welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. ukraine's dramatic push into russian territory in the kursk region is a severe embarrassment for vladimir putin, but will it change the dynamic in the wider war? in part, that depends on the russian response. will moscow divert resources away from its grinding offensive in eastern ukraine? it also depends on how kyiv�*s western allies react. will they decisively back zelensky�*s gamble or put caution first? well, my guest is latvia's defence minister, andris spruds. with the stakes rising, what can ukraine expect from its friends? andris spruds, welcome to hardtalk.

thank you for having me. it is a pleasure to have you. now you are defence minister in a baltic nation, which is one of ukraine's strongest supporters inside the eu and nato. so what do you make of ukraine's risky gambit, this offensive inside russian territory? it was just recently in ukraine, and what i see in ukraine, it's a resolve. it's a determination. it's a resilience. it's a willingness also to take initiative. and what we've seen right now is that ukraine is in a position to take this initiative, that it shows also that the war,

of course, is a war of wills, the war of the mindsets. and here, we can see that ukraine also shows and proves that russia has its vulnerabilities. but did you, in kyiv, also get a sense of deep ukrainian frustration with its allies? because it's become clear in the last couple of weeks that ukraine didn't feel able to share any information about this surprise offensive with its closest allies. there was a sense, i think, in ukraine, that if they told people such as yourself — inside nato, inside the eu — the advice might be, "don't do it." ukraine has essentially decided to go it alone. ukraine has a strong partnership with nato and eu allies. we have a mutual support to each other in many ways... but you clearly were not informed, any of you defence ministers, about what was forthcoming. well, of course, some operations should be kept in secret as well. but again, what we've seen, we've seen this close

cooperation between us. there is absolutely appreciation also from ukrainian side, what we've done and what we've supplied. but at the same time, of course, things could have gone faster, things could have gone on a larger scale. this is also what latvia, what baltic countries have advocated for. butjust to stick for a moment longer with this offensive. you say you are behind it, you support it. but what's the strategy? you know, what do you think the medium—to—longer—term plan is for this particular territorial incursion? well, wars are about wars of will. wars about taking initiative. and also, as i said previously, ukraine has proven that it has its capabilities, it has its resolve. no, i get that. i mean, taking the initiative... it also showed exactly that russia has its vulnerabilities. taking the initiative has happened. yes. it clearly took the russians by surprise. absolutely.

it clearly embarrassed putin. the question going forward is — what happens now? general syrskyi, commander of ukrainian forces, say they now control more than 1,300 square kilometres of russian territory. they've extended the iooo—kilometre front line even further, and therefore stretched their own resources even further. do you believe ukraine intends to hold this territory? i guess when we discuss military operations, it's not for public discussions what exactly are the specifics of the operation. of course, again, sort of what we've seen that the war has been brought, in many ways, back to the aggressor country. aggressor country also have to stretch its lines and to think how to defend and protect its border as well. of course, ukraine has the full right to do it because it is fighting war of freedom and fighting the war of self—defence. so that's why bringing the war also back to aggressor country, i think this absolutely is taking initiative. yes, there are specifics. there are already sort of more operational issues how to continue the whole operation, but i am absolutely sure that ukrainians know how to do it. and once more, it's also about the mindset.

it's also about showing what russians are, and russians, i think they demonstrate a lot of vulnerabilities, political ones, military vulnerabilities. and i think this is also the moral failure for russia in war in general what they started, but also actually here in kursk region. the ukrainians claim there is some evidence that troops are being...russian troops are being diverted to kursk. independent analysts don't see that. do you? well, i think that russia needs somehow to try to regain those territories, which means also they will have to do with those scarce resources how to do it. soi... but you're a defence minister. you're privy to intelligence. are you seeing signs that russia is diverting troops and resources from that donbas front to kursk? well, i guess i will not go into the intelligence details, but what we can see is that this is a real trouble for russia. it's a real problem for russia. and, of course, every day is decisive. every day is also challenging

