mike tyson, has lost his fight against the youtuber, jake paul. meanwhile, ireland's katie taylor successfully defended her light—welterweight title against puerto rico's amanda serrano. now on bbc news...ukrainecast. hello, i'm vitalii shevchenko, co—host of the bbc�*s podcast ukrainecast. earlier, my colleague victoria derbyshire and me recorded a conversation with the former nato secretary generaljens stoltenberg. he worked with donald trump before and now he discusses what donald trump's second presidency means for the alliance for ukraine and what keeps him awake at night. ukrainecast from bbc news.

mr stoltenberg, welcome to ukrainecast. thank you so much for having me. you have stepped down, but you have also been in touch with donald trump since he won the us presidential election. can i ask you what your... i know you texted. what was your what did your exchange involve? —— what was your... what did your exchange involve? it was a very brief exchange. i texted him after the elections and congratulated him on the victory. i think that's a proper thing to do when he wins the elections. and he thanked me. and i think that reflects the fact that we actually worked together for four years from 2016 to 2020. um, so the last time when he was president, we had a good working relationship. and you've got incredible insight into working with him in a way that everybody wants to know what it's like to work with this man. especially now we have donald trump 2.0. that's correct. and there's a lot of concern in ukraine about trump 2.0, given what he said about ukraine. and it strongly suggests that he might reduce assistance to ukraine.

but there are exceptions. we got in touch with one ukrainian call sign, neo. he's a soldier in ukraine and he told us this about his thoughts about the democrats and republicans with trump. —— thoughts about the democrats and republicans. with trump, everyone isjoking that it's- better to have a horrible end than unending horror. - he is definitely a better bet because he's willing - to take hard decisions. and from there, we're getting better chances to get good i decisions versus democrats, who would be reluctant - to to make any hard decisions. they're pretty weak. overall, it's surprisingly not as bad as i expected. - so overall, the morale is quite nice and we're all looking - forward to see what what's going to happen - —— forward to see what's going to happen _ so is donald trump

a better bet for ukraine? is it true that the democrats strategy was not working? i will be very careful comparing and also predicting exactly what will happen. what i can say is that i expect also the new us administration to support ukraine, because it is in the security interest of the united states to ensure that president putin does not wind in ukraine. —— that president putin does not win in ukraine. and last time i worked with him back in also the first time he was president, you have to remember that at that time, after russia has annexed crimea and actually gone into eastern donbas, the line — the policy from nato allies, including united states — was not to deliver lethal aid, not to deliver weapons to ukraine. it was president trump that changed that policy and started to deliver weapons to ukraine, including the javelins, the anti—tank weapons that proved so decisive, so important, especially at the beginning of the war. and people forget that, don't they? yeah. so i cannot promise or predict exactly what will happen.

but i'm only saying that last time, actually, the trump administration stepped up the support for ukraine. until then, many allies were a bit afraid of that. the delivering weapons to ukraine was too provocative to russia. and that we need to, in a way, to try to prevent russia from, from being provoked and then go further. from being provoked and then go further. the reality was that i think if we had given more weapons to ukraine earlier, we may have prevented the full—scale invasion because then the cost for russia to invade would have been much higher. and the other thing i would say is that president trump is a man that likes to make deals. he's very open about that. and of course, to make a deal on ukraine, there has to be some kind of leverage. and leverage is military support to ukraine. we all want this war to end. the problem is that we know that the quickest way to end the war is to lose the war, but that will not bring peace. it will bring occupation of ukraine.

so if you want a lasting and just peace, then we need to convince president putin that we will not win on the battlefield. he has to sit down and accept a solution where ukraine prevails as a sovereign, independent nation. how do you do that? by supporting ukraine militarily. so we have to increase the cost for russia. it's for ukrainians to decide what is an acceptable solution. what are the conditions for negotiations and what can be an end game? it's our responsibility to make to maximise the likelihood for an outcome where ukraine continues to be a sovereign, independent state in europe. i don't think we can change putin's mind, his mind, his aim is to control ukraine. but i think we can change his calculus if the price he has to pay for getting to control ukraine is too high, then he may be willing to settle for something less, something where ukraine prevails.

