this is bbc world news. the headlines. president trump says he won't attend the inauguration ofjoe biden. mr trump had earlier promised to ensure ‘a smooth and orderly transition of power‘. it's as democrats say they plan to move forward with articles of impeachment. a police officer is the fifth person to die from the violence on capitol hill. a murder investigation has been launched into his death. police say brian sicknick was "injured while physically engaging with protesters". the uk records its highest daily death toll since the pandemic began — more than 13 hundred deaths reported today. and a major incident has been declared in london , as hospitals across the uk struggle to cope. the moderna vaccine has been approved for use in the uk. it's the third vaccine to get the green light and 17 million

doses have been ordered, with almost 1.5 million people vaccinated in the uk so far. at ten o'clock sophie raworth will be here with a full round up of the days news. first, it's hardtalk welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. the trump—inspired insurrection on capitol hill failed but the wounds to america's body politic are now raw and deep. the president remains commander—in—chief with his finger on the nuclear button but is that tenable for the next two weeks? and what are the dramatic death throes of the trump presidency doing to america's standing in the wider world? my guest is retired american admiral and former supreme commander of nato‘s armed forces in europe, james stavridis.

how deep is the hole america is now in? admiraljames stavridis in florida, welcome to hardtalk. good to be with you, stephen. you served for 37 years in the us military. i wonder what was your overriding emotion when you saw that mob, a violent mob, storm the us congress and apparently, to all intents and purposes, egged on and incited by your president, donald trump? i was angry, and it felt

to me a bit like 9/11. i was in the pentagon on 9/11. i literally watched the aeroplane hit the pentagon. and the day after the next morning, president bush came to the pentagon, he assembled all the admirals and generals, our very senior military leadership, and he was angry. and he said, "i want you to remember this day, to remember what it feels like, what it strikes you as as you smell the cordite in the pentagon." today, i suspect in the capitol as the work of congress returns, there must be anger by many as they smell that tear gas lingering. this was an absolute desecration of the highest temple of democracy in our nation. and it was hard to watch for someone who has spent 37 years in the military, and at every rank i swore an oath to

support and defend the constitution of the united states. that attack yesterday by rioters incited by an american president was a violation of our constitution in my view. and thus was a dark day for the united states of america. how could it happen, admiral? that building, the us capitol, is protected by a couple of thousand capitol policemen. men in uniform, just as you were a man in uniform, and we have seen the pictures which suggest that at least some of those uniformed personnel were really not interested in trying to stop that mob entering the building. there was even one controversial picture on social media of a policeman taking a selfie, smiling with some of those rioters. what was going on?

we are going to need a full investigation of the capitol police. you're correct, there's about 2,000 of them, and theirjob is to secure about eight buildings. that's plenty of people to secure eight buildings. and by the way, they're backed up by the dc metropolitan police who are backed up by the dc national guard. so, this is not a lack of resources. it is either a lack of planning, a failure of intelligence, or rot from within that capitol police force. we will need a full investigation to get to the bottom of it. i think that's job one, and if the commander of the capitol police is still in hisjob by the end of the week, i would be surprised. could it be, in your opinion — and you know uniformed personnel very well in united states. could it be that there is some tacit approval amongst some people

in uniform for the objectives, the agenda of some of those pro—trump agitators? i hate to think that it would have risen to the level of a kind of conspiracy, a cabal inside the dc police force and i don't think we're going to discover that. but we do need to investigate, understand thoroughly, look at e—mails, look at social media accounts. find out using video who were these officers that were taking selfies. i saw pictures of officers literally opening doors for protesters. 0n the other hand, stephen, i've seen many pictures — and you have as well — of the capitol police pushing back, fighting back, stopping in many places, securing the capitol after it was breached. i think we'll find as in any scenario like this, there will be heroes and villains.

i suspect we'll find more heroes. we need to find who the villains were who failed in their duties. i want you, if you would, help me to understand exactly who these people are who stormed that building. you know, so far we've used this word "mob" and we refer to them as rioters. but need we go further than that? i'm just going to tell you some very specific things i've noticed in the pictures and coverage of what happened. there were people inside that building wearing t—shirts which suggested sympathy with the nazis. one man in particular was wearing a t—shirt which celebrated the auschwitz death camp. there were others whose slogan suggested that they had affiliation with the extreme right. are there, in your view, grounds for calling these people terrorists and a threat, a long—term and real significant threat to america's national security?

