and how will these disagreements in the us play out around the globe? i'm helena humphrey. good to have you with us. there once was a time when the us republican party was synonymous with oftentimes hawkish foreign policy: a muscular defense 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. and 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. well, 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. now, 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 the end of the year. 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. to understand the urgency of funding, i spoke to evelyn farkas, the executive director of the mccain institute and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for russia, ukraine, and eurasia. to see you. i want to talk about the republican party's foreign policy but i do know that you have been in care have recently and we are nearing the two—year mark in that particular conflict. i wonder how ukrainians are feeling when they are cognisant of this will becoming protracted and then at the same time they are seeing some big stumbling blocks when it comes to getting that military aid from the united states. . ~' , .,

military aid from the united states. ., ~ , ., ., military aid from the united states. . ~' , ., ., . states. thank you for having me on aaain. states. thank you for having me on again- you — states. thank you for having me on again. you are _ states. thank you for having me on again. you are right. - states. thank you for having me on again. you are right. when . on again. you are right. when we were in ukraine in early october the definite mood there was fatigue, although, you know, determination persists. ukrainians understand that the road ahead is difficult and they are in effect at the mercy of the united states and our allies including the united kingdom, that they have no choice but they have to keep fighting. but it has become increasingly difficult and i am embarrassed to say that my government has not provided the full amount of funding right now through congress that ukraine needs and deserves because it is frankly fighting for all of us.— because it is frankly fighting for all of us. let's talk about that supplemental _ for all of us. let's talk about that supplemental bill, - for all of us. let's talk about | that supplemental bill, then, because president biden tried to tie aid to ukraine with aid 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 hasn't paid off yet. was it the right move, in your opinion? i don't think so. these issues are not linked. frankly, what now the republicans have succeeded in doing is making the situation more difficult. because immigration was never going to be something where democrats and republicans would agree on any measures, and it sounds like, i shouldn't say any, they could agree on some, but the problem is the republican party writ large has had a more maximalist position on this issue. so with the president a democrat in the white house, it is unlikely there will be able to 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, that is a serious issue and the administration, our government needs to be more on it, undoubtedly. but linking it with israel and ukraine actually is demonstrating weakness to vladimir putin and all of the adversaries of the united states and its allies and partners. it's not the right thing to be doing and we know, of course, that there are many other actors like the iranians watching to see what kind of resolve we demonstrate right now. i mean, time is of the essence, clearly, here. 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 won't be dictated to by what he calls extremists in the republican party. what do you make of those comments? well, i think that the president is singling yes, we will put more money into border security, maybe he would consider a few other concessions to the republicans. but if — 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, in this kind of situation maybe you try, because you know the white house wants this so badly. but again, 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 are negotiating in the senate in good faith, but i cannot speak for the house because there is 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. so i would say that, if people are serious about helping ukraine, they need to come off the maximalist positions, and, if need be, give up border security negotiations for another day.

i mean, 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, he's boasted if he was president, he could get a peace deal in ukraine in 2a hours. so ijust wonder, if there is the potentialfor a republican president, potentially house, senate, as well — what would that mean for ukraine? there is a split in the republican party which also exists to some extent in the democratic party between isolationists or those who don't want so much international engagement, prefer to 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. so clearly you can see i have a position on this. but the people on the left understand and they are so far working together with the moderates and with those who want robust international engagement. 0n the right, unfortunately, the far right has really fallen into this kind of very

unconstructive isolationism that, in fact, frankly, helps — i should go further than unconstructive, it is actually helping vladimir putin and enemies of the united states. evelyn farkas, thank you for being with us on bbc news. thank you. to discuss congress' supplemental bill and chances of a breakthrough on foreign aid, i spoke to new york times congressional reporter karoun demirjian. 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. i mean, it strikes me as a pretty dramatic warning. is that gaining any traction? is anyone listening? 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 affect immigration and border enforcement. the warnings from the white house — even from those republicans who believe those warnings, it is not changing their negotiating stance and not broken this impasse on the hill. let's 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 do support sending arms and aiding ukraine. but there has been this trend afoot, 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, or at least the biden administration has not been clear about the path to victory. some are 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 there, 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 say "it's 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 — we should consider to send — that money to ukraine. this is all tied to more stringent border policy. is there a world in which republicans agree to compromise on that issue? 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 look to be continuing through the weekend. the question is can the two sides actually resolve their differences? 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%. earlier, i spoke to fred

fleitz, who was previously the chief of staff to the national security council under president trump. i know you were just listening to evelyn farkas' take. what did you make of it? well, there is a growing belief in the republican party that the war in ukraine has become endlessly deadlocked, and ukraine will eventually lose this war. and therefore there is a desire that president biden put forward and planned to end the war, planned for a ceasefire. but it's incorrect to say this is just a republican view. richard haas, president of the council on foreign relations, this is his view also. he said this repeatedly. this also was henry kissinger�*s view. he said this a few months ago. the dynamics of the war in ukraine are changing, and most republicans

