and left tens of thousands without power. avalanche warnings have been issued in some areas. and it's a night to remember at the brit awards as female acts take centrestage. singer—songwriter raye picks up a record—breaking six prizes, including best artist and best album. now on bbc news, talking business. hello, everybody, a very warm welcome to talking business weekly with me, aaron heslehurst. let's go and take a look at what's on the show. the $300 billion question: should russia's cash be taken away to pay for the war in ukraine? with the fighting into its third year, can the west finally land the financial blow on president putin and finally stop him from affording the war?

i'm going to be discussing that with these two — there they are — an eastern european economist who thinks selling the assets might mean less money for ukraine in the long run and estonia's foreign minister tells me taxpayers, they shouldn't have to foot the bill for the aggression of his next—door neighbour, russia. plus, what about the damage inside ukraine? one of president zelensky�*s top economic advisers tells me about the struggle to keep financing the fighting and why getting millions of ukrainians back from abroad would be crucial for the country's future. wherever you'rejoining me from around the world, once again, a big hello and a warm welcome to the show. you know, russia's invasion of ukraine is now into its third year, costing tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. its huge impact has been felt in economies all around the world. it's had consequences for globaltrade, energy and food prices and, most of all, in ukraine itself.

so, can the assets the west has frozen and which belong to moscow be used to pay for the damage and kyiv�*s ability to fight back? ukraine's reconstruction bill — it's now estimated at m86 billion — and there are signs that the west's enthusiasm for providing financial support is waning. translation: putin does not value people's lives. - he doesn't understand or respect any rules. the only thing that is important for putin is money and power. we need a strong decision that would confiscate russia's frozen assets, and we need further full—scale sanctions pressure on russia in order to constrain putin's capabilities to finance this war. and it's an idea that seems to be gaining traction, even though it's not without its risks. there's growing legal support for the idea that there is a way

of using these resources. i think the moral argument is quite straightforward, which is that, at the end of the day, russia is going to have to pay reparations for its illegal invasions, so why not spend some of the money now, rather than wait till the war is over? and although the west hasn't been directly involved militarily, seizing assets is one more economic weapon to try and cripple russia's financial firepower. to mark two years since president putin's invasion, the us and eu both hit the russian regime with hundreds of new economic sanctions, which are also linked to the suspicious death of the russian opposition leader alexei navalny. it means that the us has now hit more than 4,000 companies and individuals, while the eu has targeted more than 2,000 and, early in the war, more than $300 billion of russian assets held in the west were frozen — about two thirds in europe, but also significant sums in the us and uk. these sanctions seem to have had a limited impact on russia's economy.

despite an initial hit, it's been growing as president putin has funnelled resources into building a wartime economy. one reason he's been able to do that — it's oil and gas. russia's government raked in almost $100 billion last year because its position as a leading supplier means the west doesn't want it removed from the global market altogether. but, that said, the west has made efforts to limit that income, which is now largely made up of sales to china and india. and despite that resilience, russia's parliament has been urging the government to hit that if assets are frozen. —— urging the government to hit back if assets are frozen. translation: we think that we must be ready l to respond immediately if the europeans introduce such measures. the response must be efficient and painful. we have large amounts amassed in the s—type accounts, including those belonging, in part, to the investors from unfriendly countries. these accounts can and must be adequately taxed, which would be a retaliatory move in case europe makes

such a decision. so, should america and europe sell the russian assets they've frozen and give the money to ukraine? well, i've been speaking to one man who's been following this debate closely. he was was the wall street journal's russia editor and has covered this area for both of us here at the bbc and for the swiss banking giant credit suisse. alexander kolyandr, thanks so much for your time. alexander, let's start with this, because it seems obvious to many that russia's war is illegal — the un general assembly has called it so, although russia denies it's illegal. but we know that the allies hold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of russian assets. alexander, why wouldn't theyjust sell them and give the money to ukraine? well, this position looks absolutely fine from the moral point of view, and i definitely support it. it has several problems. first of all, the europeans — especially the european central bank and the financial

