the headlines... russia is continuing to bombard cities across ukraine. in the capital, kyiv, air strikes have been getting closer to the centre of the city. one missile hit a block of flats, killiing one person and injuring 12. talks between russian and ukrainian representatives will resume again later. authorities in the key port city of mariupol say that civilian deaths have risen above 2,000, and mass graves have been dug to bury the dead. the international red cross said the situation inside the city was untenable and unbearable, with little food and water, and no heating. the main evening news on russia's flagship channel one has been disrupted by a protest against the war on ukraine. a woman ran behind the newsreader, carrying a sign with the text, "no war. don't believe the propaganda".

now on bbc news, it's hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, with me, zeinab badawai. russia has launched its most deadly attack on western ukraine so far. it has struck a military base just 15 kilometres from the polish border. this is being seen as a warning to nato that in supplying weapons to ukraine through poland, it risks an escalation of the war. my guest is the senior british conservative mp, tobias ellwood. he is chair of the house of commons defence select committee and is a former soldier. he believes that nato and the west need to change radically their stance on the ukraine war. does he have a clear strategy to stand up to putin and save lives?

tobias ellwood, welcome to hardtalk. tobias ellwood, welcome to hardtalk— tobias ellwood, welcome to - hardtalk._ you hardtalk. nice to see you. you believe that _ hardtalk. nice to see you. you believe that the _ hardtalk. nice to see you. you believe that the west _ hardtalk. nice to see you. you believe that the west should i hardtalk. nice to see you. youj believe that the west should be doing more to help ukraine militarily. what exactly do you want, do you have a blueprint? i don't have a blueprint but i do believe we need a change in attitude, a change in direction, a recognition that we have entered a new area of insecurity. i think the west has been taken aback by the aggression, by the scale of anger that we are seeing from russia, and determination of russia, and determination of russia to redraw the map of eastern europe and potentially beyond, and were not quite sure how to respond yet. we've done well on the sanction side, but

militarily, nato is the most potent military alliance in the world, but were still not quite sure how to utilise that, how to stand up to putin's aggression.— to stand up to putin's aggression. to stand up to putin's an uression. ., �* ., aggression. you've got some ideas. a no-fly _ aggression. you've got some ideas. a no-fly zone, - aggression. you've got some ideas. a no-fly zone, for - ideas. a no—fly zone, for instance. you know that there are regular objections to this. nato chiefjens stoltenberg nato chief jens stoltenberg says nato chiefjens stoltenberg says the only way to prevent a no—fly zone is designed nato fleet of planes —— fighter planes into ukraine as pace and impose that no—fly zone by shooting down russian planes was top us secretary of state anthony blinken says that could lead to a fully fledged war in europe. they don't want it. let's just take that in part. firstly, as i suggest, we have moved into a new era of insecurity. we have had in the past 30 years, this peacetime mode we have moved into, we've been pretty fortunate. we are now resorting back to type. the world is an angry you get state get state on state aggression and we're are practising that today, but the west hasn't advanced, hasn't woken up to the scale of aggression are

what we should initially do about it. , , . . about it. on the specific no-fly zone. _ about it. on the specific no-fly zone. a - about it. on the specific no-fly zone. a no-fly i about it. on the specific. no-fly zone. a no-fly zone about it. on the specific- no-fly zone. a no-fly zone is one operational— no-fly zone. a no-fly zone is one operational response - no-fly zone. a no-fly zone is | one operational response that you could have in relation to russia, to stand up to russia to help ukraine, but you have to help ukraine, but you have to ask yourself what is the wider strategy... to ask yourself what is the wider strategy. . ._ to ask yourself what is the wider strategy... just to stay on that one. _ wider strategy... just to stay on that one, could _ wider strategy... just to stay on that one, could have. - wider strategy... just to stay i on that one, could have. should they be imposing a no—fly zone? let me finish, because from a military perspective, any operational commitment such as a no—fly zone must fit into a bigger strategic picture. what is our strategy to stand up to putin? are we trying to support ukraine by denying the airspace, are we trying to stand up to russia by denying them access to ukraine, or do we think it will bleed outside? these are important questions to be answered, but what we saw by the united states and indeed other countries is that, as soon as any idea was put forward, we would publicly dismiss them. not so much from the operational side but on the political side, the operational side but on the politicalside, because the operational side but on the political side, because every time anyone was asked a difficult question about standing up to russia, immediately they would come back with a i'm not going to

