this is bbc news, the headlines: a35 a 35 hours curfew is under way in the ukrainian capital. the residence of kyiv are only allowed to leave their homes to go to an air raid shelter. the mayor said that the city is at a difficult and dangerous moment. ukraine's president has thanked leaders to travel to kyiv to meet him despite the continuing bombardment. the eu leaders said the main goal of the visit was to tell ukrainians that europe stood with them. the journalist winter up did russia's main tv news bulletin to protest against the invasion has been fined the equivalent

of $280 by a court in moscow. the editor on the flagship channel one was question for m hours and charged with organising an unauthorised public event. coming up now on bbc news, hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk with me, zeinab badawi. 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's 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. nice to see you. you 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 that we need a change in attitude, a change of direction, a recognition that we have entered a new era of insecurity. i think the west has been taken aback by the aggression, by the scale of anger that we're seeing from russia,

a determination of russia to redraw the map of eastern europe and potentially beyond. and we're not quite sure how to respond yet. we've done well on the sanctions side, but militarily, nato is the most potent military alliance in the world, but we're still not quite sure how to utilise that, how to stand up to putin's aggression. you've got some ideas — a no—fly zone, for instance. you know that there are regular objections to this. nato chiefjens stoltenberg says the only way to implement a no—fly zone is to send nato fighter planes into ukrainian airspace and then impose that no—fly zone by shooting down russian planes. us secretary of state antony blinken says, "and that could lead to a fully fledged war in europe." they don't want it. well, let'sjust take that in part. firstly, as i suggest, we've moved into a new era of insecurity. what we've had over the last 30 years is this peacetime mode

that we've moved into. we've been pretty fortunate. we're now resorting back to type. the world is an angry place. you get state—on—state aggression, and we're back to seeing that today. but the west hasn't advanced, hasn't woken up to the scale of aggression of what we should actually do about it. but on the issue of no—fly zones... the no—fly zone is one operational response that you could have in relation to russia, to stand up to russia and to help ukraine. but you have to ask yourself, what is the wider strategy? but can i just stay 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 on the operational

side but on the political side, because every time anybody was asked a difficult question about us standing up to russia, immediately they would come back with, "i'm not going to start world war iii." well, you answer that difficult question, then. should we have nato police no—fly zones that would involve nato shooting down russian planes? again, you're asking me tojump into an operational decision, and i'm 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're asked a difficult question, don't stand up and say to russia, "we're not going to do a no—fly zone. "we're 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 even if we were not going to do it, you still keep the other side guessing. so, all right, let me give you a quote from john kirby,

the us pentagon spokesman who is talking about 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—29 to ukraine may be mistaken as escalatory and "could result in significant russian reaction that might "increase the prospects of military escalation with nato." imean... and that's too simplistic and too naive, and it's a reflection of the fact that we've enjoyed 30 years of peace and we need to get back into a cold war construct of statecraft and recognising what we're up against. we're still in peacetime mode. but they don't want the escalation. of course not. yeah, but that's obvious. so what do we do? so we're back into 1938. what we're going to do... we don't want any trouble here. but you're arguing for escalation and yet you're also sitting on the fence, saying, "oh, i'm not really arguing for escalation."

and when they say, "we don't want escalation," you say, "0h, think about it." no, no, no, slow it down. what we do is we take one decision at a time and you recognise the escalatory ladder and you control where you're going. you test the waters, you see what response there is. so far, we've heard so many times from putin and others, lavrov, to say that they might consider using nuclear weapons. has the russia...united states nuclear threat level changed at all? not one bit. are you seriously suggesting the russians may use nuclear weapons? no, what i'm saying is that we spend too much time listening to the political rhetoric, not the reality on the ground. we could easily have slid those migs across from poland across to the ukrainians and allowed them to fight. that would have been a good advantage — better, as you ask the question, than a no—fly zone itself. but we were too timid. we're 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, exploiting our timidity, pushing those lines and the same process,

