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. hello and welcome to the global story. today, america and the war in ukraine. when russia invaded ukraine in february 2022, the united statesjoined much of the western world in jumping to kyiv�*s diplomatic defence. a raft of economic sanctions were followed by multiple aid packages, with president biden promising the us would not waver in its support. we will not waver. cheering and applause i mean that. our commitment to ukraine will not weaken. _ but more than two and a half years into the war, support for the ukrainian effort has waned in washington. despite a bipartisan deal struck in april to deliver $61 billion in aid and a so—called surge spend of $8 billion on military assistance in september, congressional disquiet has continued to grow.

so as domestic frustration over immigration and the economy continues to dominate the election, what do we know about how kamala harris and donald trump would deal with the war in ukraine, and what might a victory for either candidate mean for the conflict? joining me are the bbc�*s ukraine correspondent, james waterhouse, in kyiv... hi, james, how are you? hi, sumi, very well, thanks. keeping warm on the roof here in kyiv. ..and from london, our news correspondent, will vernon, who has reported for the bbc from ukraine, russia and from dc. hi, will. hi, sumi, nice to be here. let's start by looking at the picture in washington, because it is clear here on the ground that the appetite for continued aid to ukraine is starting to dwindle. we should say, of course, that the us has provided more than any other nation to ukraine. will, what do the numbers look like at this point, and what does the latest surge in support that president biden said he was giving actually consist of?

as you say, america is the largest contributor, single contributor, of aid to ukraine. washington's contributed about $175 billion since the full—scale invasion started. but, actually, if you look at things as a proportion of gdp, america is actually number 14 or 15 in the list of the largest backers. of the largest backers. obviously, the us has a huge gdp. obviously, the us has a huge gdp. when president zelensky when president zelensky was on a visit to the us was on a visit to the us recently, president biden recently, president biden announced $8 billion. announced $8 billion. he called it a surge he called it a surge in support. in support. that is actually not new money, that is actually not new money, that is part of an earlier pot that is part of an earlier pot that was part of this big that was part of this big ukraine aid bill granted ukraine aid bill granted in april this year. in april this year. and we remember, don't we, and we remember, don't we, those jubilant scenes those jubilant scenes on the floor of the house on the floor of the house of representatives, of representatives, when lawmakers were when lawmakers were waving ukrainian flags. actually, it's worth waving ukrainian flags. actually, it's worth remembering that a majority remembering that a majority of republican lawmakers of republican lawmakers actually voted against that actually voted against that bill. bill. so this 8 billion is not so this 8 billion is not

new money, it's basically new money, it's basically a reauthorisation of that earlier $60 billion, and part of that will be given to the ukrainian government to purchase arms.

ukraine sceptic—in—chief isjd vance, trump's running mate, the vice presidential candidate. he isn't happy at all about sending more money to ukraine. he says that the us arms production industry can't keep up with the russian one, which critics say is not only untrue, but also is a bit disingenuous to the industrious men and women working in the us arms industry, and the ultimate argument from these america first republicans is that the us should negotiate with vladimir putin, bring an end to this war. but ukraine and its supporters say that vladimir putin is not the kind of man you can negotiate with in good faith. he's violated, they say, almost every international agreement in the book, from the budapest memorandum of 1994, to the un charter, to the minsk agreements, the listjust goes on and on and on. we'll get to the positions of each candidate later. but, james, will mentioned on this recent diplomatic trip that president zelensky made to the us, to the united nations. he then travelled to washington, to the white house. he was presenting his so—called victory plan. what is in this victory plan? this is a victory plan,

a just peace, as he puts it, that he is presenting to his western allies. until the last few months, he had long demanded the complete withdrawal of russian forces and for the country's borders to be restored to before russia's campaign of aggression, which started ten years ago. i think what's changed in that time is the american scepticism that will references, and the battlefield realities, in that russia is not being forced backwards, it is taking more ukrainian territory. one of my favourite barometers is president zelensky�*s face. he is a performer, relatively speaking. when you compare him to other world leaders, he's someone at ease in a press conference. but there have been moments in this war when he hasn't been able to hide his either shock, horror or disappointment. i've looked at his expressions during this diplomatic tour. he's not a happy man.

