he called the move as a clear escalation. north korean troops could be fighting on the battlefield in ukraine within days that's the assessment of the ukrainian president volodymyr zelensky. moscow and pyongyang have neither confirmed nor denied that thousands of north koreans are being prepared tojoin the war. south korea and the united states say satellite images show some of pyongyang's forces are already in russia. the ukrainian leader said they could be deployed by the 27th or 28th of october something he described as a clear escalation. he said north korea's involvement should not be met with indifference but with tangible pressure on both moscow and pyongyang.

but a statement reported by north korea's state media news agency said such a deployment would conform with international law. on thursday during a press conference president putin didn't deny reports about north korean troops. and today he appeared on russian state tv, with further comments on this topic. translation: have you seen? maybe someone was able to show you the reaction on your announcement on north korea? it was explosive. i don't know what kind of explosion happened there. as long as the shards aren't thrown too far and the dust settles after that explosion, we're in contact with our north korean friends. and when we have to decide something, we will undoubtedly decide. our friends from north korea have the same point of view, but i want to say that it is our sovereign decision whether we apply something or not. where and how, whether we need it, or maybe we only conduct some kind of drills, training, sharing experience. it's our business.

the evidence for a north korean presence in the region is mounting. this video been verified by the bbc shows north korean troops in a training ground in the russian far east. last week south korea's spy agency said around 1,500 north korean special forces troops had arrived in russia. according to the white house the us, japan and south korea are all concerned about the situation. here's what japan's top government spokesperson had to say. the japanese government is closely monitoring the situation, including the possibility that north korea mightjoin russia's invasion of ukraine. the recent development in the deepening military cooperation between moscow and pyongyang not only deteriorates the situation in ukraine, but also raises serious concerns for regional security around japan. still with me on the context... former labour party parliamentary candidate and political strategist kevin craig.

brett bruen, president of the consulting firm global situation room and former director of global engagement at the white house. good to have you still with us. i guessed earlier on the programme said that having north koreans in russia was primarily a message directed at the usa, would you agree? i the usa, would you agree? i think it is incredibly destabilising that you have introduced another party to this conflict. it has the potential of spreading the conflict out across asia. while there may be an attempt to send a message here to washington, i think it is as you have heard from the japanese foreign ministry in that clip, it is a message that is a resonating around the world and setting off alarm bells in a number of capitals. the potential that we could see some issue, some incident that happens in ukraine that could lead to some sort of nuclear or other

incident across asia is really quite astonishing and i have to say for viewers less familiar with the intricacies of defence or diplomacy, one thing to send some armaments, it is an entirely different matter to put your own soldiers on the grounds, the ground of a sovereign nation being invaded. speaking to the new boss of nato, mark reiter recently, i put to him the point, due to him the point, do european members of nato actually need to start looking after your up more rather than depend on the us necessarily to be as as heavily involved and ijust wonder how do you think the uk and other nato members who are closer geographically to ukraine may be responding to this? , ., ., , this? there is no doubt with david lemmy _ this? there is no doubt with david lammy with _ this? there is no doubt with david lammy with arts - this? there is no doubt with i david lammy with arts foreign secretary _ david lammy with arts foreign secretary will be deeply

concerned he has been clear as well_ concerned he has been clear as well is — concerned he has been clear as well is the _ concerned he has been clear as well is the prime minister of remaining steadfast allies of ukraine _ remaining steadfast allies of ukraine. there is a real risk of escalation, the instant question is when you talk —— cut through the diplomatic noise _ cut through the diplomatic noise is— cut through the diplomatic noise is what will european states_ noise is what will european states such as the united kingdom do, part of nato or however. _ kingdom do, part of nato or however, if does does actually escalate — however, if does does actually escalate further. north korea has nothing to lose, it isjust deeply— has nothing to lose, it isjust deeply worrying. there is no prospect— deeply worrying. there is no prospect in the short—term of european _ prospect in the short—term of european troops being deployed into the — european troops being deployed into the situation, but it may lead — into the situation, but it may lead to— into the situation, but it may lead to further increases into military— lead to further increases into military hardware that we and others — military hardware that we and others provide and the new uk government will certainly remaih_ government will certainly remain to be seen as very steadfastly behind ukraine. do ou steadfastly behind ukraine. you see steadfastly behind ukraine. drr you see this more as a symbolic move rather than making any significant difference on the ground? fix. significant difference on the round? �* ., ,, ground? a few thousand troops are not going — ground? a few thousand troops are not going to _ ground? a few thousand troops are not going to change - ground? a few thousand troops are not going to change that. are not going to change that dynamic on the grounds, ijust want to come back and emphasise this point, it is the first