yes. i think that there are elements of domestic terror involved in the events yesterday. so, a couple of groups to mention. one is called qanon which is a conspiracy oriented online group that pledges allegiance to undo a mythical cabal, supposedly a deep state in the united states. another one is called the proud boys which is perhaps the most misnamed group in history. they're anything but proud — they're shameful. but they are a white supremacy—type group. there are other splinter groups. what has caused them to come together is a sense of grievance and anger which was fuelled by the president of the united states with his baseless claims that the election was fraudulent. that became a rallying cry for these disparate groups who then descended on washington at the request of the president on his twitter account for a rally to quote "stop the steal", meaning "take back

the election results", which were entirely legitimate. president—elect biden won by 7 million votes here. but these fires were fanned by donald trump, by his lawyer rudy giuliani. they were encouraged on the day to march on the capitol and that's what they did, and events spiralled out of control. it's easy to bandy around sensationalist phrases and we must be careful about doing that, but there are people in the united states talking about their real fear — not today necessarily or even tomorrow — but in the medium to longer term of something that looks like a civil war in your country. how do you react to that language? i think that's a bit early to waive the civil war flag and i know

i'm talking to a brit. we are not heading into the war of the roses here nor are we headed into our own american civil war from the 1860s... but you saw for sure that picture, admiral, of the confederate flag — a very large one — being brandished on the floor of the capitol building. that never happened in the 1860s but it happened onjanuary 6th, 2021. indeed, and it is certainly accurate to say that some of these groups have talked about secession from the union, they have talked about civil wars. i don't think the vast majority of americans are remotely in that place — yet. but this ought to be a storm warning to us, and we ought to be smart enough, and i think our next president is smart enough, to recognisejob one is going to be bringing together a very polarised nation.

but stephen, i'll close with this. think back if you're old enough to 1968 in the united states, not that long ago. we saw major riots in american cities. we had a badly divided and polarised nation over the war in vietnam. we have been here before —1968, 1861. you can go back immediate post—revolution in the united states, shays‘ rebellion, the whiskey rebellion... we will overcome this. we are not headed to a civil war. let's then talk specifically about the position of president trump on the day after. you have expressed the opinion that what he said over recent days amounted to incitement. if you were a serving senior military officer today — and you were up until 2013 — but if you were today, would you feel obliged to follow and obey the orders

of president donald trump? this may surprise you but i would as long as the orders were legal. in other words, if president trump decided to use the military to take over the united states, to stage an actual coup, my own assessment from where i sit today is that would be an illegal order and i would not follow it. if president trump ordered me as a two—star admiral to take my aircraft carrier into the arabian gulf and prepare to launch strikes against iran, that would be a legal order and i would follow it. so, it would depend on the orders given... i'm going to stop you there because i'm just scratching my head wondering if that is a viable situation for the us national security system to be in. for a senior officer to believe that the president has just engaged in insurrection, effectively try to amount

a completely pathetic and failed coup d'etat, but still say that he feels obliged to follow that man's orders. that seems. . . pretty hard to follow. let me try and explain it again. the uniformed military of the united states obeys civilian leadership unless there is an unlawful order or if you are faced with a moment of personal conscience and you feel as though you cannot obey the orders of that leader... if i may interrupt... let me just finish quickly. we, the uniformed military, depend on our courts, depend on the election system, depend on the institutions. we follow the orders, legally, of the civilian leadership of the united states. i'm sorry to interruptjust then butjust to finish with this thought

about trump and how he now relates to the national security establishment, one of his senior national security advisers resigned in the wake of what happened on the capitol hill. other members of staff including senior figures in the first lady's staff have gone. one of the press secretaries is gone. would you, do you think — and maybe today — do you think some other senior members for example of the pentagon staff or the military top brass are thinking about resigning in a show of their disgust at what has happened? i hope not. i hope simply because we only have 13 days left in this administration, i would rather have the senior military officers that i know, and i know all of them, remain in place, and i think act as a bulwark against illegal orders, against trying to actually stage a serious coup d'etat. so, i don't think this is the time for resignations of senior military officers.