he's not getting what he wants. the reality here is that the outcome of this election thousands of miles away could well determine ukraine's fate or future. so this victory plan, it is thought, may well include territorial concession in exchange for security guarantees. and we're starting to see a lot of editorials in the media, a lot of experts, a lot of officials speculate that ukraine may well want to, short of nato membership, try and get some guarantees from western allies to get the weapons it needs to stop going backwards, to shore up the fault lines as they are, and perhaps be able to exist in the long—term as a democratic country.

but it's fraught with caveats. would america be willing to station troops in ukraine itself, when the west has been so wary of direct confrontation with russia? what he's also doing is asking for permission to use western missiles on targets deep inside russia, and that has not materialised. so i think we're seeing an incredibly anxious period politically, and in a military sense as well, as we head towards the us presidential election. james, you mentioned aspects of this plan are believed to be about changing momentum in this war. certainly, earlier in the year, there was a feeling among some analysts here in the us that the war was stagnating, that ukraine was even losing

territory, as you said. that did change a bit, at least the narrative did, at the start of august, with ukraine's surprise incursion into russian territory in the kursk region. has this tactic worked for ukraine? it's worked in the sense that it has allowed ukraine to exchange hundreds more prisoners of war with russia because of the troops it captured in this extraordinary incursion. but there are other two goals, arguably, to that russian offensive. one was to draw russian forces from elsewhere. it is thought tens of thousands have been redeployed in the months since, but not to enough of an extent to slow in any way their advances in eastern ukraine. i'll touch on that in a second, but the third goal was to potentially use it as political leverage, as a bargaining chip for any kind of peace negotiation. what is happening now is, we're seeing that redeployment of russian troops where they are nibbling back to an extent where russia has recaptured several settlements. if ukraine is unable to keep hold of this territory,

then this operation would have almost been for nothing, apart from those prisoners of war exchanges. if we look at the east, it's interesting. we're seeing russia really punch through with localised attacks in several areas where they continue to use their size in terms of numbers of troops, in terms of depth of resources, to punch through ukrainian defences. a confrontational war does not suit the smaller fighter, and ukraine has always been that. we've talked about that delay in american support earlier this year, with disagreements in the us congress. that directly caused ukraine to lose ground, notably a town called avdiivka, which, in the words of some officers there, should never have fallen. because troops there ran out of ammunition and equipment, they lost it. and russia has crucially not stopped there. and there are real concerns that there could be, i don't want to say domino

effect, but there are certainly eastern ukrainian cities sitting very nervously at the moment as russian forces continue to erode ukrainian territory. is there a sense that ukraine rushing forces and equipment and resources to this incursion into the kursk region, that that has, in a way, come at the expense of the eastern front, where ukrainians, as you said, are fighting very hard, as russians are pushing through and punching through those lines? yeah, it was a roll of the dice for ukraine, no doubt about that. we were there in sumy, watching these guys go back and forth, and in the words of one critic we spoke to in eastern ukraine, it certainly seemed like a sugar rush offensive, where there was a big injection of morale. we saw certainly elite fighters. these weren't conscripts,

these weren't volunteers, these were ukraine's most professional soldiers using sophisticated pieces of western kit. they have suffered losses in this operation, and so ukraine will be wanting a return from that, whereas you're seeing these buckling defensive lines in the east, so it's an incredibly difficult situation. we talked about a confrontational war. you're seeing ukraine trying to shake things up as much as possible, given the geopolitical difficulties. but we must be careful to not get caught up in the geopolitics of this, because what is happening domestically is ukraine continually trying to mobilise enough men to sustain its fight. and that is an incredibly sensitive issue politically. there are men petrified of being called up and finding themselves on the front lines, and that is the stage of the war we are at, where it is about increasingly a question of who loses first. any talk of victory has been shelved.