for ukrainian side, but also for russian side. and i think this just added additional dimension of vulnerability and challenge to russian side. so i think they certainly will have to contemplate what to do with this and either divert on more a wider scale or perhaps on some other scale. in the last few days, you've been in kyiv, you've had direct talks with rustem umerov, the ukrainian defence minister. yes. how do you explain to him that, still, key supporters of ukraine in the west, led by the united states, are putting constraints on the way that their weapons are used by ukrainians�* military force, in particular long—range missiles, which the americans — and some others, as well — will not allow to be used against targets deep inside russia. i can say that latvian position, of course, is very clear that

ukrainians could and should use those weapons in self—defence against the russians, and also on russian territory, on russian territory which is aggressor territory. and that's why, of course... but, with respect, latvia doesn't provide the missiles which could strike deep inside russia. well, latvia... we are talking about the americans. we're talking about the british, the french and, of course, the germans, who won't even give their taurus long—range missiles to the ukrainians. but those key countries, as yet, have not lifted constraints upon use of their long—range missiles. well... what do you say to the ukrainians when they say, "we have to get this authorisation"? absolutely, what we say to ukrainians is, first of all, not only say we supply ukrainians with equipment and also with drones, which have reach as well. at the same time, of course, what we say that we will do all our best also to convince our partners, to advocate that exactly — that all weaponry, all equipment could and should be used also against aggressor country and territory in self—defence of ukraine. and on that basis, minister, i have to be frank with you — you are failing.

your persuasive efforts are not working with your allies, in particular the americans. why not? no, i don't think so that we are failing. of course, it's a continuous process. we have to take into account also some domestic constraints, but at the same time, if you look at what has been done so far, again, the glass is half empty or glass is half full. i would say glass is half full. yes, we advocate more and faster. we advocate that actually countries which follow also the baltic and latvian lead, 0.25% from our gdp are going to ukraine in military support, which means that if each of the nato countries would provide 0.25% of gdp, it would mean 135 billion euros a year of military support. so far, we provided around 120 billion euros for 2.5 years. so that's why, of course, the funding, the financial resources are crucial, but it's not only about the funding. it's also about specific type of equipment which should be used, and we'll be continuously advocating this. so i don't believe we are failing. right, but it's important that i tease this out with you because you're an insider in some of these key discussions

inside nato in particular. help me here. why is it, for example, that the us national security advisor, jake sullivan, seems to be so preoccupied with the threat of escalation and russia's red lines? to quote zelenskyjust the other day, after the kursk operation began, he said, "this shows that russia's red lines are illusory. "they have crumbled." but that's not the way it's seen in washington. you help me. why is that? yeah, but let's face it, the us has been indispensable within nato, in strengthening security generally in eastern flank in nato, but also in supporting ukraine. without us support, of course, it would be much more difficult. but why is it that ukraine...? so us has provided a lot of weapons... yeah, ok, but why is it that ukraine has become more and more convinced that people like jake sullivan don't want ukraine to lose this war,

but they actually don't want ukraine to go out and outright win this war? well, of course, there are different approaches, and there is again domestic debate. but at the same time, for latvia, it's very clear we have to support ukraine until there is inflicted strategic defeat on russia in ukraine. so that's why, again, yes, there is a permanent dialogue among ourselves, so how things should be done. and, of course, we are doing all our best to convince our partners that all weaponry must be provided and it could be used also on the territory of aggressor country. and this will continue. you know, as a latvian, you know russia well. yes. and you're a neighbour of russia. absolutely. you have a long history with russia and the soviet union. when sergei lavrov, in the last couple of days,

once again ignites a discussion about russia's nuclear strategy by saying that in the light of ukraine pleading with western nations to allow it to use long—range missiles on targets deep inside russia, to quote lavrov, "russia must again adapt and review its nuclear strategy." does that have you, as a neighbour of russia, deeply worried? well, i think we've been living next to russia for decades, if not for centuries. so it means that we've been ready for different kinds of scenarios. and there is nothing new in rhetoric, in blackmailing from russian side. so i don't think so that we should focus or over—focus on russian rhetoric, on russian blackmail. we should speak from positions of strength. we should speak and act from positions of strength. this is what latvia, also baltic countries and nato have been doing already for four years, and also during the last two years. i think there has certainly been a change of mindset... that's an interesting phrase... ..among allies. yeah, positions of strength, you say, amongst allies. the problem you've got is that your allies are divided. if you look both inside nato

