live from london, this is bbc news. days after allowing ukraine, to use long—range us missiles, president biden agrees to send anti—personnel landmines. we are fighting a war against a vicious enemy and we must have the right to use what we need within the realm of international law to defend ourselves. washington vetoes a un security council push to call for a ceasefire in gaza — claiming it would embolden hamas. more pressure on donald trump's pick for attorney general — a congressional committee considers releasing a report into allegations of sexual misconduct by matt gaetz. and rafa nadal — one of tennis�*s greatest champions — brings an end to his glittering career. i just want to be remembered

as a good person and a kid that followed their dreams. the united states is to provide ukraine with anti—personnel landmines to try to slow the advance of russian troops, particularly in the east of the country. us officials said they were for use on ukrainian territory, and that kyiv had committed not to use them in populated areas, to limit the risk to civilians. but a nobel prize—winning network of groups campaigning against landmines has condemned the decision — while human rights watch described the move as shocking and devastating. it comes a day after ukraine launched its first attack on russian territory using us—made ballistic missiles, known as atacms. meanwhile, the us and several other western countries, have temporarily closed their embassies in kyiv, with the american mission

warning, of a potential imminent air attack. all this amid reports in the last hour or so that ukraine has fired a british storm shadow missile into russian territory. the uk's defence secretary, john healy wouldn't directly confirm the reports when speaking in the commons, and said "ukraine's action on the battlefield speaks for itself". ukraine is not party to the convention for use of these landmine so it is within international law. there are moral ramifications for human rights defenders and i totally get them. but we are fighting a war against a vicious enemy and we must have the right to use everything we need within the realm of international law to defend ourselves.— realm of international law to defend ourselves. together with those atacms _ defend ourselves. together with those atacms i _ defend ourselves. together with those atacms i was _ defend ourselves. together with those atacms i was talking - those atacms i was talking about, all those ways of changing the path of this war

or is it simply a way of slowing russian advances? i would say it's the second because no single weapon can actually become a game change. to win the war you need a strong system that consists of all necessary elements and weapons is one of them. i was lookin: weapons is one of them. i was looking at _ weapons is one of them. i was looking at a — weapons is one of them. i was looking at a piece _ weapons is one of them. i was looking at a piece by _ weapons is one of them. i was looking at a piece by bbc- looking at a piece by bbc verify in the day and it was charting how ukraine has lost six times the amount of territory this year compared to last year. a simple question, are you losing this war now? no, we are not. because we still have the capacity to stop the russians and eventually expeued the russians and eventually expelled them from territory. but to achieve that you need everything in place and most importantly, weapons. and an army. it is unfortunate the decisions on atacms and land

mines and other provision of other types of weapons came so late by the end of the year. if those decisions had been taken earlier, we wouldn't have lost all this territory and you wouldn't be asking me this question. it wouldn't be asking me this question-— question. it is really interesting - question. it is really interesting you - question. it is really interesting you say. question. it is really - interesting you say that, because i had down as my next question, because you were one of the voices in the first two years who were calling for the americans to perhaps agree to the abraham tanks, the f—igs, and i most recently the atacms at every stage there was delay before the final decision, how much has that hampered ukraine in this war? i much has that hampered ukraine in this war?— in this war? i can tell you more. — in this war? i can tell you more. every _ in this war? i can tell you| more, every conversation in this war? i can tell you . more, every conversation on every type of weapon started with a no from partners. then it was, we will think about it. then it was the belated decision. this is the pattern that was repeated again and again throughout these two and again throughout these two and a half years. of course, it had

consequences on the situation on the ground. has consequences on the situation on the ground.— on the ground. as a foreign minister. — on the ground. as a foreign minister, how— on the ground. as a foreign minister, how frustrating i on the ground. as a foreign. minister, how frustrating was it to be in those meetings and having those conversations and that answer always being no? i had no luxury of being frustrated, ijust had to keep moving, keep pushing to get yes in the end. in the end, we got it. editor shashankjoshi. let's speak to the economist's defence editor shashankjoshi. welcome back to the programme. a quick question on the landmines first of all? it a quick question on the landmines first of all? it is a re eat landmines first of all? it is a repeat of— landmines first of all? it is a repeat of the _ landmines first of all? it is a repeat of the debate - landmines first of all? it is a repeat of the debate we - landmines first of all? it is a repeat of the debate we had i repeat of the debate we had last year when the americans provided to cluster munitions because they are small cluster bumps that can remain on the ground for long periods. it was very clear that they would have

an obvious military utility for ukraine and it was also clear that many european allies understood that, but it was very diplomatically awkward because over 160 countries are signatories to the conventions that ban these things so they couldn't publicly support the american move. i suspect we have the same dynamic now, many countries will be saying it is great news, but they cannot say that in public.— that in public. that is interesting _ that in public. that is interesting and - that in public. that is interesting and i - that in public. that is - interesting and i referenced in our main introduction, those reports that uk's storm shadow missiles had been used inside russian territory today. we know the uk defence secretary rather more coy about it when he was talking in the house of commons, what are you hearing, what is your understanding? mi; what is your understanding? ij�*i understanding what is your understanding? ij�*i1: understanding is what is your understanding? m1 understanding is that also storm shadow has been fired for the first time into russia. it is important to bear in mind it has been used inside ukraine, used against russian targets in crimea and also in other parts

