i'm helena humphrey. good to have you with us. world leaders gathered in washington, dc this week for the three—day nato summit, dedicated to the alliance�*s 75th anniversary. the north atlantic treaty organization was founded at the end of world war ii by the us, canada and several western european nations as a collective security alliance against the soviet union. this week's summit focused heavily on taking steps to strengthen deterrence and defence as well as bolstering long—term support for ukraine. it kicked off with president joe biden announcing that the us, along with several nato allies, would strenghten ukraine's air defences by providing more patriot missiles. my colleaguejonathan beale spoke with general charles 0 brownjr, chairman of thejoint chiefs of staff on support for ukraine. first of all, you've had a

summit. first of all, you've had a summit-— first of all, you've had a summit. , ., ~ ., summit. in terms of ukraine movin: summit. in terms of ukraine moving towards _ summit. in terms of ukraine | moving towards membership summit. in terms of ukraine - moving towards membership but ukraine, one thing it says, it wants those restrictions on the weapons, long—range weapons, the countries like the us applies to be lifted and i know this is a political decision. your military man. do you understand the frustrations of president zelensky, having his arms tied behind his back because the coming years as weapons as he would like? figs weapons as he would like? as ou've weapons as he would like? sis you've described weapons as he would like? is you've described it, it is a policy decision in one of the things i focused on the chairman is that we are working closely with the nations, dodgers from nato, the 13 nato nations but the 50 nations of the ukraine defence contract group that provide capability to ukraine to support its defence and so, that work together and the advice that you know i provided my role to the president and to the secretary of defense ensures that ukraine can do the things it needs to do to defend

itself. iii it needs to do to defend itself. , ., ., ,~' itself. if you asked the president _ itself. if you asked the president to _ itself. if you asked the president to loosen i itself. if you asked the i president to loosen those restrictions? i president to loosen those restrictions?— president to loosen those restrictions? i won't get into the details _ restrictions? i won't get into the details of _ restrictions? i won't get into the details of the _ restrictions? i won't get into the details of the advice - restrictions? i won't get into the details of the advice i i the details of the advice i provided as you might imagine we are going, as we've done for the past two plus years as a nation with the nation of nato continue to support ukraine. i'vejust continue to support ukraine. i've just listened to your list of concerns, china was top of the list and russia next. how much of a threat is russia, do you think, at the moment? and also, is itjust that military threat inside ukraine or is it sabotaged as well that's been carried out? inside western countries to try to undermine support? countries to try to undermine su ort? ~ . , countries to try to undermine su ort?i ., ,., countries to try to undermine su--ort?~ . ,., support? what is an acute threat and _ support? what is an acute threat and the _ support? what is an acute threat and the thing - support? what is an acute threat and the thing i - support? what is an acute | threat and the thing i think about in my role as a chairman, as i laid out through the five challenges we have in our national strategy, as you mentioned, china was at the top of the list and when you think about all of those challenges, aggression that happens in one part of the world does not stay in one part of the world and someone look about as an aspect of how do protect ourselves,

are we protect ourselves as an alliance and all the things we do to protect notjust from a military standpoint but the untold roar citizens that depend upon a nato military is to provide for their defence —— unintelligible. with the summit wrapped, i spoke with polish foreign minister radek sikorski for his thoughts on what the meeting achieved for ukraine. as the nato summit has just wrapped up, we saw pledges for kyiv, in terms of weaponry, f—16s, more financial assistance as well, to your mind, is this enough ukraine, notjust to defend itself but to turn the tide on to win this war against russia? provided we stay the course. i think a year or two, the russian economy will be in serious difficulty. of course, putin is counting on a political change in this country. i think he will be disappointed. wars are never linear. last year, ukraine was on the move. this year, the russians regained the initiative on the ground, but they are taking terrible losses.