want to find a way to help ukraine win the peace, end the war, get a ceasefire, start a peace process, arm 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 that may mean ukraine will get no more military aid. fred, two things on that — what about an alternative in which more weapons are sent in a timely manner to ukraine so that it can kind of turn the tide on the battlefield, and actually win? and secondly, how do we even know president putin may be willing to agree to come to the table for negotiations on a ceasefire? nothing that he's done so far seems to indicate that. the trajectory for ukraine doesn't look good. it's running out of troops, 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 is not going to win if we keep sending and weapons. but i agree with you, there is a real problem getting putin to come to the bargaining table and abide by a peace agreement. but the trajectory right now is a loser for ukraine. this is not about isolationism. this 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. he will run for 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 it. send in 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 russia increasing its military capabilities, we have to try something else. the argument from volodymyr 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 of this? what do you think leaders in china, iran, would think if they saw the united states reneged on its vow to do whatever it takes for however long it takes? first of all, we are not doing whatever it takes. that means sending an american troops. nato and the us has found a way to do short of whatever it

takes because we are afraid of saying troops — i don't want troops in there 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 of joe biden�*s weakness. he saw a weak united states and he saw the us leaving the door open for ukraine joining nato, which he could not 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. would 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? let's look at the counteroffensive of this year. we were told it would make tremendous gains. ukraine were sent all kinds of weapons.

not only did it not gain any territory, there are some who said it lost 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 against a nation with significantly greater resources . this is not working and it is not about isolationism. i hate talking this way. we need to find another approach, a negotiated solution, arm ukraine, try to find a way to end the fighting and ukraine get its territory back at a later time. thank you for 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. 0n ukraine, christie and haley have defended us support as being vitalfor 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 have 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. here's some of what was said about support for israel

at the most recent debate in alabama on wednesday. i will tell you, you smoother terrace on your body, go ahead, we are for you. we will smoke them on our southern border and thatis them on our southern border and that is how i will leave the country. that is how i will leave the country-— that is how i will leave the count . ., , country. our own people were killed in an — country. our own people were killed in an attack _ country. our own people were killed in an attack and - country. our own people were killed in an attack and i - country. our own people were killed in an attack and i think. killed in an attack and i think is absolutely appropriate to point — is absolutely appropriate to point that out and to say that we are — point that out and to say that we are in_ point that out and to say that we are in this together and we're — we are in this together and we're going to work with israel is that— we're going to work with israel is that these people brought to justice — is that these people brought to justice. did is that these people brought to 'ustice. , , ., , ~ justice. did you send american troo -s justice. did you send american keeps in? _ justice. did you send american troops in? absolutely, - troops in? absolutely, absolutely, _ troops in? absolutely, absolutely, if - troops in? absolutely, absolutely, if they - troops in? absolutely, l absolutely, if they have troops in? absolutely, i absolutely, if they have a troops in? absolutely, - absolutely, if they have a plan that sobriquet them out safely, i them in there to get a people home and get them out now that i will answer the question directly. i will answer the question directl . i will answer the question directl. ., ., directly. there was no-one ha - directly. there was no-one happy now— directly. there was no-one happy now the _ directly. there was no-one happy now the putin - directly. there was no-one l happy now the putin because directly. there was no-one - happy now the putin because all the attention went to israel and — the attention went to israel and that is what they are hoping _ and that is what they are hoping will happen. 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 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 in 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 and not quite figured it 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 that could play out with republican voters? republicans in 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 as 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 hardline 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 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 right that blames the neoconservatives, the george w bush, the dick cheneys of the world, for getting 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 that some of the new guard get but they still have a lot of the authority and control over budget and policy but a new guard right now clearly does have the momentum, the donald trump, the surrogates, the ramaswamys, 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?" do you think foreign policy—wise that a trump second term would resemble his first time around

or 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 adults in the room as people in washington like to call them, as people who served in his mind, the deep state, the traditional foreign policy views, so if he came into a second term he would unapologetically abandon those impulses on foreign policy and put in a group of pre—vetted loyal who 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. it could look a lot different. robbie gramer, great to talk to you. thank you.

a day for your diary, the 15th of january, a day for your diary, the 15th ofjanuary, you can see on your screen, 38 days ago until the presidential primary kicks off followed by new hampshire on january the 23rd. big moments in the 2024 presidential election, cycle with republican candidates vying to win and gain momentum in the hope of securing the republican nomination in a race that donald trump still leads. stay with us here on bbc news. bye for now. 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. it's been a year in which climate change has topped the news agenda.

from forest fires in hawaii, to extreme weather here and abroad, you can't help but notice. an intense heat. well over 40 degrees. demonstrations at wimbledon, . the ashes and the world snooker championship. parts of northern italy are on high alert. scientists say they're concerned by the recent run of broken climate records. the bbc green sport awards recognises those individuals who are using their platform to raise awareness of the issues that are facing all of us. those athletes and organisations who are speaking up and shining a light on what we can all do to help better protect the planet. over the next half an hour, we'll introduce you to this year's winners from all over the world and a variety of sports. but our first winner of the young sportsperson of the year is from a little bit closer to home. i'm on the way to devon to meet innes fitzgerald, who, a year ago, at the age of just 16, put her environmental principles above the start of her international athletics career.