the mayor of the strategically important south ukrainian port of kherson says russian forces are now in control, making it the first major city to be captured in the east. the mayor of the besieged city has said russian missiles have hit residential areas. ukrainian officials say more than 2,000 civilians have died since russia's invasion began. moscow has revealed almost 500 of its troops have been killed, and as the bombardments continue, the united nations says1 million refugees have now taken shelter by fleeing to neighbouring countries. and the russian billionaire, roman abramovich, has confirmed he intends to sell his chelsea football club, one of the epl�*s top teams. there had been growing russia for sanctions against 0ligarchs

close to president putin. now, on bbc news, it's time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. hour by hour, vladimir putin intensifies the scale and the violence of the russian military assault on ukraine. civilian buildings hit by rocket fire, towns and cities encircled. and the capital, kyiv, now facing a vast build—up of russian firepower. hundreds of thousands of ukrainians have already fled. more are trying to do so before it's too late. my guest is david miliband, boss of the international rescue committee and former british foreign secretary. is the west doing enough in response to putin's invasion?

david miliband in new york, welcome to hardtalk. thanks very much, stephen. good to be with you. good to have you. do you think the world yet has a handle on the scale of the humanitarian disaster that has begun to unfold and will continue to unfold in ukraine? well, i think there are three parts, three fronts to the humanitarian crisis. there is the danger to life and limb that's posed for those civilians who are caught in the crossfire, who are caught, frankly, in the missiles and in the bombings. and i think that gravity of that situation is becoming clearer. the second front

is the internally displaced within ukraine, the people on the run inside the country. there, the latest figures are over a million people on the move. and then the third front is the refugees, more than 500,000, who've gone into neighbouring european states, over a00,000, into poland. and i would say that the gravity for the first group is onlyjust becoming clear. the position of the internally displaced is very unclear at the moment. but on the refugee front, i think there is a recognition that there are... desperate times take desperate measures, and there are very significant measures being taken by the european union. your organisation is called the international rescue committee. goodness knows there are many, many people who need rescuing. what can you do? we've got a team on the ground. we've had them there for the last three or four weeks in poland. the most important thing we can do is on two sides. first of all, for those who make it across the border, thankfully, there are mainstream european state organisations

that are making provisions, so is the un, but there's specialist help that's needed, especially for some of the most vulnerable. so we're targeting support for pregnant women, for children, including kids who've come obviously without their fathers because they've been, at least between the ages of 18 and 60, recruited. we're also offering cash assistance, which is very important. the second part of our effort is going to be to work with partners inside ukraine to help those internally displaced that i mentioned. we fear a long, drawn—out campaign, and that means increasingly desperate situations for those inside the country. and we're — we know that our experience from other parts of the world is that working with local partner organisations who are properly vetted, but who have local links, is the best way forward. so those are the two ways in which we'll be complementing the effort of the un and of the eu and others. right. now, the un's latest figure

suggests over 500,000 people have already fled from ukraine, crossed its borders and left the country. but there is also a suggestion that that number could rise to the many millions. the un has suggested it could go to something between 4 million and 7 million. the eu home affairs commissioner has said, "we must prepare for millions." i mean, these are almost unimaginable figures, aren't they? well, no, i wouldn't quite say that. i mean, remember, the syria crisis has produced 6.5 million refugees, albeit over a slightly longer period, in the first two years of the war. so it's not unimaginable. it's all—too real. and there are a record number of refugees around the world today, over 30 million, the largest number since world war ii. and the truth is that there are eight severe civil conflicts, civil wars going on at the moment that have been producing refugees, alongside about 50, 45 to 50 other smaller conflicts.

