the uk prime minister has completed a questionnaire about lockdown parties at downing street, and returned it to the metropolitan police. great britain have won a silver medal in the men's curling at the beijing winter olympics after losing to sweden in the final. now on bbc news, it's time for dateline london. and a detailed discussion behind what —— about what lies behind the ukraine crisis and a possible way out. hello and welcome to the programme which brings together british commentators with foreign correspondents, who write, blog and broadcast to audiences back home from the dateline london.

on today's programme, we will try to puncture the propaganda of arms and the theatre of diplomacy. what lies behind the threatened conflict over ukraine? the minsk agreements, what are they? could they be a way out of the crisis? and why, for some, have they the whiff of munich about them? how is china affecting the decisions being taken both by vladimir putin and joe biden? joining us this week, ned temko, a former moscow correspondent, who writes for the christian science monitor, nabila ramdani, a french algerian journalist and broadcaster, vincent ni is china affairs correpondent with the guardian. he is here in the studio with me. welcome to all of you. good to have your company today on dateline. let's begin if we may, ned, with this question of the sort of phony war stage we seem to be at at the moment with ukraine. the west appears to be playing russia at its own game in the last few weeks. propaganda strikes.

mobilising troops from the united states and other parts of europe. in a sense, calling president putin's bluff. do you think he's bluffing? one of the problems is i think the only person who knows the answer to that question is vladimir putin himself. and i think it's fairly clear that that is at least in part what this is about. and that is to say that president putin wants russia to be centre stage again in world diplomacy, he wants the west's and washington's eyes upon moscow and the kremlin. that has self—evidently been happening to a greater extent than pretty much at any time since the collapse of the soviet union. as to whether this amassing of huge numbers of combat—ready troops does indeed mean there's an invasion afoot, the only thing that apparently is incontrovertible

is that he has enough combat—ready troops to move pretty much at any moment if he so chooses. all nato members are obliged to protect one another if any of the members are attacked. ukraine is not a member. there is no obligation to defend it. is there a sense that if president putin isn't bluffing, european countries acknowledged that they really are powerless to stop it? -- him. in very simple terms, what lies behind this potential is the insurgence of a sovereign nation by a massive military machine. russia is clearly on a war footing and this is driven by intense nationalism within the kremlin.

and by plenty of putin supporters across his vast country. putin is an imperialist — he wants to expand russia and at the moment he feels the west is conspiring against his country and the ukrainians are at the centre of this. he would argue that offensive moves are all part of the defence of his nation and specifically the russians are furious at ukraine, which is a former soviet state wants to join nato. this will give nato a huge strategic advantage on the border of russia. if ukraine does become a member of nato, then it will become massively stronger militarily. as you quite rightly said, the principle of collective responsibility is what effectively underpins nato and if a nato—backed ukraine is threatened by russia, that means everybody is at war

and this means all 30 nato states, including the united kingdom, will be going to war on the side of the ukraine. as we know, this is by no means a geopolitical crisis but one that has remained unresolved for far too long. there was one of the biggest land grabs in europe since world war ii. it has led to widespread condemnation from the west and of course sanctions. since then the russians have been stepping up their military presence in the region at the ukrainian border after fighting escalated. vincent, let me bring you in here. nabila talked about sovereignty. we have two almost conflicting arguments, that nato countries are talking about sovereignty and protecting the identity of ukraine. russia is talking about identity.

as a reporter who covers china—western relationships, some of this sounds familiar — a sense of a difference between what is sovereign and what is historic identity. we have seen these disputes in china and things related to china but also on the korean peninsula. the north and south korean crisis is yet to be resolved. there is a potential that a war will break out, dragging in all sorts of member states into this war. there is also a diplomacy going on at the munich security conference this week. clearly, putin is not interested in diplomacy. in solving this crisis. at the munich security conference, lavrov is not present this week.