and inside the eu, there are deep divisions about strategy on the russia—ukraine war. that's what russia would like to, of course, promote, some of the cracks within the alliance. oh, come on, minister. it's notjust russia promoting it, it's just basic facts. no, it's not. you know, the president of the eu council right now is viktor 0rban, who says the war must end, it's counterproductive, the ceasefire must happen on the current front lines. and he says we must stop sending arms to ukraine. so there are some countries which position we might be critical of. at the same time, if you look on a wider strategic perspective, there is clear, common, shared threat assessment. russia has been included in the strategic concept of nato as a threat to nato. there has been a clear adaptation of nato regional plans. there is a clear understanding that we should support ukraine. so i think also within european union, the 14 sanctions packages have been adopted unanimously. so, yes, of course, sometimes we differ on some of the details. yes, some of the countries, as i said, whose position we might

be also critical of. but at the same time, on a more strategic level, we are certainly on the same page and... are you? whenjoe biden said of nato membership very recently, "peace," when it comes to ukraine, "does not mean nato membership. "it means we will have a relationship "with the ukrainians like we do with other countries, "where we supply them weapons so they can defend "themselves in the future." but he said, "i do not support the �*nato—ization�* of ukraine." well, that could be a specific time when it was expressed in such a way, but again, if you look in a longer—term perspective, if you look also for the nato summits and also for us support. as i mentioned previously, us support has been indispensable. and during the nato summits, it was clearly that... well, there was a lot of rhetoric. it was stated and not only stated... no, it's notjust about rhetoric. the recent washington summit, also under leadership of president biden,

that there is irreversible.... ..irreversibility of the ukrainians�* path to the nato membership. but no timeline. yes, of course, again, so there is a very clear formula when conditions allow, when allies agree. it's 32 members of nato. yes, there is internal debate as well, but again, sort of their words of irreversibility have been also strengthened by specific practical actions on establishing the security assistance and training mission to ukraine, on providing sort of all the measures to strengthen interoperability with ukrainian military. so they're also very practical steps how we move forward, also with allocating specific funding for ukraine... so let's take this from the multilateral to the internal and domestic inside latvia now. is your country on a war footing as we speak today with regard to russia? we are defensively ready for all kind of scenarios. we are facing hybrid war activities right now,

and we've been ready for those hybrid war activities already for years, as i mentioned previously. at the same time, of course, we should be ready to defend our country today. but once more, i must remind ourselves that — and all the viewers as well — that, of course, latvia's part of nato, which means that also we have the presence of nato military forces in latvia. so it's also about collective defence alliance together defending... no, i understand that, but i'm just very interested in the sort of psychology of your own nation now. i mean, you're a people of 1.8 million. you're a relatively tiny nation compared with the size of russia next door, and yet you're doing some pretty extraordinary things. you talk about you developing a drone wall between you and russia. yes. you are literally digging anti—tank

ditches and trenches along your border and talking about putting dragon's teeth on the border. you have, i'm told — and you tell me if i'm wrong — you've told your own citizens to convert their basements into air raid shelters because a russian attack could come at any moment. what is this doing to the psychology of your own people? i think it's doing that we should not panic, that we should be ready for all kind of scenarios... isn't this a form of panic? no, not, vice versa. it's exactly the preparing ourselves for the worst—case scenario. and by preparing ourselves mentally for worst—case scenario, actually we are precluding that kind of scenario. so we show that we are ready to invest strategically, politically and also financially. latvia is one of the six countries which this year already spends more than 3% of our gdp for the military expenditure. i must remind again our viewers that back in 1980s, during cold war years, the average expenditure in nato alliance was 3.5%. now it's around 2%. but again, so there is a general increase among also the eu partners, or european partners, in nato alliance. but, of course, latvia understands, being on the front—line, we should show example also how to lead, how to also demonstrate all those necessary activities which should be implemented. yes, we are strengthening our border.