this is the first major conflict between states of the...of this decade, and it threatens to be on an all—too—imaginable scale. now, the only silver lining is that the european union, 27 countries, the largest, richest single market in the world, this is on the border of ukraine, and that means that there are the resources, there is the infrastructure, as long as the european union works in a unified way and as long as it learns the lessons of the syria crisis. in the syria crisis, for example, italy and greece, alongside germany, were expected to bear too much of the burden. this can'tjust be left to hungary and poland. every european country in the european union, plus those that are not — the uk, switzerland, norway — they've got to contribute to the effort on this refugee front. yeah, just a couple of specific points on what is happening at the border right now. there are some troubling indications that people of colour who were resident in ukraine, but are now, of course,

trying to flee, to get out, are finding it much more difficult to get out than ukrainians and others with a white skin, to put it very bluntly. have your people picked up on any element in which people of colour are being told they cannot cross the border, or they must at least go to the very back of the queue? no, our people have not seen that, but i have seen those media reports. and obviously they're an outrage against the very values that are being put on the anvil in this conflict, and it's absolutely fundamental to us. we're an organisation created by albert einstein in the 1930s to rescuejews from europe, but we're a secular organisation, not a religious organisation. probably half of our work now is in muslim—majority countries, and it's absolutely essential that whatever the colour of your skin, whatever your religion, you get treated in a way

that is based on need, not on any kind of racial or religious element. and so i am very concerned to have seen those reports and obviously deplore any such actions completely. and one thought about the way in which the eu and other european countries have responded — the eu has said quite openly that any ukrainian passport holder who makes it across the border is welcome to stay inside the european union for up to three years, without having to go through any asylum or other paperwork procedures. the united kingdom government, and you did mention the uk, has taken a somewhat different stance. they're sticking to their immigration rules and regulations. they are saying, we are going to bend over backwards to do what we can for those who have relatives in the uk and those who are related to permanent residents, notjust british citizens, but they are not offering the open invitation that eu countries are.

as you are a former british foreign secretary, do you think the british government is doing the right thing or has yet to realise they need to do more? no, they're not doing the right thing yet, and you're being extremely diplomatic in saying that they've got a slightly different position from the european union. obviously, it stands to reason that ukrainians who have relatives in poland or relatives in romania or relatives in germany are more likely to want to go to germany, and it's, by the same token, ukrainians with relatives in the uk, it's obvious they may want to come to the uk. but for the uk to restrict refugee status only to those with a british link is quite wrong. and it's essential that two things happen. first of all, that the uk lives up to the european commitment that any ukrainian will find safe haven. but, secondly, both the eu and the uk need to make sure that these people get full refugee status, which would give them the right to work.

it would also give them the rights to access services. so the eu have made a welcome move, but they need to go further, and the uk have made a welcome, i would say, step, but they have to go much further. and i want you to think about this crisis in terms of your previous job as uk foreign secretary. at the time you were foreign secretary, in that period, i guess 2008, 2010, you... 2010, yeah. yeah. ..you were an ardent supporter of what became known as the un doctrine of responsibility to protect. that is that if around the world there was a situation in which civilians were at grave risk of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and their own government was failing to protect them, then there was legitimacy to the notion that the international community could intervene militarily if necessary. does that responsibility to protect apply here and now in ukraine?

well, that's a great point, and a really important one, and if you don't mind, i'lljust go through the elements of it very carefully. the responsibility to protect was indeed the doctrine that was adopted by all states at the united nations in 2005. it was a resolution of the general assembly, and it made the commitment, as you say, that if rights were not being sustained by the government of a country, then they could look to the international community for support. the last 15, 16 years have seen a long drift or move away from that sense of global responsibility. and so directly to answer your question, the legitimacy of the claims that are being made, universal claims by citizens and civilians inside ukraine that they deserve the protection of the un charter is absolutely clear. now, in this case, they have their own government which is seeking to defend them, and the ukrainian government is a legitimate government.