start world war three. well, ou start world war three. well, you answer _ start world war three. well, you answer that _ start world war three. well, you answer that difficult - you answer that difficult question, then. should we have nato police no—fly zones that would involve nato shooting down russian planes? again, you are askin: down russian planes? again, you are asking me — down russian planes? again, you are asking me to _ down russian planes? again, you are asking me to jump _ down russian planes? again, you are asking me to jump into - down russian planes? again, you are asking me to jump into an - are asking me tojump into an operational decision and i am saying first, ask ourselves what do we agree should be our policy to stand up to russia, for which a no—fly zone might be part of that aspect. it could be that we do rule it out. what i'm saying is every time you asked a difficult question, don't stand up and say to russia we are not going to do a no—fly zone, we are not going to send in a force prior to the invasion to actually protect ukraine, even though they requested this. we're actually explaining to russia what our red lines are. no general on the battlefield ever declares what they won't do. so evenif declares what they won't do. so even if we were not going to do it, you still keep the other side guessing.— it, you still keep the other side guessing. so, all right, let me give _ side guessing. so, all right, let me give you _ side guessing. so, all right, let me give you a _ side guessing. so, all right, let me give you a quote - side guessing. so, all right, | let me give you a quote from john kirby, the us pentagon spokesman, who was talking why the proposal to transfer polish fighterjets from a us base in

germany, to ukraine, why they decided against that. the intelligence community has assessed the transfer of mig 29s to the ukraine may be escalate to re and might increase the prospect of military escalation with nato. and that is too simplistic and too naive, and it is a reflection of the fact that we have enjoyed 30 years of peace, and we need to get back into a cold war construct of statecraft in recognising what we're up against. we are still in peacetime mode. but we're up against. we are still in peacetime mode.— in peacetime mode. but they don't want — in peacetime mode. but they don't want the _ in peacetime mode. but they don't want the escalation. i in peacetime mode. but they don't want the escalation. ij don't want the escalation. of course they are not, so what we do? so we're back into 1938, what we are going to do, we don't want any trouble here... you are arguing for escalation and yet you are sitting on the fence... ., �* ., and yet you are sitting on the fence. . ._ when l and yet you are sitting on the i fence. . ._ when they fence... no, i'm not. when they sa we fence... no, i'm not. when they say we don't _ fence... no, i'm not. when they say we don't want _ fence... no, i'm not. when they say we don't want escalation, i say we don't want escalation, you say, think about it. tile. you say, think about it. no, no, you say, think about it. no, no. no. _ you say, think about it. no, no. no. slow— you say, think about it. no, no, no, slow it _ you say, think about it. no, no, no, slow it down, i you say, think about it. no, no, no, slow it down, you l you say, think about it. iirr, no, no, slow it down, you take it one decision at a time, you control where you are going, test the waters, and so far we have had so many times from

putin and others, lavrov, say they may consider using nuclear weapons. has the united states's nuclear threat level changed at all? not one bit. are you seriously suggesting that they might use nuclear weapons? i that they might use nuclear weapons?— that they might use nuclear weapons? i say we listen to much to _ weapons? i say we listen to much to the _ weapons? i say we listen to much to the political- weapons? i say we listen to l much to the political rhetoric and not on the ground. we could easily have sneaked those mig 29 planes from poland, better than a no—fly zone itself but we were too timid. we are in a risk averse mode and what i'm saying is the language that russia and putin understands is one of force and of hard power. so i'm saying, get us back into the statecraft skills that we exhibited during the cold war, because right now putin is taking advantage of our weakness of exploiting our timidity, pushing those lines and by the same process conducting further and further war crimes, knowing that we won't stand up to him.- war crimes, knowing that we won't stand up to him. well, a bit of statecraft _ won't stand up to him. well, a bit of statecraft here - won't stand up to him. well, a bit of statecraft here from i won't stand up to him. well, a bit of statecraft here from the | bit of statecraft here from the british government. ben wallace the defence secretary said britain is exploring the

