this is bbc news. we'll have the headlines and all the main news stories for you at the top of the hour, as newsday continues — straight after hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. for six months now, ukraine has been a nation at war, the government and people united in a conviction that they are fighting for freedom. but in the face of the existential threat posed by putin's invasion, has ukraine stayed true to the democratic values it loudly proclaims? well, my guest is olga rudenko, the editor of the kyiv

independent, a news organisation committed to reporting from ukraine without fear or favour. but is there room for independentjournalism on the ukrainian battlefield? olga rudenko in kyiv, welcome to hardtalk. well, stephen, thank you for having me. it's a great pleasure to have you on the show. just a short time ago, you reflected with time magazine on the impact of what is now a six—month—long war that you have lived through, you've experienced.

you said, "none of us are the same people. we may look the same on the outside, but on the inside, we have changed." how have you changed? well... even as you were saying that, i was thinking about how true it is, especially today, you know, six months, exactly six months after the war started. and looking back, i honestly can't believe how i could even come to the office, this office, on any day and think that i was having a difficult day while, actually, you know, in retrospect, it was so normal, the life that we were having before the invasion. we don't say "before the war", of course, because the war, as we know, started in 2014, has been going on for eight years. and personally, i think i've become — like the rest of ukraine

— more resilient. and i think, like the rest of us, personally and as a country, i think i've also found in myself new strengths that i didn't think i had. and i see it in people around me every day. i think everybody turned out to be so much stronger, so much more resilient than they ever thought they could be before this happened. you talk about resilience, and i'm very struck by your experience as a journalist because you and colleagues set up the kyiv independent in the months before the major invasion in february. it was still a baby, so to speak, in journalistic terms when this invasion happened. and suddenly, with very limited resources and just a few staff, you had to figure out how to cover an existential experience for all ukrainians. how on earth did you go about it?

so, you're right to say that the kyiv independent was a baby. we were only three months old when it started. but at the same time, we were coming from a very special background that empowered us to do what we're doing today. and that background was a different newspaper in ukraine that was called kyiv post, where most of us worked at before november 2021 for a long time. i was there for ten years personally. and it was also... just to interrupt you for a second, olga, some people watching this and listening will not know that you and all the other editorial staff were fired from the kyiv post in the autumn of 2021, that that newspaper, the proprietor, chose to go in a very different direction. it seemed he wanted a less confrontational newspaper. he said that he wanted more positive news from ukraine, less investigation, so you guys — between you, the fired staff — set up the kyiv independent

with very limited resources. and i guess that is what i'm coming back to. you have to cover a war. you need front line war correspondents. you need emergency planning for security. you need, literally, to buy flak jackets for your staff. and you didn't have any money. how have you coped? yes, exactly. we had almost nothing when it started. you know, in the days leading up to the invasion, when big companies and businesses and even journalistic organisations were putting in order complicated, expensive plans, many of them relocating their staff to other places, all we could do was get together and do some very basic planning as to what happens, what we do if kyiv was threatened, if ukraine is invaded. and still, even as we were planning it, just ten days before the invasion, we... honestly, we thought that we were planning

for a very dire scenario that is very unlikely. even back then, we didn't believe it will actually happen. we thought that anything that could happen is going to be... you know, there's going to be an escalation in eastern ukraine. but to imagine kyiv being targeted was nearly impossible. so when the invasion did happen, we didn't have flakjackets, we didn't have the equipment we needed to be war reporters. what we did have was very dedicated staff. several of us, fortunately, have experience reporting at the front line in eastern ukraine, where the war has been raging since 2014. so, the three people who had the most experience in reporting that, they stayed in kyiv during that first month, when the so—called battle of kyiv was happening and the city was essentially besieged. and they were the core of our reporting force, while the rest of us, for security purposes, went to different parts of ukraine and several of us

went abroad, because our big fear and anticipation was that russia would try to cut off internet and communications, so we needed people to also be outside of ukraine to pick up the work if we in ukraine suddenly are cut off everything, so... but it is — again, sorry to interrupt, but it is very different, is it not, covering a war in your own nation, in your own homeland, rather than for us internationaljournalists flying in and out of places like kyiv, doing the reporting, observing what is happening, and then, of course, ultimately flying home again? i'm mindful of one of your young female reporters who was one of the first to see what the russian troops left behind in bucha, just outside kyiv. bucha was actually her family's home town, and she saw what the russian troops had done as they left.