it is part of the battle, really, that ukraine has over the last ten years shifted towards being a much freer society, with its own democratically—elected government. so it's got a government there that's trying to support it. but i think the international reaction and the unity of the international reaction from notjust west european countries, but really striking statements from the permanent representative of kenya, for example, to the united nations security council. the unity of the reaction among democratic states has been very, very striking indeed. and so the question of legitimacy, yes, there is legitimacy in the claim of the ukrainian people to seek support from the outside world. some of that support, i think, has surprised both the russian government and, frankly, western governments in its force and its clarity. i'm thinking of the economic force that has hit the russian economy. i'm also thinking of some striking decisions in western europe about the military side.

but to answer your question... yes, all right, well, we'll get to the levels of support, both economic and in terms of military assistance, but the bottom line to your answer is that the responsibility to protect is a dead letter, it means nothing. mostly because russia is a permanent member of the security council, and all responsibility to protect interventions would have to go through the un. and, of course, russia has a veto power, so that whole doctrine needs to bejunked, doesn't it? well, no, ithink a better way of looking at it would be that the nations should live up to the doctrine. i've talked over the last five years about the growing age of impunity in international affairs, which is a direct rebuttal of the responsibility to protect and, frankly, a direct rebuttal of the un charter that was adopted after the second world war. the un charter said very clearly that alongside

rights of states, including to sovereignty and territorial integrity, there are rights of civilians and citizens, and they need to be upheld globally, and the drift to impunity that we've seen, especially in war zones over the last ten years, but not only in war zones, is a direct assault on the fundamental principles of an ordered international system, and obviously the ukraine crisis, involving both an assault on the territorial integrity of a country and on the rights of citizens — you can see that from the missile strikes on civilian areas — is the capstone of that age of impunity. and rather than junking. .. well, i don't know if you would only date the age of impunity going back five years. you could date it much further back. and indeed, again, it comes down... ..it comes down again to an assessment of your involvement in all of this, because, frankly, putin's invasion of ukraine didn't come out of nowhere. his assault on territorial integrity, as you put it, has a past. it has a past going back to georgia in 2008, when, as we've discussed,

you were british foreign secretary, you made a strong stand, describing that as a violation of international law and international norms. and yet i've gone back and checked the record, within three months of russian tanks rolling into significant chunks of georgian territory, you were once again talking to your russian counterpart. you were extolling the virtues of dialogue, and just a year later, you appeared to be supportive of the 0bama administration's determination to reset relations with moscow. so i'm struggling to see how even you personally took a stand against putin, going all the way back to 2008. well, there's nothing complicated about that. of course, a british foreign secretary should speak to a russian foreign secretary, there... it would be the absurd to say the opposite. in 2008, after the russians invaded georgia, i certainly made the statements that you referred to, i went to kyiv to give a speech in august 2008 where i warned

that ukraine would be the next front—line. and i referred to george kennan�*s famous long telegram from moscow after the second world war. and his statement that russia's tragedy, but also its crime, was always to look at ukraine as either being a vassal or an enemy, quote unquote. and it's very important to date back the assaults on international law, it's very important to date back the age of impunity. and it's also important to say that the economic, as well as the military and the diplomatic elements, need to be addressed and certainly since... but address my point about the decision taken to, quote unquote, reset relations with putin after that invasion of georgian territory. the decision to push ahead with economic partnership with russia throughout the next few years, which saw, for example, deeper energy relationships between europe and russia.

natalia antelava, the co—founder of the coda website in the us, which looks at eastern europe and russia, she says this terrifying, world—changing conflict in ukraine didn't start in 2022, nor did it start in 2014. it began a decade and a half ago, when russia invaded georgia and was allowed to get away with it. would you agree and would you express regret for allowing russia to get away with it? well, the reset that the 0bama administration started did not work because russia would not reset. that's very, very simple, right down to the opening meeting between secretary clinton and foreign minister lavrov. but why were we — i say we — why were you, the 0bama administration, the european leadership, why were you seeking to reset, to deepen links with putin when even then you could see what putin was?