ukraine won the battle of the black sea. the key thing is to continue the flow of equipment. ukraine has now passed a mobilisation law, they are now meeting their numbers of recruits. putin cannot achieve his war aims and we need him to come to the conclusion that this was a criminal mistake, from which he needs to withdraw. you just said that you think president putin is counting on a change of direction here in washington, potentially administration. i want to talk a little bit more about that because the pledge that we saw from nato, us$a0 billion in assistance for one yearfor ukraine, ijust wonder is poland at all concerned that without a binding mechanism on that assistance cover that a trump presidency, for example, could reverse that, could undo it? well, president biden blessed yesterday the ukraine compact, which is a collection of bilateral agreements

by countries under the g7 formula that extend well into the future. and i can tell you that in the secret part of the meeting, countries were very insistent and very generous in their pledges for multi—year assistance. also, remember that of the $300 billion that ukraine has already received, 60% comes from europe. so, if putin thinks that a change of administration will change his position, he is wrong. but exploring that a little bit more, taking a look at comments that we've seen from former president donald trump, he has, for example, said on numerous occasions that essentially, he would solve the war in ukraine within 2a hours and that has led to concerns, in the words ofjens stoltenberg, that it could be an occupation if you were to freeze the map where it is right now. aand other people saying that that then, there is the concern

that president putin could come back for more at a later date. is that something that warsaw is concerned about? on this trip and even before, we meet with representatives of the alternative administration and what president trump's people are telling us, yes, we will want to win this and we will win by threatening putin with escalation if he doesn't agree to a fair peace formula for ukraine. what they mean by that, what kind of escalation from washington? giving ukraine even more stuff and removing those restrictions, for example, and i think this is something putin would have to take into account. i want to take a closer look at some of poland's actions, signing thatjoint defence pact with ukraine, and one line in particular that stood out to me was saying that warsaw would explore the idea of shooting down russian missiles heading towards polish territory whilst they remain in ukrainian airspace, presumably as well giving you more time to react. how much of a threat is that, and are there any concerns

about the possibility here for russia to react to that and escalate things? we would also like the world to know that we are spending 4% of gdp on defence this year, going on to 5% next year. we have the world's14th defence budget already and we will defend our border, whatever anybody else does. on the missiles, yes, we are discussing this with ukraine and with allies, and let me explain to you why. russian missiles regularly breached polish airspace. one of their missiles traversed two thirds of poland, 500km from the ukrainian border, and landed 10km from my house, which is in western poland. once they are over poland, when you shoot them down, the debris is liable to damage something or kill someone. we have lost two citizens already. and some of these missiles only breach our airspace briefly, so we don't have enough time to take them down.

and what our ukrainian partners have told us, "we will take the risk. "please, help yourself and shoot them down "from inside your territory before they even reach poland" — in other words, when they become an imminent threat to polish airspace. in myjudgement, this would be self—defence. but we don't want to take unilateral action. we would like to do this together with allies. and i perfectly understand the threat and the risk that you were just mentioning there but i suppose really when it comes to retaliation from russia, that you are exploring. i don't think russia wants a war with nato. also, i did want to speak about ukraine and what it has been asking for at this summit because aside from that weaponry and so on, we have been speaking to other ministers — particularly from baltic states as well. they have been saying they believe that ukraine needs to be able to strike military

facilities in russia with all weaponry, nothing off the table, not always a unified response that i have heard from allies, but they say without it, they feel they are fighting this war with one hand tied behind their back. is that something that poland supports? well, there is nothing in international law precludes or bars the victim of aggression from responding to the territory of the aggressor. the russians hit a children's hospital in kyiv a couple of days ago. that missile was launched from a strategic bomber flying over russian territory. ukraine would be perfectly in its right to take it down before the missile is launched and also, to attack the home base of that bomber. that seems to me all to be in self—defence. so, is washington being too cautious, then, saying longer—range missiles should not be doing that at this stage? are they being a bit cautious there? these are american decisions. we are very grateful for what america is doing for the security of europe, for ukraine. we have had these

discussions before. we discuss something, it seems a little on the brave side and then, six months later we do it. after the debate, youtweeted with reference to the roman empire, marcus aurelius, saying that he was a great emperor but he should have managed — i think you said — "it is important to manage "one's ride into the sunset". you would have seen president biden plasma press —— you would have seen president biden�*s press conference last night — the world was watching it. do you still hold that view after that press conference, compared to what you tweeted following the debate? i hold the view that marcus aurelius should not have passed the button to his naturalson, comedus. he should have adopted someone who was capable. because the guy from the gladiator's reign was disastrous. after him, we had a year of four emperors and the decline started. yes, i maintain fully my position on marcus aurelius. but it was surely with reference to president biden,