well, you say it's up to ukrainians to decide. point one in zelensky�*s victory plan is nato membership now, before the war ends? is that real? is that realistic? i think that we need to realise that membership of ukraine, for ukraine in nato can be part of a solution, because a solution needs at least to entail or to include two things. one is a line. ideally, the international recognised borders. but if it's not that, at least a line. but second, we need to ensure that that line is the end. uh, because we have seen lines drawn in ukraine before, after the annexation of crimea and, and the invasion into eastern donbas in 2014, we had the minsk one agreement, —— the minski agreement — a ceasefire line that was violated after

just a few months. and then, the russian pushed the line further west, and we got the minsk 2 agreement back in 2015. and then the russians waited for seven years, and then they launched a full—scale invasion. and if we agree a line this time, wherever that line is drawn, it cannot be minsk 3 — it has to be, but it could... but it could asily be minsk 3. look what the west did in 2014 and 2015. yeah, no, iagree, it can be the minsk 3 and that will not. and then four and five etc.. yeah, yeah. and that's and that's a tragedy for ukrainians. but is also dangerous for us because in the messages that democracies are weak, that the west is giving in, and there is no good deal for the united states or europe or nato or the ukrainians. so the thing is that we need first to agree a line. the second thing we need to agree are ways to ensure that it stops there. and fundamentally, there are two ways of doing that. one is to arm the ukrainians so they can deter future aggression. that's what we didn't do after 2014. we didn't arm the ukrainians enough.

so actually, they were not as strong as they should have been when the full—scale invasion was launched. the second way of ensuring that it stops there with the new line is, of course, nato membership or security guarantees. but the strongest and ultimate security guarantee will be a nato membership for ukraine. and therefore, i think that a way to ensure that wherever this line is drawn, and again, it's for ukraine to decide they are paying the higher price of suffering in this war. we need also to ensure that it stops there. and sometimes it's not for me to tell the ukrainians, but i sometimes refer to finland. they fought an enormously impressive, brave war against the red army in 1939, the winter war. you should google that and see how brave the finns fought and how big the red army paid.

—— how big price. but of course, at the end of the day, the finns have to give away 10% of the territory. and the second—largest city, vyborg, which is now part of russia, but they got a border and they got security. so again, it's not for me to tell how this endgame should be, but it has to be a line and it has to be security that it stops there. we're going to play you a clip, which you will have heard many, many, many times before. this was donald trump back in february. nato was busted . until i came along. i said, everybody's going to par - they said, "well, if we don't pay, are you still— going to protect us?" i said, "absolutely not." they couldn't - believe the answer. and everybody... you never saw more money pour in. - the secretary general stoltenberg was... i . don-t — know if he is any more, but he was my biggest fan. he said all these presidents - came in, they'd make a speech, they'd leave, and that was it. and they all owed money and they wouldn't pay it. | i came in, i made a speech. and i said, you got to pay up. they asked me that question. one of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, .

"well, sir, if we don't pay- and we're attacked by russia, will you protect us? " i said, "you didn't pay, you're delinquent. - he said, yes. let's say that happened. no, i would not protect you. in fact, i would encourage them to do whatever - the hell they want. you got to pay. you got to pay your bills. and the money came flowing in! and that's true. well, what's true is that nato allies have over the last years significantly increased defence spending. and i have stated many times that the message from president trump had an impact. and that's a fact. and you can agree or disagree with trump on many issues trade, climate change, abortion, whatever it is. but i think there is no way to deny that. he had a very clear message on the need for european allies to invest more. and of course, he has his style. he has a very direct language, which is different from president biden and president 0bama.

to invest more. but the reality is that i worked with now three us presidents and on defence spending, they had, in substance, the same message that european allies need to do more. and that's a correct and fair message. and it was actually president 0bama who was the president back in 2014 when we at the nato summit in in here in the united kingdom, in wales, made the decision that defence spending had to increase, and that the aim was to reach 2% of gdp across the whole alliance within a decade. at that time in 2014, only three allies, the united states, the united kingdom and greece, spent 2% of gdp on defence. this year in 2024, 23 allies are spending 2% or more on defence. so this has significantly changed. and that's because of the message from president 0bama, from president biden and from president trump. and that's the fact. but would you like to see that defence spending? i mean, you talked about the 23 countries, but would you like to see it even higher?

knowing what we know over the past couple of years? the good news is that we have now reached, at least on average, and the majority of allies have reached the guideline of spending at least 2% of gdp on defence. that's the good news. the bad news is that 2% is not enough. and that's not because president trump or president biden or any american is telling us so. it's because we live in a more dangerous world. we see the need to ramp up our own defences, to ramp up the defence industry, but also to provide significant support to ukraine. and that has a price, and i regret that i have been the prime minister. i've been a politician for many years, and i know that if you spend an extra billion on defence, you have one billion less for health, for education, for climate, for all the other important things. but unless we have security and unless we preserve peace, or then, then we cannot address all the other issues. so we are in a world

where we need to invest more in security, and that is more than 2%. so donald trump has started to put together his new team. let's have a listen to his choice for defence secretary. i found overinflated - from the beginning, this idea that vladimir putin's attack i on ukraine was going to lead to nuclear war or warj across the continent. i've always felt like it. was from the beginning, like a couple days in, - i was like, this feels like a putin's, give me my bleep war. it kind of feels like, . i feel like you've been pushing pretty hard, _ and we used to have the former soviet union, and we were pretty proud of that. - and ukraine was a part of it l and all these other countries. i want my bleep back. that's pete hegseth, the fox news host, army veteran. do you know him? is he a good pick for defence secretary? i don't know him. so it's very little i can say about him. i cannot speak on behalf of the incoming us administration,

