bellingham who players back. jude bellingham who waved out of his window to the fans, he is of course from birmingham, so these are local fans to him. we saw gareth southgate waving to the fans, of course a lot of speculation about what he will choose to do next. not quite the homecoming that these players will have them talk, they thought this was their time to shine on the world stage. —— will have green dog. they have come back to a pretty cold and dreary birmingham airport, not the scenes they would have been hoping for. the us space agency nasa has announced its uncrewed orion capsule has successfully returned to earth. it splashed down in the pacific, ending a three—week test mission around the moon. its hoped it now paves the way for the next stage of the plan to take astronauts back to the moon later this decade. i'm joined now by the former flight instructor and controller for europe's control centre for the international space station, libbyjackson, who now leads the human exploration programme

at the uk space agency. a massive moment. absolutely. and such a delight _ a massive moment. absolutely. and such a delight to _ a massive moment. absolutely. and such a delight to see _ a massive moment. absolutely. and such a delight to see the _ a massive moment. absolutely. and such a delight to see the spacecraftl such a delight to see the spacecraft safely touched down. the whole mission has gone to plan, save some difficulties getting off the launch pad a few weeks ago. the last big test was this brand—new way to re—enter the earth's atmosphere, with a skipped re—entry testing out the heat shields and the parachutes. it was brilliant to see it back on earth and really looking forward to the next time it all goes ahead with humans on board. mit? the next time it all goes ahead with humans on board.— the next time it all goes ahead with humans on board. why do you think that is so important? _ humans on board. why do you think that is so important? i— humans on board. why do you think that is so important? i miss - humans on board. why do you think that is so important? i miss the - that is so important? i miss the start of that _ that is so important? i miss the start of that question! - that is so important? i miss the start of that question! why - that is so important? i miss the | start of that question! why does that is so important? i miss the i start of that question! why does it matter so much _ start of that question! why does it matter so much to _ start of that question! why does it matter so much to get _ start of that question! why does it matter so much to get humans - start of that question! why does it matter so much to get humans to | start of that question! why does it. matter so much to get humans to the moon? ,. . ., matter so much to get humans to the moon? ,. . . . ., ., , moon? the science and technology that we use — moon? the science and technology that we use from _ moon? the science and technology that we use from this _ moon? the science and technology

that we use from this tells - moon? the science and technology that we use from this tells us - moon? the science and technology| that we use from this tells us much more about the earth, the moon is a unique record of the solar system, by pushing the boundaries of technology we force ourselves to think of new ways to do things, develop new materials, develop pieces of technology that we can all use here on everyday earth. the mission as well is an inspirational one. i grew up learning about the stories of the apollo mission, not living through them. it drew me into a career in the space sector. we all rely on space every single day. astronauts are inspirational in that way, they share those stories, going to the moon will do that even more. all of it, with the economic returns, the scientific and technology ones, they really come together and that is something that nasais together and that is something that nasa is doing, and this time with other agencies around the world. what timeframe do you think some of this will be achieved? the what timeframe do you think some of this will be achieved?— this will be achieved? the next mission, artemis, _ this will be achieved? the next mission, artemis, will- this will be achieved? the next mission, artemis, will be - this will be achieved? the next mission, artemis, will be done this will be achieved? the next i

mission, artemis, will be done in about two years' time will stop some of the hard work that has come back down to day needs to be reused and sorted out and get ready for the next flight. that will take time. once that mission, artemis ii, has been successful, nasa will look ahead to a landing on the moon and i think we will see that in the middle of this decade.— think we will see that in the middle of this decade. now on bbc news. ukraine: what next? shouting. they chant. kherson liberated from russian occupation. the only ukrainian provincial capital taken by the russians, and now they've lost it. retreating across the dnipro river. for moscow, it's the latest in a series of humiliating setbacks.