we will have to see how the crisis will move forward and what can bring all sides together at the negotiating table. we talk about one diplomatic option. ned, you have served in moscow and washington. you have two presidents you could argue are kind of cold war warriors in terms of their long careers and experience. joe biden has been knocking around foreign affairs circles for half a century. putin was a kgb agent when the soviet union was in its pomp. i think it is a mix of the two. one way to begin is to add to what nabila said. that is that one issue,

and that is the potential of ukrainian membership in nato. putin knows it will not happen anytime soon. it was not on the agenda. the ukrainians would like it. nato is not going to rule it out. but it is not imminent. what this is about for putin, the part which is kind of old cold war era is he has been quite explicit. he wants to re—establish a kind of soviet era sphere of influence in eastern europe. that is part of the old approach. you are right, biden is both instinctively atlanta's test. —— atla nticist. he believes very strongly the united states and the west have to be together in answering threats such as the one on the border of ukraine. that is whether ukraine is a full member of nato or not. what has changed is two things. this will bear watching in the months ahead.

this explicit move by putin, and welcomed by president xi in beijing to seek a kind of rapprochement between moscow and beijing as a joint counter weight to america and the west. on the western side, something which i don't think putin quite anticipated, whatever the short—term gains of getting the intention of the world as a result of the troop build—up, the fact is there has been a greater degree of western unity in response and a greater sense particularly in nato, which was a security alliance which has kind of lost its obvious kind of mission since the end of the cold war, now very much seems to feel that it does have a mission again i am not sure that is something that putin anticipated. it was only a couple of years ago that donald trump was expressing the view that nato had had its day and america's interests

in europe had had its day. vincent, in terms of what ned was talking about, it is an interesting weekend to be talking about this because it is 50 years since nixon went to china to divide china and russia and stick two fingers up at moscow and say, "we are buddies with china!" it is putin now in beijing, not nixon. is china in a position to insulate russia if there is military conflict and will sanctions be imposed? on the surface, both countries are getting closer and closer. neither the opening ceremony of the winter olympics two weeks ago, president putin and president xi sat down together.

they expresssed willingness to stand shoulder to shoulder. they released a long and cooperation between the two countries is limitless. when it comes to actually backing russia, if russia are being sanctioned by the international community, the west, russia will have to weight it up very carefully. trade between russia and china was $140 billion. its trade with the european union last year was four, five times higher. china has much more to lose. in the worst—case scenario, if russia is excluded from the us dollar dominated swift international payment system, china will also suffer because much of the trade payment settlement between the two countries are also in us dollars. china will have to weigh this up very, very carefully. it is one thing to say something that is so nice to each other, and quite another to behave in such a way to show you are real friends.

only this week, russians are saying, "china may be our best friend but germany is our second best friend." that takes us to the diplomatic initiatives and there are plenty of them. lots of talk about reviving the minsk agreements which brought some kind of ceasefire in eastern ukraine back in 2014. it may turn into a hot war again. do you have much confidence in minsk as a way out of this? the short answer is no. one of the strengths of minsk when it was conceived was when it had this wonderful facility for being understood differently by both parties. that is ukraine, which basically wanted to end the fighting and the fighting never entered completely. it effectively dialled down the fighting in the eastern portion of ukraine. whereas the russians stressed the part of the accord which has not been fully implemented.

it basically would give special status to these two self—styled breakaway ethnically russian republics in the eastern part of the ukraine and from the ukrainian perspective, would be kind of a trojan horse in the middle of the ukrainian constitutional system. both sides have an incentive to say, "oh, yes, great idea, let's implement this." each side sees this very differently. interesting. we have had the french foreign minister warning of the danger that russia potentially posed to europe in a sense an echo of the fears in the 1930s about germany. perhaps some of the enthusiasm in countries like the united states and britain, for doing deals with dictators to prevent fighting, comes at a price that a price that is paid by smaller countries, weaker countries.

i think ben wallace talked about the whiff of munich in minsk. is that a widely held fear in continental europe? to be perfectly honest, i'm not actually sure what the foreign ministry in france was driving at. i would certainly be said mr macron has the look of chamberlain about him. he looked particularly weak and ineffective as moscow met with mr putin, especially when that ridiculous great table was placed between the two leaders. there has certainly always been a with around the minsk agreement, especially in terms of annexation. we must not forget that russia got away with the annexation of crimea.

