this is bbc news — the headlines. president biden's national security adviser has urged donald trump not to walk away from ukraine. jake sullivan said mr biden would use his remaining time in office to make the case that kyiv should be given further support. it's reported mr trump has already spoken to vladimir putin. russia and ukraine have carried out their biggest drone attacks against each other since the start of the war. kyiv says it shot down or disabled most of the one—hundred—and—forty—five drones launched against the country. russia says thirty—four ukrainian drones were destroyed on the southern approaches to moscow. the new israeli defence minister — israel katz — has said hezbollah has been defeated. he also described the killing of the group s leader as the crowning achievement. mr katz expressed hope that an international coalition would capitalise on hezbollah�*s

defeat — and that lebanon would normalise relations with israel. now on bbc news. newscast. news, news, news. yesterday, we talked about donald trump and what the campaign was like. looks like today he is about to complete a clean sweep of all of the swing states. what is your hot take? i don't know how original this is at this point. i am fascinated by the global wave of anti—incumbent sentiment in this year of elections. we keep hearing 2024 is the year of elections in so many parts of the world including the uk. basically everywhere, incumbents have been punished and punished badly.

kamala harris wasn't president but she was essentially the incumbent candidate. what i have been thinking about is, that seems new. there have been previous periods of economic tumult where some incumbent parties, some incumbent leaders have been given the benefit of the doubt. why they have so definitively not being given the not been given the benefit of the doubt? have they experience high inflation after decades have the experience of high inflation after decades in which voters have never experienced essentially inflation at all? is that what it is? is there something else? is there something in our culture, are we more atomised, social media or whatever? is there something which means we are so less willing to give politicians the benefit of the doubt. inflation, there something which means we are so less inflation, the word that makes every politician shatter and plenty to get going.

it is lauren in the studio. henry at home. i'm in glasgow. some mothers see grand ideas to kick yourself on a sunday morning. all of these big concepts will be woven into everything in the coming months and years. this is a special weekend for lots of people listening, whether you have military ties or not. remembrance weekend is very special in the uk. it was an occasion where we had a rare with admiral sir tony radican ahead of the military in the uk. we talked about the ceremony is taking place around the country today but also it was a day, henry, to try to see what he really thought and the government

really thought about the level of defence spending here at home. just for people who maybe haven't been following this is closely as we have, what is your potted version of where the conversation has got to? the admiral sir tony thinks defence spending thinks defence spending needs to be higher and the government will not be drawn on whether they agree or rather what timeframe over which they agree with him and would increase defence spending. that is basically your programme this morning boiled down. and that was a disagreement is perhaps too strong but that was a difference in emphasis between the military people at the top of government and politicians at the top of government before tuesday and before the election of donald trump. clearly, that difference in approach to how fast to increase defence spending has taken on a massively increased significance in whitehall and westminster after donald trump's victory because we know that donald trump at the very,

very least believes that europe and the uk is part of that in his construction, should share more of the burden, shoulder more of the burden of defending europe and we know that he will aim to pursue policies in that direction. this is clearly something the government will have to think about are fresh. darrenjones the chief secretary to the treasury on your programme this morning, his mission was not to commit news on it basically, committing using either direction either by pleasing him or disappointing him. they will have to make a call fairly fast. i do not think it is that comfortable for the government to have a head at the military saying that diplomatically, and very plainly, spending on the military has to go up. clearly, he believes it is imperative that clearly he believes it is pretty urgent.

for the government notjust do not commit to any going to do it precisely that not even to guarantee they will do it in the next five years at all, which was a manifesto promise. it was deeply uncomfortable for darrenjones. at one point, you put the quote from the french president to him about the world being divided into carnivals, being divided into carnivores, omnivores and herbivores. i felt you were the carnivore and he was the herbivore. he said i tried to be a vegan in response to the question. it was uncomfortable. i looked back at the manifesto commitment saying, what was this precise commitment in the manifesto? it did say labour will conduct a strategic defence review within ourfirst year in government and we will out the path to spending. 2.5 of gdp on defense. when you make a manifesto

commitment, you generally assume the public expects that to be fulfilled within your first term of government. you don't presume that you will win any more terms beyond that. it doesn't explicitly say that in fairness to them, it says we will set out the path towards that. there was no path today, no sign of what the path would be. they are clearly waiting for this big moment of notjust the strategic defence review but the big spending review as well. they are. a new government has every right to look at the priorities and what they are spending money on. we all know money is tight but that there is some frustration in defence circles and suggestions from a lot of people as we were talking about yesterday that not to spend more now may prove to be a false economy, if you like, and that the reviews, important though they are putting in some delays on a system that really has to be long—term.