conducting further and further war crimes, knowing that we won't stand up to him. well, a bit of statecraft here from the british government. ben wallace, the defence secretary, has said britain is exploring the possibility of sending high—velocity starstreak manned portable anti—air missiles. he says, "we believe this system will 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. exactly. and that's good, isn't it? and this shows an indication of the sharp learning curve that we are now on. we're now exploring methods to better support ukraine, because the penny still hasn't dropped. it isn'tjust about ukraine. but it's dropping, isn't it? ben wallace is saying, "look, these weapons are in a kind "of grey area. they're kind of offensive, but we can still say "they're within the category of defensive." let's 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're not affecting the agenda.

what we've seen here, if i can just finish this point, is the tactics that putin originally employed, thinking that he was going to liberate a country, that didn't work, so from afar, he is now bombarding these cities, trying to flush out the people, the civilians, to become refugees and move out of ukraine so it's easier for him to run if he wins. now, what he's done, or thanks to the sanctions that the world has imposed, putin now, i think, will be in the dock in the hague in a matter of months, maybe longer. but until then, he's going to cause so much harm in ukraine. and the question is, will we allow him to get away with it? do you really think he's going to end up at the international criminal court in the hague? we know the justice secretary, dominic raab, the deputy prime minister, is talking to the prosecutor there, karim khan, about the possibility of putin being indicted. would he actually end up there? well, we'll 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's no return to the international stage for russia from a trade perspective, security perspective and so forth, unless they ditch putin. now, the security mechanics that he has around him, the apparatus around him means it's going to be very difficult to get rid of him. but we've seen it in the past. the kremlin, the elite, the generals themselves will recognise there is no future for russia, and that's 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. so that's the idea of the sanctions, impose these 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? that's not going to happen, really, is it? you sort of make my argument for me. he will eventually go, but there isn't enough effort there to remove him immediately.

there's not going to be any palace coup, is there? there will be eventually. i tell you, tatiana stanovaya, who's a very respected analyst from political analysts r.politik, says there will be no coup against putin. that is one opinion. i can assure you that the people i'm speaking to are recognising when ikea, mcdonald's and all these other businesses walk out of russia, when even football teams can't even play there, when they're alienated, they turn into a pariah state because of one person, and that's putin, eventually, his time will be up. now it could be some time before that happens, as i say, simply because of the security apparatus that putin has around him. he'll want to hang on there with all his henchmen, but we must recognise, until then, putin will cause mayhem across eastern europe, and no doubt the other person involved in this, which we're not giving enough time to, is where does president xi fit into all this? of china. because he wouldn't have done all his calculations, spent his time during the beijing olympics talking not about who's going to win the ice hockey, but about what his plans were in a long term, decades�* effort, as to how to redesign the international rules—based order. what we're seeing is the world splintering into two, and this is again another

wake—up call for the west to recognise that what russia is doing is the front—of—house stuff, which actually is sanctioned by china. how far will the russia—china alliance hold, 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've said. there's a lot of misinformation around that, but i think the alliance that you have, the long—term alliance — bear in mind that they work in decades. we work in election cycles, just about, of what to do in the next week, month or indeed year. china and russia... and putin is looking for his legacy. he realises that there's no future in the west. he's still angry at the west for being made to be a taxi driver whilst he was 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 war, knowing the sanctions themselves will then hopefully