but what i can say is that the only way to address whatever we have of concerns and issues is to sit down and meet as allies and then address them and try to find a way forward together. so there is no such thing as trump proofing nato? i don't like the phrase trump proofing, but i believe that the transatlantic relationship. the bond has to be strengthened by building strong institutions. it should not be dependent on personal relationships and likes and dislikes because it's too important. so in a more dangerous and unpredictable world, we need strong multilateral institutions like nato. do you think donald trump thinks that? sometimes he criticise institutions like nato. but again, what i have seen over the last years is actually he has seen the value and he changed his mind. he was more positive toward nato. you're not expecting him to pull out of nato? no, and at least for three reasons. i expect him to continue

to be a part of nato and to and the united states to be a loyal nato ally for three reasons. one is that that is in the security interest of the united states. the united states is stronger with nato than without nato. and if the united states is concerned about china, the size of china and china's economy and military forces, they should keep nato, because the united states is big. it's 25% of world economy, world gdp. but together with nato allies, we are 50%, twice as big. so nato is making the united states stronger. not only europe, but it's good for both. it's strong bipartisan support for nato in the united states, in the opinion polls and in the and in the congress from both sides. —— and in the congress. and thirdly, the the primary criticism from president trump was not against nato. it was against nato allies not

spending enough on nato. that has changed and will continue to change. 0k. so for these reasons, i believe that they will remain in nato. we had this question from a ukrainecast listener in yorkshire here in the uk. sally... hi, ukrainecast. i was wondering what you think it means for donald trump's i approach to foreign policy and the ukraine war, - in particular, the fact - that he has ruled out giving roles to both mike pompeo and nikki haley, and he's. reported to have appointed marco rubio as _ secretary of state. i'd appreciate your insights. he has experience from the senate. i met him in the foreign relations committee of the senate. he has very strong views on on china. —— on china. he's described as a hawk. yes. but he also has been very supportive of nato. he actually was one of the senators who pushed this legislation through which states that the us president cannot leave nato that the us president cannot

leave nato without a qualified majority in the senate. but again, i accept that all these questions are relevant. and let's see exactly who will be appointed to different positions. but i think what matters is what we do to try to maximise the likelihood for a good outcome. yeah. and therefore, i think we should not create self—fulfilling prophecies. we should actually look into the issues which are raised from ukraine to defence spending and then and then try to mobilize support for nato and for ukraine. —— and then try to mobilize support for nato and for ukraine. if donald trump rang you and offered you a job, would you accept? i'm absolutely certain that that will not happen, not least... because if it? not thejob, but of course i'm... i will take over the leadership or the chairmanship. uh, as a chair of the munich security conference in february, which is a platform for security issues for defence. and of course, whoever in the us would like to talk to me on those issues. i'm ready to talk to them. and that's part of my task.

but if he rang you and asked for some advice, for example? i will, of course, answer if the us president calls me for any advice. but even if it's not the us president, the national security adviser, or the secretary of state, whatever, whoever it is, i'm always ready to to share my experience with people, whether it be in the bbc podcast or in meetings with politicians in any capital. butjust to be clear, would you work for donald trump? no, it's not a question of working as a... i'm going to share an impartial think tank, the munich security conference. but part of that will be to give advice to anyone who would like to ask for advice, at least from nato allies. what's your view about north korean troops fighting alongside russian troops? it demonstrates very clearly that security is not regional any more. security is global. um, this idea that in a way it's a kind of european security. and then there's the asian

security, and then it's african security or whatever. that's not the case. it's a global security environment. and what happens in europe matters for asia. what happens in asia matters for for for europe. um and iran is providing drones and support to to russia missiles. —— um, and iran is providing drones and support to russia missiles. north korea has provided enormous amount of ammunition, um, millions of rounds of artillery ammunition. and now they're also sending in combat troops. and china is important for propping up the russian war economy. um, so the first thing it demonstrates is the kind of the global nature of security. and why also this war matters for those who are concerned about china and asia and the more global power competition. do we know what iran and north korea are getting in return from russia? is that a concern? yeah, that's the concern.

