presidential election, winning another six years in office. most of the ballots have now been counted, with around three quarters backing mr putin. the president has hailed his victory as approval of his policies. at a victory rally in moscow, he also dismisses the suggestion his country is behind the poisoning of a former spy and his daughter in the uk. earlier britain's foreign secretary, borisjohnson, accused russia of making and stockpiling the nerve agent used in the attack. scientists say they have achieved a breakthrough in the treatment of multiple sclerosis, after the results of an international trial involving stem cell transplants. the study showed an improvement in symptoms, and the progress of the neurological condition halted. now on bbc news, it is dateline london. hello and a very warm

welcome to dateline london. i'm carrie gracie. this week we devote our attention to russia. russia abroad — after what the uk and its allies called the first offensive use of a nerve agent in europe since the second world war. and russia at home — as a presidential election is expected to deliver vladimir putin another six years in the kremlin. my guests this week: the former observer writer now political commentator adam raphael. jef mcallister, the american broadcaster, formerly the head of time magazine's london bureau. italian journalist and film maker annalisa piras, and russian political commentator, and former kremlin advisor, alexander nekrassov. welcome to you all. let's start by discussing how the british government is handling the events of the last few days, how do you think theresa may is doing?

i think she's doing pretty well, she was home secretary and this is an area she is familiar with. it is almost proforma, what she has been doing. sling out a few russian spies, you sound tough. she carried the house of commons with her, i think she's done her political credibility quite a lot of good. and on the other hand the opposition leader, jeremy corbyn has not done well. did not get the mood of the house or the nation. she has come out well, but the question is can she then deliver on what she is saying? she will be tough... we will come back to that in a moment but first let's get everyone‘s take? well i don't agree with adam simply because the gravity of what happened, in my mind and in the mind ofa lot of observers, should have warranted a much tougher response. expelling 23 spies or diplomats is not on the same level of response

to what looks like a deliberate attempt to humiliate britain before the russian elections. when you say deliberate attempt, that suggests you believe the british governments version of events that this was ordered by the russian state and possibly by the president himself? well, britain, france, germany and the united states have issued a joint statement saying they believe russia is behind this attack, chemical attack, on british soil. if that is the case then expelling 23 diplomats does not look to me as an adequate response. jef, the us has its own issues with russia at the moment, but as you observe events in london how do you think theresa may has handled it? how hasjeremy corbyn handled it? i think if this is the last of it from theresa may it is not enough

in political terms, in global political terms. if there are going to be interesting uses of chemical agents in russia by british agents or other kinds of complex sanctions, perhaps on russian oligarch money, or cyber attacks, or other kinds of things which might be in the same league, or doing something more serious then i think ok, let's see. it takes a while to put those things in place and she cannot do it all in the first day. it's a traditional retaliation to expel diplomats. i think it is fine enough for now, she's not a particularly strong prime minister. slightly stronger looking, but i thinkjeremy corbyn got it wrong and it's bad for him. it's almost a disqualification for a prime minister, potential prime minister to be that soft on someone who is attacking you. i think this will come back to haunt him. alexander, i suppose you are one step further back, which is questioning the conviction

of the british government that the russian state is behind this? first of all i think theresa may allowed herself to be dragged into this anti—russian stance by the media, because the media started its attack practically at once. she did not allow to give enough time for investigation to come up with some solid evidence. "highly likely" was the phrase about russian involvement, that does not sound convincing. i think her problem is that she is being basically put in an impossible position. there is nothing much she can do to russia. if she attacks the oligarchs and the money the russians will applaud. they don't like the oligarchs, they don't like the money being kept in london, so that's not working. whatever happens, whatever she says russian gas will continue to heat british homes. big companies will make billions in russia, bp, shell. nothing will change in this sense.

so does she really have anything she can throw at vladimir putin? i think the hype created before her statement, people thought she was going to say something and she didn't — and she couldn't. that's the problem i think theresa may has. i think that is a fair point, one of the points of two previous british ambassadors is that you never get into a pissing match with a skunk and the fact is we are involved with a... careful of the language. the options open to britain, the really tough options would be really difficult for this country to do. so you have to go through these things, you have to try and get your allies behind you. we need... without international corporation there is absolutely no way we can take the really tough actions that would stop russia in its tracks. i personally would favour trying to get fifa and get britain out of the world cup, but you could not really do that without international corporation because britain alone