now, if i were a political appointee, iwould have resigned long, long ago — going back to demonstrations somewhat like these in charlottesville, virginia several years ago. of course, you say he's got 13 days left. he may not have. there are two ways he could be removed. there are some democrats talking about impeaching him, and there are other former officials talking about mike pence‘s ability to invoke the 25th amendment, declare the president unfit and get him out that way. do you think that would be healthy for america's body politic to get him out as a symbol if nothing else before those 13 days are up? i think that it would be difficult tactically to do that. it would be very difficult to go through the impeachment process which, if you followed our impeachment process, is a series of events that actually take months to put together. the 25th amendment is an interesting idea but even there, if the president objected to it

and he assuredly would, even if you got a majority of the cabinet to go along with it, it would then be quite difficult to get it across the congress. my own view is from here to the actual inauguration day is a such a short period of time that we should simply sail on, get to inauguration day and move forward. you're a military man but in recent years, you have been an adviser on political and national security matters in the united states. where do you believe deep culpability for the mess that america is in today lies? obviously, we can talk

about donald trump — and we just have — but is there a much deeper problem in american politics? perhaps, a profound complacency leading to a profound dysfunction in the democratic system? i for one am reluctant to simply decide that democracy is failing us. i don't think that's the case. as your own winston churchill said, "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others." and i think that democracy is messy and what has made it a lot messier, particularly in the united states, is the polarisation of the media and the social networks. this flow of information has created echo chambers on either side of our political divide in which people can hear self reinforcing thoughts again and again and again. that's been very difficult. but that is the reality of the 21st century. let me just give you one read out from a snap poll conducted by yougov

which found 45% of republicans saying that they strongly or somewhat support the storming of the us congress and only a third of them are strongly opposing what they saw on their tv screens. you still think that democracy is healthy in the united states? i think democracy is healthy worldwide, but it has many challenges. and among them is freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, restrictions on policing. whatjust happened wouldn't happen in china, wouldn't happen in russia, but it will happen in our democracies. i come again, would tell you with firm belief that we're still the best form of government because human nature demands a voice, a say in all of this. what is needed, stephen, is leadership to bring this together and i think that we have moderate leaders in the united states and i thinkjoe biden is one of them...

but i come back to, if we are honest, much about this is about the state of the republican party right now, because donald trump took that party, he transformed it, he told them he could lead them to a new world of victories and clearly he has failed. at the point, surely, is that 121 house republicans still at the beginning of that vote on certifying the democratic election result, 121 of them voted not to accept the arizona result before the chaos even began. that's where the republican party is today. i think the most sure outcome we're seeing is that, exactly as you said, donald trump came into office, it made a lot of promises, what happened? he lost the house, he lost the senate, he lost his own office. he's completely

failed in that sense. you're correct that a subset of the american population remains firmly behind him, somewhere around 35%. the other 65% in varying degrees are part of the way in which our institutions have in fact held through this period, and i will say is the duke of wellington said about waterloo, it was a narrow run thing. so, to close on the republican party, yes, i think it's in serious trouble. and that's because it's going to split between a trump core and a non—trump, i think, more viable party longer term. but let me finish with this. nowhere in our constitution, stephen, does it say there will always be two political parties, republicans and democrats. we've had whigs, federalists, nationalists, progressives — that was the actual name of president teddy

roosevelt's bull moose party. and then we evolved into a very strong two—party system. we may see that two—party system break apart on the republican side and, perhaps, on the democratic side where you see a hard left — aoc, bernie sanders, elizabeth warren — and a more moderate. it's not inconceivable to me that all of this over the 10—year future could lead to a moderate, centrist party emerging. well, if i may say so, that's the more optimistic perspective, but i'm now thinking about the way the outside world is looking in on the united states and i'm mindful you served as america's top general serving with nato in europe. you thought long and hard about america's position with regard to russia and further afield to china as well. you said on twitter, "it'll take decades before american officials talk with foreign officials about the importance of free and fair elections, transfer of power peacefully

without the horror of what we've just seen on january 6th thrown back in our faces." has america been fundamentally weakened on the international stage? yes, and i am... i am sorry for it. and it is a function of the consequences of what president trump has woven into the fabric of our society, and we will take i'd say a decade to come back from this. but again i'm an optimist, and i believe we will, and as i look around the world, i think democracy is not going to collapse in the face of authoritarianism because it would be easy to simply say, "ugh, all this democracy stuff, look where it's gotten us?" yet the long throw of history, i think, remains on the side of the democratic process.

