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 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? 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 your job 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. it's notjust the united states that's concerned about china. 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. for many parts of the uk, monday looks like being a dry

day with some sunny spells. the rain that we've had in the south — and there was an inch of rain in cornwall — has been close to that low pressure. that is tending to move away, restricting the rain towards the far southeast of england. but there's quite a breeze blowing for england and wales, so it won't be as cold as it was the previous night. we're looking at a frost, though, in scotland, maybe some icy patches following a few wintry showers, which will fade away quickly in the morning. plenty of sunshine for scotland and northern ireland on monday. sunny spells for england and wales. the rain pushing away from kent, sussex and the channel islands. but it's a northeasterly wind that follows that will bring the odd shower into eastern england, perhaps into the midlands, as well. and it'll feel chilly in that wind across the southeast of england. temperatures could make ten celsius, but we're looking at 8—9 being more typical — similar to what we've had over the past few days. the winds do drop across south eastern areas after dark, and it gets cold and frosty for england and wales ahead of that weather front moving down from the northwest, together with some stronger winds. so a band of wet and windy weather sweeps through scotland and northern ireland,

pushes into england and wales. most of the rain will be over the hills, followed by sunshine and blustery showers. wintry over higher parts of scotland. may well be largely dry across the midlands, east anglia, and the southeast — but it'll be quite cold, and there could be some mist and fog around in the morning. that weather front bringing the rain continues to weaken as it moves south eastwards after dark, and then we await the next weather system coming in from the atlantic. it's just a brief window of dry weather. there'll be some sunshine after a chilly start, but we'll see the cloud moving in more quickly, and the rains moving across more quickly as well — notjust across northern ireland now, but other western parts of the uk before the end of the afternoon. the best of the sunshine in the far east of england. but temperatures are likely to reach double figures — and, together with these bands of rain coming in from the west, we've got some milder air on thursday night, so no frost this time. we still have a weather front to move through on thursday — that's that band of rain clearing scotland, pushing into england and wales. and that will be followed by more showers — and these will be turning wintry over the hills. as things just get a little bit

colder, we could well see temperatures across eastern england, though, in double figures — but only for a while, because the colder air will push down across the whole of the country by the end of the week. and, with low pressure in charge, we've got showers or longer spells of rain, and there may even be some wintriness over the hills.

live from london. this is bbc news. israel's military presents a plan to evacuate civilians from areas of fighting in gaza — as benjamin netanyahu says an assault on rafah will go ahead.

with russia's invasion of ukraine entering year three, we look at what life is like for ukrainians under russian occupation. the uk government announces almost £5 billion worth of investment in transport projects — that's money saved from the scrapped northern leg of the hs2 railway. and for the first time, women injapanjoin the �*naked festival'. but unlike the men, they wear purple robes. hello, i'm sally bundock. we start with the war in gaza. israel's army has presented its government with an evacuation plan for palestinian civilians from gaza's southernmost city of rafah. the proposal comes after the israeli prime minister,

benjamin netanyahu vowed to go ahead with an offensive.