there's no reason, if you look at the war of the last few months, that if they are properly supplied and equipped, they would not be able to drive the russians out. russia's response under a new unified commander has been swift and brutal. wave after wave of missile and drone attacks... ..to knock out ukraine's power supply. i think it is hard for russians to understand that ukrainians really... they really hate russia. winter has arrived, making fighting a little bit more difficult, but that is a breathing space that the ukrainians cannot afford to give the invading russians, because the big question now is if this war becomes a stalemate, then how much longer

will the west continue to support ukraine's defense? i'm going to try to explain how we got here and what to expect next from both sides. but to do that, we need to rewind a few weeks. all through the summer, ukraine was accurately targeting russian supply lines and launching counter offensives. they managed to recapture huge areas around the city of kharkiv in september, but they had less success in the east and the south. now, i cannot overstate how important logistics and supply lines are in this war. they are absolutely crucial to both armies. and the ukrainians know exactly how weak some of those russian supply lines are. shortly after russia lost

the area around kharkiv, it illegally annexed four occupied ukrainian provinces after holding sham referendums, even though it didn't actually control huge areas of those provinces. they chant. president putin also reminded the world that russia has nuclear weapons. soon after that came his 70th birthday. but the very next day, he got an unpleasant surprise. his personal project and europe's longest bridge, the kerch, was mysteriously attacked. this was the vital strategic link connecting crimea to mainland russia, the artery that supplied russia's forces in southern ukraine. a furious vladimir putin sacked his top commander and replaced him with this man, general surovikin.

he's gained notoriety from serving in afghanistan, chechnya, and most recently in syria, where he oversaw the almost complete destruction of the city of aleppo. surovikin�*s first move in ukraine was to hit back with a barrage of missile strikes against power stations, hoping to plunge as much of the country as possible into darkness. well, russia has also started using these shahed—136 explosive drones to attack targets in cities. secretly supplied by iran by the thousands, they're cheap, mass—produced and relatively accurate, and terrifying. well, my next guest is vitaly shevchenko, who heads bbc monitoring's russian team and obviously speaks both russian and ukrainian and has a very deep insight into what is going on in ukraine. vitaly, these missile strikes that

are devastating ukraine's electricity power grid — is this having an effect on morale? it's impossible to ignore the impact of these missile strikes, both in practical terms and psychologically as well, because the streets are dark, there are no traffic lights, which means it's dangerous to cross the road. it's like dicing with death. and in many locations, this means there's no running water as well because pumps are electricity powered. and russia, of course, says that the point of these massive waves of missile strikes is not to target the population, it's to undermine the ukrainian military�*s ability to fight. and there's some truth in that, because, well, take ukrainian railways, for example — the vast majority of their locomotives are electricity powered. ukraine said that railway traffic has been hugely disrupted. and, of course, this means

disruption for the military as well. but having said that, i've not heard anyone who matters say that because we don't have running water or heat or electricity, we're prepared to give up. on the contrary, they're refusing to negotiate with russia because they think any respite for russia will allow it to regroup, restock, and fight ukraine again. i'm sure that's probably true, but i'm also sure that president putin is doing this as a deliberate tactic to try and break the will of the ukrainian people so that they eventually plead with their government, do something, stop this, anything, a ceasefire. i mean, there's a limit to what the human body can endure in subzero temperatures. is there a political risk for the ukrainian government here, do you think, as the effect of these

missile strikes begins to bite? absolutely. currently, president zelensky rides this wave of popularity. he is the people's president leading the country into war with russia, defending ukraine, being decisive and resolute. but if, in addition to military pressures, if he starts facing domestic pressures from the public in ukraine, this is going to be a huge problem for him. and i've seen the beginnings of discontent within ukraine. there's been a rally in the southern city of odesa, a russian—speaking city... ..where people block the road protesting against the darkness and the cold and the absence of running water. it's natural to expect russia to try and exploit this sentiment,

stimulate this sentiment as a way of putting pressure on the ukrainian government and making it embattled on yet another front. if it becomes simply intolerable for life for ukrainians, what is going to happen, do you think? is there going to be a mass exodus, another mass exodus out of ukraine westwards? or do you think ukraine is going to sue for some kind of ceasefire, some kind of pause, which, of course, gives russia a chance to rearm and regroup and retrain? one of ukraine's biggest energy companies, dtek, it said, ok, it's going to be a very difficult winter, if you can, leave. i've not seen any signs of people listening to that advice. one reason for that is they're getting used to it. # c' 'na luna mezz'u mare. # mamma mia m'a maritare...# and that's one big reason why