let's have a listen to how he diplomatically was implying he wants more passion. actually it was pretty clear, i don't think he was implying at all. this is how darrenjones was fending off the demand he give us a date for when the government will put it out. i don't think it will be a surprise to the chancellor, the prime minister and the defence secretary that the chief of defence staff would always want more money for defence. what i could say to the chief secretary is that we want to really invest in the mechanism that the government has got to address these issues. that is a defence review alongside a spending review and the crucial thing for people like me and the other chiefs is that we get things into balance. the ambition of the nation and the prime minister against the resources to match that ambition. is 2.5% enough?

that is for the review to assess and to do that in a much more significant way than the usual ding—dong with every year, how much money have we got? we want a longer term stability and longer—term clarity. i am not going to give you a date today because it relies on the outcome of the strategic defence review which will decide review which will decide what the priorities are. what the priorities are. you made the promise you made the promise during the election during the election you would hit that target. you would hit that target. today, our viewers will hear today, our viewers will hear you are not even committing you are not even committing to doing it by 2029. to doing it by 2029. you might not win you might not win the next election. the next election. a commitment without any data a commitment without any data at all is no commitment. at all is no commitment. a promise on the manifesto a promise on the manifesto will be met for that there on due to geopolitical affairs will be met for that there was no date set in a manifesto was no date set in a manifesto for the reason i set out. for the reason i set out. do you mean it will be met do you mean it will be met in the course of this in the course of this parliament, by 2029? parliament, by 2029? i am not going to give i am not going to give you a date today. you a date today. strategic review will say how strategic review will say how much money we need to spend much money we need to spend

and what we need to spend and what we need to spend on due to geopolitical affairs and the state of the defence services we have inherited from the last government. our viewers will hear this morning you are not prepared to say i promise you made in the manifesto will be capped by the end of your term in office. i cannot give a date today because the strategic defence review hasn't concluded. they don't always become promises kept. i wonder your take on this. i wonder what your take on this. there was tension between the chief of defence staff as was demonstrated vividly in the interview and with darrenjones on the other side from the treasury. there is also treasury given you had the defence secretary saying britain is not ready to fight a war at the moment? i think there is. i am sure that in private . and definitely not in public,

in publicjohn healey has been loyal to the idea he might- have to cut his cloth - like other departments. i am sure you are right that implied that he will be - making similar arguments. john healy gave an interview at the weekend talking - about how it was all personal to him because his side had i signed up as a reservist - and would be willing to fight

become irrelevant. it was already on the backs of. minds of people in government that if donald trump won the presidential election, the entire frame through. which this new government was approaching the government finances might shift a little - because they might have i to spend more on defence more quickly than - they were planning to. i am so struck that alreadyl the political balance for this government was pretty delicate government was pretty delicate in terms of persuading - in terms of persuading - labour mps, the labour. labour mps, the labour. movement more generally movement more generally that they were spending scarce that they were spending scarce resources in the right way, - resources in the right way, - aligned with the right aligned with the right labour priorities. - labour priorities. - if a load of money now has i if a load of money now has i to go to defence faster than it to go to defence faster than it of how, as time goes on, otherwise would have done, i otherwise would have done, i or in greater numbers than it or in greater numbers than it where are they not then where are they not then going to be spending money going to be spending money and who in the labour- and who in the labour- party will that annoy? party will that annoy? that is something - that is something - really worth watching. really worth watching. interesting you mention interesting you mention to a change in dynamic to a change in dynamic in government circles in terms in government circles in terms

of how, as time goes on, they are finding not just it is tough being in government because you are really busy and you had loads of things to do, it isjust some times it has felt quite overwhelming, suddenly people have hoards of staff whereas they used to be a couple of key advisers. the conversations are getting more difficult.