persuade the russian people, "look, the west don't like us." it's backfired. those sanctions themselves will see the end of putin, but as i say, then it's a race against time as to how much damage he'll inflict unless three people stand up to him, groups of people — the west, president xi or the... four, actually. ..the russian people, or fourthly is lukashenko, because this could be a game—changer. that's the president of neighbouring belarus. imagine if belarus — just to finish this point — were suddenly to say it never had a good relationship over the last decades with putin anyway, actually, i don't like where this is going, back off your troops. that would expedite putin's removal and that would game changing in ukraine. ijust pick up on the china point that, of course, that the un security council, when there was a vote expected against russia, condemning its actions in ukraine, china abstained. it didn't veto. yeah. but all these things that you're suggesting are going to take a little bit of time, aren't they? they are. and 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's 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's not my blueprint. i'm suggesting that this is an avenue... or your strategy. this is the likely outcome of where, you know, the events will actually take us. but you're right to then ask ourselves what we, the west, should be doing as we see this carnage play out on our tv screens. and i believe public opinion will demand us to do more. we've been far too hesitant, too risk averse in arming the ukrainians themselves. you touched on the fact that we're having this debate between defensive weapon systems and offensive. we're having this debate, which i understand biden actually overruled to allow those polish migs to be moved across to ukraine. these are all things that could have been done and should have been done. but, you know, they have sent a terrific amount to the ukrainians. according to a us official quoted on cnn television last week, nato and the us have sent

a total of 17,000 anti—tank weapons and 2,000 stinger missiles so far to the ukrainians. i mean, they are pulling their weight. no doubt about it. as 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 say, "what do they require?" there's been a 40—mile tank column sitting outside kyiv for how long? why haven't we been able to take that out? that requires a different sort of weapon system, longer range than the anti—tank weapons that we've actually sent in. we've been speaking about the potential for a chemical warfare strike. what have we been doing to provide gas masks, protective equipment and so forth to the ukrainian people? i was there prior to the invasion, literally three or four days. i'm in touch with ukrainian mps now. they've not received any equipment that might relate to a chemical warfare attack. if we're predicting this, if our intelligence service is saying this is going to happen, this is again where we can provide important support.

presidentjoe biden has said that if putin uses chemical weapons in ukraine, there would be a severe price to pay. yeah. and that's a quote. and he didn't specify what that would be. i'm afraid, and i say this as somebody who's half—american, wanting america to stand up and show the leadership that the world absolutely demands. 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. he kind of rowed back... he then rowed back on that, but the fact that he's even contemplating or thinking that... he's saying a severe price would have to be paid. what is that price? but you just said earlier on, there's no point showing your hand to president putin and telling him what you're going to be doing. no, no, no. so... biden�*s been saying what we will not do. yeah, all right. that's a difference. you don't want biden to say to putin, "this is what we're going to do if you use chemical weapons." keep him guessing, surely? potentially you could, but if you do keep him guessing and something happens, then you must act. do you expect him to act? can ijust say, what happened when america saw, under 0bama, weapons being used, 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 moved in lock, stock and barrel into that area, to the point now where they're bringing soldiers from syria to fight in ukraine as well. what i'm saying is that we're still in this risk—averse peacetime mode, and we need better statecraft that we saw during the cold war to make those riskier decisions, which are calculated, and that means providing the necessary support and weapons systems that ukraine actually requires. all right. you said in an interview in the new statesman magazine soon after war broke out in february, "if we see massacres taking place in ukraine, "there is actually a un convention of duty to care "to step in." i'll ask you two points on that. now with reports of mass graves, particularly in the port city of mariupol, figures are roughly like 2,100 people, civilians, have been killed there, maybe more. have we reached that point? of the massacres? i believe we crossed that

line you know, already. when we see potential nuclear power plants being fired at, which could cause risk, which would easily be seen as a dirty bomb, spreading its wave across western europe. these are breaches of these... you know, genocide. it's war crimes and so forth. and this duty to protect, which you'll recall came about after rwanda, when the world stood back and watched, a massacre took place. we are seeing genocide. the massacre — 1994. 2005 — the united nations introduce responsibility to protect. so that brings me to my second point, then. do you believe that there is a mandate under the united nations to intervene in ukraine? and if so, how? you suggested militarily. the concept of intervening comes from the duty to protect, which is a united nations resolution. it still needs to pass a un security council or indeed un general assembly resolution to be enacted upon in ukraine. and absolutely, i believe that should be pursued. the question is, what point,