i do want to look now at the approaches of each candidate and what they might do in terms of foreign policy. will, if we start with kamala harris, she has been vocally very supportive of ukraine, but she's not talked a lot about it on the campaign trail. is it safe to assume that she would take a similar stance to president biden going forward? i think it is, yeah. i think if she wins the election, we won't see any change whatsoever in ukraine policy from the white house. she has spoken many times about her support for ukraine. as i have made clear- on our six previous meetings and throughout putin's i brutal aggression and war against ukraine, my support for the people of ukraine . is unwavering. she also, by the way, likes to talk about how she was in munich, meeting president zelensky in february 2022, just a few days before the election. she said that at that meeting she shared intelligence with mr zelensky and then set off on a kind of tour to gather together an anti—russia coalition of countries

after that. but, actually, ukrainian officials tell a slightly different story of what happened at that meeting. they say that president zelensky asked for two things from ms harris in munich — one, that the us apply harsh pre—emptive sanctions against russia to try and deter it from sending troops over the border, and the other thing was that america flood ukraine with weapons. according to ukrainian officials, kamala harris said no to both those requests. we don't know how much of it is true, but what is true is that washington has been quite slow, a lot of people would say, to give ukraine the weapons it needs to fight off the russians. at the beginning of the war, there was quite a lot of caution in terms of sending a lot of weapons from the get—go. there was concern in the white house that some sort of escalation might follow, that this might provoke president putin in ukraine. and its supporters say that that fear persists and there is still too much, as they would see it, concern in the white house that

president putin might escalate this conflict and it might lead to some sort of direct military confrontation between america and russia, and that the kremlin uses that fear. we've heard kamala harris on the campaign trail and during the presidential debate use this quip, "putin would be sitting in kyiv right now "if donald trump were still president." will, what about donald trump, the former president? how has he talked about president zelensky? well, apparently, he doesn't like him. now, of course, we remember trump's first impeachment back in 2019, that resulted from a phone call with president zelensky in which, allegedly, mr trump put pressure on mr zelensky to open an investigation into the biden family. that could be one reason. but also president trump, former president trump, has spoken very warmly of vladimir putin. so we have a very|

good relationship. and i also have a very good relationship, as you know, i with president putin. and i think, if we win, - i think we're going to get it resolved very quickly. one thing i've noticed in the last few months at his rallies, donald trump has started using this phrase, "ukraine is gone. " it's sad. theyjust don't know- what to do, because ukraine is gone, it's not. ukraine any more. what we think he means is that russia has essentially already won this war, or will. why bother continuing to help the ukrainians? we know that president trump is very sceptic of nato. he said earlier this year, didn't he, that if some nato allies don't pay up, as he would see it, don't contribute sufficient amounts to the alliance, to the defence of the alliance, then moscow can, quote, "do whatever the hell they want with those countries." and that caused a lot of shock and concern right across europe and right across nato. but in terms of the ukraine war more generally, i think it's clear what mr trump's position is, in terms of what he says

at his rallies. he says this would never have happened on my watch, and he says that he would bring the war to an end within 24 hours, if he wins the election. now, that, of course, gave birth to a lot of speculation about whether donald trump could use, could leverage, us aid to ukraine to try and force the ukrainians into some sort of ugly peace, some sort of deal that was bad for ukraine that would end up ceding ukrainian territory to russia. yeah, i think many ukrainians, including president zelensky, would have an issue with donald trump's claim that ukraine is demolished now and it should have made concessions before the war to prevent this from happening. it is true the country has lost an extraordinary number of soldiers and civilians at the hands of this full—scale invasion by moscow, but what they would argue is that, to quote a sentiment i heard in kherson, this southern city which was captured by the russians early on, it was liberated, but it's been constantly shelled and attacked by drones since.