possibility of sending high velocity style streak and portable anti air missiles. he says we believe this system well remain within the definition of defensive weapons but will allow the ukrainian force to better defend their skies. so there you are getting a bit of nuance.— a bit of nuance. exactly, you chose an _ a bit of nuance. exactly, you chose an indication - a bit of nuance. exactly, you chose an indication of i a bit of nuance. exactly, you chose an indication of a i a bit of nuance. exactly, you | chose an indication of a sharp learning curve we are now on. we are now exploring methods to better support ukraine, because the penny still hasn't dropped that it isn'tjust about ukraine. that it isn't 'ust about ukraine._ that it isn't 'ust about ukraine. �* , ukraine. but it is dropping, isn't it? saying _ ukraine. but it is dropping, isn't it? saying these i ukraine. but it is dropping, i isn't it? saying these weapons are kind of in a grey area, kind of offensive but we can still say they are within the category of defensive. so let's have more _ category of defensive. so let's have more self _ category of defensive. so let's have more self confidence i category of defensive. so let's have more self confidence in l have more self confidence in ourselves to be able to assess and take the necessary risks to stand up to putin because at the moment we are not affecting the moment we are not affecting the agenda. what we are seeing here, if i canjust finish the agenda. what we are seeing here, if i can just finish this point, we are seeing the tactics putin was employing, thinking he would liberate the

country, that didn't work, so from a far he is bombarding the cities, trying to flush out the pupils though it is easier to run if he wins. what he has done thanks to the sanctions the world has imposed, putin i now think will be in the dock in the hague in a matter of months, may be longer. but until then, he is going to cause so much harm in the ukraine, and the question is will they allow him to get away with it? do will they allow him to get away with it? i. ., , ~ with it? do you really think ou will with it? do you really think you will end _ with it? do you really think you will end up _ with it? do you really think you will end up in - with it? do you really think you will end up in the i you will end up in the international criminal court in the hague? we know thejustice secretary dominic raab is talking to the prosecutor there about the possibility of putin being indicted. what he actually end up there? well, we would have _ actually end up there? well, we would have to _ actually end up there? well, we would have to see _ actually end up there? well, we would have to see what - actually end up there? well, we| would have to see what happens there. what i do believe is correct is that what the sanctions have done to alienate putin himself from his own people, they realise there is no return to the international stage for russia, from a trade perspective, a security perspective, a security perspective and so forth, unless they ditch putin. now, the security mechanics he has around him, the apparatus around him, the apparatus around him, the apparatus around him, means it will be

very difficult to get rid of him, but we have seen it in the past. the kremlin, the elites, the generals themselves will recognise there is no future for russia, and that is why i'm saying he will eventually go, but until then he will cause absolute carnage in ukraine and beyond, unless we stand up to him. beyond, unless we stand up to him, ., , beyond, unless we stand up to him. ., , ., ., him. so that is the idea of the sanctions. _ him. so that is the idea of the sanctions, imposed _ him. so that is the idea of the sanctions, imposed the i sanctions, imposed the sanctions, imposed the sanctions and also reduce consumption of russian energy, the eu wants to do that by two thirds of its gas by the end of the year, but do they really work? i mean, seizing luxury properties and yachts, do they really help stop the killing in ukraine, by making the elite, the circle around putin, shocked into action? because that's not going to happen, really, is it?— that's not going to happen, really, is it? you sort of make my argument _ really, is it? you sort of make my argument for _ really, is it? you sort of make my argument for me. - really, is it? you sort of make my argument for me. he i really, is it? you sort of make my argument for me. he willl my argument for me. he will eventually go but there isn't enough effort there to remove him. ., �* , ., enough effort there to remove him. .,�* , ., , him. there won't be a coup, will there? _ him. there won't be a coup, will there? they _ him. there won't be a coup, will there? they will i will there? they will eventually. - will there? they will eventually. a i will there? they will eventually. a very . will there? they will - eventually. a very respected anal st eventually. a very respected analyst from _ eventually. a very respected analyst from our _ eventually. a very respected analyst from our dot - eventually. a very respected analyst from our dot politics | analyst from our dot politics as they will be no coup again