the trauma yourjournalists must have experienced is almost unimaginable. yes, yes, it is. it is very different. and, i mean, a lot of internationaljournalists are doing great work in ukraine and i admire what they do. but as you said, stephen, they get to go on the train and then on the plane and fly home. and even more importantly, perhaps, they know... they get to know that their families are safe. and that's not the case for most of us. and even as you mentioned, yes, we also had people who had to report on what is happening in bucha while their families were there. we had people who had to report what was happening in northern ukraine while their families were in cities that were being bombed and that were being surrounded by russians. we had a person, a reporter who was working for us while being in a village that was surrounded by russians and not knowing... i mean, there was a moment when one reporter wrote

a message to the general chat, basically saying goodbye to us, because russians were apparently entering the village where her family was based. i think we are far from understanding still what consequences it's going to have on our lives and we're trying to cope with it the best way we can. one consequence, olga, may be that you have had to jettison the foundation values that you had when you created the kyiv independent — because, as i've already said, you and your fellow journalists were committed to reporting on ukraine without fear or favour. you had a reputation for digging into corruption scandals and challenging and holding the government to account. but now, of course, you're in wartime. and i wonder whether you would acknowledge to me that your values are fundamentally changed. in the weeks after the war, you said this — "we are only reporting on the war now. no other stories, no

politics, no business. it is the war." and you went on, "we don't pretend to be neutral. we all know who the aggressor is and who the victims are. there is no neutrality." so, are you still the kyiv "independent"? absolutely, we are, yes. i think we would have been lying to our audience if we pretended that we have some neutrality in this conflict. we are the kyiv independent. we are in kyiv, and we see first—hand the... we get to witness the invasion. we know that there are no two equal sides in what is going on. there is the aggressor, and there is the country defending itself. so that's what i mean when i say, "there is no neutrality." right, and i understand that point about your take on the causes and the origins of the war, but does that mean that your paper now sees itself as committed to sort of the national project of winning the war? that's a very good

question, stephen. on the one hand, we, of course, root for ukraine to win the war. but that doesn't mean that... i wouldn't say committed to the national project, because there is, i think, a very fine line between being ukrainian journalists, wanting ukraine to win the war. and at the same time, we're not... we are not part of the same effort that the government is part of. we're not... we're not a propaganda outlet, essentially. we are not... i think ourfirst, our essential and the most important allegiance, the commitment that we have, is to the truth. and we know that, here, the truth is on ukraine's side. but then why did you say — again, i'm quoting you — not so long ago, you said, "right now, we are in survival mode. and in terms of the government, we are on the same team." how can you say that you're on the same team? there is surely a distance

between you and the government. there is quite a distance. we're not, erm... we're not even talking to the government. we are reporting on it, but we don't have any special, you know, special gateway to it, or something. it is a very good question of how to phrase it, because it's a very unique — it's very unique circumstances. i mean, we here, we understand our position pretty well, especially last week — we ran an investigation into wrongdoings in one of the departments of the ukrainian military. and that was seen by some people as controversial, because it was not, you know... if we were exactly on the same team with the government, we would've, when we received the information, tried to hide it and not report on it. but there's this balance. and i can't say that we have completely found it, you know, we're still a very young organisation in very unusual circumstances. so, we are treading and trying to find this balance, the right balance between,

you know, being part of ukraine and being — we can't deny being part of the battle for victory and for survival, while at the same time, telling the truth. just tell me, then, more about this story you ran just a short time ago, actually a week or so ago, which was headlined, "international legion fighters speak out against the leadership�*s misconduct". it was a deep investigation into what the foreign legion soldiers have been put through, who are serving alongside the ukrainian military. there was talk of suicide missions, abuse, physical threats, and a failure of the military and political leadership to respond to these allegations coming from international legion fighters — who had come to ukraine, after all, to fight for ukraine. how difficult was it for you to publish that story, which, of course,

is potentially significantly damaging to the ukrainian military effort? yes, we had a conversation about it internally in the newsroom with the editors and the authors of the story, of the investigation that was published last week. and basically, we sat together and we talked about it, about the meaning of publishing it, and the possible consequences. and we were on the same page, in terms of we all agreed that shedding the light on alleged, you know, misconduct, on the wrongs in the ukraine military or government essentially is helping ukraine. we'll firmly believe that. maybe in the short term, it will change the image, something, something. but, you know, at the centre of why we're doing it is we... we are ukraine, we're not russia. we don't want censorship. we don't want censorship, or self—censorship to become part of our lives.