so do you think... you might suspect that but i couldn't possibly comment. we do not interfere in the internal affairs of our great ally. but you did tweet it after the debate. once you start interfering on other people's internal affairs, you're on a very slippery slope, as sir humphrey says in yes, prime minister. with the prospect of donald trump potentially returning to the oval office and back on to the world stage, some western leaders are concerned about the impact mr trump could have on the future of the alliance. my colleague carl nasman sat down withjohn bolton, who served as un ambassador under george w bush, and briefly as national security advisor to mr trump. ambassador, i just want to start by asking you about this nato summit has just wrapped up in dc. do you think the alliance did enough to put ukraine on a path notjust to defend itself by to win conflict against russia? well, i don't think so, unfortunately. i think there were good expressions of political

support and i think some progress in delivery of additional military assistance, but the fact is neither the united states nor nato have really approached this conflict effectively strategically for two years now, and i think that is one reason why we have military gridlock on the ground in ukraine. obviously the 800—pound gorilla was the upcoming election for us president and the uncertainty about who was going to win, and i think there is good reason to be concerned and worried about a trump victory, because i don't think this is going to be in long—term interest of the us or ukraine or nato. let's talk about it then. there was a lot of discussion about what some were calling trump—proofing nato and support for ukraine. what do you think a trump presidency would mean for nato and how would it affect the alliance of the us

were to the us to back away a bit? it could be more than backing away a bit. i think trump is very serious about prospectively withdrawing from nato. he may be distracted for four years. that may not happen but he could weaken it in other ways. i think he likes the idea of doing something dramatic, he said to me in 2018 at the brussels nato summit, we want to make some history today, and by that he meant withdrawing from the north atlantic treaty. i think in any event as he is considering what he is doing or nato, he thinks he can solve the russia ukraine war. that sounds very dangerous to me because... do you believe him when he says that? he can't solve it in 24 hours as he says, but i think his inclination is to support his buddy, vladimir putin, so if i were zelensky and the ukrainian government i would be very worried about this. there was also this whirlwind of speculation about the current presidentjoe biden, and whether or not he is fit to run for office.

do you think he is and do you think he did enough during this nato summit to prove he has the capacity to continue to lead the largest military presence within nato? i don't think he is fit, i don't think trump is fit either, i think we are in for a very bad patch for the united states, whoever wins, but that's part of the problem. we will see if biden survives this level of concern, and i think on the democratic side what they are worried about is if he has publicly demonstrated problems in september or october, there is no turning back for them at that point, it is too late by the time you get that close to the election, so if they are going to do anything aboutjoe biden, they've got to do it within the next very few days, i think. given your concerns you laid out there, which are pretty stark about what donald trump would mean for nato, would you be throwing your support behind joe biden or a democratic nominee come november? i live in maryland where you can write in other candidates — i wrote in dick cheney, because i wanted to... who wasn't running by the way.

yeah that's right, it is a protest vote, and i will vote for dick again in november. it is a failing of our two political parties. polls showed over 70% of the american people did not want a rematch of 2020, and yet, as of today, that's what they're going to get. sticking with donald trump and then i do want to circle back to nato, he has been meeting with the leader of hungary, viktor orban, who personally of course that not only with vladimir putin but xijinping. what do you think that meeting between trump and orban signals to this nato alliance? i think it is a very disturbing signal. i remember back in the 19905 when hungary was one of the first countries that wanted to join nato from the warsaw pact, because it did not want to be part of the russian orbit. i think in many respects orban has betrayed the hungarian revolution of 1956, and his affinity for putin and xi jinping is a very bad sign, but i think his meeting

