assistant chief of MI6, said “the size of the embassy is immaterial” and that “it is far easier to monitor staff centred in one location rather than dispersed all around the city”. Inkster added that many countries, including China, now avoid spying out of diplomatic outposts because the increasing sophistication of surveillance technologies had made such operations more difficult. China also recruits people online. Earlier this week, MI5 accused two LinkedIn headhunters based in China of acting as fronts for the country’s powerful ministry of state security, seeking to recruit politicians and their associations. An espionage alert was circulated to MPs and peers warning about the activities of two LinkedIn accounts under the names of Amanda Qiu and Shirly Shen.

US in talks to attend G20 summit after initial boycott, South Africa says

The US has changed its mind about attending the G20 summit in Johannesburg, South Africa’s president has said, without confirming whether Donald Trump, who had said the US would boycott the event, now wanted to come. Trump has claimed that South Africa racially discriminates against the minority white Afrikaner community, which led the country during the apartheid regime that ended in 1994. Earlier this month, the US president alleged there were “abuses” of white farmers, including violence and land confiscation, and said it was a “disgrace” that South Africa was hosting the G20. South Africa’s government has vehemently denied the accusations and pressed ahead with its plans to host the first G20 summit in Africa. The two-day summit opens in Johannesburg on Saturday. At a press conference with the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen and the European Council’s president, António Costa, Cyril Ramaphosa said: “We have received notice from the United States, a notice which we are still in discussions with them over about a change of mind, about participating in one shape, form or other in the summit. “This comes at the late hour before the summit begins and so therefore we do need to … see how practical it is and what it finally really means. In a way we see this as a positive sign, very positive, because as I’ve often said, boycott politics never work.” Earlier on Thursday, Chrispin Phiri, a spokesperson for South Africa’s foreign ministry, had accused the US of trying to coerce the country, after media reported that a US diplomatic note sent to South Africa said no final statement by G20 leaders could be issued without its presence. “Washington’s absence negates its role over the G20’s conclusions,” Phiri said. “But we cannot allow coercion by absentia to become a viable tactic; it is a recipe for institutional paralysis and the breakdown of collective action.” The note from the US embassy in Pretoria, sent last weekend, said the US would accept only a “chair’s statement” rather than a leaders’ declaration, according to AFP. The note read: “South Africa’s G20 priorities run counter to US policy views, and we cannot support consensus on any documents negotiated under your presidency. The US opposes issuance of any G20 summit outcome document under the premise of a consensus G20 position without US agreement.” South Africa’s priorities for its G20 presidency include improving debt sustainability for low-income countries and more finance for a “just energy transition” away from fossil fuels. It has invited an additional 22 countries to the summit and tried to present itself as a mature champion of multilateralism, the global south and Africa. The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said in February that South Africa’s G20 themes of “solidarity, equality, & sustainability” amounted to “anti-Americanism”. The US, which is taking over the presidency of the G20 next year, has also criticised the forum’s expansion from its initial focus on global financial and economic issues when it was founded in 1999. The US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, said at an Oval Office event: “We have whittled down the G20 back to basics … the G20 had become basically the G100 this past year. So it will be a concentrated group in Miami, seeing the best America has to offer, with American leadership.” In a separate event on Thursday, Ramaphosa responded: “My retort is, no, we didn’t convene the G100; we have convened the G million, if you like, the G20 million. “Because if we are to create a world that is prosperous, a world that is caring, a world that is more equal, a world that is underpinned by solidarity, we do believe that it is important to involve the people who are going to be affected by the decisions that the leaders’ summit are going to take.” Ramaphosa also told reporters last week that he didn’t want to hand the G20 presidency over to an “empty chair”. “But the empty chair will be there, probably symbolically hand over to that empty chair and talk to President Trump and say, ‘Even though you are not here, I am now handing over to you the reins of chairing or being president of the G20.’ Because the G20 as an entity continues, whether they are here or not.” The G20, which includes 19 of the world’s largest economies and the European Union, traditionally issues a communique at the end of the leaders’ summit every year. Last year, Ukraine and its western allies criticised the final statement for not mentioning that Russia had invaded Ukraine. Agence France-Presse contributed to this report