we are reintroducing conscription. we are building a drone army. we are taking the practices and sort of experiences from our ukrainian allies and partners. and, of course, we realise that, yes, we live next to aggressor country. how long can latvia continue with this sort of war footing and not damage your own economy, future investment plans and, indeed, perhaps the stress and strain that you're putting on your own citizenry? how long is it sustainable? it must be sustained for a long time, because we are living next to russia, which has proven to be aggressor country. in russia, ever since... you know, putin, in february, said he had no intention of sending any russian force to invade poland, the baltic states.

he ruled it out, said it was ridiculous. i guess he said the same words just a few hours before he invaded ukraine, so that's why his words are not absolutely ta ken seriously. so... and, again, sort of coming back to latvia, 3% — this is important that we should show this example, and it's also the fair share of spending. but, again, sort of to implement all those activities, yes, we have to develop our defence capability because investing in defence, it's investing in our security. and by investing in our security, it means that also we are investing in a secure place also for investments and economy. and, again, coming back to the cold war years — more than 3% — it was average, so it was sustainable. it also proved economies can prosper and develop, and we believe that absolutely these things go hand in hand. and in russia, we must remind ourselves everything might change in five years, but nothing changes in 100 years. so it is expansionist, imperialistic, and it has proven itself, regardless of what putin is saying, with its aggressiveness in ukraine. if you feel so strongly about that — you say that hybrid warfare is already under way from the russian side,

you say that your entire country, society, people must be ready for what comes next... yes. ..how dangerous is it that there are clearly divisions inside latvia, not least because almost 25% of your own people are ethnic russians? and there are clearly latvians who are not ethnic russians who regard that population as some sort of internal threat. it's an ongoing process how to address some of the challenges inside of the countries...in the country, of course... let me be very blunt with you. there's a nationalist politician in your parliament, janis dombrava, who describes much of the ethnic russian population in your country as a "fifth column". well, let's be clear, there are russian—speaking minorities, not minority. so which means that there is diversity of russians. there are loyal russians, russians who know the language, russians who are fully integrated into society. of course, there are some...

that language about a fifth column, you know, we know that so many ethnic russians moved into latvia during the period of soviet rule. they were sent there as workers. many of them have chosen to integrate, but many of them still speak russian as theirfirst language. do you personally, as minister of defence, believe that you have ethnic russian fifth columnists inside your country? well, there are russians who unfortunately still have relics of the past legacy of the soviet empire, and they partly might even be mentally living in, let us say, in the past. mentally living in the past? some, some of them. and i would say that it is a minority among russian—speaking population. then, of course, there are russians who are still also intoxicated by russian propaganda, which once more underlines how important the context of hybrid warfare, that you also protect your information space... now, how far do you go in addressing this? ..that you deal with disinformation campaigns again against your society, and this is one of the lessons.

right, minister, if you are worried, as you clearly are, about the mindset of some of your own ethnic russian population inside latvia, how far would you go in addressing that? to go back to the nationalist, mr dombrava, he says, "we can keep those who want to integrate, "but those who are waiting for the return "of the soviet union, they should leave." he's talking about some sort of deportation programme. no, there are no deportation programmes. of course, there is a permanent dialogue with latvian society, latvia society, explaining things which should be done and why state and why government is doing. and there is absolute support for those activities, how we strengthen external security and internal security. yes, of course, as i said, there are people whose minds will be difficult to change... but, you know, russians, they listen to conversations like this, and if they hear people like you suggesting there is a problem with some of the ethnic russians on your territory, that for many people in moscow becomes a reason

to contemplate intervention. no, i don't think so. i mean, again, there could be any reason to contemplate some kind of activities. so, again, there could be excuses for russian side. and first of all, i think the basis and cause is imperialistic nature of russian regime and putin's regime. so that's why, of course, we should do our homework. latvian government, latvian state has done a lot to have a dialogue to integrate a russian—speaking society, or russian—speaking minority or minorities. but, of course, i mean, this is quite a long process as well. and we are doing our best that majority of russians also absolutely are fully integrated. yes, sometimes some of those relics of the past, some legacies of the past, they remain.