i wouldn't expect them to cave in, not now, at any rate, and say because our homes are cold and dark, we are prepared to talk to russia. of course, it is possible that when winter really sets in, that can break the spirits of so many ukrainians. but at the moment, the prevailing mood is that of defiance, both in terms of what i've seen on social media and in terms of what officials say and in terms of what public opinion leaders say. ukraine has been using drones against russian targets inside ukraine since the start of the war. they've mostly been fairly small and short range. but, recently, airbases have been mysteriously attacked deep inside russia, which is prompting speculation that ukraine may have acquired

a drone with a range of up to a thousand kilometres. the air bases are home to some of russia's largest strategic, nuclear capable bombers, used to fire the very cruise missiles that have been targeting ukraine's infrastructure. in early november, rumours started circulating about a possible russian withdrawal from kherson city. when rumour became reality, the kremlin distanced itself from this serious setback, leaving it to the defense ministry to explain it to the public. translation: i understand this is a very difficult decision, - but at the same time we will preserve the lives of our service personnel and, in general, the combat capability of the group of forces. so here's where we are now. russia still occupies roughly a fifth of ukraine, including most of its coastline. much of the heavy fighting is happening around the town of bakhmut, with russian forces trying to break through the ukrainian lines for weeks.

it's a brutal, grim, grinding battle, reminiscent of the first world war. thousands have been killed on both sides, with not much ground changing hands. now let's get back to the issue of supply and logistics, because it seems like ukraine is once again targeting those. along the coastline, runs the rm ia highway and further north there's a train line between donetsk in the east with nova kakhovka right on the river dnipro. there is also a train line via crimea across the damaged kerch bridge. train lines are crucial to russian logistics because their road transport is antiquated and inefficient. ukraine knows this very well and when we factor in artillery ranges, we can see that they're close enough to hit some key points along these

lines with precision artillery. i'm not originally a sort of a russia ukraine expert, but i think that helped me because i was one of the people before february 24th saying, why do we think the russian army is any good? when it comes to the military strategic picture in ukraine, one expert who's done a lot of work on this is professor phillips o'brien from the university of st andrews in scotland. it looks like russia occupies one significant swath of territory. when you look at the map, you see this sort of one arc of territory that is under russian control. logistically, however, that's two pieces. it's not actually connected logistically. things to the west, above crimea, are very hard to supply from the east. so the way they're supplying their troops in the west is through crimea. and that's why they have to keep that supply line open if they're going to keep their two sort of fronts going. so from the moment the russians came over the border on february 24th,

what the ukrainians have done often is concentrated on denuding their logistics by making it difficult to supply. and, as you say, that's what happened at kherson. they simply made it untenable for the russians to maintain forces on the west bank of the dnipro. now, one assumes that's what they're going to try and do again and make it untenable to supply russian forces on the east bank of the dnipro above crimea, and that would be rational. where do you think this war is going from here? what happens next? what should we expect this winter? well, i think the russians are...seem to understand now that what they're going to do is try and hold on to a new army, that they're in the process of generating through conscription, through the draft and through all of that, is able to take the field sometime in the spring, that they started this conscription process in september, they took some of the troops and just rushed them to the front trying to hold things, and others they seem to be trying to prepare a bit more

sensibly behind the lines. they won't be ready, for, one assumes, till the spring, six months after they were, six or seven months after they were drafted. so the russians are going to try, we think, or see they hold on to that new army is ready and ukraine will want to keep up the momentum. and that's in the stage. if you look at the map in the east and the donbas, particularly around bakhmut, very heavy fighting, in the southwest around kherson, the russians have dug in with these three successive layers of defense in depth so probably not a lot of movement there. if you were advising the ukrainian general staff, where would you attack the russians next? you know, i don't know if they need my advice. they've done pretty well without it. i would say going forward in this war is not easy. we have these two ukrainian victories. the victory in kharkiv happened because they hit an area in which there were hardly any