putin. . , as they will be no coup again putin. ., , ., ., putin. that is one opinion. i am sure _ putin. that is one opinion. i am sure you _ putin. that is one opinion. i am sure you that _ putin. that is one opinion. i am sure you that people i putin. that is one opinion. i | am sure you that people am speaking to, when ikea, mcdonald's, walk out of russia, when verbal teams can't even play there, they turn into a pariah state, they are alienating because of one man, putin, then his time is up. it could be some time before that happened simply because of the security apparatus that putin has around him. he will want to hang on there with all his henchmen but we will recognise that until then putin will cause mayhem across all of eastern europe, and no doubt the other person we are not giving enough time to end all of this, where does president xi fit into all this? fit of this, where does president xi fit into all this?— xi fit into all this? of china. he has spent _ xi fit into all this? of china. he has spent all— xi fit into all this? of china. he has spent all his - xi fit into all this? of china. he has spent all his time i he has spent all his time during the beijing olympics talking about not who is going to win the ice hockey but what his plans were, decade—long effort, how to redesign the international rules—based order. what we are seeing is the world splintering into two, and again this is another wake—up call to the west to recognise that what russia doing is the front of house

staff, which is actually sanctioned by china... how far will the russia _ sanctioned by china... how far will the russia china _ sanctioned by china... how far will the russia china alliance l will the russia china alliance old though? there have been reports emanating from the united states that russia has asked china for military support. beijing has said absolutely not true. this is misinformation, they have said. there is a lot of misinformation around there but i think the alliance you have, the long—term alliance, bearing in mind they work in decades. we work in election cycles just about what to do in the next week, month or in ddf. china and russia, and putin is looking for his legacy. he realises there is no future in the west. he is still angry at the west. he is still angry at the west. he is still angry at the west were being made to be a taxi driver while he was a kgb agent when the berlin wall fell. he doesn't see the future for russia looking west, he wants to pivot it to the east. to do that, he needs to convince his own people and the best way to do that is to go to walk, knowing the sanctions themselves will then hopefully persuade the russian people, look, the west don't like us, it has backfired. those sanctions will see the end of putin, but as i say then there is a race against time as to how much damage he will

inflict, unless three people stand up to him, groups of people. the west, president xi, or the other, four actually, the russian people, orfourthly is lukashenko, because this could be a game changer. {lit could be a game changer. of belarus. could be a game changer. of belarus- it — could be a game changer. of belarus. it could _ could be a game changer. of belarus. it could be - could be a game changer. of belarus. it could be a i could be a game changer. of belarus. it could be a game | belarus. it could be a game changer. — belarus. it could be a game changer, imagine _ belarus. it could be a game changer, imagine if- belarus. it could be a game changer, imagine if belarusj changer, imagine if belarus were to say we have never had good relationship with putin over the last decades, actually, i don't like where this is going, back off your troops, that would expedite putin's removal and that would be game changing in ukraine. just to pick up on the china point, of course at the un security council when there was a vote expected against russia, condemning its actions in ukraine, china didn't veto. but all these things that you are suggesting are going to take a little bit of time, aren't they?- are going to take a little bit i of time, aren't they?- and of time, aren't they? yeah. and --eole of time, aren't they? yeah. and people in _ of time, aren't they? yeah. and people in ukraine _ of time, aren't they? yeah. and people in ukraine are _ of time, aren't they? yeah. and people in ukraine are being i people in ukraine are being killed now while you're waiting for these four pillars, as you say, to kind of take effect. so what is your idea to stop the killing now, because it doesn't seem as though your blueprint

is going to work fast enough to help save lives in ukraine? well, it is not my blueprint, i am suggesting this is an avenue... am suggesting this is an avenue. . ._ am suggesting this is an avenue... , ., , avenue... or your strategy, rather. this _ avenue... or your strategy, rather. this is _ avenue... or your strategy, rather. this is the - avenue... or your strategy, rather. this is the likely i rather. this is the likely outcome _ rather. this is the likely outcome of _ rather. this is the likely outcome of where i rather. this is the likely outcome of where the l rather. this is the likely i outcome of where the events will eventually take us, but your right to ask ourselves than what we the way should be doing as we see this carnage play out on our tv screens, and i believe public comedian will demand us to do more. we have been —— public opinion will demand us. we have been far too lenient. you touch and we having this debate about defensive weapon systems rather than offensive, we are having this debate which i understand biden actually overawed to allow those polish mig 29 planes to be moved across to ukraine. these are all things that could have been done and should have been done. you know the have should have been done. you know they have sent _ should have been done. you know they have sent a _ should have been done. you know they have sent a terrific _ they have sent a terrific amount of ukrainians. according to a un official quoted on cnn last week, nato and the us and its allies have sent a total of 17,000 anti—tank weapons, some 2000 sting sales so far to the