with trump give some indication of where trump's leanings are. for more analysis on nato summit and its fallout for the us, ukraine and other western allies, i spoke with veteran national security journalist barbara starr, who's now a senior fellow at the annenberg center on communication leadership and policy at the university of southern california and elise labott, professor at american university's school of international service, and author of the substack newsletter cosmopolitics. we were just listening there to john bolton and clearly what happens in november with the presidential election very much loomed large at this summit. so, barbara, ijust wonder how do you think that the pentagon will be looking at this election, and considering what it could mean for global security?— it could mean for global securi ? ~ , ., ~ ., security? well, you know, there's an _ security? well, you know, there's an awful— security? well, you know, there's an awful lot - security? well, you know, there's an awful lot of - security? well, you know, - there's an awful lot of concern about donald trump. that's no secret. concern that he is not

committed to nato fully. that he does not wish to commit to international security alliances, that he is cosying up alliances, that he is cosying up to vladimir putin already, if you will. he's been making a lot of statements how he will end the war in ukraine within a day. putin will pay attention to him, that he will take very strong measures against china and that the chinese leadership will pay attention to him. a lot of concern that the security arrangement that had beenin security arrangement that had been in place across europe since essentially world war ii, once again, like they were under the previous trump administration, could be under threat. , , ., ., , administration, could be under threat. , ., , ., threat. elise, your thoughts on that? what _ threat. elise, your thoughts on that? what do _ threat. elise, your thoughts on that? what do you _ threat. elise, your thoughts on that? what do you think- threat. elise, your thoughts on that? what do you think the i that? what do you think the potential for the winds of change here could mean for security around the world? well, i think barbara laid it out really well, but i would also — out really well, but i would also add _ out really well, but i would also add — and barbara knows this_ also add — and barbara knows this as — also add — and barbara knows this as well — it's notjust

about, _ this as well — it's notjust about, you know, the kind of things— about, you know, the kind of things that we see, but it's also — things that we see, but it's also about other foes and, you know. — also about other foes and, you know, intelligence—sharing across _ know, intelligence—sharing across allies, across the world _ across allies, across the world. you know, there are some reports _ world. you know, there are some reports this — world. you know, there are some reports this week that if trump was elected, he would share less— was elected, he would share less intelligence with the europeans. not necessarily more of an— europeans. not necessarily more of an isolationist point of vlew— of an isolationist point of view butjust really of an isolationist point of view but just really kind of america _ view but just really kind of america is the only one and everybodyjust has to listen. arid — everybodyjust has to listen. arid just _ everybodyjust has to listen. and just this whole idea of not 'ust and just this whole idea of not just alliances per se, but, you know. — just alliances per se, but, you know, coordination, cooperation with allies — know, coordination, cooperation with allies. i think it's not really— with allies. i think it's not really clear that donald trump understands... whether it's the importance of alliances, the importance of alliances, the importance of alliances, the importance of coordination and collaboration with our allies or, collaboration with our allies or. as — collaboration with our allies or, as barbara was mentioning, the actual— or, as barbara was mentioning, the actual use of us force. i mean — the actual use of us force. i mean all— the actual use of us force. i mean all of the things we talk about, — mean all of the things we talk about, you know, the liberal world — about, you know, the liberal world order and all these

things. _ world order and all these things, but the role of commander—in—chief is so important and it's really unclear— important and it's really unclear if donald trump really understands the magnitude and the severity of the decisions a commander—in—chief makes. arid — commander—in—chief makes. and i— commander—in—chief makes. and i do— commander—in—chief makes. and i do have to say, elise, being at that summit there, those conversations about intelligence—sharing did come up intelligence—sharing did come up time and time again when i was speaking to delegates there. something else that came up there. something else that came up very often was about limitations, us limits on ukraine, for example, being able to use its weaponry to strike further into russia on military targets, of course something that kyiv says that it wants to be able to do. barbara, i wonder how do you see this evolving? because up until now, whether it's been tanks, fighterjets and so on, there's often about a no from washington and then, at a certain point, that has changed. do you see that changing when it comes to strike capability from ukraine's side deeper into russia? i ukraine's side deeper into russia? ~ ., ukraine's side deeper into russia? ,, ., ., .,

