anti—immigration party, the sweden democrats, has gained nearly 18% of the vote. neither the ruling centre—left nor the opposition centre—right coalition has won enough support to form a government alone but both are unwilling to work with the democrats. north korea has been marking the 70th anniversary of its foundation with a series of big events. for the first time in five years it staged a ‘mass games‘ — a gymnastic display featuring thousands of entertainers. but the tone was more conciliatory than in previous years. russian and syrian jets are reported to have resumed intensive strikes in provinces of idlib and hama as government forces step up their assault on the rebels‘ last major stronghold. a russian—iranian—turkish summit on friday failed to agree a ceasefire. the united nations has warned of an imminent catastrophe. now on bbc news, it's hardtalk with stephen sackur. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur.

today i'm on the shores of beautiful lake como in northern italy. this is the venue for the annual discussion of global politics known as the ambrosetti forum. europe's politicians gathered here have one key challenge — what to do about vladimir putin's russia. my guest today is arkady dvorkovich. now, until four months ago, he was russia's deputy prime minister. what chance is there of averting the deepening hostility between russia and the west? arkady dvorkovich, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. you've left of the russian

governmentjust a few months ago. within that government, you were always seen as an advocate of a warmer, closer relationship between russia and the west, and yet what we see in so many different theatres, arenas, is a souring relationship. how frustrated are you by what your own government is doing? first, i'm a professional. i've been working for the state, for the country, for the government for 18 years in the civil service, it was quite a long period of time. there's some things we did that i think were a great success stories. some things we could do faster and better. and i think any government member can tell the same story. and certainly both sides,

both the russian side but also on our partners‘ side, we didn't do our best to have positive relationships coming to 2018. that‘s perhaps a bit of an understatement in the current climate. you now know the british government, led by theresa may, has been very explicit. the two names have been given to us. alexander petrov, ruslan boshirov, as the assassins who were sent by the moscow government to the united kingdom to kill... attempt to kill sergei skripal, the former russian agent, and his daughter. what on earth do you make of your own government, when you were sitting in government, ordering an assassination with a chemical weapon on uk soil? let me be clear about that, we believe the statement of such a respected person as theresa may is just a statement of a politician.

to make such a statement one should have proof. forgive me, the proofs was provided by the police, the british police and prosecutors. we haven‘t been provided with evidence, with proofs, with anything, besides the political statements we hear from the british. have you seen all the video evidence? the video is not the evidence of the crime. it is clear to us. the traces of novichok agent found in the hotel where these two russians were staying? a combination of videos, statements, things like that, the combination of things being put forward is not a court case completed and the case is not proved at all. i believe that our partners should do much better work explaining what the evidence is and to make real... to create real proofs. you‘re undoubtedly right that this

is not the court case, this is not a court of law. the only way to satisfactorily test whether the evidence would stand up in court is for the russians to hand over these two agents who work for the gru, russian military intelligence, hand them over and let them face a court in the united kingdom. i think you certainly... maybe not all the journalists, but you certainly know the legislation and the legislation says it, russia is not handing over any russian citizens. even to start the internal investigation in russia on any of the russian citizens, we have to be given the evidence for any criminal activity that any person could have all around the world. we are not going to go against our own law, against our own legislation, and doing things that are illegal. theresa may said it very plainly in the house of commons in london,

"it is almost certain that this operation by russian military intelligence, the gru, was approved at a senior level in the russian government, a russian government that you were sitting in at the time." how do you feel about that? i feel that this statement is false. false in what sense? we know the way the russian system works. there‘s no way these two individual agents could be sent to london on this mission without the kremlin authorising. the whole statement is just false. with not having any proof that people have been sent, so one should not say who sent these people. let‘s try and base our statements on evidence and proofs, not on political statements even made in the british parliament. i began by saying that you‘re

a man who, over a career, has made a point of trying to reach out to the west, to find common ground. correct. the truth is the us, france, germany, canada, members of the security council, they have all expressed their absolute support for the british position, and their outrage at what russia has done. that is the position of key members of the international community. this isn‘tjust the british government, this is so many governments. that‘s the political position of some members of the international community, not all members of the security council of the united nations. there are many countries around the world, and many countries will be willing to see the evidence for the statements made by our respected partners. a few short months ago, i was in moscow and foreign minister sergey lavrov told me that in some ways he believes relations between russia and the western powers today are worse than they were during the height of the cold war. i also think so.