but what people who live under those kind of attacks tell you is that this is still better than being occupied. "i am still sitting in a country where the democratically elected president is still in power." now, this is a country under martial law, it is still holding its ground. but, as will alluded to, the west, the us, has always reacted to what ukraine has done. there was a huge delay in the help before the war, and then, despite predictions kyiv would fall in days, it didn't. now, despite notable successes in 2022, the problem for ukraine, and i've said this before, is this is a story of survival. the problem for it is that this story is not over. while we are in a phase of the war where, with the upcoming us election, there really is a notable fork in the road now, but beyond that, it's really hard to see where ukraine goes from here.

president zelensky has made a point of meeting both candidates, including the vice president kamala harris in her capacity as vice president. but of course, she is also the candidate. but he also made a few faux pas in his trip to the us recently. he visited an ammunition factory in pennsylvania, and he was seen alongside the pennsylvania governor, josh shapiro, who is, of course, a big surrogate for the democrats, for kamala harris. will, could this be problematic going forward in terms of support among republicans in particular? i think it could. and this visit didn't go well. if we cast our minds back two years ago to that first visit by president zelensky, you had billions of dollars of pledges being made.

you had the great and the good of american politics clamouring to meet president zelensky, standing ovations. this time round, mr zelensky didn't even meet the house speaker, mikejohnson, during that visit. and that political blunder that you mention, the visit to the munitions factory, not only was it in president biden�*s hometown of scranton, but it was in pennsylvania, right, which is the swingy—est and the key—est of the key swing states, right? those seven states that will essentially decide the us election, so, furious reaction from republicans, who accused mr zelensky of meddling in internal affairs, and of clear favouritism. and jd vance, president zelensky made some comments about him, as well, to a journalist during that visit. he said that he was, quote, "too radical." on top of all that, president zelensky didn't get the main prize that he was hoping he could maybe clinch

during that visit, and that is permission from the americans, as we've discussed, to use western—supplied long—range missiles to hit targets inside russia. so, difficult to see any significant achievements at all, really, from that visit. james, how pivotal do you think us backing for ukraine is, continued going forward, if you look at support from other western allies in europe? well, it's the us, and the us alone, that can give ukraine the military supplies necessary to fight this war. we've seen with that delayed support earlier this yearjust how costly it is for ukraine. we've seen admissions from the european union that they've missed artillery shell manufacturing targets. they've admitted, western european allies, that they can't plug the gap left by america. and because of america's size,

its might, its political influence, other allies look to washington for political cover when it comes to making their own individual pledges on issues such as supplying tanks or long—range missiles or fighter jets of their own. and so without the weight of america behind ukraine, ukraine will always keep fighting, but things could go south very quickly. if there were a situation where the us were to drastically reduce or withdraw support completely, how long could ukraine continue fighting? that is incredibly difficult. that's a difficult one, sumi. i think it won't be the turning off of taps. there are pledges of billions of dollars that will continue to be delivered, and you see these supplies come across the borders of poland and elsewhere, that goes straight to the front lines. but we could be talking about. . . it's typically weeks and months where we start

to see notable russian advances, when ukraine runs out of ammunition, for example. i mean, ukraine is already out—equipped by the russians. the ratios were once 7:1, i think, when it came to ammunition and artillery shells. it's gone down, but there is still a deficit as far as ukraine is concerned. this is a teetering front line. if it was to go beyond that, if we saw cities like pokrovsk, like kostiantynivka, like kupiansk across the east fall into russian control, then you have major routes that become occupied, and then ukraine has a real problem. it's backtracking and once again having to prioritise key cities like kyiv, and it's all of a sudden feeling very 2022 again. will, we also have to say that russia has allies, of course, in its war as well. north korea, china, iran have all been accused of assisting moscow militarily. how much is that something that could be influenced