authorities of the european union — are afraid of seizing that frozen assets because they are afraid that other countries from outside of europe and the western club will be extremely reluctant european—elimiated assets. and that might hit the european economy. and another issue is europe is not in a state of war with russia. so, that would raise questions and might even, as some europeans say, damage the trust in the european legal system. on top of that, there is an issue of, i would say, financial hostages — those are the european companies who are still active in russia. for some of them, it was a choice but for the vast majority of the foreign

companies in russia, it's not a matter of choice. they are unable to sell their assets. if all that is nationalised, several big european companies would face bankruptcy. and then, the european governments will be forced to save them and spend a huge amount of money on bailing them out. and, at the end of the day, that would damage their ability to help ukraine. well, america's keen on doing this — certainly more than many european countries — but the assets there are largely in europe, but the assets there are largely in europe, aren't they? yes. i think for a populist politician, it looks like a really nice opportunity to sell it to his voters. because the population might that say, "look, "we've taken russian money away from russia "and gave it to ukraine, but we are not going to give "ukraine our own money".

and the problem is that $300 billion, although it looks like an enormous sum of money, might not be enough in the long term. and, alexander, within europe, there is disagreement, right? i'm just wondering how you are divided on this issue? on one side, we see the united states, the united kingdom, the baltics and eastern europe, who insist on that money to be taken away from russia and given to ukraine and spent on either reconstruction or rearmament. the problem is that the majority of russia's frozen assets is not in those countries. and in the countries which hold the majority of russian assets and those are, first and foremost, belgium, france, germany and other western european countries, they are much more reluctant.

well, on that note, alexander kolyandr, really appreciate your time. thank you forjoining us. thank you, aaron. ok, so, is there the political will in the west to pay for ukraine's needs with russian frozen assets? it would save taxpayers from footing the bill and be a show of support from russia's neighbours, who have the most to fear from any further aggression. so, i decided to catch up with the foreign minister of estonia. margus tsahkna, a real pleasure having you on the show. and margus, let me start with this. it's been two years since the war began, we had all those western economic sanctions placed on russia but it still seems to be going strong. the imf, international monetary fund, says its economy is set to grow a healthy 2.6% this year. margus, it is showing remarkable resilience, isn't it? yes, actually, we don't know exact honest figures what is the situation with russian economy

but what we see is that russia is able to produce military equipment, able to produce ammunition. and also, people are not starving. it's obvious. but if you see the figures from the european union side, so, we have adopted already, like, the 13 sanction packages, and approximately, like, 60% of trade has been cutting down, put under sanctions. but, of course, there are lots of things we see as a bordering country. but i'm not so critical about sanctions because if we see what we have — like, more than two years ago, there were no sanctions and sanctions are, like, hitting both sides. they are hitting russia and they are hitting our economies. but this is a price we need to pay right now and we pay, because all our interests are that we harm the russian war machine. margus, do you believe

that all of europe — or at least the eu — should take a hit to its economies, including consumers and businesses, just to try and make it harder for russia to fight this war? what we must understand that to have business with russia, it doesn't work. it was for years european policy. some bigger countries were thinking if they have economical relations with putin and russia, then they can somehow control putin. nord stream i and nord stream 2 were exactly these kinds of projects. they were an idea. this is only economical. it was 100% political, actually. everything economical from russia is political as well. and i don't say that we must take the heat but we just need to organise, reorganise our economies, not to be so much dependent on russian economy. maybe that is a price for what we pay now. but it doesn't work for longer because russia will remain

a threat. there won't be a solution in the meaning that the business will continue as before. margus, we know russia is one of the world's biggest oil and gas producers and, yes, sanctions has limited the amount of cash it gets for those fossil fuels but we know it sells more and more to india and china — last year, it raked in around $100 billion from oil and gas. would a move to cut that be more helpful to hurting russia's finances for this war? of course, russia is earning lots of money by gas and oil but we have been thinking and proposing the sanctions. —— but we have been thinking and proposing the sanctions in eu is to lower the price. because it harms a lot of russian war machines and economy. we know the lot of games are not supporting the idea right now. so, it has been always as well the proposal what estonia has made, but we're a small country.