because if we are fighting this war and losing some of the freedoms in the process, then, you know, it makes it almost meaningless because we can't, on the other end of this fight, you know, become more like russia, meaning less free. and it is essential for us to be able to do what we do, to say the truth. and when we learn about misconduct in this part of the ukrainian army and military, it is our duty to report it. did president zelensky�*s office lean on you after publication of that report? or maybe the ministry of defence? is there an atmosphere in kyiv right now which is making it difficult for you to do your work as you see fit? it is a good question, stephen. there has been no response from the president's office to this story, which i think is not ideal, given that this was the project that

president zelensky championed. and there has been no public response from the people in charge of this who reached out to us and said that they want to get their side in the story, which they didn't before. and we're talking to them about a full story that would present their side, too. and i wouldn't say that there is an atmosphere of pressure onjournalists in ukraine now. at the same time, we are — because we are ukrainian journalists and we, you know, have a history of fighting for our profession, having to fight for our profession, for being able to do what we do in the past, you know, going to protests and fighting attempts to censor us — because of that, we are always on alarm, in that regard. you draw a direct comparison with the russian media, and you say, "we are nothing like russia. we're not a propaganda machine.

we don't automatically support and toe the government line." but i did notice, when amnesty international wrote a critical report, again, just weeks ago about the actions of the ukrainian military, according to amnesty international, the military were ignoring international law and norms in the use of civilian buildings, including hospitals and schools, to base their military activities. amnesty was deeply critical about that. you, in a very strong editorial, took on amnesty international and entirely defended the government. now, i dare say if all of this had happened in moscow, that's exactly what the russian media would have done. if you make the conclusion based on this one episode, then, yes — if you look at our work overall, then no. well, about that editorial, it was not... i did not at all see it as defending the government.

i saw it as pointing out the, erm, wrong approach that we, in the newsroom, think amnesty international was taking in that case. at the same time, ijust want to point out that their accusations are serious and need to be looked into. and we'll try to do that in the near future. we're going to, you know... we sincerely think that how they approach this information, and how they try to, sort of, create this fake balance, like, the equality of two sides, kind of thing, both responsible — we think that that was wrong. but at the same time, the accusations are worth looking into, and we want to do that. do you feel that you are, sort of, locked into a propaganda war right now, with russian media outlets? you have talked about the sense in which you see yourselves as countering a million, if not billion—dollar russian propaganda machine

which spreads its own message — many would call it disinformation, some would just call it outright lies, when it comes to things like the killings of civilians by russian forces, when it comes to the coverage of particular things like the assault on mariupol, including the maternity hospital, events at bucha — a whole host of things where the russians have put out lines which objective, independent international observers have said are simply not true. who's winning this propaganda war? the highly—financed russians, or the ukrainians? you know, it may sound naive, but i am a big believer that... i know it's not a very popular opinion these days, but i'm a big believer in the fact that the truth, ultimately, is stronger than propaganda. and i think that, just because i firmly,

firmly believe that, you know, that, well... i don't know if "believe" is the right word, because we're reporting about a lot of things that we see with our own eyes. because i know that the truth is what we are saying, that we are reporting the truth, i know that eventually, we're definitely winning this. if you talk about day by day, of course, russia has sometimes their successful days, in terms of propaganda, in terms of pushing some narratives that make their way in western media outlets often. and it's a very well—financed machine that has been active for years, if not decades. so, we, of course, we see ourselves at the kyiv independent as part of the response, as an important part of the response, but only part of the response to that. that sounds incredibly high—minded, and some would say even idealistic. but then, i look at actually

some of the things you write, and it seems less about truth—telling than it seems about peddling a narrative which says russia, in essence, is a fascist state. and i use that phrase advisedly because you have said, and i'm quoting, "russians aren't a normal nation who got lost, turned the wrong way, were unlucky with an authoritarian ruler. no, they've been wrong many times. and we have to conclude that the country became what it is, a fascist state, a fascist society, a mix of aggressors and their apathetic accomplices." is this truth, or is this just polemic to further your particular cause? no, it is true. you know, i say that because i have access to notjust, you know, what russian media writes or what russian leaders say. but i'm a russian speaker myself, i know the language, and i have access to large