russian forces. and, actually, the direct assaults on kherson were only moderately successful. what they had to do was cut supply lines and force the russians out. so it's not going to be easy, as you said, for the ukrainians to just stream forward anywhere. defensive power is very strong and loss of equipment is very high. so i think what the ukrainians would do is look for a place now where they can waste and trip, russian forces, while attacking logistics and hopefully create a situation again where russian forces are so weakened that they can push forward, probably somewhere in the centre of the line would make the most sense. russia has done this big call—up, they're preparing thousands of troops for the spring. what else do you think they could do to tip the balance back in theirfavour? the most vulnerability the ukrainians have is their access to nato weaponry. so i don't think the russians have

done it terribly well. in fact, in many ways, they've done it in a counterproductive way. but what they need to be able to do, if they're going to have any chance to weaken ukraine, is to try and cut that supply of weaponry. and that's a political task. and i think that's the only way they can materially affect the course of the war in terms of really weakening ukraine. i'm less convinced of these attacks on civilian infrastructure. i mean, they can certainly make a difference because they divert ukrainian attention, but on the other hand, they're not decreasing ukrainian will to fight, they're probably increasing it, so i'm not sure that that's going to have the effect that they think. both sides are taking huge losses in this conflict. but with the arrival of winter,

it's particularly hard for all those mobilised russian troops who are often poorly equipped and at risk of hypothermia — again, a symptom of russia's supply problems. one person who's an expert on this is drjade mcglynn from oxford. the russians are taking massive losses. i mean, ukraine is as well, we don't hear very much about those, but they must be taking them as well. but is this starting to have an impact at home? i think it is starting to have an impact and particularly also the kremlin�*s and their local governors brusque attitude towards the mothers as well. so, for example, one governor met with the mothers just two days ago and he said, well, you should remember that your sons don't belong to you, they belong to us, the state, which is quite something to say to a grieving mother or a mother who doesn't know if her son is is alive or dead. and recently on mother's day in russia, which is celebrated on the 25th of november, vladimir putin met with some mothers, but he didn't meet

with the mums who were actually protesting, he met with what those mums, the moms who were actually protesting called pocket mummies, which means moms who are mothers of mobilised soldiers, but who are essentially either in the payment orjust incredibly pro pro—government. and they all arrived and said, oh, no, nobody�*s angry with the kremlin at all, we think it's great, all of our sons are just at the front and they just want to win, and nobody has any complaints, which isjust such an incredible nonsense. but it's also the lack of respect, i think, for the mothers as well, that they're just telling such incredible lies. there seems to be plenty of criticism of the military because they've had so many failures, so many setbacks, so many defeats and retreats. but the war generally still seems to be quite popular, or is that changing now? i don't think that is changing, and i think it's an important distinction to make. so the complaints and protests that we're starting to see now from the mothers are not against the war, they are against the fact that their sons aren't being properly trained or equipped

to fight that war. i wouldn't say the war is necessarily popular in russia. i think it's just that russia is such an apathetic society. perhaps the better way to phrase it would be to say that russians acquiesce to or consent to the war. there's a real resistance, to be honest, within russia, even now, to the idea that ukrainians don't feel liberated by russians, which i find quite shocking. and i think it is hard for russians to understand that ukrainians really, particularly now, i think particularly after bucha, particularly after izium, and all of the mass graves, they really hate russia. and i don't think they understand that. if this is still going on in six months time and let's face it, it probably will be, what do you think is the the minimum position that russia would accept, that president putin and his people would accept to end this war? well, by russia, probably now we actually are talking about putin, because i think probably they could sell quite a lot of things to to the russian population. it's hard to say in six months, because i think it's sort of depends

what happens in spring and if russia is able to be be successful. but in any case i think it's... this is very personal for putin, he clearly sees this as being about his legacy. by asking, by doing the formal process of annexation sort of legislatively, he hasn't really left himself any wriggle room. he's escalated to this point. and i mean, really, escalation is all he's done. so he will be looking for negotiations and he will never give up crimea so there's not there's not really any wriggle room between the two. there's not really anything for them to discuss unless we start seeing very, very different signals coming from ukraine, which is not going to happen because this is existential. it's quite pessimistic, jade. i mean, you're basically saying there's no real light at the end of the tunnel in the near term. i can't see it and i desperately want to, but i cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel. is there a risk that russia is going to have another go at kyiv, the capital, and try and do a second invasion?