that was their view even before tuesday, wednesday morning, whenever it became clear that donald trump would win. we are talking because of their deaths on your programme today we are talking because of their on your programme today about the foreign policy and defence spending implications. the other thing going on in whitehall is all of this planning and thinking about what the economic implications could be. if donald trump carry through on what he says in his campaign he would do in terms of tariffs, that would be massive for the global economy. perhaps actually not quite as bad for the uk as for some other countries. the uk trade with the us is good space. nevertheless, that is another massive thing going on in whitehall, thinking about the implications of the massive american tariff on imports for the uk but also

for that kind of complex tight—knit global economy. there has been a lot of discussion in the us presidential election about one side of the tariff debate, donald trump putting tariffs on countries who are sending goods to the us. there has been less discussion about the response was that these things sometimes have a tendency to spiral out of control. in 2018, in the middle of donald trump is my presidency, i remember travelling to montana and interviewing a farmer, which was quite good fun because we got to travel on a giant combine harvester through the amber waves of grain, referred to an american legend and that was beautiful and lovely. she was saying the retaliatory tariffs that had come in as a result of donald trump's trade policies, and she was instinctively a conservative, a republican, a supporter of donald trump and had been really damaging to her business and herfarm. it is an indication you can say

if you are the president of the united states, i want to do this to make my economy stronger and help my country but these things have a tendency to unravel and have implications in different directions. one thing to bring it back to foreign policy in the uk, suppose the eu as a block, acted punitively in retaliation to a tariff imposed by donald trump on what does the uk than do? the uk has talked about wanting to reset relations with the eu, wanting to move closer to the eu but not altering the single market customs union of the brexit years. where does the uk may be ends up being almost caught in the middle of a trade and tariffs dispute between the us and the eu? i do not think they know the answer to that in government yet. i do not think so either. darrenjones said, officials may be doing various things,

i am not going to tell you our preparations. it is a massive question about whether or not the uk is ready for how they would respond to a much more aggressive and protectionist carnivorous american president, who wants to pick winners on his side of the atlantic, who doesn't care so much about creating losers on the other side of the atlantic. for rachel reeves and keir starmer and everyone else in the government, growth and getting the economy moving is meant to be top of that list. if donald trump puts his money where his mouth is, that will take a lot of the money out of the clutches of rachel reeves and uk plc. there are all sorts of challenges that trump of challenges that the trump white house throws a weather defence economics, all sorts white house throws up, whether defence economics, all sorts of different kinds foreign policy and whether urgently whether it is ukraine. yesterday, we at the bbc were reporting on one of his allies who had been advising him during a campaign

suggesting that essentially ukraine should forget crimea, to use his phrase. he was suggesting very plainly in order to bring peace to that country, president trump was willing to force president zelensky to give up some of his territory. interestingly, this morning, sir tony wanted to emphasise a different side. he told us this money russia had suffered its worst ever just last month. at the tactical level, russia is paying an extraordinary price for putin's illegal invasion. so, october was their worst casualties figures for russia so far. on average, over 1,500 people either killed or wounded every single day. every day? every single day. and that is for tiny increments of land. there is no doubt that

russia is making tactical territorial gains. it is interesting, i do not know if you have had conversations with others in government and are quite a few people keep emphasising. maybe it is wishful thinking but they emphasise the strain on the kremlin, the strain on russia, the strain on the economy with putin carrying on. it is almost like they are trying to create a sense that it is not inevitable that putin can keep going. i don't know if you are picking that up? a little bit. always with that massive dose of, maybe in conversation with people like me, that massive dose of people in government of, sort of, self scepticism. they don't really know they don't profess to know if the dynamics right at the heart of the kremlin. what they say is, from what they know, from what they can see, the burden must be intolerable. that is not the same as knowing that in the kremlin people that in the kremlin, people are saying to president putin and russia this is intolerable,

we should adjust our war aims accordingly. it is something you pick up a bit but it is something i remember people saying to me early in double and here we are few years in. i am not sure there's conversation is necessarily there for me and that they think russia will retreat any time soon. it will be incredibly awkward for the uk, for the conservatives as well as the labour party if president trump makes that kind of move in terms of trying to bring an end to the conflict in ukraine. we should say we are talking about hypotheticals. we should also make clear that donald trump doesn't always stick to things he says he will do. there is this real awkwardness. pretty much all of the political parties and all of the political players in the uk have always said we would support ukraine until the end, whatever it takes, we will carry on. president zelensky�*s wishes must be respected.