what scale of massacre, what level of genocide, what breach of, you know, criminal law do we need to see actually broken before we finally step in and recognise that putin will not stop here? putin will not stop... sure. ..until he is stopped. on this issue of the united nations, though — the un, as you know, can do nothing because russia, as a permanent member of the security council, has the right of veto, and the former un deputy secretary, general mark malloch—brown, talking about this point, says it is seismic. what does all this meanforthe un? a politically broken un back into the pre—1989 world of permanent gridlock in the security council on pretty much everything? this is an idea that's not going to fly, is it? firstly, you're absolutely right on the un. it is paralysed. why did you say you could do something through the un, then? let mejust finish. firstly, it absolutely needs a repair. 0ur rules—based order is in wobbly condition

from right across the piece, even nato itself. we've become risk averse in utilising that. the eu has done well with sanctions, but ultimately consensus. likewise, with the un. the way you make the un work is you bypass the un security council and go via the un general assembly. you yourselfjust quoted a vote on that not long ago, and that is where you would go through, which means that russia's veto... the right to protect was under the general assembly. russia's veto would not count if all members of the un general assembly were then given a vote. that's how you avoid... mark malloch—brown says that the whole un system is moribund now, as a result. i don't disagree with that, and it's another point worth adding of the wake—up call that we're now recognising the era of instability that we've just entered, when organisations such as the un security council no longer work and are no longer fit for purpose. 0k. i want to ask you about volunteers going to fight in ukraine on behalf of the ukrainians. the government there says that there are about 20,000 former volunteers. you're a former british

soldier yourself. 0bviously serving soldiers can't go. they've been threatened with prosecution. but would you support civilians going to fight... we know we've had some british volunteers. ..because the government has kind of been sending mixed messages here. i understand any individual that would want... ..see what's going on the screens, make thejourney across and want to fight. but firstly, i understand it's against british law to do so. secondly, if you don't know what you're doing, you don't have any experience in the armed forces, you'd not only be putting yourself in danger, but others too will then have to look after you, and then you'll have a consular issue, having to, you know, return your body back to the uk. please do not do it. if you want to support efforts in ukraine, join the british army, where we're actually doing other efforts to then support ukraine in that that way. but the idea that any british individual could go out there when you don't speak the language, you're entering a world which you don't understand, and it's far too dangerous. you will not be

helping your cause. and another rapid question — a rapid answer, please, on this issue of refugees. the united kingdom has been criticised for being a lot slower than people in the european union. lord alf dubs, a labour peer and a former refugee himself into the uk, says britain's national policy towards refugees has become "computer says no". well... he's right. i think it was that and it was an embarrassment. when you look at the numbers that we had at the beginning, compared with the continent, we were in the single double figures, where everybody was in four or five figures. we now have i think an intuitive system now inviting the british people, with their generosity, to say, "please open up your homes." i'm pleased we got there, but i don't disagree. it took a long time in coming. and you're a member the conservative party. a lot of criticisms about the links that the conservative party has had with russians, who are, perhaps, based in the uk. it's a longstanding matter. britain's. .. parliament's intelligence and security committee report in 2020, and i quote, "found russian influence in the uk "is the new normal. "they are well integrated into the uk business

"and social scene, accepted because of their wealth." we've had the laundromat accusations about britain. the national crime agency believes britain has about $100 billion a year of illicit financial flows channelled through the country. this is not a good look for the conservatives, is it? no, and you're absolutely right. again, this has been a massive wake—up call from our perspective, too, in recognising that london has become that place where you can launder your money through shell companies. you can take russian money that's been stolen and individuals — oligarchs — can invest it here in the uk. it took a nudge for the united states to say this has got to stop because this is a way that you can actually harm and hurt the oligarchs. but you're also right to suggest that we now need a new prism in which we look at any donations in through the conservative party, even if they hold a british passport, because, absolutely, if we are to make sure that we hold russia to account, there aren't loopholes in this manner, and it's not a good look for any party, conservative or otherwise, to be receiving those funds.

