voice—over: this is bbc news. we'll have the headlines for you at the top of the hour, which is straight after this programme. welcome to hardtalk. i'm sarah montague. it's two years since russia launched its full—scale invasion of ukraine. it failed then — but now, after months of stalemate, ukraine looks to be in retreat, not least because the united states has yet to approve more funding for ukraine's defence. so, what next? european leaders warn that president putin's ambitions won't stop with ukraine, and they talk of preparing for a world war. i'm at nato�*s headquarters in brussels to speak to its secretary general for the past ten years, jens stoltenberg.

it's an organisation founded on the principle that an attack against one is an attack against all its members. so, how dangerous a moment is this? is russia really preparing for a war with nato? jens stoltenberg, welcome to hardtalk. thank you so much. is ukraine going to lose its war with russia? no, and it's our responsibility to ensure that we provide them with enough military help to enable them to prevail. because president putin must not win this war. that will be a tragedy for ukrainians, and dangerous for us. now, you have said that the most important single decision is for the us to agree a package of support. what happens if they don't? then the ukrainians and we all will be in a more difficult situation.

but then it's even more important that canada and european allies are stepping up even more. but i expect the us to agree a package of continued military support — partly because that has been the message i've heard from the us congress in my meetings now over the last days in washington, in brussels, and also in munich. and also, because it is a big majority, that's what they continue to tell me, in the congress for continued support. the senate has already agreed the package, and now the issue is how to make sure that the house of representatives are able to translate the majority — which is there — into a vote for continued support. there is a lot of politics, though, involved in us politics. it could come very late. could that affect the outcome of the war? the lack of decision in the us congress has already affected

the war, because there has been a reduction in the flow of ammunition and weapons from the us, and that has always had an impact on the battlefield. so there's an urgent need for the us congress to decide, and to continue what the us has done for many years — and that is to be a leader in providing military support to ukraine. but again, they have assured me from both the republican and the democratic side that they are now working on a way forward to translate the majority which is there into a vote that enables them to continue. if they don't, or if it's delayed, can eu countries step up to fill the gap? i mean, they're already at a point where i think they're providing overall more funding than the united states. but there are notably some countries that are providing much less than others. could they step in to fill the gap? it varies what allies are providing, how much the allies are providing to ukraine. i believe that all allies can do more. the reality is that if you put

together what non—us allies — canada, the united kingdom, but also eu members — are doing, in total that is more than the united states, if you add military, economic, and financial aid. but also when you look at military aid, actually, non—us allies — and that includes, again, uk, canada, but also eu members — it's more or less equal, not so far away from 50—50. so this is a true transatlantic burden—sharing effort, with north america and europe working together. but we need the united states, and therefore... it can't be done without that money from the united states? ..er, the united states is vital because they are so big, and of course, by far the biggest individual allies. so, therefore, i continue to expect and continue to call on the us congress to make a decision as soon as possible. 0k, you're making it clear about pressing the united states. do you press other countries?

you take a country like france, which has a very big military spend generally — not up to 2% yet — but it's promised to ukraine something in the order of about 6 billion euros. germany's promised 17 billion. well, i am pressing all allies, and when i travel around to the capitals, i meet political leaders, and my message is that we need to do more, and i also told them that they can actually go below nato guidelines, for instance, for stocks, to be able to provide support to ukraine. so, many allies have dug quite deep into their stocks of ammunition to support ukraine. but in the long run, of course, what we need is not only to dig into stocks, but also to increase production. i would not list the allies, which i think are, as i say, are doing too little — all can do more — and then, we are working with all our... you won't name and shame those countries that you think are not doing enough? i will not name and shame them, but they know that they can do

more, and therefore, we are constantly pushing them to do more. of course, there are other things that could be done. and ukraine — the head of ukraine's navy, vice—admiral alexei papa, has said that actually, nato countries, they could lift the restrictions on the use of weapons. so, for example, long—range weapons, which ukraine is not allowed to fire into russian territory — you change the rules of the restrictions, and that gives ukraine a much stronger hand. would you be in favour of that? first of all, i think we need to remember that this is a war of aggression russia has launched by choice against ukraine, violating international law. ukraine has the right, according to international law, to defend itself, and that includes also striking legitimate military targets outside ukraine. this is something i have conveyed very clearly also to allies. at the end of the day, it's for allies to decide what caveats they put on the support. but of course, ukraine has the right to self—defence, and that includes also... ok, so you think they should have permission to use the weapons as they want?