priti patel, shadow foreign secretary, she was very family sticking to that line this morning, wasn't she? she was sticking to that line. i think it is worth just taking a step back for a second unthinking, we are in a really different place than we have been in for most of our lives in terms of this american president and his attitude to the international world order, to the piece, pax americana they call it, that america acted to enforce and promote in terms of democracy and peace around the world after the second world war. newscasters are clever people are many people will point and many people will point to many incidents when america has failed to fulfil that lofty aspiration over the decades. for decades, the democrats

and the republic into a tightly woven together in commitment to this idea of where the us was referred to as the indispensable nation, the idea that america was not just about securing prosperity and security for itself but it meant securing prosperity and security all over the world. donald trump doesn't think like that. america first has been his mantra throughout. he thinks a lot of these highfalutin, high—flying words i have been quoting had been nonsense and that america has made terrible decisions which have caused problems around the world and he thinks it is much more sensible to stay away from wars and to end wars. that takes you back to ukraine. he insists he is going to come up with a deal to end the war on day one. it is not entirely in his gift. he is not always literal in what he says. we are in a very different world to the world of reagan, clinton and so on which all three of us grew up in. talking of highfalutin, a conversation about

who the next us ambassador from the uk is going to be. peter mandelson wasn't quite cracking out the ferreira shape peter mandelson wasn't quite cracking out the ferreira roche that i think it would have been pretty obvious to anybody watching that he quite fancies the gig. a few people have been writing about it. someone in the sunday times wrote about it this morning. his name is doing the rounds. did you feel he was making a fairly unashamed pitch for the job with all this talk of trade potentials and they are to the deal and working with trump and how that can go? totally, yes. he knew that he was. i am quite curious. i will ask at what point he agreed to appear on the sunday programme. i was chatting with someone very senior in government earlier this weekjust before the election and they were talking about this choice of who the next uk ambassador to the us would be. they said there are four names at the top of government doing the rounds.

peter mandelson, david miliband, cathy ashton and valerie amos, and cabinet minister in the new labour years for the new labour years for that they said any of them would work under a harris presidency but one of them, i think, would be better than the others in in a trump presidency. they didn't name mantle but i think it is pretty clear. they didn't name mandelson but i think it is pretty clear. nigel is barrage let's dispense with the ridiculous idea that he would ever become the ambassador to the or anything else, that nigel farage said to the us or anything else, but nigel farage said peter mandelson should the ambassador to the us. donald trump would respect him because of his background in the mid—90s before coming

back to try to help to rescue gordon brown. nigel farage endorsing him. i do not think that is the reason government might choose him but in government people will think, that kind of attitude that have led to nigel farage saying donald trump would respect him they hopefully would be respected in the white house. the donald trump white house would be like a court and peter mandelson has shown us over time he is the master courtier. we will see. if he does become ambassador, one line he said to you will be revisited. he said, when you put it to him that a deal on day one to double effectively meant surrender for ukraine in terms of territory that russia now occupies, he said, whatever happens to the fringes of ukrainian territory? what is sacrosanct is the ukrainians freedom. the fringes of ukrainian

territory, an interesting phrase to use and possibly one that some supporters of ukraine might be slightly concerned about. interesting indeed. we will see what happens in the passage of time. it is possible the current ambassador might be extended in herjob. this morning we were witness to a bit of very first world job pitching for our audience. that was for oxford university as well. a source close to peter mandelson was keen to point out the job of being chancellor for oxford university is not a full—time position. you be busy with that chocolate is whatever you do and the ambassadors residence as well as having a fund—raising role. we know you are a classy bunch but even for you it is a highfalutin plan of discussion this morning about who the ambassador will be but what a very interesting weekend

of music has been. of news it has been. i hope you think it has been an interesting episode of the programme. lovely to have you with us as a marvellous duet this this weekend but that is enough for now. what do you reckon? i think that was plenty. lots of news. see you later. goodbye.

live from washington, this is bbc news. russia and ukraine exchange the largest number of drone attacks since the war began — asjoe biden�*s top national security adviser urges donald trump not to walk away from ukraine. hezbollah has been all

but defeated — claims israel's new defence minister — but both sides continue to exchange strikes and rocket fire. republicans edge closer to securing control of the us house of repesentatives, potentially giving the party, and donald trump, a clean sweep of all levers of government. and honoring the fallen — king charles joins other senior royals for events to mark remembrance sunday. we start in europe — where russia and ukraine have carried out their biggest drone attacks against each other, since the start of the invasion. russia says it has intercepted 84 ukrainian drones over six regions. the defence ministry said more than 30 drones even approached moscow. that forced flights to be diverted from three

of the capital's major airports. these are pictures of the aftermath released by russian media.