finally, you've talked about military strategy a great deal, but i put it to you, at the end of the day, the only way to end this war is through negotiations. talks are going on between the ukrainians and the russians. president zelensky of ukraine himself has indicated he may be willing to discuss neutrality. he says, "i've cooled down after we understood "that nato is not prepared to accept ukraine." so he's right, isn't he, that the way out is through talking? i agree that you should not dismiss any opportunity to talk, but every time that there's been discussions in the last few weeks, it's always been to cover something that's just happened. we had the bombing of a hospital and immediately, the next day, there was an announcement to say that talks will then take place, moving the entire conversation on to say, "can we find a solution?" well, nothing happened. and that's what i'm afraid i think we're going to see with these latest talks. we need to understand, as i say, putin will not stop because he's cornered until he stops, and if he wins, it will be totemic in what happens across europe

from the security perspective. we will enter a new era of insecurity, with our world splintering into two spheres of competing influence — russia, china versus the west. so putin must fail, and the only way we can actually make sure he fails is not through diplomacy, but by standing up to him in ukraine and having the confidence to do so. tobias ellwood, thank you very much indeed for coming on hardtalk. thank you. hello. there could be the odd interesting sunrise for some of you across the south as we start wednesday,

and there could be a few deposits on the car from this. this satellite imagery from tuesday afternoon shows a vast swathe of saharan dust sitting in the sky across much of western europe, and it's tracking its way northwards, but will start to interact with this weather front pushing in from the west. that'll have brought rain through the night and into the start of the day across parts of scotland and northern ireland. but our weather system thatjust drags up that dust is a developing one. it will be a lot of cloud to begin with and not quite as chilly as it was on tuesday morning. greatest chance of frost where we see the clearer skies across western scotland and northern ireland. but here, vastly brighter day, lighter winds compared with tuesday. that brighter weather pushes into eastern scotland during the afternoon, outbreaks of rain through the morning across the western half of england and wales, slowly turning brighter later. but notice across much of england, we'll see outbreaks of rain develop here and there. some of the heaviest, most persistent into the afternoon will be across that southeastern corner. that's where we're still dragging in the airfrom the near continent, so 13—14 celsius possible here, a little bit fresher elsewhere. as i said, the winds not quite as strong as they were for a time on tuesday.

a wet end to the day across parts of eastern england, east anglia and the southeast especially. that rain does eventually clear, though, during the first half of wednesday night. clear skies, then, to take us through much of the night into thursday morning, so a greater chance, certainly away from towns and city centres, we'll see a frost develop for thursday morning. but it will be a lovely, bright, sunny start for the vast majority. this little ridge of high pressure is with us first thing. notice, though, we do have weather fronts pushing in off the north atlantic. the isobars close together once again, so a breezier day, especially for the northern half of the uk. showers through much of the day across parts of scotland and northern ireland, but a bit of sunshine in between. those showers could be heavy. through the afternoon, some parts of northern england, north wales, maybe the north midlands could catch the odd shower, but much of england, again, and southeast wales will be dry, feeling pleasant in the sunshine. and it's that sunshine which really takes over over the days ahead. it does mean that with clear skies into friday morning, frosty and in places, foggy start, most prone across wales, the southwest and the midlands. some of the fog lingering

for a while, but overall, actually, more of you seeing blue skies overhead. temperatures of around 10—15 celsius. warm spring sunshine, a quite strong spring sunshine at that, which will continue into the weekend, maybe a small chance of one or two showers for southern england late on sunday. take care.

this is bbc news: i'm sally bundock with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. under a curfew and under attack — loud explosions are heard in the ukrainian capital kyiv as residents are told not to be out in public. nato�*s to draw up new plans to deter russia: its defence ministers meet later for the first time since the invasion. president biden signs off on a bill with over $13 billion of help for the ukraine. from comedian and reality tv star to wartime leader — a director who worked with volodymyr zelensky on his rise to the biggest role of his life.