i certainly don't think you can rule it out. and i'm quite surprised by some people who do, because this is about the entire way that putin understands russia. russia in his understanding is a sort of a great power, that comes that has this 1,000 years of history linking back to kyiv and rus. it doesn't make sense if they can't control kyiv. that doesn't have to be literal control. it could be having sort of a pro—russian politician in charge. but essentially they need to be a vassal state. they need to be what he calls a colony because only russia can be sovereign. so i don't think we can rule that out as long as putin or somebody with a similar worldview is in power. so how does this war end, and when does it end? the answer, i'm afraid, is probably not until both sides believe that there is nothing more to be gained by fighting on, and we are not yet at that point. russia says it wants peace, but only on its terms. translation: we confirm our- willingness to conduct negotiations. the aim would be to eradicate the root causes that forced us

to start our special military operation in ukraine. which means pretty much keeping all the bits of ukraine that it's already taken. ukraine's official line is that peace only comes when all russian troops withdraw from all of ukraine. distinguished colleagues, ukraine needs peace and ukraine wants peace, more than any other country. it is our territory that has been invaded. it is our people that are being killed. it is our homes that are being destroyed and robbed by the russian army. please keep this in mind every time moscow attempts to wear sheep's clothing and to persuade us that it is not the aggressor but the victim who resists peace efforts. oh, and it went to a deal with president putin either because it doesn't trust him. so as you can see, the two positions are still a long way apart. one of the best perspectives on all of this comes from somebody

who's been an insider, somebody who has advised both nato and the eu. ukraine had problems with corruption, military reform and everything else but if there had been a political will to accept ukraine, of course it could have got in. that's sam de bendern, who is now associate fellow at the london—based think tank, chatham house. it will finish when the west stops giving weapons to ukraine. and that is the big question. i think that as long as ukraine continues to have gains on the battlefield, it will be difficult morally for the west to stop supporting ukraine. a lot will depend on how how this winter pans out in western europe, whether new heating problems, high gas prices will get people onto the streets or not. it's a little bit early to see whether that's going to happen. and if this drags on for a long time, political events in the us could start to weigh in on the way the west supports ukraine because the us is going to start going into a pre—election period, probably by the end of next year and i don't think the war will be over by the end of next year.

and then whoever�*s president in 2024 could make a big difference. do you foresee a time then, sam, possibly in 2023, when ukraine's western backers say, look, we can't keep on doing this, emptying out our armories and giving them to you and costing so much money, you're going to have to make a compromise, and that compromise could mean having to give up hopes of an early reclaiming of crimea? that's definitely a possibility. but on the other hand, the us are spending 5.6% of their defense budget to defend ukraine. and the result has been that we estimate that half of russia's conventional forces have been destroyed. so if you look at it in that perspective, from an american point of view, this is, you know, quite a good

return on investment. but, again, a lot will depend on internal politics in the us. production of weapons — if the west wants to produce them, i think they will find a way, and the political will will be the most important thing here. now, so far, nato and the west have stood by ukraine, giving it billions of dollars worth of military aid and training up its soldiers. but if this war drags on well into 2023 and it could do, without much more progress on the battlefield by ukraine, then there could come a time when those nations providing the vital weapons that ukraine relies on will say to kyiv, ok, enough is enough, you're going to have to reach a compromise. meanwhile, the war goes on, the suffering goes on, food and fuel prices are being driven up all around the world, and this war continues to stoke the worst tensions between russia and the west since the end of the cold war, and that's dangerous.

this is bbc news with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. a libyan suspected of making the bomb that destroyed a passenger plane over the scottish town of lockerbie in 1988 is confirmed to be in us custody. it is something that we have been fighting for for over three decades, so i think there is a sense of finallyjustice for our loved ones. four children are in a critical condition after being pulled from a lake in freezing temperatures in central england. splashdown. from tranquility base to taurus—littrow to the tranquil waters of the pacific, the latest chapter of nasa's journey to the moon comes to a close. orion splashes down, bringing a return to the moon one small step closer.

and france win junior eurovision, pipping hosts armenia to the title.