withdrawing would not be enough. we have got to show putin and his thugs what the west means about this and to do that you need a coherent response, i am sceptical if that would come. obviously nato have said, the uk got the us, france and germany in thatjoint statement a couple of days back, and nato said that russia is underestimating the resolve of allies and their support for the uk — you disagree? warm words are one thing. actual actions, taking physical actions against the russian state and its interests are quite another. for instance huge amounts of russian debt are washed through the british, london financial markets. we would never dare do anything about it because it would be so damaging to the economy which is why i sadly agree, on the single point alone,

with alexander that actually we are getting a lot of words but unfortunately... they talk over each other. you use the language putin and his thugs, this is bad manners. you are a journalist and you should not talk like a street thug yourself, so please forget this terminology. terminology aside, do you disagree? also i think the british media, the language is unacceptable. putin the thug and so on. it is unacceptable. in russia no newspaper would dare call theresa may this word, because there is a certain level of communication and you don't step over it. the russian media said it was a good thing to kill a traitor, so that's also a difference. there are no words used, nobody in russia is gloating that people were attacked and nearly dead or whatever happened to them, this is a very false assumption that russians are cheering a chemical

attack happened in britain. i want to come back to russian response in a second but let's stick with the allies, you were saying theresa may should have done more, been stronger. adam is setting out the limitations on that. what do you think the british government could and should have done? something that a lot of reports are kind of examining is how britain could really hit russians where it hurts. money. there is a lot of russian money, a lot of russian investment in london. it would be a good thing... adam says they would not because it's too essential to the british economy. yes but then there are moments in which — take brexit, in which the national interest and the economy have come after other considerations. the moment there is an attack... i would have to say some people would disagree and that economic prospects under brexit

will be fine, but go on. what ijust wanted to point out was if britain is under attack, a nerve agent used on british streets, is that more important or less important than economic interest? 0k, more for the uk to do, but what about the allies? that was the other point adam was making, everyone in europe needs to step up and support, everyone needs to step up and rally the wagons? there are views on the continent that actually what happened in salisbury is the continuation of a strategy from russia in dividing britain from its allies. the reactions have been very lukewarm, and this is for two reasons. one, that putin is on the rise in europe. there is a lot of sympathy, especially in the new insurgent political forces in italy but not only, in greece, austria and other countries, a lot of sympathy for

what putin stands for. explain that momentarily? it's a combination of the outcome of years in which putin has been supporting also financially certain new political forces in europe. in italy the northern league. the 5—star movement. in france, marine le pen. they have been supported by russian money. they have also been supported in other ways. so that is coming to fruition when these political forces are coming closer to power. but there is also a problem with european dependence on russian trade and energy. there is little appetite in europe for more sanctions, but also in germany, not only in those countries i mentioned. coming to the us position on this, these are circumstances in which normally you would expect a us president to weigh

in with a firmly ensconced secretary of state and get all their ducks in a row and be firmly showing leadership on the european continent through nato. in the same way that i think the rise of putin in europe is the result of a long—term and intelligent strategy of finding divisions and expanding them, putin has done extremely well in his political choices in the united states. i don't say he's the only reason donald trump is president but he certainly contributed, he tried to contribute through the hacking of the e—mails, all of the internet research agency subversion that robert mueller has very carefully detailed. this is not made up, this is not a story. this is not necessarilyjust to get trump elected, but i think that was a jackpot, it was good to cause division and discord and he's got it. a president who is so embarrassed at the thought that he is going

to be accused of having gotten to the presidency through putin's interventions that he denies putin has anything to do with anything. he is continually downplaying evidence of putin's malign activities both in the united states and abroad. and he said a little bit this week, he is sticking by his ally in this funny trump way where he veers around and finds somebody to support week to week. but the long—term application of power, which is what you need when you run a complex alliance, is absent, and it's having its effects. because the allies cannot turn to the united states. it means against the notion that i am strong and i'm going to win and do fine and make life tough for you, you cannot stop it becvause there is no war of ideas coming back from washington or the west, except that we are better in the long run and we will win. it actually — i am concerned. alexander you are shaking your head. i do not agree with this. it is signalling that the cia and other agencies are incompetent fools.