ukrainians —— stinger missiles. i mean, they are pulling their weight. ihla i mean, they are pulling their weiuht. ., ., , weight. no doubt about it, as i sa , this weight. no doubt about it, as i say. this is— weight. no doubt about it, as i say. this is a — weight. no doubt about it, as i say, this is a steep _ weight. no doubt about it, as i say, this is a steep learning i say, this is a steep learning curve. each day, each week, we are sending more and more weapon systems but we need to be horizon scanning and see what they require. there has been a a0 mile attack tank column sitting outside kyiv, why haven't we been able to take that out? it requires a good range weapon system then we have sent in, the anti—tank systems. we have been talking about the potential for a chemical warfare strike. what have we been doing to provide gas marks, detective equipments, ukrainian people? i was there —— protective equipments. they have not received any equipment that might relate to a chemical warfare attack. if we are predicting this, if our intelligence services are saying this is going to happen, this is again where we can provide is important support. presidentjoe biden has said if putin uses chemical weapons in ukraine, there would be a severe price to pay, and that is a quote, and he didn't

specify what that would be. but there is, specify what that would be. but there is. im — specify what that would be. emit there is, i'm afraid, and i say this is somebody who is half american, wanting to show leadership that the will demand foster but this is the same president that said it would be ok if a portion of ukraine was splintered off by russia. he would be content with that full stop he then rowed back on that but the fact that he is even contemplating or thinking that. but he set a price might have to be paid. but he set a price might have to be paid-— to be paid. but what is that rice? to be paid. but what is that price? itut— to be paid. but what is that price? but you _ to be paid. but what is that price? but you said - to be paid. but what is that price? but you said early i to be paid. but what is that| price? but you said early on there is no _ price? but you said early on there is no point _ price? but you said early on there is no point showing i price? but you said early on i there is no point showing your hand to president putin and telling him what you are doing. but biden is saying what we will not do. that's the difference.— will not do. that's the difference. ~ ., �* ., �* difference. we don't want biden to sa to difference. we don't want biden to say to putin _ difference. we don't want biden to say to putin this _ difference. we don't want biden to say to putin this is _ difference. we don't want biden to say to putin this is what i difference. we don't want biden to say to putin this is what we i to say to putin this is what we are going to do.— are going to do. potentially ou are going to do. potentially you could. _ are going to do. potentially you could, but _ are going to do. potentially you could, but if _ are going to do. potentially you could, but if you i are going to do. potentially you could, but if you do i are going to do. potentially i you could, but if you do keep them guessing, then you must act. can ijust say, when the american saw under obama, similar weapons being used in syria, those red lines were crossed, we did nothing about it and it was russia that took advantage of our weakness and move them lock, stock and

barrel into that area, to the point now where they are bringing soldiers from syria to fight in ukraine as well. what i'm saying is that we are still in this risk averse peacetime mode and we need better statecraft than we saw —— that we saw during the cold war to make those riskier decisions, which are calculated, and that means providing the necessary support and weapon systems ukraine actually requires. you said in an interview, if we see massacres in ukraine, there is a un convention of duty to care to step in. now with reports of mass graves particularly in mariupol, civilians been killed that. have we reached that point? i believe we cross that line already. when we see potential nuclear power plants being fired at, which could cause

risks, seen as a dirty bomb spreading its wave across western europe, these are breaches, genocides, war crimes. and it is a duty to protect. after rwanda, when the world stood back and watched... 1994. 2005 the united nations introduced responsibility to protect. do you believe there is a mandate to intervene in ukraine and if so how? the conce -t ukraine and if so how? the concept of _ ukraine and if so how? ire concept of intervening comes from the duty to protect. it still needs to pass a un security council or un general assembly resolution to be acted uponin assembly resolution to be acted upon in ukraine and absolutely i believe that should be pursued. the question is, what point, what level of genocide,