when we were going through the cold war period, everyone understood the reality. we had one state that was governed by the communist party, and rules that are based on a completely different ideological system, and countries run under private capitalism rules and system. it was clear there was a huge gap between the two. if you take the ‘90s to the beginning of the 21st—century, ideologically there isn‘t such a gap. but the question is what is missing and the thing that is missing is trust. trust. trust is profoundly absent. just quickly, two other arenas where russia and the western powers are at loggerheads. first, syria. as we speak today here in italy,

president assad appears to be on the brink of launching a major military operation in idlib, the last region which is held by rebel forces. us envoy james jeffery says there are clear indications that assad is preparing to use chemical weapons. the russians are backing him. do you believe there is any justification for russia continuing to back a president who gasses his own people? i think we‘re coming to the same story as for the skripal case. some people have some evidence indicating something. well, we have a completely different evidence that other people are preparing provocation of the use of chemical weapons as a possible reason for counter action. that‘s the discrepancy in our analysis.

we warned the international community about the possibility of a chemical weapon could be used by one of the parties in the syrian battle. so we have to distinguish clearly the terrorists and the opposition in syria. we cannot stay quiet if the terrorist groups remain at a certain place. if other governments believe there are good terrorists and bad terrorists, that‘s not a good approach. we do not think it‘s a good approach. we should make it clear who are the bad guys and who are the good guys. let‘s just be brutally frank about this, you sat in a russian government as deputy prime minister, which, for years, has bombed syria. we know from independent human rights activists, including the observatory for human rights on the ground, that thousands of civilians have been killed as a result

of russian bombing. did you sit and do you sit today as a senior russian spokesman happy to accept that reality? it‘s not reality, it‘s a statement, again and again. the reality is that when there is a civil war, parties involved in the civil war kill each other. that‘s very bad, very unfortunate and it‘s not good for both people, especially for people of course, of course, for the country and for international society. you know about killings from all sides in the process in this war. one should not blame russia for the war in syria. it was not russia who started the war and we‘re not the ones to blame. i don‘t accept claims that the russian government is guilty of that. we‘ve talked about the skripal case, we‘ve talked about syria,

the other theatre of conflict right now with the western powers is ukraine. and you know full well, as former deputy prime minister, that ever since the russian annexation of crimea, there has been a programme of international sanctions, led by the european union and the united states. they‘ve been extraordinarily damaging to russia, and there‘s no sign any of those sanctions will be lifted as long as russia continues its current course in the ukraine conflict. do you regret... honestly, do you regret russia‘s decision to annex crimea and to meddle in the affairs of east ukraine? let‘s start with the first statement. you made three statements that we should talk about. the first statement involves the "annexation" of crimea. there was no annexation of crimea. the crimean people had decided in a referendum that they would like to join russia. the primary reason, primary cause

for that was that they were afraid, panicked that the ukrainian government will start the process that can lead to complete house... you can rewrite history if you want. but the military invasion of the territory of a sovereign nation, the first in europe since 1945. you asked me about the annexation decision, there was no annexation decision. i don‘t regret the decision to annex this region. people decided to do it and russia are accepted the wish of the crimean people. second... as a nominally pro—western senior russian politician, do you really believe that? it‘s not about pro—western or not pro—western, pro—people or not pro—people, the west in this case was against the wish of the people of crimea unfortunately.

i think that was wrong. the west decided to make the coup in ukraine, in kiev. it was initiated by the west, and that was a mistake. i regret this decision by the west. and while being quite friendly to the west, exceptionally friendly to the west, i regret the decision made by the west to initiate the coup in ukraine. just one more point on trust, do you think there can be any trust when the united states‘ top intelligence national security officials all say there is no doubt that russia has systematically interfered in the us democratic process, most notably in the 2016 presidential election. we have evidence of similar sorts of things have been done in france. there‘s been serious allegation of russian involvement in the brexit campaign. what is russia doing these covert operations? and how, in your view, can the west trust a country that‘s

conducting this kind of cyber operation? i think the statement doesn‘t make it easier to re—establish trust. that is for sure. they are indications of a lack of trust. a huge deficit of trust. but the statements are not things that we believe are true. they are just indications of either perceptions or political interests or the campaign against russia, leading to something else. earlier in the year, the us issued a sanctions watchlist. they‘ve targeted quite a number of individuals already. a report of the special task force to the congress based on the legislation that was adopted.