and again, i cannot go into all the specifics of the intelligence i saw when i was secretary general, but it's obvious that, of course, they don't do this for free. and there are concerns about that russia now first and foremost or first is violating a lot of un sanctions against north korea, providing technology support to their missile programme, maybe also the nuclear programme, and also helping the iranians with their missiles and potentially also nuclear programmes. i cannot confirm the details, but, you know, these are real concerns. and second, i think that both iran and north korea, they have an interest in us losing, meaning they don't want the west, they don't want or the political west. they don't want democracy and freedom to prevail. they would like to see that authoritarian regimes,

which are more and more aligned, win in ukraine and again, bad for ukrainians and bad for everyone who believes in the rule of law. i wanted to ask you, after the full—scale invasion, president biden, i understand, convinced you to stay on for a further two years, an additional two years. he even promised to call your wife ingrid and ask her personally. did he do that? did she give her permission? no, but... how much of a dilemma was it for you to carry on? so he spoke to my wife when we met this summer and said, i'm sorry that i convinced your husband to stay on, but it was a privilege for me to stay on for two more years because it has been the most meaningful years of my life to be at the helm of nato, mobilizing support for ukraine. i cannot think about anything more important. and my wife supported that decision. in the last couple of years specifically, what is it? and i'm asking you to be really defined now, what is it that has kept you awake at night?

specifically? it's the risk of escalation. so it's this risk of full—scale war in europe. and of course, i strongly believe that nato has done whatever we can to remove any room for miscalculation and misunderstanding in nato. sorry, in moscow about our ability to defend all nato allies, and as long as there is no room for that miscalculation, there will be no attack on the nato ally, because we are stronger than russia. but if there is any room for misunderstanding, miscalculation, and i don't see that an attack on latvia or norway, any nato allied countries, small or big, will trigger a response from the whole alliance, then there is risk. yeah. and i sleep well. i am very good at sleeping, but if you ask me about what my main concern is the risk of further escalation. final question. donald trump is obviously going to dominate the global stage over the next few years. what's your advice,

if that's the right word, of getting the best out of him? how did you approach working with him? to listen to what he says and to sit down and address the concerns he expressed. you can disagree or agree, and there is no secret that i disagree on some of the things he says about trade and climate change and other issues. um, and i think it's also dangerous to undermine the credibility of the deterrence of nato, because anything that undermines the credibility of deterrence will actually risk increasing the risk for crisis and, and conflict. but, whoever is the president of the united states —— for crisis and conflict. but, whoever is the president of the united states or any other nato allied country, when there are concerns, when there are issues, we have to sit down and address them. and last time, we were

able to actually find a way forward together. nato was stronger at the end of his term than in the beginning. more allies spent more on defence. there were more us troops in in europe. troops in europe. in 2020 than in 2016. and we were able actually to start to address the security implications of china for nato allies. so yes, there will be challenges. yes, there will be surprises. yes, it has a different style. and yes, we don't agree on all issues. but instead of sitting down and creating self—fulfilling prophecies, let's try to change the world and to make the world a better place by engaging with all the allies, including the united states. that was our conversation with the former nato chief jens stoltenberg on ukraine. —— jens stoltenberg on ukrainecast. if you liked what you saw, please find our other podcasts on bbc sounds. ukrainecast from bbc news.

hello again. it started off cloudy with rain and drizzle this morning. it is clearing south with sunny skies developing into the afternoon. with the mountains across scotland looking pretty bare, we may start to see some snow falling on those in the coming days. you can see under pressure chart a cold front moving south. that is bringing rain and drizzle. for all of us as we go into sunday under the influence of this colder arctic air. that will bring in showers across scotland today. some

gales in the far north. showers turning when trio the higher ground. for england and wales in general staying fairly cloudy. still rain and drizzle moving further south. temperatures here about 11 or 12. a noticeably colder day across scotland. 0vernight the rain and drizzle were clear. there will be clear skies developing across many areas. clear skies and north—east england and scotland. a touch of frost into sunday morning. wintry showers over the higher ground. during sunday there will be a good deal of dry and sunny weatherfor many. will be a good deal of dry and sunny weather for many. this area of cloud in central england and wales. more when starting to move into the afternoon. furthersnow starting to move into the afternoon. further snow showers over the higher ground of scotland. colder day with temperatures down to four celsius in aberdeen. it will

feel colder across the uk. into next week that is when things get complicated. milder starts to spreading from the south—west. this boundary is the position where we could see some snow on the northern edge. a lot of rain across parts of england and wales. in the northern edge, parts of northern edge, parts of northern england and northern ireland, the risk of snow. the risk of ice. it is this area we can keep a close eye on. most of the snow will fall over higher ground. the details still bit uncertain. stay tuned to forecast. goodbye.

live from london. live from london. this is bbc news. this is bbc news. farmers in wales stage farmers in wales stage a protest outside the welsh heavyweight boxing champion a protest outside the welsh labour conference in opposition labour conference in opposition to government plans to change an inheritence tax. to government plans to change ten infants die in a hospital ten infants die in a hospital fire in northern india. fire in northern india. 16 other babies are receiving 16 other babies are receiving treatment. treatment. anger boils over in eastern europe, as georgia's election results as georgia's election results are officially announced. are officially announced. president zelensky says donald trump's return to the white house will bring a swifter end to the war with russia. and the former world