russia? i think a lot of military _ russia? i think a lot of military analysts - russia? i think a lot of| military analysts would russia? i think a lot of- military analysts would tell you it's got to change in order for ukraine to make that significant leap forward, that significant... regain a significant... regain a significant advantage in their war with russia. it can't go on like this forever. because russia has the advantage of man power and weaponry. they can keep sending troops in. they don't particularly care if their troops get killed and they can produce more weapons — everything from ammunition to fighterjets — than the ukrainians can get a hold of. so the russians will maintain a significant tactical if not strategic advantage against ukraine. ukraine needs to find a way forward. i think one of 9 things we saw at this nato summit was nato beginning to settle in for the long haul — more coordination with a new cell being stood up in germany. we'll see how that goes. but,

importantly, missiles, once again, for the first time in decades being placed in germany. and very strong language about china's military assistance for russia. these are all much more strategic long—term issues, while ukraine still is trying to get its footing back with this issue of not being able to strike deep inside russia.— inside russia. well, that's a very interesting _ inside russia. well, that's a very interesting point - inside russia. well, that's a i very interesting point because, when i was looking through that declaration, one thing i did notice — and coming to you on this, elise — that there was no actual declaration from nato that ukraine should win this war. and barbara, you werejust saying, you know, there, western support in for the long elise, what did you read into that? ~ �* , �* that? well, it's something i've been saying — that? well, it's something i've been saying for— that? well, it's something i've been saying for a _ that? well, it's something i've been saying for a while - that? well, it's something i've been saying for a while and - been saying for a while and it's really unclear if the alliance _ it's really unclear if the alliance wants to just keep ukraine _ alliance wants to just keep ukraine defending against russia, not losing any more

territory. _ russia, not losing any more territory, or does it want it to decisively win? and this is something on general breedlove, the former us commander of nato forces _ the former us commander of nato forces in _ the former us commander of nato forces in europe many years ago. — forces in europe many years ago. has _ forces in europe many years ago, has said recently. this is going — ago, has said recently. this is going to — ago, has said recently. this is going to end the way the west wants— going to end the way the west wants it — going to end the way the west wants it to end. and if the alliance _ wants it to end. and if the alliance really wants to end this — alliance really wants to end this war— alliance really wants to end this war and have ukraine decisively defeat russia, as barbara _ decisively defeat russia, as barbara said, it's going to have _ barbara said, it's going to have to _ barbara said, it's going to have to be able to go into russia _ have to be able to go into russia and use those missiles, use those _ russia and use those missiles, use those weapons. you know, in yourm _ use those weapons. you know, in your... something struck me in your— your... something struck me in your interview with the polish foreign— your interview with the polish foreign minister. he said something about two years from now, _ something about two years from now. the — something about two years from now, the russian economy will start— now, the russian economy will start to — now, the russian economy will start to falter and feel it. and _ start to falter and feel it. and i_ start to falter and feel it. and i was thinking do they really— and i was thinking do they really want this war to go on for another two years? so if they— for another two years? so if they don't want to just keep they don't want to just keep the russians at bay and they

want — the russians at bay and they want ukraine to make decisive gains they're going to have to let them _ gains they're going to have to let them use their weapons to id let them use their weapons to go deep — let them use their weapons to go deep into russia. at the same — go deep into russia. at the same time, i think, you go deep into russia. at the same time, ithink, you know, president _ same time, ithink, you know, president biden was saying the other— president biden was saying the other day, you know, you really also _ other day, you know, you really also don't — other day, you know, you really also don't want to provoke russia _ also don't want to provoke russia to the extent where, you know, _ russia to the extent where, you know. the — russia to the extent where, you know, the use of nuclear weapons — i don't particularly know— weapons — i don't particularly know that _ weapons — i don't particularly know that russia would use nuclear— know that russia would use nuclear weapons but there are a lot of— nuclear weapons but there are a lot of greater military minds that— lot of greater military minds that think he might. do you want — that think he might. do you want to— that think he might. do you want to provoke russia to the extent — want to provoke russia to the extent where you really can't walk— extent where you really can't walk back from the brink? we've not about walk back from the brink? we've got about 30 _ walk back from the brink? we've got about 30 seconds _ walk back from the brink? we've got about 30 seconds left - walk back from the brink? we've got about 30 seconds left but. got about 30 seconds left but one thing i did notice at the nato summit — women vastly underrepresented in security and defence. you are two experts in that field. barbara, what does that mean? that underrepresentation? well, i think it's a — underrepresentation? well, i think it's a sign _ underrepresentation? well, i think it's a sign of _ underrepresentation? well, i think it's a sign of the - underrepresentation? well, i think it's a sign of the times. j think it's a sign of the times. there are a lot of european countries that welcome women into the ranks quite significantly, as does the us but, look, we're talking about

