how will these disagreements in the us play out around the globe? we'll look at the future of republican foreign policy and what it could mean for the world. i'm helena humphrey. good to have you with us. there once was a time when the us republican party was synonymous with often times hawkish foreign policy. a muscular defence abroad meant peace at home. or so the argument went. just last month, the world lost a long—running proponent of a strong us foreign policy, with the passing of former secretary of state henry kissinger. for decades american boots could be found on the ground in far—away wars and with that came the influence that republicans in washington wanted. but times are changing. while the trump era was tough on china, it was also characterized by a more

isolationist approach. now with the 2024, presidential election just around the corner, republican candidates are setting out their particular brand of foreign affairs. and a split is emerging between traditional republican values and a new school of foreign policy, with far less support for allies caught up in conflict. for the next 30 minutes we're taking a closer look at the foreign policy of the grand old party and how it's impacting current armed conflicts across the globe. this week, it has become clear, that the republicans�* evolving stance on foreign policy could significantly impact the support the us is able to offer to its allies, both in israel and ukraine. on wednesday, senate republicans blocked a $110 billion spending bill in part over a dispute on changes to border and immigration policy. the package would provide over $50 billion in security assistance to ukraine and another $14 billion to israel in its war against hamas.

the white house warned that without the additional funding, us assistance to ukraine could run out by year's end. but that warning has done little to ease the stalemate on the hill as republicans lobby for tougher border security, immigration and asylum measures at the us—mexico border. the fight threatens to upend lawmakers�* plans to head home for a weeks—long holiday recess in just a few short days. joinung me now to discuss the supplemental bill and chances of a breakthrough on foreign aid is new york times congressional reporter karoun demirjian. karoun, we know the white house has warned congressional leaders that the us could run out of money to send weapons to ukraine by the end of the year. it strikes me as a pretty dramatic warning. is that gaining any traction, is anyone listening to it? some people believe that is an

accurate warning, some people are questioning whether that is the case but it is not breaking this impasse that exists on capitol hill right now because there is a demand from republicans that any ukraine aid approved going forward must be coupled with money, policy changes for the us—mexico border that affects immigration and border enforcement. the warnings from the white house and even from republicans we do believe those warnings, it is not changing their negotiating stance and not broken this impasse on the hill. as the 2—party strategy, with a compromise between these two very different issues.— very different issues. let's look into _ very different issues. let's look into a _ very different issues. let's look into a more _ very different issues. let's look into a more on - very different issues. let's look into a more on that l look into a more on that warning. jake sullivan, the white house national security adviser, said that "a vote against supplemental funding "for ukraine will hurt ukraine and help russia. "it will hurt democracy and help dictators, "and we think that "that is not the right lesson of history." so why has republican backing for ukraine's war effort dwindled substantially in recent months? there has been, look, a

majority of the republicans in a vacuum still support sending arms and aiding ukraine. there has been this trend particularly in the house where republicans are starting to question the wisdom of continuing to support ukraine financially from a number of fronts. some people argue there is no path to victory here, at least the budget administration has not been clear but the path to victory. some saying there is not enough accountability for how the aid is actually being utilised on the battlefield. some people are saying it is not our fight and we should not be sending all this money overseas to fight a war they are. even if some is coming back to the united states because this is where the weapons are being made. when we have our own problems at home involving domestic security. this has created a perfect storm of pressure particularly from the right wing of the gop to basically safe it is not worth it, no—one in the country wants it, fewer voters in the country seem to want it so it is a loser of an issue. do not put your capital on the line for ukraine. you

have seen over the last several months since the summer that several dozen people have basically gone from being bold supporters of ukraine to become sceptics of whether they should continue to send that money to help. this is all tied to more stringent border policy. is there a world in which republicans agree to compromise on that? potentially. there are negotiations in the senate between republicans and democrats that were very intense for a few weeks over the last, over november basically. and have resumed in the last 2a hours and looked to be continuing through the weekend. the question is can the two sides actually resolve their differences? it was a fairly vast chasm between them. we have seen there be some level of agreement on stiffening the standard by which certain migrants can claim asylum for instance.

there is still a wide gap between democrats and republicans about what to do regarding questions of you detain migrants when they come to the border? do you give them they can go into the united states as they are waiting their court date to make their case for why they should be able to stay. do you kick them out and kick them outside of the country? are there. how do you track people? either powers the president has to say no, we're going to shut down the border into expedited removal? these are questions that have to do with the basic what happens when somebody tries to come in the country at the border without a visa pre—existing. there is such a wide desperate set of views between the two parties about how they should happen and we have not yet seen proposals come out that could actually unify and close that gap in the get 60 votes in the senate. to what extent do you think the presidential election is looming over this entire fight?