scale of massacre, breach of criminal law do we need to see broken before we finally step in and recognised that putin will not stop, putin will not stop until he stopped. russia is a permanent _ stop until he stopped. russia is a permanent member - stop until he stopped. russia is a permanent member of i stop until he stopped. russia | is a permanent member of the security council has the right of veto and the former deputy secretary talking about this point says it is seismic. what does it mean for the un? a politically broken you went back into the three 1989 well, a permanent gridlock in the security council on pretty much everything. this is an idea thatis everything. this is an idea that is not going to fly. you are absolutely _ that is not going to fly. you are absolutely right - that is not going to fly. you are absolutely right on - that is not going to fly. um, are absolutely right on the un. it is paralysed... why did you say you could do something through the un? fiur say you could do something through the un?— say you could do something through the un? our rules based on a is in an _ through the un? our rules based on a is in an audible _ on a is in an audible condition. we have become risk averse in utilising it. but

ultimately consensus, like wise with the un. the way you make un awake is you bypass the security council and go via the general assembly. you quoted a vote on that not long ago. which means that russia's beta... underthe which means that russia's beta... under the general assembly... it would not count if they were given a vote. people say it is moribund. i do not disagree — people say it is moribund. i do not disagree but _ people say it is moribund. i do not disagree but it _ people say it is moribund. i do not disagree but it is _ people say it is moribund. i if not disagree but it is a wake—up call we are recognising, the era of instability we have entered, when organisations like the un no longer work and art fit for purpose. i no longer work and art fit for --urose. . ., no longer work and art fit for purpose-— purpose. i want to ask about volunteers — purpose. i want to ask about volunteers going _ purpose. i want to ask about volunteers going to - purpose. i want to ask about volunteers going to fight - purpose. i want to ask about volunteers going to fight in l volunteers going to fight in ukraine on behalf of the ukrainians. the government says there are about 20,000. you are former british soldier,

obviously current soldiers cannot go. we have had some british volunteers. the government has been sending messages. i government has been sending messages-— government has been sending messages. government has been sending messaues. ., , ., ., messages. i would understand an individual make _ messages. i would understand an individual make the _ messages. i would understand an individual make the journey - individual make the journey across and want to fight. but it is against the traditional law to do so. secondly, if you do not know what you're doing and have no experience, not only would you be putting yourself in danger but others who will have to look after you and then you will have a consular issue of having to return your body back to the uk. please, do not do it. if you want to support efforts in ukraine, joined the british army where we are doing other efforts to support ukraine. it the idea that any british individual can go there, when you do not speak the language, you do not speak the language, you are entering a world you did not understand and you will not be helping your cause. es, not be helping your cause. a rapid answer on the issue of refugees. the uk has been

criticised been slower than people in the european union. the national policy some say has become inaudible. it the national policy some say has become inaudible. it was an embarrassment. _ has become inaudible. it was an embarrassment. when _ has become inaudible. it was an embarrassment. when you - has become inaudible. it was an embarrassment. when you look l has become inaudible. it was an | embarrassment. when you look at the numbers we had at the beginning, we were in a single and double figures. we now have and double figures. we now have a system inviting the british people with their generosity to say, please, open up your homes. i am say, please, open up your homes. iam pleased say, please, open up your homes. i am pleased we got there but it took a long time to get them. there but it took a long time to get them-— to get them. criticism about the length _ to get them. criticism about the length of _ to get them. criticism about the length of the _ to get them. criticism about l the length of the conservative party it has had with russians who perhaps are based in the uk. a long—standing matter. britain's parliament intelligence and security committee reported that russia influence in the uk is the new normal. well integrated into the business and social scene stop we have had the laundromat

accusation about britain, the national crime believes $100 billion a year of illicit flow travelling through the country. this is not a good look for the conservatives.— conservatives. you're absolutely _ conservatives. you're absolutely right - conservatives. you're absolutely right and l conservatives. you're| absolutely right and it conservatives. you're - absolutely right and it has been a massive wake—up: recognising that london has become a place you can launder your money. —— wake—up call. it took a nudge from the united states to say this has to stop because it is a way you can harm and hurt the oligarchs but we now need a new prism in which we look at any donation into the conservative party evenif into the conservative party even if they hold a british pastor because absolutely if we are to make sure that we hold russia to account, there are loopholes in this matter and there is not a good look to be receiving those funds. finally, ou receiving those funds. finally, you talked _ receiving those funds. finally, you talked about _ receiving those funds. finally, you talked about military - you talked about military strategy but at the end of the