time in history that we have seen troops from an asian nation essentially invade europe. that is just an absolutely unacceptable development and i think european leaders need to come out and say, these troops need to get the heck out of europe and go back where they came from because the notion that all of a sudden we will start seeing it north korean or chinese or other troops showing up chinese or other troops showing up on european shores would serve to destabilise the world in a way we have not seen since the second world war. than the second world war. an interesting _ the second world war. an interesting discussion on that point. let's move onto the next topic tonight. who fits the definition of a working person? it's a question that's been causing uk prime minister sir keir starmer a headache. sir keir who's at the commonwealth summit in samoa is under growing pressure to give a clear answer. that's because there are just five days to go to the uk

budget and labour's election manifesto promised that a labour government wouldn't increase taxes on working people. in an interview during a commonwealth leaders' summit, the prime minister was asked for a bit more clarity. he said, he thought of a working person as someone who "goes out and earns their living, usually paid in a sort of monthly cheque." and if that's not clear enough he also said it was someone who can't "write a cheque to get out of difficulties". but that definition has led the conservatives to accuse labour of reinventing what counts as a working person as the budget approaches. during a bbc radio interview treasury ministerjames murray was also asked repeatedly to give a more precise answer. listen to this exchange with nick robinson. we're talking about where people get their income from and working people... i'm talking about a simple question do landlords work? i think i've asked you five times now.

do they work? well, we're talking about where people get their income from and people, if they go out to work and they get their income from work, that is where we want to make sure that we protect them. so what you're saying, just to be clear, i'm not trying to score points. i'm just trying to get clarity. you're saying that people who earn their money from owning a house, or owning shares or selling a business, by your definition, they are not working people. well, look, i'm not going to get into too many hypotheticals here, nick. of course this matters because it is a question of who may fit into certain tax thresholds come the budget in a few days' time. i would like to begin by getting both of your definitions of what you think a working person is. kevin. j working person is. kevin. i wish sometimes the government did not— wish sometimes the government did not overcomplicate this. for me. _ did not overcomplicate this. for me. i_ did not overcomplicate this. for me, i think he working person— for me, i think he working person is— for me, i think he working person is somebody whose primary— person is somebody whose primary source of income and involves — primary source of income and involves them going out to work five days — involves them going out to work five days a — involves them going out to work five days a week, that they are

a salaried _ five days a week, that they are a salaried employee of somebody else, _ a salaried employee of somebody else, but— a salaried employee of somebody else, but also more broadly, i think— else, but also more broadly, i think he — else, but also more broadly, i think he working person means somebody or a family who are worried — somebody or a family who are worried about making ends meet, who are _ worried about making ends meet, who are worried about money and having _ who are worried about money and having either through your own hard _ having either through your own hard work— having either through your own hard work or inheritance or legacy. _ hard work or inheritance or legacy, somebody who has not -ot legacy, somebody who has not got the — legacy, somebody who has not got the ability to write a check _ got the ability to write a check or draw money in from elsewhere to make ends meet or deal with— elsewhere to make ends meet or deal with the crises of life. witi— deal with the crises of life. will be _ deal with the crises of life. will be the labour party are over— will be the labour party are over complicating this and getting _ over complicating this and getting ourselves into an unnecessary pickle. it getting ourselves into an unnecessary pickle.- getting ourselves into an unnecessary pickle. it is a really subjective - unnecessary pickle. it is a really subjective opinion l unnecessary pickle. it is a l really subjective opinion as unnecessary pickle. it is a - really subjective opinion as to what that definition is. what are your thoughts, brett? what that definition is. what are yourthoughts, brett? i’m are your thoughts, brett? i'm cominu are your thoughts, brett? i'm coming at _ are your thoughts, brett? i'm coming at this _ are yourthoughts, brett? i“n coming at this from the american standpoint will stop here in the us kamala harris says she will not raise taxes on households that earn less than $400,000. that may sound like a large sum for viewers in the uk and elsewhere, i think you have to assign an income level to it. those who earn