it is always looming. and it is looming quite significantly in this case. border security is the concern particularly among republican voters and that is making their republican lawmakers on capitol hill stick today because guns about needing to pay these two issues. even when some of them do not seem to want to actually do not seem to want to actually do that sort of marriage of the border in ukraine, even looking back three to six months ago. it is something that is really solidified their resolve to do it that way and put the democrats and a bit of a bind because they do have to look at the border issues and backlash in states that are traditionally more blue. states like new york dealing with migrant inflows that they cannot quite handle. they to know they have to probably do something about this ahead of the election in order to be able to say we tried, don't look quite as draconian as republicans but we came to some sort of a point. we republicans but we came to some sort of a point-— sort of a point. we have to leave it — sort of a point. we have to leave it there _ sort of a point. we have to leave it there i _ sort of a point. we have to leave it there i am - sort of a point. we have to leave it there i am afraid l leave it there i am afraid we're out of time. we

appreciate your reporting there. thank you so much. to understand the urgency of funding, i spoke to evelyn farkas, the executive director of the mccain institute and former deputy assistant secretary of defence for russia, ukraine and eurasia. let's talk about that supplemental bill because president biden tried to tie aid to ukraine with aid to israel at the same time. we then saw senate republicans led by mitch mcconnell countering that move, uniting around the idea of requiring changes to border security legislation. it has not paid off yet. was it the right move in your opinion? i do not think so. these issues are not linked. frankly, what now the republicans have succeeded in doing is making the situation more difficult. immigration was never going to be something where democrats and republicans would agree on

any measures and it sounds like, i should any measures and it sounds like, ishould not any measures and it sounds like, i should not see any, they could agree on some of the problem is the republican party at large has had a more maximalist position on this issue. with the president, democrat in the white house, it is unlikely they will achieve much on this. if you really care about ukraine, as many senators and republicans do, i know they do and care about assistance to israel, i think they should really walk back from this linkage to the border security issue. yes, it is a serious issue and the administration, our government needs to be more on it, undoubtedly. but linking it with israel and ukraine is demonstrating weakness to vladimir putin and all of the adverse areas of the united states and its allies and partners. it is not the right thing to be doing and we know there are many other actors like the iranian is watching to see what kind of result we

demonstrate right now. time is ofthe demonstrate right now. time is of the essence _ demonstrate right now. time is of the essence here _ demonstrate right now. time is of the essence here clearly. - of the essence here clearly. president biden said he is open to negotiating on the bill with republicans. i wonder if you think there is any potential consensus here because he also said he would be dictated to by what he calls extremists in the republican party. what do you make of those comments? i think the president _ make of those comments? i think the president is _ make of those comments? i think the president is singling - make of those comments? i think the president is singling we - the president is singling we will put more money into border security, maybe he would consider a few other concessions to the republicans. again, if they want to drag this out with maximalist positions, then he is going to conclude that they are not really serious about helping ukraine and israel. sure, this kind of situation maybe you try because you know the white house wants this so badly. but if you are a serious statesman a woman and really want support for israel, ultimately you are going to have to back down if the white house won't give you everything you want. it seems to me like people our

negotiating in the centre in good faith but i cannot speak for the house because there was a lot of performance politics going on where the preference is on the fringe of the right to have no legislation, no movement on any of these issues. probably even the border. i would say if people are serious about helping ukraine, they need to come of the maximalist positions and if need be, give up all security negotiations for another day. it appears foreign policy is evolving or perhaps even diverging somewhat in the republican party in the last five years or so. donald trump for one has posted if he was president, he could get a peace deal in ukraine in 2a hours. i wonder, if there is the potential for the republican president, potentially houston as well. what would that mean for ukraine?— for ukraine? there is a split in the republican _ for ukraine? there is a split in the republican party - for ukraine? there is a split. in the republican party which also exist to some extent democratic party between

isolation and those who don't want such international agreement and focus on the domestic versus those who understand it is through engagement we are able to have our rule of law, quality—of—life and defend our democracy. clearly i have a position on this. but the people on the left understand and they are so far record together with the moderates and with those who want robust international engagement. on the right, unfortunately, the far right has really fallen into this kind of very unconstructive isolationism that in fact, frankly, alps, i should go further than unconstructive, it is actually helping vladimir putin and enemies of the united states. thank you for being with us on bbc news. thank you for being with us on bbc news-— while us aid to ukraine continues to be a heated debate in congress, there has been a clear shift in attitudes among republican voters. a november gallup poll shows that 62% of republican voters now believe the us is doing too much to