we cannot finally decide alone on this. so, it is always on the table of eu sanctions packages and also, we put this proposal on the table for the 14th package — what is now under consideration. well, just on the russian oil, i mean, there is the western—imposed price cap of 60 bucks a barrel but what would you like to see it come down to? actually, we have adopted in the eu last year the process that what the oil price must be. it is connected to the market price, but there is a level of that. but the case is we're not following it. so, from estonia's side, we are not offering new. we are not following it because the g7 and those bigger countries are not agreeing with that. if you're lacking the political will, then you're not able to do it.

so, the procedure is there. so, the decision is there but we are not following that, and this is something we are not happy about. margus, let's talk about those frozen russian assets mostly held in the eu, of course. do you think europe needs to be more aggressive in selling them to give the money to ukraine? and i'm kind of wondering, margus, why big powers like france and germany seem to be reluctant to doing that. we have taken this leading position as estonia to talk about it and to find a way out that we can use, and we need it. those are the three reasons why we pushed heavily. one, of course, is to give money to ukraine, recovery process and support ukraine. the second is actually to give a message to putin and oligarchs in russia that we can take the assets and use them and an aggressor must pay. the third is much more cynical in the meaning that we have elections coming all over the world and taxpayers

and voters, they are asking the rightful question how long we have to pay? why doesn't russia pay for irthe damages and also the recovery process? and that's why i see as well that we have been pushing this frozen assets question for close to nearly a year. that's why there has been more political interest in what we are doing and how we are doing it. and the first sign — and it was a big move, actually, on the eu level when 97 countries decided actually that they would use the money for frozen assets. this is big money as well but it is something that we have achieved. but now, we are pushing heavily, domestically and in the estonia parliament, the draft law of that can be —— we use the frozen assets. if we show the way that

that is an opportunity following the laws that we can use frozen assets, then there won't be any excuse. and, margus, let me end on this — if sanctions and other financial weapons don't starve president putin of the resolve and the resources to stop fighting in ukraine, i'm wondering how concerned are you that he could then turn to, well, your country and other neighbours next? we know already years that putin is a threat, russia is a threat. we saw it in georgia. we saw in ukraine 2014, repeatedly now. and also, the vocabulary has been very heavy from the putin side. maybe he will have a nato test. i don't know on what scale. we don't see these military capabilities right now. but, of course, russia has plans to increase them, to re—establish them. now, they are tired in ukraine and that's the main messages well from my side. —— now, they are tied in ukraine and that's the main

m essa 9 es well from my side. for us, it is the most efficient way to support ukrainians now because they are fighting instead of us. we have 200km steps. strategic steps. we will win the war but we will pay as a country, as a nation, a very high price for that. so, i would like to say everybody who are living in europe and, of course, members of nato, that now is the time to support ukraine and now is the time to invest your whole independent defence capabilities. so, i hope that there is some rationality left to putin not to even think about attacking a nato country. on that point, margus tsahkna, estonia's foreign minister, a real pleasure having you on the show. good luck with everything and we'll check in with you soon. thank you very much for this opportunity. well, after more than two years

of fighting, ukraine and russia, they're both struggling to make progress on the battlefield, despite the thousands of lives that have been lost. moscow seems to have money but for kyiv, the cost of bullets and shells is a growing problem. just how is it going to be financing the fighting, let alone pay for repairs? so, i decided to catch up with one of president zelensky�*s top economic advisers. alexander rodnyansky, really good to see you again. alexander, let me start with this. two years since russia's invasion, what is the economic picture on the ground look like today in ukraine? so, we are in a wartime economy. weapons are usually the best tools of economy policymaking during wartime, and that is because expectations are formed on the front line. if expectations are good, that leads to investment, etc. but the rest is also true. another example is air defence.