the french position can be described as wishy—washy. even pro russia. mr macron has even suggested that ukraine becomes like finland in the cold war, strictly neutral between russia and the west. the ukrainians would argue they have every right to make their own foreign policy decisions and i think more generally the problem with the response from nato countries in relation to the ukraine crisis overall is that most of the focus is on putin and not on the ukrainian president and a lot more attention should be paid to his approach. he has been insisting for a long time there might be a diplomatic way out of this. since december the government has been focusing on the fine points. it is not the preferred outcome for his government but a possible

solution to avoid war. i think ultimately the basis for negotiation is actually flawed and many ukrainians believe fulfilling the minsk accords per se is an concession to russian military agression. ukraine was forced to sign them during earlier russian military manoeuvres were staring at their will in the east. the ukrainian president has floated the possibility of ukraine guaranteeing its security in ways other than ascending to nato membership, which clearly the russians will be very pleased with. i don't think that it seems very likely. vincent, it is interesting, this pressure on countries to sort of kind of see the bigger picture. some of the big powerful neighbours saying, "sign, sign." clearly putin is not hitler

and he does not want to occupy, invade or change the character of western europe but he wants to control his part and his borders. some say it is the same with beijing and taiwan. we have heard voices in washington, saying that pressure needs to be put on taiwan. let's have one country, two systems and acknowledge historically it is a chinese island and it is only the actions of the last few years that means it is an independent country. this is going to be very serious, a very difficult puzzle to solve. you talked about the visit of nixon. one of the biggest achievements for that visit was the signing of a communique in which they talk about taiwan. the us acknowledge there is only one china who defines who owns china and there was ambiguity. that has not resolved. you can argue the wise approach is to kick the can down the road again. is it going to happen?

i do not have an answer and i do not think anyone has the answer. in a time of great power competition, if the proposal comes from washington, i am sure beijing would reject it because beijing wouldn't like the external force to interfere. that is the principal. taiwan, even if there were some politicians who are sympathetic to the idea longer term, they would be looking at what is happening in hong kong right now and saying, "what value is there in international guarantee?" the hong kong situation is quite different. it is a part of china. the british handed it over to china in 1997. how this is going to be solved — no—one has the answer. we will have to see how

history plays out again. is this in the end the price we have to pay as western countries for deciding we will not fight actually with our own troops for ukraine or countries in that similar situation? in the end, that comes at a price and that price is, you might not like the word appeasement but you sometimes have to compromise. you can call it lots of different names. if you are not prepared to fight for something, it becomes a question of what concessions you can extract. i think that is what the united states in particular is grappling with. i think the context we have to look to is the iraq war, afghanistan. there is a great fatigue on both sides of the united states about the nation are putting large numbers of boots on the ground overseas or on nation building. what is fascinating and i think very important about where we are now is that an unintended consequence quite possibly of what putin is doing, is to focus american minds,

both republican and democratic parties and many of the allies in western europe. nabil is absolutely right. there has been a whiff of appeasement among some western european powers towards ukraine for some time but there is a divide now. with 100 plus thousand troops on the border of ukraine, for instance, you have poland and hungary, which on the one hand had it in logical strains with western europe within the eu but have no doubt and have just been reminded of where the security interests lie. we do not want the clock turned back to an idea where they will be in essence a part of a russian sphere of influence. ironically, the same seems true of some scandinavian countries, like sweden and finland, are not part of native that had been

—— that are not part of nato but have been drawing much closer to nato as a result of things like this_ troop presence on the ukrainian border. borisjohnson at boris johnson at the borisjohnson at the munich security conference. great to be here again after an absence of five years. it has helped make this city a symbol of the unity of the west, the strength of the atlantic alliance, and the vision of a europe whole and free. at this moment of danger for the world it has seldom been more vital to preserve our unity and resolve. that was the theme of my discussion last night with fellow leaders, including president biden, president macron, chancellor schultz

as well as the leaders of nato and the eu. as i said to president putin during our last conversation, we in the uk still hope diplomacy and dialogue may yet succeed. we also have to be unflinchingly honest about the situation today. well over 130,000 russian troops are gathering on the borders of ukraine and when more than 100 battalion tactical groups threaten that european country. we must be united against that threat because we should be in no doubt what is at stake here. if ukraine is invaded, and if ukraine is overwhelmed, we will witness the destruction of a democratic state, a country that has been free for a generation with a proud history of elections. every time that western ministers who have visited kyiv, we

had assured the people of ukraine and the need is that we stand four square behind their sovereignty and independence. how meaningless, how insulting those words would seem if, at the very moment when the sovereignty and independence is imperilled, we simply look away. if ukraine is invaded, the shock will echo around the world. those echoes will be heard in east asia, they will be heard in east asia, they will be heard in east asia, they will be held in taiwan. when i spoke to the prime ministers ofjapan and australia this week, they left me in no doubt that the economic and political shocks would be felt on the far side of the world. so let me be clear about the risk. the risk now is that people would draw the conclusion that aggression pays and