i think it's... to strike into russia? that would be your preferred option? i believe that it's important that we adhere to international law. russia is violating international law. russia — ukraine has the right to defend themselves, according to international law, and international law also allows them to strike targets outside ukraine, as long as these are legitimate military targets. but you will know that there are nato countries who think that if a british, an american weapon lands in russia, it will be seen as an aggressive act by russia? well, what we have seen is that they've already used different types of weapons to attack military targets in russia, but also to not least sink a high number of russian ships in the black sea. and that has been one of the great successes by ukraine, enabling them to actually push the russian black sea fleet away from the western part, and open a corridor that has enabled them to export grain and other products.

so, deep strikes has been one of the things that ukraine has done in a very successful way. 0k. there are, though, countries that think, "why should we be sinking more money into ukraine? "isn't it time to negotiate peace?" now, we've had president zelensky saying very recently, "we're making every effort to end the war as soon "as possible on fair ukrainian terms and ensure "a lasting peace". we also had lord richards, former chief of the defence staff in the uk, telling the bbc this week, "there's "a growing case for saying, �*we need to negotiate �*with russia'". is it time for ukraine to trade land for peace? it's for ukraine to decide what are acceptable conditions. but what we do know is that what happens around the negotiating table is inextricably linked to the situation on the battlefield. and we have no indications now that putin is willing to accept a solution where ukraine prevails as a sovereign, independent

nation in ukraine. his aim is still to control ukraine. so, the only way to get to a place where actually, a just and lasting peace can be agreed around the negotiating table is continued military support to ukraine. because it's only when president putin realises that they will not win on the battlefield that he may be willing to sit down and negotiate a solution where ukraine prevails. so weapons to ukraine are actually the way to peace in ukraine, where they survive as a sovereign independent nation. of course, there is another thing that nato could do, which is admit ukraine as a member. and we see here, i mean, there has been change — here we are in nato�*s headquarters, the flags are going up, the stage is going up to admit sweden in the next few days. do you think ukraine should be admitted, and admitted soon?

ukraine should be a member of the alliance, and ukraine is closer to nato membership than ever before. and that also reflects that it was a great strategic mistake for president putin to invade ukraine. he wanted to close nato�*s door, he wanted less nato — he's getting exactly the opposite. finland is already a member, sweden will be a member very soon. nato�*s increased its military presence in eastern... sure, what about ukraine? because of course, that would make a huge difference to ukraine. and ukraine is closer to membership than ever before. but of course, the challenge is that, to have them as a full member in the midst of war, then we risk having a full confrontation, full conflict war between russia and nato. and nato has fundamentally two tasks — one is to support ukraine, as we do with unprecedented military economic support, and the other is to prevent this conflict from escalating to a full—scale conflict between russia and nato. your predecessor at nato,

anders fogh rasmussen, has said, "i hear the argument we cannot invite ukraine "to join nato as long as war is going on". and he said it's a dangerous argument that you're making, because he says, "it provides putin with a veto over nato "and an incentive to continue hostilities indefinitely". i think i've demonstrated very clearly that president putin doesn't have a veto on nato enlargement. he, in the weeks leading up to the invasion... but he does over ukraine's admission to nato. no, ukraine is now closer than ever to membership in... but you say it can'tjoin as long as it's at war. it's for us to decide when they canjoin. but we need to manage the challenge that now, we are in the midst of the war. but in the midst of the war, we have been able to turn the whole membership process into not a two—step process, which it's always been before, by removing something called the membership action plan. we have established something called the nato ukraine council that binds us very closely together politically. and perhaps most importantly, we are now launched —

we have launched a big programme where we are ensuring that the ukrainian forces are becoming fully interoperable with nato�*s forces. all of this makes it possible for us, when the political conditions are in place, to invite them and to make them a full member. 0k. well, let's talk about some of the warnings that have been coming from european leaders. absolutely astonishing, just in terms of how alarming they are. the german defence minister, boris pistorius, saying, "vladimir putin might even attack a nato country one day." sweden, "there could be war in sweden," telling everyone to individually, to mentally prepare for war. lithuania's foreign minister saying, "there's a chance that "russia might not be contained in ukraine." denmark, "it cannot be ruled out that within "a three—to—five—year period, russia will test article five" — that's the principle of all for one and one for all — "and nato�*s solidarity." this is new information coming to the fore. estonia, "the kremlin is probably anticipating "a possible conflict with nato

within the next decade or so." what is the new information that you have that makes you and all these european figures say, "war is coming"? we can never take peace for granted, and we must always be prepared. at the same time, we don't have any new information indicating an imminent military threat against any nato ally. and nato�*s there to prevent an attack, to prevent a war, and nato�*s been able to do that successfully for 75 years, and we have increased our presence in the eastern part of the alliance. we have increased the readiness of our forces, allies increasing defence spending to send a clear message to moscow, that an attack on one ally will trigger a response from the whole alliance... and why do you presume that he is going to attack an ally? no, i'm not presuming that, because i'm actually saying that we don't have any information indicating that there is an imminent threat against any nato ally, because nato�*s there.