a situation here where it takes years, if not decades to grow the ranks, to grow the senior enlisted and the senior officers into these positions. i think one of the most interesting things going on in the us military right now is we are getting rapidly past the afghanistan—iraq generation, if you will, the 9/11 generation. so many of the young troops joining today, you know, thankfully, hopefully, will never step foot in a combat zone like that and so this is going to be a new world for the us military and european militaries to coordinate. i guess i would point out in ukraine women are very much fighting on the front lines and in defence of their nation. absolutely, and for the first time at nato, they did get body armour at this summit. always really appreciate both of your perspectives. thank you so much for being with us here on bbc news.

i'll have more global news for you at the top of the hour. you can always get the latest news and features any time on our website. thanks for your company. i'll see you again very soon. about, ye for now. hello. if you like cool weather with lots of clouds, then the weekend may be perfect for you, but be careful what you wish for — it may end up being a little too chilly, with the rain and the wind off the north sea, and for many of us, actually, the weekend is looking quite mixed. at the moment, on the satellite picture, we have clouds circling the uk. this cloud here is responsible for the damp weather, and you can see the outbreaks of rain there across many eastern parts of the country. but earlier on in the night, we will have had some clear spells out towards the west, and 7am temperatures,

around 11 to 13 degrees, with lower values earlier on in the night. so a lot of cloud to start the day, wherever you are, but soon, sunny spells will be developing out towards the west and in some central areas. showers will develop, too, across wales, southern england, some in northern ireland, but here, along the north sea coast, layers of cloud, outbreaks of rain. there's a weather front there, and it's going to feel quite chilly. look at that. 1a in aberdeen, 1a in newcastle, no higher than about 15 in hull, and out towards the west, perhaps temperatures not even making 20 celsius, even where the sun does come out. now, here's sunday. we still have that low pressure circling in the north sea here, with that breeze out of the north, outbreaks of rain from time to time, but i think, for many of us, actually, sunday is going to be a drier, brighter day, and as a result, the temperatures will be a little bit higher. a good day, i think, overall, for wimbledon on sunday, and it's looking hot and sunny in germany, as well, for that football match. now, let's have a look at the forecast, then, for sunday evening.

if you're planning to spend it outdoors, perhaps in your garden, looking mostly dry across most of the uk. here's a look at the forecast for monday now. surprise, surprise — a weather front sweeps in from the south—west. it'll bring outbreaks of rain, potentially heavy showers at times, even some thunderstorms possible, but this time, i think eastern areas should hang on to the better weather, and because there's going to be a bit of a change in the wind direction, so coming in from the south, the temperatures will be typically in the low 20s. how about the outlook? well, next week, again, a mixed bag in the north of the country, but further south, there are hints, tentative hints, that things are going to be turning a little bit warmer. that's it. bye— bye.

voice-over: this is bbc news. we'll have the headlines for you at the top of the hour, which is straight after this programme. long jump is still my favourite, you know. everybody knows jackie joyner—kersee's love affair with the long jump. yes. sports illustrated called you the greatest female athlete of the 20th century.

you have the record — the olympic record in the heptathlon, the olympic record in the long jump — and you set those records almost 1t0 years ago and they have still not been broken. do you think of yourself as a great athlete when you wake up in the morning? is that how you still see yourself? it's not that i think of myself as being an athlete of yesterday. i am a realist. i understand, and even understood during the time of my days of being a competitive athlete that i wanted to be one of the best, so to be called, you know, one of the greatest, you know, i'm very humble and i'm very honoured but i know the importance of people who saw the potential in me as a young girl that i did not know that i had. did it occur to you for

a moment that those records