help ukraine. this is down 12 points from june of the same year when the figure stood at 50%. joining me to talk more about this fred fleitz, vice chair at the america first policy institute center for american security and previously chief of staff to the national security council under president trump. welcome to you, thank you for being with us here on bbc news. fred, you were listening to evelyn's take there. what did you make of it? well, there is a growing belief republican party, the walking ukraine has become an endless —— war in ukraine has become endlessly deadlocked and ukraine will eventually lose this war. therefore there is a desire that president biden put forward and pledged to end the

war, planned for a ceasefire but it is incorrect to say this is just a republican view. richard haas, president council forforeign relations, this is his view also. he said this repeatedly. this was also in the kissinger�*s you. he said a few months ago the dynamics of the war in ukraine is changing and most republicans want to find a way to help ukraine win the peace, and the war, get a ceasefire, start a peace process, i'm ukraine to the teeth so russia does not invade again. but biden�*s strategy of sending weapons endlessly without a strategy, that is a loser and ukraine will get no more military aid.— loser and ukraine will get no more military aid. whether an alternative _ more military aid. whether an alternative in _ more military aid. whether an alternative in which _ more military aid. whether an alternative in which more - alternative in which more weapons are sent in a timely manner to ukraine seeking kind of turn the tide on the battlefield and actually when? and how do we even know president putin may be willing to agree to come to the table

for negotiations on a ceasefire? nothing he has done so far seems to indicate that. the trajectory for ukraine does not look good. it is running out of truth and russia has dug in. it is preparing more troops, repairing the war operations. i think there is an easy way to win in ukraine. we can send in troops i don't think we want that. ukraine will not win if we keep sending and weapons. i agree with you, there is a real problem getting putin to come to the bargaining table and abide by a peace agreement. the trajectory right now is a loser for ukraine. it is not about isolationism. it is not about isolationism. it is about ending the killing and finding a way may be to postpone the territorial ambitions for ukraine for another day. maybe when putin is not in power. what we're doing right now is not working. let's take that motion further. say there was a possibility of a ceasefire. you believe that

presence putin who was now announced he was rather a fifth term be sated, that he would take some extent of ukrainian territory and then calmly returned to russia and would not seek at a later date to take more ukrainian territory, emboldened by this ceasefire? i think ukraine would have to be armed to the hilt to prevent that from happening. i don't think it is a perfect solution but i think it is the best of many bad solutions. there was a way to get putin out of ukraine and no—one wants to do. they did ukraine troops. sending nato troops. i don't want american troops in ukraine and i don't want british troops. if we're not going to do that with running out of soldiers, and rushing increasing its military capabilities, we have to try something else.— capabilities, we have to try something else. the argument from polda _ something else. the argument from polda me _ something else. the argument from polda me zelensky - something else. the argument from polda me zelensky has i from polda me zelensky has always been give us the weapons we will fight the war for you. so that the west does not have

to do. the opposite of nato troops. what are the optics b of this? what do you think leaders in china, iran would think if they saw the united states reneged on its about to do whatever it takes for however long it takes? —— volodymyr zelensky. however long it takes? -- volodymyr zelensky.- however long it takes? -- volodymyr zelensky. first of all are not — volodymyr zelensky. first of all are not doing _ volodymyr zelensky. first of all are not doing whatever. volodymyr zelensky. first of all are not doing whatever it| all are not doing whatever it takes. that means sending an american troops. nato and the us has found a way to do shorter whatever it takes because we are afraid of saying troops — i don't want troops on the either. i really optics will look bad if russia is able to keep some of ukraine. that problem started over a year ago when putin invaded and why did he invade? he invaded because ofjoe bidenweakness. he saw a week united states and he saw the us leaving the door open for ukrainejoining week for ukraine joining week through for ukrainejoining week through he can accept. i agree it looks bad but we now have to deal with the situation of today, ending a pointless war