if there is no air defence, the enemy can bombard our facilities, anything we use for infrastructure. that has a direct effect on the economy too. number two, we're obviosuly trying to stabilise the economy. initially, inflation went out. 0bviously, capital was flowing out, but our central bank did a very good job at managing the storm, essentially. controlling the exchange rate. and that led, actually, to a decline in inflation to the point where we actually reached our pre—invasion, normal peacetime inflation target, which is 5% inflation. alexander, i want to ask you is ukraine turning factories from one use into another, such as fridges to weapons of war? absolutely, that is happening to a large extent. in fact, we have a ministry now that's directly responsible for strategic development — in responsible particular for driving our military industrial complex

and making sure we can produce the production of drones, first and foremost — obviously, that's a shortage that we have, as everybody knows. everything that we can try and produce ourselves — we need a lot of complicated production facilities, which takes time to build but, of course, we're trying to diversify away from the reliance on our western partners, given what we see right now. well, alexander, two years into the war, i'm wondering how difficult it is to raise the money ukraine continues to urgently need to fight the russians. absolutely, it's very difficult, as you can see. right now, the main stumbling block has to do with the us and congress and the $60 billion we are hoping to receive. the lion's share would be for military support. again, that has a direct of the economy, unfortunately. there's a lot more political stumbling blocks in our way now, which we perhaps didn't anticipate but we have to cope with. and it's all about survival now. we're not talking about

reconstruction here — i want to make sure everybody understands. this is really about making sure our economy can survive and just manage this period. but i will say also that we've had some success with the eu more recently, where the 50 billion euro package was approved and passed. we are trying to make adjustments, adapt to the environment —— economic environment. part of that was increasing our military in terms of making sure we have the internal resources to produce ammunition if we need it. another part of that is just financial, purely financial. that means if we are not going to get certain amounts taxes, maybe reducing spending. it's difficult because we have already cut down a lot. it's not an easy time to do these sorts of things. alexander, we've also been talking about that some $300 billion of russian assets held in europe. and i'm assuming there's no doubt president zelensky would love for those assets

to be passed on to help fight the war. i have to ask you, why do you think some european nations are just so reluctant to sell them and hand the cash over to you? yes, that's an important issue for us. i think the main challenges are political and legal in nature. we know there's around $300 billion floating around in russian assets that are frozen and that could be used — or should be used — if we're looking at a fair world or some sense ofjustice for our reconstruction, at the very least, and to compensate for what russia has done to us. but i guess the western world, first of all, there's protection of property rights. you can't really get around them so easily. and you would be setting a precedent for other countries that could affect globally the financial architecture, which people are worried about. well, just how much help with $300 billion from those assets be to your war effort? well, obviously, these are immense sums and you have to remember are several — they're about twice as big as our gdp annually.

so, they would make a big difference if we would at least be able to get a handle on some of that. alexander, i'mjust wondering what president zelensky and you, as part of his government, make of all the elections coming up this year, especially in the us, and the fact that they could lead to a big change in attitude towards helping ukraine pay for the war? certainly, that is a concern for us, and who knows what they will say when they come to power? if they come to power, they might change their views. hopefully, if that were to happen. but i always say we need to adapt and devise plans, plan b, plan c, and that's what we're doing. 0ur government is working on increasing production of military equipment, shall we need it, and we're obviously concerned with western powers being less inclined to support us going forward. well, let's talk about the agricultural sector. we know worth billions to your economy, certainly before the war.

and because of the wheat and the sunflower oil — amongst other things — that you export, and we know they're so important to the rest of the world. alexander, what sort of state is the agricultural sector in the moment? 0bviously, we've seen losses. we've seen a lot of territories occupied. those have also been used for agricultural production, so that is a loss for now. hopefully, we'll be able to recoup it. but who knows, so far. but we've seen some good developments and again, they have to do with the military side primarily. which is able we were able to unlock the blockade that russia imposed on us. long story short, if you look at numbers, injanuary 2024, we've around 7.3 million tonnes of food commodities exported. 60% of that i think went to the cepa. we're back to pre—war levels when it comes to sea trade almost and grain exports. alexander, let me end on this, because one thing all economies need to function is people.