just to be absolutely clear, the reset was not about deepening links with putin. it was about the russian regime obeying the laws of the international system. and i completely agree that more should have been done in the last decade. for example, in respect of russian money in london, i completely agree that more should have been done in the last decade to wean europe off its dependence on russian oil and gas. i completely agree that russia's entry into crimea was a clear warning of what was coming. i'm not going to apologise. i wasn't in government for the last 12 years, so i can't apologise for what governments of other parties have done. and i think that while people in government said they took putin seriously, they didn't take russia seriously. russia remains a power under president putin, with the willingness to take grave risks, with the willingness to flatten cities, as we've seen in aleppo

in syria, as previously happened in grozny in chechnya. and that is a real stain. just one more thought about ukraine, because i do want to squeeze in discussion of other humanitarian crises, but volodymyr zelensky, the president of ukraine, has specifically asked nato to impose a no—fly zone over significant parts of the country. if the west does it, he says ukraine will defeat the aggressor and with much less blood. you are a former foreign secretary. do you think you would give consideration, if you still had that power today, to the notion of nato imposing some sort of no—fly zone over ukraine? president biden and the nato leaders have said absolutely clearly they�* re not willing to intervene. the step to a no—fly zone would be a very significant intervention, but i'm sure they will be discussing it. and so to your question,

can it be considered? i'm sure it will be considered, but obviously it would carry enormous consequences, because it would pit nato directly against the russian attack in a way that nato leaders have already said that they're not going to do. a quick thought, then, about the wider horizons that you have to deal with on a daily basis. i mean, one thing we know about this terrible ukraine crisis is that in all likelihood, it's going to raise global prices of both energy and of wheat. because ukraine, and of course russia, too, are enormous suppliers of wheat to the world. that comes on top of a host of humanitarian challenges you are currently facing in countries like afghanistan. do you fear that the world's attention on ukraine is going to lead to less attention, focus and commitment to crises such as that in afghanistan? yes, i'm really fearful, and i'm very keen that

you do make this link. the fact that ukraine is a capstone on the age of impunity speaks to the point that in afghanistan, 22 million people are dependent on the world food programme to feed themselves. in yemen, the figure is 9 million. in ethiopia, there are 5 million internally displaced. there is system failure at the moment at the level of states abusing the rights of their own citizens. at the level of diplomacy, because the civil wars, the 55 civil wars that i mentioned, are still going on, and are not being tackled. at the level of the legal regime because the rights of civilians are being abused, and at the humanitarian development level, where un appeals are massively underfunded and governments are blocking aid supplies from reaching those in need. and it's an absolute feature of the work of an organisation like the international rescue committee at the moment that the last thing that the world needs is yet another massive crisis, but that's what it's getting in ukraine. and the great danger is that the literally starving people in afghanistan

and others in desperate need in other parts of the world also pay the price of russian aggression in ukraine, the invasion of ukraine. and that would be a double tragedy. and the many millions facing, as you say, real hunger, possibly starvation in afghanistan, they also face a covid epidemic which is running wild right now inside the country. we hear of families having to sell their kidneys to feed their children. indeed, sometimes having to sell their children. at the very same time, the united states government is commandeering some of the billions of dollars of reserves they hold from the afghan government and now using them in terms of 9/11 compensation. what is your reaction to that? well, first of all, we have 3000 international rescue committee staff inside afghanistan, and i can confirm the reports that you've just quoted that there are people selling their children and that there are people

selling their body parts in afghanistan in desperation, given the complete breakdown of the economy. the next point to address directly, we've argued very clearly that all $9.5 billion of frozen assets of afghanistan, 7 billion in the us, 2.5 billion in europe and elsewhere, need to be released so that a functioning economy and a functioning central bank and a functioning finance ministry can get back into place. the us last week did agree to make clear that sanctions do not apply to organisations that are working with government states, er, government ministries. they apply just to the individuals who are named in the sanctions list, but they've got to go much further. they've got to pay the salaries of the civil servants. they've got to make sure that the assets are released to underpin a properly functioning banking system, and they've got to get international technical support into the finance ministry and the central bank, so that the economy can be run properly.