that ukraine cannot win. itruiith that ukraine cannot win. with the alternative _ that ukraine cannot win. with the alternative be _ that ukraine cannot win. with the alternative be to - that ukraine cannot win. with the alternative be to simply speed up the deployment of those weapons, make sure there is capable air defence and then for ukraine to step off the final portion in his counteroffensive? fl final portion in his counteroffensive? �*, ., counteroffensive? let's look at the counteroffensive _ counteroffensive? let's look at the counteroffensive of- counteroffensive? let's look at the counteroffensive of this - the counteroffensive of this year. we were told it would make tremendous gains. ukraine were sent all kinds of weapons. not only did not gain any territory. there are some who said it last territory to russia because russia is so deeply dug in. ukraine is losing manpower, losing a whole generation of young men, so maybe we could take your arguments if we keep arming ukraine it will eventually win. i tell you, that will be a very costly win down the road. a victory has a nation was significantly greater resources. this is not working and it is not about isolationism. i hate talking this way. we need to find another approach, negotiated

solution, army creativity, try to find a way to end the fighting and less health ukraine get is territory back at a later time.— ukraine get is territory back at a later time. thank you for shafinu at a later time. thank you for sharing your _ at a later time. thank you for sharing your view _ at a later time. thank you for sharing your view on - at a later time. thank you for sharing your view on bbc - at a later time. thank you for i sharing your view on bbc news. with just less than six weeks until the first presidential primary contest in iowa, there's increased scrutiny on the foreign policy positions of the candidates vying for the republican nomination. here is where they stand on some of the most consequential foreign policy issues of today: nikki haley, chris christie and ron desantis all believe the us should support israel unwaveringly. but donald trump and vivek ramaswamy have been critical of israel and its prime minister, benjamin netanyahu. on ukraine: christie and haley have defended us support as being vital for american interests. trump, desantis and ramaswamy have opposed sending ukraine military aid, with ramaswamy going as far as suggesting ukraine cede some of its territory to

russia to end the war. but the candidates are furthermore split when it comes to china with trump, haley and desantis having called for the us to sever economic ties with beijing. while christie says the us should maintain trade relations with china, and ramaswamy�*s position remains largely unclear. to dissect the foreign policy takewaways from wednesday's debate, i spoke to robbie gramer, diplomacy and national security reporter at foreign policy. thank you for being with us this evening. foreign policy is one of the few areas where we are really seeing differences in the strategy among the 2024 republican candidates especially with those who perhaps have more traditional hawkish roots in the rise of conservative populist candidates. why do you think that is? it candidates. why do you think that is? , . . that is? it is clear the republican _ that is? it is clear the republican party - that is? it is clear the republican party is i that is? it is clear the . republican party is going through this big identity

crisis right now on foreign policy. it is a product of the past 20 years of american foreign policy where you have seen costly and misguided wars in the middle east, you have seen it ukraine as an issue become politicised in the last administration, ukraine and russia through the impeachment trial of donald trump, the first impeachment trial. you are seeing all of these issues that have been simmering within the party for the past 20 years starting to resurface. obviously there is a big question in 2024 of which side will win here, the old guard or the new guard, and right now they are still in the middle of this brawl on quite figured out. , ., ., ., out. they have not and we saw that on the _ out. they have not and we saw that on the debate _ out. they have not and we saw that on the debate stage - out. they have not and we saw that on the debate stage on i out. they have not and we saw| that on the debate stage on the most recent debate in alabama. nikki haley seemingly represents that more old school republican party when it comes to foreign policy along with chris christie. some of her memorable quotes including iran, russia and china want to destroy the west. how do you think they could play out with

republican voters? republicans in a general _ republican voters? republicans in a general agree _ republican voters? republicans in a general agree on _ republican voters? republicans in a general agree on more - republican voters? republicans| in a general agree on more than they disagree right now. that is getting tough on china, supporting israel, getting tough on iran, when it comes to foreign policy. there are a lot of issues here were there are big disagreements on the margins, such as support for ukraine, how they view allies, and you are seeing this new guard come out and really starting to openly question us alliance structures, us role in europe and the middle east, even some of these more populist side of the republican party such as ramaswamy, the entrepreneur who was running for president, saying we need to be tough on china but seemingly willing to abandon ukraine and give up on nato. he had that seemingly sexist aside, calling nikki haley more highlight policies a lipstick on dick cheney. who do you

think he is trying to reach out to with that more conservative isolationist approach? is it perhaps a younger demographic of voters? i perhaps a younger demographic of voters? ~' ., , ., of voters? i think there was a real generational _ of voters? i think there was a real generational shift - of voters? i think there was a real generational shift both i of voters? i think there was a | real generational shift both on the left and right and how they view foreign policy. because of the history of american foreign policy for the past 20 years in these wars that have been costly where we have not had any victories to show for it. it is clear there is a portion of the variety that blames the neoconservatives, the george w bush, the dick cheney of the world, forgetting the us into this mess. even with thejoe biden right now on his foreign policy stature. what i think is interesting is right now it is important to remember that the old guard still has the mass in the party what i mean by that is there is a lot of powerful lawmakers that have traditional views in foreign policy seating on key senate and congressional committees that oversee funding and they might not get the retweets are some of the new