parts of russian internet, so to say, and i see with my own eyes how many people... and they're not, i mean, of course, there are some bots and some bot farms that push the narratives, but there are so many ordinary people on social media, including on tiktok, recording videos, who support wholeheartedly the most horrible things. and it's notjust — and also, you know, we in ukraine are very irritated when this is called "putin's war" or "putin's invasion" because it's not vladimir putin who's pressing the button to send a bomb flying on a maternity hospital in mariupol, for example. this invasion is powered by hundreds of thousands of russians who are going along with it, and millions at home who support it. if you look at even the most conservative surveys, polls, even those that are, you know — of course, it's russia, but there are some

surveys and polls that are still kind of independent, kind of present the picture, no matter how conservatively you approach it, there are still millions of people who support this. and ifirmly, i honestly believe that something went wrong with the mentality of the nation at some point. you've given me your take on russia — what about your take on ukraine six months into this war that there are beginnings of signs of political division in the country — you, yourself, on the eve of war, were very critical of president zelensky, you called him "a mediocre showman". do you think those divisions are bound to come out as the war goes on and on? yes, absolutely, this has been the trajectory so far. if, in the first months, there was this unquestionable unity of people and the government — and the government was, including president zelensky, were under no scrutiny. now it's changing, and it's been changing for the past several months, and it's escalating. and, yes, now people

are asking more questions about whether he made the right decision to not inform the nation about the upcoming invasion, and also whether enough was done backstage, in terms of preparations to defend ukraine. and yes, the trend that we see is definitely that it is increasing, and ukrainians are very used to questioning the authorities. again, this is not russia, and we will want to get the answers. and i think that the time will come when we will learn more, and the government will have to give those answers to us. olga rudenko, i thank you very much indeed forjoining me on hardtalk from kyiv. thank you.

hello. well, last night, parts of southeastern britain were swamped by thunderstorms — a month—and—a—half of rainfall in 1—2 spots, much quieter out there right now. and friday promises to be a decent day, not all that, sunny. we are expecting the clouds to increase through the course of the morning, into the afternoon — all as a result of this weather front which is approaching from the west. it's a weaker weather front, there's not an awful lot of rain on it. perhaps a few showers out towards the west. and notice that central and eastern areas will be mostly bright, even sunny. so here's a closer look, then, early hours of the morning, here's the cloud reaching south western parts of england, wales, the irish sea. certainly cloudy for northern ireland and parts of scotland early on friday morning. out towards the east and south, it will be much brighter. 1a in london, the starting temperature, around 10—11 in the north of scotland. so starts off quite sunny, but then, this weak weather

front moving very slowly across the uk will build cloud across many central parts of england. i suspect the sunniest areas will be along the north sea coast, around the coasts of east anglia, and also the channel. and you can see where the showers are possible — maybe in southwestern scotland, 1—2 elsewhere, the northwest of england, perhaps wales. now, the weekend — all—important weekend because it is, of course, for some of us a bank holiday weekend. sunny spells and just a few showers on the horizon. so predominantly sunny weather on saturday, with high pressure building. this weak weather front may just about brush the very far northwest of the uk. and the temperatures highest in the southwest of the uk there, in cardiff at around 25 celsius. here's that area of high pressure — and this time, it's building from the north. look at the arrows — they're blowing around the high, and the winds will be quite strong at times. so it does mean that the coasts around the north sea and east anglia, and the channel could be quite chilly at times. that will push the warmth out towards the west —

so the best weather conditions i think around the irish sea, wales, the southwest of england. here, temperatures up to around the mid—20s once again, but very decent also, say, in glasgow up to around 21 celsius. now here's the outlook through the weekend and into next week — and i think overall, we can say that the weather is mostly set fair for most parts of the uk. that's it for me, bye—bye.

welcome to newsday, reporting live from singapore, i'm karishma vaswani. the headlines: the usjustice department is ordered to release a redacted version of the evidence that prompted the fbi to search donald trump's mar—a—lago home. safety concerns at the zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in ukraine, after the russian—occupied site is temporarily disconnected from the national power grid. graciously agreed around russia should agree to demoralise the zone as soon as possible. —— drought and record temperatures in china threaten rivers and crops, putting several provinces on a national red

alert.