that might is right. so we should not underestimate the gravity of this moment and what is at stake. as i speak to you today, we do not fully know what president putin intends. but the omens are grim. and thatis intends. but the omens are grim. and that is why we must stand strong together. the uk has worked with the european union and the united states to put together the toughest and strongest package of sanctions. i spoke recently to president ursula von der leyen to express the measures prepared by the eu encloses coordination with our own. if russia invades its neighbour, we will sanction russian individuals and companies with strategic importance to the russian state and we will make it impossible for them to raise finance on the london capital markets. we will open up the match

we ask adults of russian owned companies and russian owned entities to find the ultimate beneficiaries within. under president putin believes by these actions he can drive nato back or intimidate nate ebner he will find that the opposite is the case. already the uk and our allies are strengthening the eastern flank of nato, we are increasing a british contribution to exercise cold response by sending our newest aircraft carrier, hms prince of wales, and three commando brigade. we are doubling up presence in estonia to 3000 troops. we have increased presence in poland to 600 troops sending marines from 45 commando. we had increased up presence in the skies over south—eastern europe with another six typhoons based in cyprus. we are sending warships to the eastern mediterranean and the black sea. i

placed another 1000 troops on standby to respond to any humana —— humanitarian emergency we all fear is increasingly likely. while the most alarming and the most visible threat is the massing of russian land forces on ukraine's borders, look at the naval build—up in the black sea which threatens to blockade ukraine! look at the massive cyber attacks and the incoming tide of disinformation! this crisis extends into every domain, which is why the uk is providing nato with more land, sea and airforces. it is providing nato with more land, sea and air forces. it is because we feared a crisis like this that we were already engaged in the biggest increase in defence investment for a generation, spread across conventional capabilities and the new technologies that are ever more important to our collective defence. i am proud to say that since russia invaded ukraine for the first time invaded ukraine for the first time in annexed crimea into thousand and

14, in annexed crimea into thousand and 1a, we have been helping ukraine crane in 20,000 troops and in response to the threat we have been among the nations to send defensive weaponry in the form of 2000 anti tank missiles and i am glad we have beenjoined in s by the united states, by poland, and by a baltic allies. —— in this. and that many other nations and the eu, have, like the uk, helped to strengthen ukraine's economy. britain will always stand up to freedom and democracy around the world. and when i say that our commitment to european security is immovable and unconditional, our deeds show that we mean our words. we are making the biggest contribution of nato —— to nato because we understand the importance of collective security.

just as our european friends stood by us after the russian state used a chemical weapon in salisbury, so britain will stand by you. but we must accept that these measures by the uk under and allies, draconian sanctions, fortifying ukrainian friends, they may not be enough to deter russian aggression. it is therefore vital that we learned the lessons of 2014. whatever happens in the next few days and weeks, we cannot allow european countries to be blackmailed by russia. we cannot allow the threat of russian aggression to change the security architecture of europe. we cannot permit a new division of our continent into spheres of influence and we must now wean ourselves off

dependence on putin's oil and gas. i understand the costs and complexities of this effort and the fact that it is easier said than done. i am grateful to chancellor schultz's assurances about this. the lessons of the last few years and of the obvious manipulation of european gas supply, it cannot be ignored. we must ensure that by making full use of alternative supplies and technology we make russia's threats redundant. that would be the work of the months and years to come, as well as the necessary and overdue steps we in the uk must take to protect her own financial system. we now need to prepare ourselves for the russian playbook of deception that governs every operation of this kind. there will be a cascade of false claims about ukraine, intended

to spread confusion, almost for its own sake. even now there are plans being laid for stage events, spinning a web of false hoods, designed to present any russian attack as a response to provocation. we have already witnessed a fake military withdrawal, combined with staged incidents, which could provide a pretext for military action. we knew this was coming, we have seen it before. no one should be fooled. we have to steel ourselves for the possibility of a protracted crisis. with russia maintaining the pressure and searching for weaknesses over an extended period. and we must together refuse to be worn down. what europe needs is a strategic endurance, and we should focus our energies on preserving our unity and deepening transatlantic cooperation. but for that to work, we must also be prepared to devote

the necessary resources to carry a greater share of the