that's the reason why we have nato. but isn't this language creating a situation where the relationship is so much more febrile, and it makes it so much more dangerous? well, i think there is a subtle difference between being prepared, as nato always is, and never to take peace for granted. but we should not indicate that there is any imminent military threat against a nato ally, because that's not the case — because nato�*s there. and the world has become more dangerous, but nato has become stronger to ensure that we are safe and secure, and that no nato ally is attacked. so, since 2014, since the illegal annexation of crimea in 2014, nato�*s implemented the biggest reinforcement of collective defence in generations to ensure that there are no military attacks against nato allies. so, we're in a situation, though, where we have the head of romania's armed forces and belgium's army chief talking about moldova and the western balkans

being possible targets. of course, those countries — which are not nato allies, they are in europe — they are, of course, more exposed, more vulnerable than nato allies. but i thought you asked some questions about whether it was an imminent threat against a nato ally. we don't see any imminent threat against any nato ally. 0k, do you see an imminent threat against moldova? we don't have any specific information, but we have seen the threatening rhetoric from russia, and we have seen what they have done against georgia. we have seen what they have done, over now ten years, against ukraine, also with the annexation of crimea, anotherfull—fledged invasion. and of course, in moldova, russia already has military troops controlling part of the country, in transnistria, without the consent of the government in chisinau. so, what we see is that those countries in europe, which are not nato allies, they are more vulnerable than nato allies are.

ok, but let's take a nato member, a country like latvia. if latvia was invaded, there was trouble stirred up, the suggestion would be the ukrainian playbook, where you have russia affecting — and to some extent, this is arguably happening — the russians within latvia. if it was invaded, can you see the united states — possibly under president trump — coming to its defence under article five? yes, absolutely. an attack on latvia is an attack on nato. an attack on one is an attack on all. that's the core responsibility of nato, is that we protect each other — one for all, and all for one. and by doing that, we have been able to prevent any military attack against any nato

ally for 75 years, even during the most dangerous and coldest period of the cold war. and that's the way we will continue to preserve peace... i know that's the argument, i know that's the argument. but it's entirely possible that by the end of the year, in the white house will be president trump, who has said — and latvia has paid its dues on its defence budget — but he has warned that he would encourage russia to go after those countries that haven't paid their dues to russia, don't spend 2% of their gdp on defence. and i want... so, i ask again, can you see the us led by president trump absolutely complying with article five? i expect the us to continue to be a committed nato ally also after the us elections, because this is actually in us security interests, to have a strong nato. there is a broad... why does he say that, then? his main message is about

the need for european allies to spend more. and that has actually been the main message from successive us presidents — formulated in different ways, but that's the core message for many years. and the good news is that nato allies are spending more. and you've praised him in part because he's done yourjob for you in helping raise the spend. but there's something else about president trump, in that he is more sympathetic to the russian case, isn't he? what i saw when he was president last time was that the united states increased their military presence in europe. so, that has been a message from democratic and republican presidents over many years, that they are committed to nato, to european security, and again, we see broad bipartisan support for nato in the congress, and the criticism is not directed against nato. the criticism is about nato allies not spending enough on nato, and that has really changed, and, most importantly, the us is safer with nato. the us have neverfought a war without nato allies, from the korean war to afghanistan. and that makes the united states safer, so therefore,

i actually believe that they are able to see that nato�*s a good... do you trust president trump as a reliable partner, though? i have to work with whoever the electorates... do you trust president trump as a reliable partner? it's not for me to characterise the different leaders of this alliance. i work with those who are elected, and the strength of nato is that we are... if i asked you about any european leader, i can't imagine you hesitating to say yes. i'll not characterise them — and i've been asked to characterise many political leaders, because in nato, we are more than 31 allies from both sides of the atlantic with very different political leaders elected, and we've had many crises and differences between those leaders over many decades. but, despite those differences, nato�*s always been able

to unite around our core cause — to protect and defend each other — because we are safer and stronger together. the us is concerned about china. the united states represents 25% of the world's gdp. together with nato allies, we represent 50% of the world's gdp, and 50% of the world's military might. so, the united states is stronger with nato than without nato, and i think that the united states realise that's a good dealfor them to have a strong nato. you've said, "today it's ukraine, tomorrow it can be "taiwan." beijing is watching what's going on in ukraine closely. yes, and that demonstrates that ukraine is not only about europe, it's about global security, because if we allow president putin to win in ukraine, it will send a message to him, but also to all the other leaders, that when they use military force, when they invade another country, they get what they want. and that makes itjust even more important to prevent that from happening. i read out the list of warnings