all right. and it means once more how important it is to have this information space kept secure and, in a sense, sort of coordinated. a final thought. you, as defence minister, have many conversations with your american counterpart on the issue of ukraine. you know deep uncertainty hangs over washington politics right now. trump or harris, we don't know who's going to win the next election. but if it's trump — given what he's said about ukraine, given what his vice presidential pick, jd vance, said of ukraine in 2022, where he said, "i don't really care what happens to ukraine "one way or another" — how worried are you about the prospect of donald trump back in the white house? us is indispensable for nato solidarity and unity. us is indispensable for support and security also of the eastern flank, including baltics and latvia. we've absolutely been cooperating closely with us for years, and we highly appreciate that support. and i can also underline we've been cooperating

with different us administrations. yes, some of those statements, they are concerning, they are worrying us. but at the same time, again, these, we also might take into account, are being expressed in the context of domestic political dynamic in a political campaign. at the same time, i think we are ready to work with any administration, and we've done it in the past and it has been very successful. and we appreciate that mutual cooperation and support. andris spruds, we have to end there. thank you very much forjoining me on hardtalk. thank you for having me. thank you so much. hello there. despite a few sharp showers in the far north of scotland, thursday was a perfect late summer's day. in fact, quite a rarity for august because we had sunshine topping and tailing the country. yes, it was glorious at times. now, it's likely that we're going to keep that quiet theme for the next few days, despite a little bit of early morning mist and fog around exposed west coasts, an the whole, there'll be a lot of sunshine to start the day on friday. cloud will develop as we go through the afternoon, but nevertheless the temperatures will start to pick up quite nicely.

we're looking at 15—19 degrees in scotland, maybe highs of 2a degrees across south—east england — that's 75 fahrenheit. high pressure stays with us into the start of the weekend. it is starting to pull its way north and east, and that will allow more of an easterly flow and this weak weather front could trigger a few sharp showers. so a little more cloud across southern england and a brisk easterly wind making it feel a little fresher on exposed coast. so west will be best for sunshine and despite that brisk westerly wind — which will be noticeable — in some shelter, it will still feel quite pleasant. so for western scotland we could see highs possibly of 22 degrees, that's going to be a similar value to the london area, with the cloud and the risk of a few isolated showers. on to sunday — our area of high pressure continues to move towards norway, and that's going to allow the wind direction to change once again, this time more to a south—easterly. so that will tap into some very warm air across the near continent, so it will feel increasingly hot and humid and much of eastern england seeing more sunshine

and more warmth on sunday. there will be some cloud further west, but later on in the day that humidity could trigger a few sharp, thundery downpours into the south—east. temperatures, though, likely to peak at 26 celsius. so if you've got plans for sunday evening across southern england, keep abreast of the forecast, the subject potential for change. and then as we go into next week, it looks likely that low pressure will start to centre itself to the far north and west. a lot of uncertainty for the detail, but it does look likely that this settled story that we've been singing for the last couple of days will change to something a little bit more unsettled.

welcome to newsday, i'm steve lai reporting live from singapore. the headlines. kamala harris, gives herfirst tv interview, since becoming the democratic nominee, for the white house. the most important and significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values do not change. there's to be a pause in the fighting in gaza, to allow the vaccination of thousands of children, against polio. the uk government considers banning smoking in pub gardens

and outdoor restaurants, as part of a drive to phase out tobacco. and — passengers on a round—the—world cruise left stranded in belfast for three months after their voyage was beset by delays. we start newsday in the united states and a big moment for vice president kamala harris. the democratic presidential nominee's given her first major tv interview, since replacing joe biden, in the race for the white house. but appearing alongside her running mate, tim walz, she's been attacked for not giving a solo interview, with republicans claiming she's dodging scrutiny. 0ur north america editor sarah smith has the latest from washington. hi! 0n the road — kamala harris is crisscrossing the key state of georgia.

hi!