but surely in beijing and moscow right now, and we see it from the statements they've made mocking the so—called democracy in the united states, what we see is possible enemies, potential enemies, certainly rival powers to the united states who see new vulnerability in the united states. would you agree? i would agree. and, therefore, the new administration will begin i think internationally by saying, "the new team is here." and, by the way, it's kind of like the old team which was quite well—known in europe and in asia and everywhere else. so, we will have difficulty coming back from this moment but nations are like people. they make mistakes, and then they have a chance to correct them. i'd rather be where we are in the united states today than where china was after tiananmen square, for example. but a final thought which is in about america's rivals

are possible hostile powers, etc about america's firmest allies in europe. you served a long time in nato. what's your message to the europeans? why should they believe that they can build a more coherent, stronger nato underjoe biden when surely the lesson of the last four years is that american politics is so febrile, america's so vulnerable to polarisation that biden may be gone in four years, another trump—like figure might return and europe can no longer invest in the united states? i would say that for our european allies — and by the way, your own nation for example just pulled out of the european union, in a febrile moment, in my view. i would say that nations go through political cycles, and that the united states is still a pretty good bet over the long haul. we are going to end there. so much more to talk about but no more time.

admiraljames stavridis, i thank you very much forjoining me on hardtalk. thanks, stephen. hello there. it's been a very cold week up and down the country, we saw more disruptive snow on friday across northern england, particularly north yorkshire. the weekend, subtle changes taking place. quite a lot of us will see some sunshine around, still quite cold with morning frosts, increasing amounts of rain across the north, we could see some hill snow as well and it will be turning a little less cold thanks to a more atlantic influence to our weather through the weekend and certainly into the start of next week. low—pressure to the north of the uk

for saturday and our weather front which will bring stronger winds, outbreaks of rain to the north and west of scotland. further south, very cold, frosty start, but at least bright and some sunshine, bit of fog across southern areas were left into low, patchy cloud. so, it's a little less cold across the west of scotland, 8 degrees for stornoway, but for the most, after that very cold frosty start, temperatures reaching three to 5 degrees pretty widely. saturday night, the weather front continues to bring outbreaks of rain, hill snow, across the north of the country, one weak one moves southward into northern england and north wales, we could see some patchy rain with that, getting a bit of snow over the pennines. but the skys will be clear across southern britain, so here, another cold night come saturday, less cold further north, where we have the breeze and cloud. sunday, chilly start, frosty start for the south, but here after some early cloud clears, we will see some of the best of the sunshine further north, the weather front will continue to bring thicker cloud, outbreaks of rain, certainly for western scotland, again we could see some wintry showers over the higher ground. temperatures creeping up

a notch out west on sunday, 7 or 8 degrees, further east, four or 5 degrees. now, into the new week for monday, a pretty active weather front across the north and west of the country, bringing some pretty heavy and persistent rain at times, mounting up across some of the western hills and we will see further snow over the higher ground of scotland. colder air never too far away from the east of britain. the south of the country, again closer to an area of high pressure, largely dry with sunshine, temperatures a degree or so up. now, into tuesday, quite a messy picture, it looks like we will have weather fronts bringing thicker cloud, outbreaks of rain to central and western areas of the country, again, some of the rain could be quite heavy. there is a chance that northerly winds could push down across the northern half of the country on tuesday, that will introduce colder but brighter weather for northern scotland. further south, cloudy with outbreaks of rain but a bit milder. we could see 10 degrees in plymouth through the afternoon. little changes as we head on into wednesday, battle of the air masses, milder air across the south—west, things are very wet and cloudy. colder air pushing down

from the north so where the rain meets that cold air, we will see some snow, perhaps the north pennines and into the higher ground of scotland though some of the details need to be firmed up on this closer to the time. you can see further south, eight to 10 degrees here compared to 5 or 6 further north. it looks like the cold air may make a return across the country as we move deeper on into the new week. but milder air never too far from the south—west. it will stay fairly unsettled, where the high pressure starts to build in across the north of the country which will bring some unsettled weather to the north and east of the uk. it could be later on in this week that this area of low pressure moves in off the atlantic, bringing outbreaks of rain as it bumps into the cold air, we could see a spell of sleet and snow. quite a mixture of weather coming up this week. it looks like it will be less cold for a time, spells of rain maybe in the north and west, a bit of snow at times, but particularly on the hills in the north. uncertainty to the week's forecast, stay tuned.

tonight at 10 — the uk's highest daily coronavirus death toll since the start of the pandemic. more than 1,300 people have died. another record number of new cases too, as hospitals across the uk struggle to cope. in london, a major incident has been declared. the brother of a 36—year—old man who died on sunday while they were self—isolating together, urges everyone young and old to take the virus seriously. we believed we were of an age where it's not going to affect us. we didn't take the appropriate action and ifound him dead in his sleep the following morning at about six o'clock. long queues in the cold for a covid vaccine, as a third jab — moderna — is given the go—ahead in the uk.