more than 200 names. you are named, or were named then, as number 49. yes, since the whole government was named, without any exception. they took the list of the government, they took maybe the phone book from the presidential administration to name everyone. they found a who is who list, maybe from forbes magazine, i don‘t know. the bottom line is... and they put the list together, that‘s what they did. maybe it‘s what they did, i don‘t know. but what i do know is that russia and its economy are suffering. whatever you say, all of the indications are that it‘s costing you a significant part of your growth, and let‘s face it, over recent years, the russian economy has not been growing at all. well, what about oil prices? could the economy with still such a dependence on oil and gas not be falling if oil prices drop by two times? we really believe it‘s because of sanctions. sanctions contributed to that. i% point is probably a right assessment of

the negative effect of sanctions. but our growth is now at 2% per year, the last couple of years, and it‘s a good growth rate. it‘s a bit low global average but very close to european... real wages in russia since 2013 have fallen dramatically. ordinary russians, it seems, are deeply unhappy with their economic circumstances. they are now also deeply unhappy about the proposed pension reform which you, as a sort of liberal russian economist, were a great supporter of. do you know any country where people were satisfied with pension reform? i don‘t know a single one where people were happy about any proposed pension reform by any government. it‘s quite a challenge. we have an ageing population, as all european countries have been experiencing, and it‘s very tough structural reform. it is difficult to have a sustainable fiscal stance

without some pension reform. a balanced one and the president has proposed some amendments to the initial package put forward by the government. he has. in fact, your president has now actually lowered the proposed retirement age for women... correct. ..which indicates that he is very worried about the opinion polling evidence which suggest his popularity is actually plummeting and that even a clear majority of his own united russia party now oppose this key plank of the russian government policy. the important thing will happen when people start seeing results. average real pensions will start growing as a result of the pension reform. yes, there is a timing issue in any reform. initially, people are afraid and don‘t understand. people are scared about potential consequences of any such big reform. itjust makes the government work even more intensely to the deliver results.

i‘m not a cynic, but i dojust wonder whether your insistence that things in russia today are glass half full rather than glass half empty... despite the fact you are no longer in the government, you‘re staying very loyal to the putin message. it‘sjust a half, however you call it, it‘s still a half. sure, but ijust wonder whether the position you‘re taking with me has something to do with the fact that you are relying on the russian government to support your bid right now to be the next leader, chief, chairman, of the world chess federation. it‘s an important political post for russians and your government appears to be going out of its way to back your claim to the presidency. i understand your question, but my support to the russian government is based on belief that people who work in our government, many of them are my friends

and close partners, and i know how professional they are, including ministers i have worked with for years. i just believe that they will do all the right things in the next few years. but as far as the fide presidency is concerned... yes, the world chess federation. i‘m happy that the russian government supports me since it‘s a sign that i did a good job working for the government. what about if they‘re breaking the rules? we know all the allegations that surrounded russia‘s world cup bid, and frankly some pretty dodgy dealing when it comes to doping in sport from russia. and, hang on, now, just to outline for audience. no, i know what i‘m going to say. when, for instance, our ambassador is calling his friends in certain countries... yes, even vladimir putin putting pressure on benjamin netanyahu to get the israelis to... it was not pressure. he said that arkady dvorkovich is running to be the fide president, probably israel partners could support him.

he didn‘t offer anything in return, he didn‘t do anything wrong. same with russian ambassadors all across the world. but i found one case where a letter was sent from the russian embassy to the partners with wrong statements, and i called the embassy and asked them to stop them doing that. the rules are quite clear. fide goes by the international olympic committee‘s principles which outlaw, "pressure being applied by governments into the affairs of independent sports organisations". exactly. the pressure is what you‘re doing right now on me. what russian embassies are doing is not pressure. informing, putting in context, our partners that i am running for fide president. is it true that african officials from the various chess federations in africa were all invited to the russia world cup with complimentary tickets? i mean, you were running

the world cup, so i guess that was a rather... invited, correct. tickets, not correct. yes, i invited many people to the world cup, including chess officials, including other sport officials, including business partners, all kinds of people since i was the chairman of the organised committee, and i had the right and privilege and also the responsibility to invite all kinds of partners to the world cup, and i thought it‘s very important for chess professionals to see how the world cup is being organised. for them to learn a lesson since chess community, fide, is much weaker now than fifa, than the football community in the organisation of events, in marketing, in financial affairs, in everything. people from chess should learn directly from the world cup organisation how do things. well, i guess that‘s part of your pitch. let‘s leave chess for a moment and end with this thought. we have had vladimir putin dominating russia, representing russia and guiding russia for a quarter of a century. he and will be in power until 202a. that would be a quarter.