less than a certain amount, those we consider working folks. those earning over a certain amount we consider well—to—do and can pay more in taxes. 50 well-to-do and can pay more in taxes. , , well-to-do and can pay more in taxes, , , , taxes. so they may still be workin: taxes. so they may still be working people, _ taxes. so they may still be working people, but - taxes. so they may still be working people, but they l taxes. so they may still be i working people, but they are earning more money as they work so there is a cut off based on earnings is what you are suggesting. i earnings is what you are suggesting-— earnings is what you are su~aestina. ,, , ., suggesting. i think it is that sim - le i suggesting. i think it is that simple i think— suggesting. i think it is that simple i think you - suggesting. i think it is that simple i think you can - suggesting. i think it is that simple i think you can say l suggesting. i think it is that i simple i think you can say this much money, you will pay more taxes. i much money, you will pay more taxes. ~ much money, you will pay more taxes. ,, , ., ., taxes. i think you are both makin: taxes. i think you are both making good _ taxes. i think you are both making good sense, - taxes. i think you are both making good sense, i'm . taxes. i think you are both i making good sense, i'm not speaking _ making good sense, i'm not speaking for the government tonight, _ speaking for the government tonight, common sense found in a pub. _ tonight, common sense found in a pub. i— tonight, common sense found in a pub, ithink tonight, common sense found in a pub, i think you will see a budget— a pub, i think you will see a budget from rachel reeves as the british chancellor who by the british chancellor who by the way— the british chancellor who by the way i _ the british chancellor who by the way i think is an excellent politician, _ the way i think is an excellent politician, you will see a budget— politician, you will see a budget where if your family income _ budget where if your family income is less than £70,000 a year. 70 — income is less than £70,000 a year, 70 grand as we say here, ithink— year, 70 grand as we say here, i think you _ year, 70 grand as we say here, i think you will see the budget will be — i think you will see the budget will be all about your family. the — will be all about your family. the labour party told us those with _ the labour party told us those with the — the labour party told us those with the broadest shoulders are going _ with the broadest shoulders are going to — with the broadest shoulders are going to have to help undo the

crazy— going to have to help undo the crazy damage of 14 years of conservative rule and the labour _ conservative rule and the labour party needs to relax and have _ labour party needs to relax and have talks — labour party needs to relax and have talks about this and not overcomplicate it. do have talks about this and not overcomplicate it.— have talks about this and not overcomplicate it. do you think that the labour _ overcomplicate it. do you think that the labour party, - overcomplicate it. do you think that the labour party, the - that the labour party, the government is still actually working on the precise definition of a working person ahead of wednesday, is that still a work in progress because keir starmer was talking about writing checks, i don't think many people actually write checks any more? they don't. let's be clear. no political— they don't. let's be clear. no political party in the recent past — political party in the recent past in _ political party in the recent past in the united kingdom has defined — past in the united kingdom has defined a working person. it's not to— defined a working person. it's not to say— defined a working person. it's not to say if you go back and recent — not to say if you go back and recent administrations have used — recent administrations have used the _ recent administrations have used the language at least the labour— used the language at least the labour party has and not specified the detail, there will be _ specified the detail, there will be no doubt that after the lrudget— will be no doubt that after the budget on what this means and as lfright— budget on what this means and as bright playfully says, it will — as bright playfully says, it will basically be about, to get the country back on its feet with— the country back on its feet with great public services and an environment we care about, people — an environment we care about, people above a certain level

will generally have to pay more in those — will generally have to pay more in those underneath it will be provisions for those with the least — provisions for those with the least you _ provisions for those with the least you want to get on the housing _ least you want to get on the housing ladder who fell for the last 14 — housing ladder who fell for the last 14 years needed to be worked _ last 14 years needed to be worked a bit better, all will be revealed.— worked a bit better, all will be revealed. more from our anel be revealed. more from our panel in _ be revealed. more from our panel in a — be revealed. more from our panel in a moment, - be revealed. more from our panel in a moment, but - be revealed. more from our panel in a moment, but for| be revealed. more from our- panel in a moment, but for now, this is bbc news.

we arejust we are just hearing phil lesh a founding member of the grateful dead has died at the age of 84. the base player was a member of the rock band among jerry garcia and others. he was best known for the song of broken chain about the counterculture's band connection with its audience the grateful dead disbanded afterjerry garcia died in 1995 afterjerry garcia died in 1995 after a drug rehabilitation clinic at age 53. that news

just coming into us that phil lesh founding member of the grateful dead has died at the age of 84. now it's time for the panel... former labour party parliamentary candidate and political strategist kevin craig and brett president the consulting it is time for them to talk about the topics they are interested in, interested in all of those topics, but specifically picking tonight, kevin we will begin with you. you are talking about elon musk and his apparent conversations with president putin.— with president putin. aside from politics, _ with president putin. aside from politics, my _ with president putin. aside l from politics, my background with president putin. aside - from politics, my background is in business and i found a multi—billion communications company— multi—billion communications company and we follow here and

across _ company and we follow here and across the — company and we follow here and across the world. to see elon musk— across the world. to see elon musk has— across the world. to see elon musk has been a drawing for sometimes has been broken by the wall— sometimes has been broken by the wall streetjournal earlier, a real clue for the show— earlier, a real clue for the show but _ earlier, a real clue for the show but elon musk has been enjoying _ show but elon musk has been enjoying tet on tats with putin as well— enjoying tet on tats with putin as well as _ enjoying tet on tats with putin as well as being a cheerleader in chief— as well as being a cheerleader in chief or— as well as being a cheerleader in chief or donald trump. it's remarkable because the access he has — remarkable because the access he has been given an