but correct me if i'm wrong with these numbers but something like 4.9 million ukrainians are displaced within the country. another 5.9 million have fled to other parts of europe. is that the biggest problem, alexander, when it comes to rebuilding? i mean, how do you get them all back? you're absolutely right but, fundamentally, this is a huge shock to the labour market. a lot of our workers are gone, a lot of our production and production capccity affected through that. how will we get these people back? it is fundamental that we have a victory in the war. ultimately, we also need to make sure that ukraine is notjust peaceful, but also prosperous and attractive for these people, so we need to make sure, really, that ukraine, at that point, will be clearly on its path towards european integration, clearly on a reform footing, structural reform footing, clearly implementing rule of law, making sure it covers all of its illnesses that have

been well known before the war as well and, obviously, that is also peaceful. that will obviously, hopefully, convince a lot of our refugees that actually, most opportunities they can get — or the most attractive opportunities that they have — are actually to come back and participate in that recovery in the construction of their country. well, on that point, alexander rodnyansky, economic adviser to ukraine's president zelensky, a real pleasure, as always, having you on the show. best of luck with everything and we'll talk to you soon. thank you very much, aaron. well, that's it for this week's show. i hope you enjoyed it. don't forget, you can keep up with the latest on the global economy on the bbc news website and the smartphone app. you can also follow me on x. x me! i'll x you back! you can get me at bbc aaron. thanks for watching. i'll see you soon. bye— bye. hello there. low pressure has been dominating our weather picture this weekend and on saturday, we had widespread showers around — the vast majority

of them coming through as rain. we did see some snow return to parts of cumbria and also some snowfall from somerset through the west midlands and into parts of wales as well. quite localised snowfall but a covering in places. cold air, then, firmly in place at the moment with our area of low pressure spiralling around with further showers gradually moving their way northwards for the time being. again, the vast majority of these are coming through as rain. a little bit of sleet or snow mixed in across some of the higher parts of dumfries and galloway and over the next few hours, we'll also see a bit of snow across higher parts of the grampians. otherwise, any showers will come through as rain. it will then get cold with clearing skies across wales, the middle and southern counties of england. the lowest temperature about —2, so some frost and a few icy stretches to watch out for sunday morning. a few mist and fog patches around as well. by and large, though, a decent kind of day coming up on sunday. there will be some high cloud affecting eastern parts of both

scotland and england. the best of the sunshine will be further west with just one or two showers running through across parts of western scotland, northern ireland, wales and the south—west of england. but even here, the showers will be pretty well spaced, so you've got a decent chance of having a dry day. through sunday evening and sunday night—time, we'll start to see the next weather system approaching and that will be bringing more rain our way into monday. so, the rain making inroads in across parts of south west england and wales pretty quickly monday morning. after a dry and bright start in northern ireland, it turns wet here through monday afternoon. we hang on to some brighter weather for scotland and north—east england — that's where the best of the sunny spells will be. temperatures continue to be a little bit below average for this time of the year with highs between 9 and 11 degrees celsius. deeper into next week, areas of low pressure in the atlantic will continue to threaten outbreaks of rain in the west. high pressure close to the near continent will keep the north and east largely dry, so we'll see some changes in the weather from place to place. western areas likely to see the heaviest of the rain, particularly towards wales and south west england. the driest, brightest weather is likely to be across more

eastern parts of the uk as we go through the week ahead. that's your latest weather. bye for now. good morning. welcome to breakfast, with ben thompson and rachel burden. 0ur headlines today: no easy path to tax cuts — a warning from the chancellor as he makes the final preparations for this week's budget. renewed hopes for a temporary ceasefire between israel and hamas, as delegations from both sides are due to meet mediators in egypt today.

rail fares increase by nearly 5% in england and wales, despite a year of delays and cancellations for commuters. in sport, it was a golden night for great britain in glasgow, with two gold medals at the world athletics indoor championships. local lad josh kerr smashed the 3,000 metres, before molly caudery took first in the women's pole vault. and the winner is... it's raye! and it was a record—breaking night for singer—songwriter raye, as she takes home six brit awards including best artist and best album. all i ever wanted to be was an artist — all i ever wanted to be was an artist and _ all i ever wanted to be was an artist. and now i'm an artist with an album — artist. and now i'm an artist with an album of— artist. and now i'm an artist with an album of the year! and weatherwise, it's a cold and frosty start to sunday, but overall, fewer showers today and perhaps feeling a bit less chilli this afternoon. i'll have the full

details here on breakfast.