that‘s right. then, according to the constitution, he cannot run again. after everything we‘ve discussed in this interview, do you think russia after putin can continue with this mix of aggressive nationalist policies which have so soured the relationships we‘ve discussed in the course of this interview, or does russia need to go in a new, different direction? i think during the next six years and after, russia will pursue open policies, will work with all the partners who want to be on the same basis, rule of law, international rule of law inclusive. russia wants to pursue the policies that will feed russian people, russian population, increase the quality of life, raise talents, conduct in a way

of policies and build institutions that are sustainable for the future. answer my question, does russia need a change of direction? we will welcome our partners to work with us together. i think on both sides, we need to make steps to re—establish trust and establish mutual respect. those things can be done only simultaneously. there is no way one can make any step just to give up the strength that society has. if you lose strength, you lose conviction. that‘s it. russia is not going to go this weak way. arkady dvorkovich, we have to end there. thanks for being on hardtalk. thanks also. hello there.

we‘re starting the new week in the midst of a battle between warm air and cool air. we got to feel the effects of both over the weekend. the warmest weather towards the south—east, where we also had the best of the sunshine. temperatures close to 25 degrees. further north, big shower clouds and temperatures more like 16 degrees across the north—east of scotland. and actually, this rather disturbed weather has been continuing across scotland over recent hours. some very heavy downpours of rain, blown in on winds gusting up to 50 or 55mph. those winds only slowly easing through the first part of the morning. further south, a quieter start to monday. and quite a sunny start for many across england, wales and the eastern side of scotland. still some showers across north—west scotland. as we go on through the day, the cloud will thicken up across northern ireland, with some

rain here around lunchtime. into western scotland through the afternoon, a bit of patchy rain for north—west england and north wales. further south and east, it should stay largely dry, with some spells of sunshine. not as warm as it was on sunday, but still, those temperatures up to 21 degrees, just 1a in glasgow. now, as we move out of monday into tuesday, we‘re going to see some rain moving across northern parts of the uk. and then for tuesday itself, we‘ll be left with this weather front sitting in place across central parts of the country, bringing some cloud, some outbreaks of rain. could get quite misty and murky around some of those western coasts and hills. but remember that battle between the warm and the cool air? it‘s this weather front that will divide the two. so across the south—east of the country, still some warm air clinging on at this stage. in fact, temperatures might get up to 2a, perhaps 25 degrees. further north and west, some sunshine, blustery showers into western scotland.

but a much cooler feel, 15—19 degrees at best. now, by wednesday, this weather front, this dividing line between the warm air and the cool air will still most likely be sitting in place across some central and southern areas. bit of patchy rain with that. further north, we‘ll see spells of sunshine again. still some blustery showers into north—west scotland. temperatures for all of us dipping away, just 17 degrees if it rains through the day there in london. and as this frontal system drifts its way slowly south—eastwards into the first part of thursday, it will leave all of us in the cooler air as we head towards the end of the week. and there is still the potential for some rain at times, particularly in the north and west. don‘t expect anything particularly warm as we head towards the end of the week. generally cool, rain at times, but not all the time. there‘ll still be some spells of sunshine around. most of the rain on thursday towards the north and west, perhaps pushing a little further south and east on friday. this is the briefing. i‘m sally bundock. our top stories — sweden‘s far—right could hold the balance of power but the other coalitions say they won‘t do a deal.

germany‘s far—right rallies in another city following the death of a man from heart failure. he‘d been in a fight with afghan migrants. and novak djokovic wins the us open mens singles, bringing him to equal third on the all—time grand slam winners‘ list. another week, another dispute — us trade representative robert lighthizer is in brussels today for talks with european union trade chief cecilia malmstrom. also in business briefing, who will replace jack ma, he charimatic leader of aliba ba ? we‘ll be live to asia to find out.