the cia has a budget of 44 billion per year which is more than, or roughly the same as russia. all you people forget one thing, the west was listening and hacking into russia, the nsa scandal, the brits as well. to say russia is running rings around all these huge intelligence services is such rubbish. you have to understand how the system works. these intelligence agencies in the west have been interfering in russia for so long that we have seen them pull off a coup in kiev, in ukraine in 2014. that was financed and organised by the west. the legitimate government fell. so the russians slept through it and did not do anything. so, obviously, ukraine, crimea, is it annexation, reunification,

that's a whole big topic we don't have time for. no, i am talking about the intelligence services and the fact these poor americans, poor germans, poor brits, are watching them all... excuse me, let me finish my point. the russians run rings around them. you do not think it is true? it's impossible, because the same services in the west are doing exactly the same thing. is there any part of these arguments that you recognise and resonate for you about the effectiveness of either the rise of putin in europe or... it is all made up because the war is going on between two sides and the western intelligence agencies are intervening now as we speak into the russian election, trying to tip... that must be terrifying for mr putin with his 80% chance... i'm just explaining to you that things don't work like that.

you made your point very well, but when we are talking about form, the trouble is and why you think we are being unfair to poor russia, is that russia has form in this area. georgi markov was assassinated by bulgarian, financed by the kgb. we had litvinenko in 2006 and we have now had this... outrageous attack in salisbury... let's not go with history, it is not in your favour... you invaded iraq, killed a million people... libya, you destroyed... alexander! no, you have said it. history is over, and we are going to talk about the future, which is a russian election. you mentioned it, let's go to it now, because one thing we know

about all of this is that putin's russia is not going away. russia heads to the polls to choose a president and although there are a handful of other candidates, no—one expects them to get many votes against putin. so, alexander, first, i would like to ask you on this election, is the timing a coincidence? a nerve agent attack on the otherwise sleepy streets of a cathedral city in provincial england, and a russian election upcoming? it damages putin's and russia's image. and especially with the world cup coming up, it would be suicide for anyone in moscow and the kremlin to think it would benefit us. putin does not have a problem because he is popular. his opponents are not strong. so why would he suddenly think, "i need to get more votes for myself?" it doesn't work like this. you think it's no coincidence, but it is a troublemaker trying to undermine president putin

before his re—election? it undermines russia. let's take that around the table — coincidence or not? no, i don't think it's a coincidence, it's possible it is a botched operation, there's lots of things, we cannot be sure how this happened. i think it's likely, however, that because there was the call for a boycott... by the opposition leader who is barred from standing... yes, exactly. there is sensitivity to the image about the results of the election, turnout matters, speculation that playing the "the west is against us" card, which is very powerful for putin and has been for a long time and has deep historical roots in russian attitudes towards the world, the belief that nato is encircling, to do it in a very public way, in a way that also divides britain from europe and makes the brits look weak, this seems to me to be like a trifecta of success for him.

so, farfrom undermining putin, it underlines that it fits with his agenda? that's right, "i am strong and i am winning." all of this, there has always been a winning card to say the rest of the world is attacking us and failing. so whoever did it, they did it to help putin's re—election and to make him strong. there is no doubt. so you think it takes more people to the ballot and takes more people to make their cross in his box? it strengthens the idea that russia is at war with the west and the west is trying to take advantage of it, no doubt about that. it is nice to agree with alexander for a change. i think the timing of this was bizarre, it would not help putin and the question is to what extent was this activity within his control? i don't know that. i think russia is a fairly chaotic place. i think these agents are around there. i think there are a lot of people who might want to take vengeance. again, the same with

the litvinenko case, i know i have to go back on form, it is really unclear who within russia is masterminding it. it could be putin, but i agree with alexander — it's not in his interest at this time, just before an election, to stir this sort of thing up. and the other really interesting thing — if you want to kill someone there are many, many ways, this is notjust killing, this is a public demonstration of how russian traitors will be dealt with. just moving on to the rest of the election, alexander, many other issues in play here for russia — the economy is in a mess you would agree. what is this election actually about? i think this is about national security. because russians are very worried that, for example, in the ukraine, for the first time ever, nato troops are present. nato troops are present on the russian border. this has never been happening before, ever. so they are now a direct threat to russia. ukraine, with the loss of ukraine

from under russian influence, it's an absolute terrifying disaster for the country because of eight, nine million russians there and so on. civil war on your border, which can erupt into a bigger war. this is all national security. so i would say that president putin, at the moment, is a national security candidate, because everything else is secondary now. they have to protect themselves from nato, which is moving in, there is a very aggressive policy of the west generally against russia in asia. china is very worried as well, so they are cooperating with this. is that national security argument trumping the stagnant economy, is that convenient? or is that an accurate description of events? i think that's the card that putin likes to play is national security.