day, the only way to end this war is through negotiations. through the ukrainians and russian. the president of ukraine has been willing to discuss neutrality. i have understood nato is not prepared to accept ukraine. he is right that the way out is through talking? i that the way out is through talkin: ? . ., , ., talking? i agree that you should not _ talking? i agree that you should not dismiss - talking? i agree that you should not dismiss any l should not dismiss any opportunity to talk but every time there's been discussions in the last few weeks it has been to cover something that has just happened. we been to cover something that hasjust happened. we had been to cover something that has just happened. we had the bombing of a hospital and immediately the next day there was an announcement to state talks will then take place. moving the conversation on to say can we find a solution? but nothing happened. iam say can we find a solution? but nothing happened. i am afraid thatis nothing happened. i am afraid that is what we will see from the later stocks. we need to understand that putin will not stop and if he wins, it will be totemic about what happens in terms of european security perspective. a new era of

insecurity with our world splintering into two spheres, russia and china versus the west so putin must fail and the only way we can make sure is not free diplomacy but by standing up to him in ukraine. tobias ellwood thank you very much indeed for coming on hardtalk. much indeed for coming on hardtalk— hello. more of you should spend the day dry on tuesday. there will be some wet weather around, admittedly, that's going to be mainly towards parts of western scotland and, later, northern ireland. but even as we start the day, one or two isolated showers to eastern parts of england. that's from this weather front

just working its way northwards, and a little ridge of high pressure, though, across most of the country before we see this weather front gradually work its way in from the west. and it's that which will bring the wetter weather to western scotland, northern ireland, but keep temperatures above freezing to start the day. a touch of frost is possible just about anywhere, but a bright enough start for many. a few isolated showers through east anglia and the east midlands, drifting their way northwards into yorkshire through the day. much of england and wales varying amounts of sunshine, best of which will be in the morning. some sunny spells east of scotland. northern ireland, isolated shower. but it's western scotland and to the west of northern ireland where it will turn wetter, quite breezy for a time during the morning. that breeze though will help to break up the cloud to eastern scotland. temperatures in the north on or around 7—8 degrees, but in the sunshine further south, a pleasant spring day, up to around 15 or 16 celsius. then as we go into the night and through to wednesday morning, clearer conditions develop towards western scotland, northern ireland, as showers push their way eastwards. so, here, we will see a frost to start wednesday. a milder start elsewhere, and that's because there'll be a lot more cloud around to start the day. that's because we've got to the south of us storm celia across parts of spain

and portugal, throwing up these weather fronts and potentially a little bit of saharan dust across the south—east during the day. butjust notice across england and wales, whilst there could be a few breaks in the cloud, particularly into the west, the cloud amounts often large, outbreaks of rain around and they will be a bit more heavy, more persistent, developing through the day, particularly through central and eastern parts of england. by contrast, scotland, northern ireland lose the early showers, sunshine comes out. brighter afternoon to wales and parts of north—west england, but cooler here, whereas we could still see up to around 15 degrees in the south—east corner. that milder air, with it the saharan dust and the rain, pushes out into the north sea as we go through the night into thursday. another chilly start on thursday. touch of frost around. much of england and wales will be dry and bright. showers or a greater chance of them in north wales, northern england on thursday. and sunshine and shower day for scotland and northern ireland. a bit chilly here. temperatures climbing again further south, and as we go through the rest of the week, well, it does look like with high pressure building, plenty of blue skies and sunshine into the weekend. see you soon.

this is bbc news. i'm sally bundock with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk, and around the world. no let—up in russia's bombardment of ukraine. the centre of kyiv has been shaken by two large explosions. some escape from the besieged city of mariupol, but for those left behind, the situation remains desperate. the number of people fleeing the country grows ever higher, most heading to poland. we'll be live in warsaw. as covid cases rise in china, the asian markets stumble — how bad will this latest wave of the virus be?