of occupied ukraine, but this is a threshold that has been crossed, a big step. it is a big step because the americans were reluctant to authorise this. as far as i understand, they are in some degree of american data sharing and intelligence was important for the deployment of these weapons for maximum effectiveness. what is surprising is the number of storm shadow that has been reported to have been fired. it is about ten or 12 according to some of the videos and russian accounts. that will be a very significant proportion of the overall stockpile ukraine has to begin with because they really haven't got many. aha, really haven't got many. a quick answer on that, what is your understanding about the numbers of storm shadow, the french missiles and atacms? the answer is. _ french missiles and atacms? the answer is. it _ french missiles and atacms? the answer is, it is _ french missiles and atacms? tue: answer is, it is small. if french missiles and atacms? ii2 answer is, it is small. if i had the exact number i might be hesitant for publishing it, for obvious reasons, but it is small. ukraine has to pick every target with extreme care.

the fear is ukraine's defence on the eastern flank is getting close to collapse, but what is your assessment of the russian gains in those areas and any sort of likelihood of a major breakthrough by them? the central front _ breakthrough by them? the central front is _ breakthrough by them? the central front is the - breakthrough by them? "ii2 central front is the most significant problem, the bit in the middle in don —esque province. if nothing else changes, if ukraine doesn't fix its problems with manpower on this part of the front, a collapse is entirely possible by the spring. i wouldn't say by the spring. i wouldn't say by christmas, by the spring. it doesn't mean russia can rush through two the big ukrainian cities, the russian army is also tied, it is also weakened. but what ukraine is worried about, what they have told me in the last few days, if the north korean expeditionary force in curse, if this becomes a pipeline, a steady supply, in other words we see tens and tens of thousands of north

koreans, ratherthan tens of thousands of north koreans, rather than 10,000 flat, koreans, rather than 10 , 000 flat, that koreans, rather than 10,000 flat, that could be a serious problem for ukraine. perhaps the landmines _ problem for ukraine. perhaps the landmines may _ problem for ukraine. perhaps the landmines may take - problem for ukraine. perhaps the landmines may take the l the landmines may take the place of personnel, perhaps thatis place of personnel, perhaps that is part of the equation we are seeing today, but we are coming into the heavy winter now, how important is it that any gains that are made are done now in these next few weeks before really the winter sets in and there is little movement?— sets in and there is little movement? ., ., , �* ., movement? that doesn't matter, because it — movement? that doesn't matter, because it is _ movement? that doesn't matter, because it is harder _ movement? that doesn't matter, because it is harder for _ because it is harderfor armoured vehicles to operate on the ground in certain periods, until the ground freezes properly. it is difficult for troops to be outside and conduct defences. having said all that, russia is fighting in very, very small assault detachments, of a handful of troops in a single place. so the traditional constraints on armoured warfare over mushy ground in the winter months, a lot of that applies much less.

the bit that does apply, quite interestingly, in a battlefield thatis interestingly, in a battlefield that is now saturated by drones, when you have a lack of foliage, a lack of tree cover and leaf cover, it makes it easy for drones to spot russian forces on the move in open areas and for them to be attacked. so that will be a serious, a challenge for the russians as the landscape of ukraine changes in the coming months. a, ukraine changes in the coming months. �* ., ., ukraine changes in the coming months. ., ., , , months. a final thought because what is your _ months. a final thought because what is your assessment - months. a final thought because what is your assessment of - months. a final thought because what is your assessment of what happens in the early part of 2025? there are so many variables, what ukraine is able to do in these next few months, what moscow is able to do and the change in dynamic of donald trump in the white house, what is your best guess at where that takes us in january, february and march? that takes us in january, februa and march? , ., , february and march? trump wants a deal but does _ february and march? trump wants a deal but does he _ february and march? trump wants a deal but does he want _ february and march? trump wants a deal but does he want to - february and march? trump wants a deal but does he want to deal. a deal but does he want to deal at any price? 0r a deal but does he want to deal at any price? or does he want leveraged to force the kremlin to the table to do a serious

deal that will have to be enforced? we don't know enough to say, but what i think he will find, things proved much more complicated than his initial demand to solve the war initial demand to solve the war in a day. he will actually have to grapple with some of these problems with his european allies, notjust sloganeering. allies, not just sloganeering. it allies, notjust sloganeering. it is always great to talk to you, thank you for giving us your time and talking to us on bbc news. josephine dresner —from the mines advisory group which is a part of the nobel—prize winning coalition, the international campaign to ban landmines gave me her reaction. it was dismay and a bit of disappointment. this has come at a time when we have a major review conference of the antipersonnel mine convention

next week when we look at the progress that has been made and what will happen next with the treaty. of course, this is quite a blow to those discussions and fundamentally from the humanitarian perspective, these are indiscriminate weapons and we are very, very concerned about the impact whenever they are used in any context. he the impact whenever they are used in any context.— used in any context. he will have seen _ used in any context. he will have seen what _ used in any context. he will have seen what has - used in any context. he will have seen what has been i used in any context. he will. have seen what has been put out, thejustification have seen what has been put out, the justification that this would slow out, the justification that this wo