is that because the russian public are up for it? it works. i mean, 30% of russians thought it was a great power in the year 2000. 70% think it's a great power now. crimea, very successful politically, very popular. the annexation, or reunification as some see it. they are potent political tools, notjust in russia, but in america in some respects too. you can see the trump base, it's the appeal to animal instincts. the sense that things are going badly, but we are showing we can be tough and we will be great again somehow. there are serious economic issues, but i don't think anyone is talking about them and the russian system has no answer to them, because it is this very funny state capitalism system with circles of influence and oligarchy. there's some kind of capitalism, but the state institutions are weak, there will not be any reforms that can really make much difference.

i think there is good enough, oil prices are good enough, and people — if you look at the polling, it is all people who think things are really bad, and want change. young people are more concerned. moscow is very different, a lot of desire for change. but i think in the country people are willing to stick with it, it is a status quo election. i want to ask you to think about what do you imagine president putin wants to do with yet another term in office? another six years, what's his plan for it as far as you can guess? you have to accept that if you elect a kgb agent to become your president he is heavily influenced by his past. he is deeply suspicious of the west, he bitterly resents the break—up of the russian soviet union, and is feeding, i think quite naturally, i think genuinely, on these feelings that russia is a great country,

it is not being treated as an equal in the world economy. the trouble about that is he goes about it in absolutely the wrong way. this sort of act that he performed in salisbury or his henchmen or his colleagues or whoever did it, itjust betrays the thuggishness of russian society. that's the word that alexander wanted to ban. but it is the word i want to use... we've been there and we disagree. i don't understand, let's avoid this language... you say it on purpose to provoke me and i should sit here quietly? you made your point, you did not sit there quietly. what do you think the aim is for putin? his agenda is clear, in the past 18 years he has been in power. he wants to restore the greatness of the former soviet empire, the former russian influence in the world, and he's winning.

his idea, they call it political technology, is proving a winning idea because it's winning on all the kind of theatres in which he has pushed and pushed and he keeps pushing. nobody seems able, really, to do anything about it. so i think that is what he wants to do, especially in the former satellite countries of the soviet union. he wants to restore a firm grip. alexander, what do you think that will mean for people outside russia, putin's agenda? it seems there is a degree of unanimity about what that agenda is for the next six years. what do you think it will mean for people outside russia? first of all, i find it absolutely unbelievable that russia is supposedly fixing a grip on the neighbours when it lost

influence in every neighbouring country, every neighbouring country has lost to the influence of... alexander, we have got literally less than two minutes, so i just want you to say what do you think another six years of putin will mean for people outside russia? i think it will be a tough six years for russia, it will be very tough for putin to deal with the west. the west is irresponsible. what they are doing is pushing the world to conflict. i find this absolutely amazing. do you worry about the risk of conflict? yes, but i don't think it's because of the west is looking for it. the west can't figure out what it's looking for right now. you can make everything look like encirclement, if ukrainians actually in a democratic vote, wanted tojoin the european union, i don't think mr putin would think that's a great idea and we would have a war. so if you had to sum up in a word the coming six years of putin and the impact on the rest of europe, what would you say?

if he is able to continue along the path that he has, which has been very subtle, clever and crafty, i think the west's fundamental institutions are at risk, in so far even the american presidency has been subverted. 0k. one word? we need to take it seriously and to reform the world security situations. i mean, the fact that china and russia now in the un security council and they don't seem to be forces for the... we have to leave it there. thank you all so much for joining us, great discussion. that's it for dateline london for this week. we're back next week at the same time. you can of course comment on the programme on twitter @bbccarrie. goodbye. hello there.

snow and ice have affected much of the uk through the weekend. the met office have had an amber warning in force. we are still likely to see some significant disruption with up to 20 centimetres of snow for one or two might laces. the wind is still coming in from a north—easterly direction. they will not be quite as strong as they have been, but to start your morning, temperatures could be as low as —8 degrees across rural parts of scotland. a few snow showers across the south of england. most showers across the south of england. m ost pla ces showers across the south of england. most places look dry through the day. more cloud the eastern scotland, perhaps a light snow flurry. most places to look dry. temperatures low for this time of

year. it will turn mild through the week ahead. some rain later in the week. bye for now. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. i'm gavin grey. our top stories: vladimir putin wins another six years as president of russia. he has also dismissed britain's claims that russia was behind the poisoning of former spy sergei skripal. syria's president assad visits soldiers fighting rebels on the frontline in eastern ghouta. and it is a medical breakthrough, say scientists, after stem cell transplants are used to treat multiple sclerosis.