well, what you seem to be suggesting to me is that the world isn't really paying attention right now. that's the reality. you're right. the world has got to learn to walk, chew gum and play the violin when it comes to humanitarian effort at the same time. we can't simply turn our torch from one crisis to another and expect any of them to be solved. and the system failure that i'm speaking to clearly applies and clearly shows that we need a system reboot, a reboot of the diplomacy, a reboot of the accountability against impunity. and it's very good that the icc, the international criminal court, has said they'll investigate warcrimes in ukraine. and it's also vital that we reboot the humanitarian and development system, so that people aren't left to starve in a world that has more resources than ever before. david miliband, we have to end there. i thank you very much indeed forjoining me on hardtalk. thank you very much.

hello there. on wednesday, we saw the thicker cloud moving further north across the uk, bringing with it some rain and some drizzle. there was still some sunshine across northern parts of scotland — over eight hours of sunshine, actually, in shetland. but thursday starting cloudy pretty much everywhere, quite misty and murky. as a result of the cloud, though, it's frost—free this time. but we do have a band of rain that's been pushing its way in from the west. that should be clearing away from northern ireland. it'll cheer up here with some sunshine and a scattering of showers, but you can see how slowly that rain moves into scotland, into northwest of england, across wales, eventually into the west midlands and into the west country, allowing some late sunshine in the far southwest of england and wales.

and ahead of that ragged band of rain, eastern parts of england should have a drier, brighter day on thursday, maybe some sunshine in the southeast of england, lifting temperatures to a milder 12 degrees. the weather front is bringing this rain in from the west. it's moving so slowly eastwards that, eventually, it'll grind to a halt and then start to move back towards the west. by the time we get to friday, most of that rain and drizzle will be affecting the eastern side of scotland, northeast england, through parts of yorkshire, into the midlands and perhaps into the southeast of england, meaning some sunshine is still possible in east anglia. 0ut towards the west, this is where we should see some brighter skies, some spells of sunshine. still a scattering of light showers for wales, northern ireland and the southwest. underneath that cloud, low cloud and rain and drizzle, it'll feel quite cold. into the weekend, we should see more sunshine developing more widely as the weekend progresses, but it will still be quite chilly. a frosty start for scotland and northern ireland. sunshine here on saturday. that weather front is still bringing this cloud and patchy light rain and drizzle for england and wales.

starts to move back to the west, so we should get some sunshine through lincolnshire, east anglia and the southeast of england during the afternoon. temperatures around 10 degrees at best, but only 6 or so in the northeast of england. we got higher pressure bringing the sunshine for scotland and northern ireland, and that's going to build across that weather front. it'll continue to weaken it. it'll continue to dry it out as well. and we should see some brighter skies. again, a frosty start, though, for scotland and northern ireland, some sunshine here. always a bit more cloud, i think, for england and wales, but it will be lifting a bit. skies should be brighter. we should see some sunshine and it's likely to be dry across england and wales on sunday, but still not particularly warm, temperatures typically around 8 or 9 celsius.

chelsea

this is the latest headlines for viewers in the k and around the world. kirsten becomes the first major city to be captured by the russian invasion. the ukrainian president says his nation remains defiant. we are a nation who — nation remains defiant. we are a nation who broke _ nation remains defiant. we are a nation who broke his- nation remains defiant. we are| a nation who broke his enemy's plans in a week, full of hatred for our country.— plans in a week, full of hatred for our country. united nations sa s1 for our country. united nations says 1 million _ for our country. united nations says 1 million refugees - for our country. united nations says1 million refugees have i says1 million refugees have left ukraine neighbouring countries. elsewhere the chelsea owner who denies links to the russian state puts the premier league football club up for sale. premier league football club up forsale. in premier league football club up for sale. in seeking inspiration for the fight. we have a special report on the

ukrainian �*s losing