by who the next president of the us is? in terms of what us government agencies are doing, they are taking more action against countries like china, iran, north korea, these countries that, in one way oranother, directly or indirectly, are supporting or somehow assisting russia in the war in ukraine. so i think that if kamala harris wins the election, then that certainly will continue those increased efforts by us government agencies to take action against those countries. but it's difficult to predict what exactly trump would do in office. he tends to change his mind quite a lot. but we should remember that donald trump is essentially

an isolationist, right? he is very sceptical of global alliances, especially nato. kamala harris is committed to global alliances, so i think the stakes are incredibly high in this election. really interesting discussion. james, will, thank you both so much. thanks, sumi. if you want more episodes of the global story, you can find us wherever you get your podcasts. thank you for watching and goodbye. hello. we've had a real mixture of weather to start off the weekend. across east anglia, south—east england, a lot of cloud, an odd spit of drizzle. we had a weather front that brought some rain to northern ireland and scotland, delivering 22 millimetres into the highlands, the wettest place in the uk, but then we had this slice of sunshine stretching from east scotland down towards south west england, where we had 8.5 hours of sunshine in camborne in cornwall, and an 18 celsius heat in dorset in bournemouth. now, looking at the weather picture at the moment, week weather fronts are moving

southeast, just a lump of cloud by the time it reaches east anglia. that cloud keeping temperatures up at around seven degrees 01’ so. otherwise, it's going to be quite a cold start to your sunday morning, with temperatures three to five degrees pretty widely. it might be chilly, but it's going to be a lovely start to your sunday morning as well. now, we'll keep the sunshine all day across england and wales, but for scotland and northern ireland, a weather front is on the way through the afternoon, bringing cloud and rain in. it's also going to turn quite windy, with gusts running into the 40s of miles an hour. our temperatures on sunday afternoon running close to average for the time of year, ranging from around 11—15 degrees, north to south. now, that rain across northern areas of the uk through sunday night pushes southwards, whilst weakening those fronts again, moving in towards higher pressure. and so, as we look at the forecast for monday, it's going to be quite a dull and damp day for england and wales, some mist and fog patches up over the high ground. a bit of drizzle to start the day in scotland

and northern ireland, with extensive cloud, but it should turn at least a little bit drier and perhaps a few bright spells around. a bit milderfor northern areas, temperatures coming up to 15 in belfast and glasgow, but not a great deal of sunshine around. now, into tuesday, high pressure starts to move in across the uk. it's quite weak initially, and there's going to be extensive cloud beneath that area of high pressure. so for tuesday, it's a grey day, a few spots of morning drizzle. in the afternoon, one or two brighter spells, but predominately, it's a cloudy looking day on tuesday. temperatures, 14—16 degrees, and so on the mild side of things for this time of year. that area of high pressure continues to build across the uk through wednesday and thursday, so there should be a few more breaks in the cloud developing, particularly close to the centre of the high pressure towards england and wales, so the weather turning a bit brighter. across northern areas of the uk later in the week, it is set to turn colder, and we might even see some rain or wintry showers across the far north of scotland.

live from washington, this is bbc news. iran downplays israeli air strikes on its military sites, as the us and other countries call for both sides to avoid further escalation. israeli forces withdraw from a hospital in northern

gaza, a day after storming it. the world health organization warns of a "catastrophic" situation at gaza's medical facilities. former first lady michelle obama rallies the crowd for kamala harris in michigan — as trump hits the other battleground state of pennsylvania. voting under way in japan voting under way injapan as the ruling party is under pressure and underfire. there are rising prices and stagnating wages are on their minds. hello, i'm azadeh moshiri. welcome to the programme. we begin with reaction to israel's air strikes on iran. it's an attack world leaders have been bracing themselves for. while iran is downplaying the scale of the strikes — saying they caused limited damage — its army said the raids killed four of its soldiers. israel, on the other hand,

says three waves of fighter jets targeted 20 military sites — with some reports saying that