guard that but they still have a lot of the authority and control over budget and policy with a new guard right now clearly does not have the momentum, the donald trump, the surrogates, the ramaswamy, who were saying wait a second what is the point of our alliance structures, why are we pouring all these resources into ukraine or into foreign aid or stabilisation in the middle east when we should be focused on china? d0 east when we should be focused on china? ,, ~ east when we should be focused on china? i. ~ ., on china? do you think foreign oli on china? do you think foreign policy wise _ on china? do you think foreign policy wise that _ on china? do you think foreign policy wise that a _ on china? do you think foreign policy wise that a trump - on china? do you think foreign | policy wise that a trump second term would resemble his first time around all could potentially look different? i think it would look a lot different. not in terms of perhaps the policy on paper but in terms of the personnel. he is coming back on the campaign with a vengeance. it is clear that he saw some members of his own administration in the first term, the so—called adult in the room as people in washington like to call them, as people who served in his mind, the deep sea, the traditionalforeign policy views, so if you came into a

second term he would unapologetically abandon the facts and i try what he saw as his waste impulses on foreign policy and put in a group of pre— vetted loyal as you may not have the foreign policy experience, might not have any of the experience but have the number—1 job requirement which is loyalty to him. we could look a lot different.- is loyalty to him. we could look a lot different. great to talk to you- _ look a lot different. great to talk to you. thank _ look a lot different. great to talk to you. thank you. - well it's 38 days until the republican presidential primary kicks off with the iowa caucuses, morning is at hello there. it's going to be quite a mixed bag for us this weekend. not a wash—out. there will be some sunshine at times, but that's going to come in between two spells of rain that are coming in from the atlantic. atlantic, that means it's going to be mild, but saturday looks like it could be quite windy for many places. now, one part of the country sensitive to more rain

is dorset, where we've got a number of flood warnings already and there could be 20—30 millimetres of rain here. you can keep up to date with the flood warnings online. we could see the risk of flooding increasing this weekend with more rain moving in. and this is the rain that's heading in at the moment from the southwest. we've got this rain still across scotland leftover from earlier on that is moving northwards. allowing that rain to come in from the southwest and usher in some milderair as well as some stronger winds as well. so for many parts, it's going to be a wet start. and because of that, we're looking at a mild start to saturday, no frost this time. you can see the extent of the rain across england and wales and northern ireland. it's going to move northwards and eastwards. could be quite heavy for a while. for england and wales, we should eventually see some sunshine coming in from the west. the odd shower but rain could return to northern ireland, and it looks quite cloudy for scotland with some rain from time to time. mild though temperatures 8—9 in scotland to a high of 14 in the southeast with some late sunshine. it's going to turn quite windy through the day, though, across england and wales and northern ireland,

gales quite widely, and around some irish sea coasts the winds could be gusting 60—70 miles an hour. now, those winds will tend to ease overnight and the rain will continue for a while across scotland and northern england. and then as that move through, we've got the next band of rain just approaching the far southwest by sunday morning. again, it should be frost free temperatures, six oi’ seven degrees. and it's almost a repeat performance, really, on sunday. this band of rain moves in a little later, but it's not going to be quite as heavy. shouldn't last as long. and again, we'll get some sunshine coming in after the rain for england and wales. more rain returns to northern ireland and still cloud and patchy rain left over in scotland. temperatures not quite so high, but it's probably not going to be quite as windy. should be a reasonably mild start to next week. there's still some rain around from time to time. it does turn drier as the week goes on, but it does turn a little chillier.

voiceover: this is bbc news. we'll have the headlines and all the main news stories for you at the top of the hour, straight after this programme. in tecthlore, we go in search of some of the most exciting

innovations in tech the world has to offer, and i can combine my two passions, tech and travel. this time, i'm injapan, a country facing big challenges from climate change. you can turn these into batteries? yes. but i am here to see how its tech innovators are trying to help. is that lunch? very tasty. i will be seeing earth friendly energy project on land and at sea. the noise is really something else! putting the future fuels like hydrogen to the test... and understanding how nature can inspire totally new materials. absolutely massive! this is terrifying! thank you. welcome to japan! everything you could want, all in one place!