from european leaders. do you expect europe to be at war with russia within the next five years? no, and that's because i'm absolutely confident that nato will remain the strongest and most successful alliance in history, ensuring that no ally is attacked, because we stand together. and if ukraine loses its war, how would you answer that question? then, of course, we will live in an even more dangerous world, so we need to invest even more in defence. but i am absolutely confident nato will be able to continue to protect and defend all nato allies, because nato is about 50% — we represent 50% of the world's military might. so, as long as we stand together, then we're able to protect all allies, and just over last year, we have, for the first time in our history, deployed combat troops in the eastern part of the alliance, significantly increased the readiness of ourforces, invested heavily in new modern equipment, not least to send a message to moscow. there should be no room for misunderstanding in moscow about our willingness to protect and defend our allies, and as long as we do that, there will be no attack

on a nato ally. european nations are rapidly increasing their defence budgets, but it's a pretty inefficient way of doing it, because they each are investing in their own military. is it time for a european army? not for a european army, but it's time for european allies to overcome some of the fragmentation we see in the european defence industry. nato has been calling on more spending by european allies for many years, and nato�*s been calling on a more efficient european defence industry. now we see that european allies are making important steps in that direction — that's something we welcome. you've made clear the threat that you see from russia. there are many countries in the world who have a very different worldview, i mean, including nato�*s members. turkey, of course, which saw

a huge rise in exports which ultimately went to russia last year. india, china. the world... if the west is facing up to russia, which side do those countries line up with? is the world just becoming more divided? first of all, turkey is an ally that has actually provided a lot of important support to, er, ukraine, and if you look at the votes in the un, an overwhelming majority has clearly condemned the russian illegal invasion. but india, china... well, i think... ..even brazil, which has raised the question... i think we have to distinguish... china is in a very close alliance, or they align very closely with russia. just days ahead of the invasion, president xi and president putin signed an agreement, where they promised each other a limitless partnership,

and china has not condemned the russian invasion, and china is propping up the russian economy. so, china is actually helping and supporting russia also by spreading their narrative about the world. you are about to leave, after ten years, the top of nato. how dangerous is this moment now? it is a more dangerous world, but nato has also become much more, er, stronger, and we do that to ensure that we preserve peace and prevent any military attack on a nato ally. jens stoltenberg, thank you for coming on hardtalk. thanks for having me. hello, there. it's been a pretty wet but mild february. however, thursday saw a change with this weather front, bringing some heavy rain for a time, then as it pushed its way steadily east, northwesterly wind direction kicked in and that had quite a dramatic impact to the feel of the weather wednesday afternoon.

temperatures above the average mid—teens quite widely. by thursday, they were half that value and just below where they should be for this time of year. that's also translated into a pretty chilly start to friday morning. low single figures for many, and we haven't seen temperature values like that for quite some time. so certainly a shock to the system. but it will also be accompanied by hopefully some sunshine through central and eastern england and eastern scotland. there will be some showers out to the west with that brisk northwesterly wind and some of these will feed further inland as the day continues. wintry to higher ground. but a cool story again, seven to nine degrees. this is where the temperatures should be really for this time of year. now, as we go through friday evening, some of those showers will tend to fade away, and under clearing skies, those temperatures will fall even further. so saturday morning is going to be a cold start with a frost likely in rural parts as temperatures fall below freezing. so, yes, a cold start, but again, this quiet theme is set to continue. a good deal of fine weather, a few coastal showers

in scotland, the risk of some showers moving through south wales and southern england for a time. but on the whole, most of us seeing some dry, sunny weather, and again, those temperatures just about scraping into double figures, if we're lucky. but for most of us, generally, between seven and nine degrees. slight problem on sunday, with this area of low pressure and the fronts. now, there is the potential for that to just be a little bit further north, and if that happens, the rain could be further north. so we'll need to keep firming up on those details. but at the moment, it looks likely just to affect southwest england and the channel isles, and maybe just fringing with the channel coast for a time. more cloud across southern england, but elsewhere, largely fine and quiet, and again, temperatures between seven and nine degrees. now, that quieter theme is going to continue monday into tuesday. but as we move through the middle part of the week, the risk is it's turning increasingly wetter. but also the milder weather

is set to return, as well.

live from london. this is bbc news. the united states returns to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years. the united nations agency for palestinian refugees warns it's reached breaking point. a massive fire in a high—rise apartment building in valencia kills at least four people. and — one of bollywood's brightest young talents tackles wildlife crime in ourjungles. hello, i'm mark lobel. it's one small step for man — one giant leap for private enterprise. the united states has returned to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years — but on this occasion it wasn't the american taxpayer footing the bill. the odysseus lander touched down on the lunar surface a few hours ago — the first time a privately—owned spacecraft has achieved that feat.

our science editor rebecca morelle reports.