Blow to Spanish PM as attorney general found guilty in leak case

Spain’s top prosecutor has been banned from his post for two years after being found guilty of leaking confidential information about a tax case involving a businessman who is the boyfriend of a prominent rightwing politician. Álvaro García Ortiz, who has served as attorney general since 2022, was also fined €7,300 (£6,428), and ordered to pay €10,000 in damages to the businessman, Alberto González Amador. The verdict, announced by the supreme court on Thursday, will come as a blow to Spain’s socialist prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, who had insisted on García Ortiz’s innocence, and who is under increasing pressure because of a series of corruption allegations facing his family and his allies. García Ortiz, the first serving Spanish attorney general to face trial, had denied leaking personal information about González Amador to journalists when the businessman was under investigation for alleged tax fraud. According to media reports last year, González Amador’s legal team had proposed a plea deal with prosecutors that would allow him to avoid a trial and prison in exchange for admitting to alleged tax offences. The businessman is the partner of the rightwing populist politician Isabel Díaz Ayuso, who, as Madrid’s regional president, has been one of Sánchez’s most outspoken critics. Ayuso, a member of the People’s party (PP), had claimed that the information had been leaked to the press in an attempt to damage her reputation, while González Amador told the court that the attorney general had “completely destroyed me”. But García Ortiz had insisted that he had neither leaked the information nor had it leaked, and his defence had said there was “absolutely no evidence” that he was the source of the leak. Journalists who were called to give evidence also denied that the attorney general had fed them the information. Government sources said that while they respected the verdict, they did not agree with it, adding that the administration was grateful to García Ortiz for his work as attorney general. They said the process to choose his replacement would begin in the coming days. The case has reignited the debate over the politicisation of the judiciary and comes as investigations continue into allegations of corruption involving Sánchez’s wife and his brother. While the prime minister has dismissed those allegations as politically motivated smears, in June he ordered his right-hand man, Santos Cerdán, to resign as the socialist party’s organisational secretary after a supreme court judge found “firm evidence” of his possible involvement in taking kickbacks on public construction contracts. The corruption investigations, which also involve the former transport minister José Luis Ábalos and one of his aides, are particularly damaging as Sánchez came to power promising to crack down on graft. The prime minister has previously cast doubt on the independence of some members of the Spanish judiciary, claiming in an interview in September “there’s no doubt that there are judges doing politics and there are politicians trying to do justice”. Alberto Núñez Feijóo, the leader of the PP, noted that the verdict was the first time an attorney general had been convicted, adding: “This anomaly will weigh on Sánchez for ever. He can only head off greater institutional embarrassment by apologising to the Spanish people for this crude political operation and showing his respect for the supreme court.” Santiago Abascal, the leader of the far-right Vox party, went further, saying: “Sánchez will be the first prime minister in Spanish history to end up in prison,” and accusing him of overseeing “a mafia that does nothing but soil our institutions”.

Ottawa officials to cull ‘mindblowing’ influx of thousands of goldfish in pond

City officials in Canada’s capital city, Ottawa, plan to cull thousands of feral goldfish from a stormwater pond, a decision that reflects the pervasive spread of the species throughout the region. Earlier in the year, city staff removed 5,000 fish from the city’s Celebration Park. But as many as 1,000 more are believed to still be living in the water. “The fact that we’ve had approximately 6,000 fish in this pond, in this year, is mind-blowing,” councillor Riley Brockington, who represents the area, told CBC News. “It’s just a number that’s difficult for me to wrap my head around.” Female goldfish produce large amounts of offspring, with a single mature fish able to lay more than 100,000 eggs. Carleton biology professor Steven Cooke told the national broadcaster the actual population of the Celebration Park shoal could far exceed official estimates, speculating that there could be millions of tiny young goldfish in the pond, undetected. The scourge of goldfish – a species native to Asia and most commonly found in fish tanks – has become a growing problem as the fish are deliberately released by pet owners into increasingly warm waters. Goldfish can grow to immense sizes in large bodies of water, have few predators and reproduce rapidly. They displace native species and harm plant growth by churning up waters of ponds. Warming water temperatures from a changing climate have also created more hospitable environments for the populations as they spread through local waterways and into the Great Lakes. Authorities in the Canada and the US have pleaded with aquarium owners to stop releasing pet fish into waterways. In Minnesota, officials removed nearly 50,000 goldfish from local waters. They warned that fish which might be only two or three inches long when they are released can grow to more than 1ft long. Shelby Riskin, an ecologist at the University of Toronto, said that stormwater ponds have increasingly become a breeding ground for the cast-off fish and present a challenge when trying to restore local ecosystems. “There’s one in [Toronto’s Don Valley] that at times seems no larger than a puddle- and yet at certain times of the year it’s just filled with goldfish,” she said. The fish can thrive in turbid, low-oxygen environments, often outlasting and outcompeting local species. “You look and and just see the toxic vape packets floating by these animals. It often feels like that Jeff Goldbloom quote from Jurassic Park – life really does always find a way.”