his vision of a settlement seems far from kyiv�*s. my guest is former ukrainian foreign minister dmytro kuleba. after almost three years of defiance, what are ukraine's options now? dmytro kuleba in kyiv, welcome to hardtalk. it's good to be back, stephen. it's great to have you on the programme. i have to ask a very simple, direct opening question — given the situation your country finds itself in today, how low are you feeling?

well, if i begin feeling low, or if my compatriots begin feeling low, this will be the beginning of the end. so we realise the hardships, we realise the difficulties, but we are looking for solutions instead of focusing on the obstacles. the solutions are hard to see, aren't they? if we start with the military situation on the front lines in the east, we have seen month upon month of attritional russian gains, and your own commanders say there is little they can do to reverse it, because your forces are simply outmanned and in many situations, outgunned. well, i listened to your introduction carefully, and i think it would be fair to add that russia is also experiencing unprecedented problems. and to solve them, they have involved north korean troops, they are seeking for the supply of weapons. we're in a pretty unique

situation when neither ukraine nor russia are capable of running the war without the support of its partners. so russia's hardships should also be highlighted. and when it comes to ukraine... i... sorry. no, no, i'm sorry to interrupt, but i guess the obvious point is that there's a question of scale here. vladimir putin clearly is prepared to lose thousands and thousands of military personnel in pursuit of his waraims. some days it seems russia is losing well beyond 1,000 troops per day. he can afford to do that, it seems. ukraine most certainly cannot. well, if we have all the support, i would even say when we have all the support coming from partners and from our own industrial base and from our society

that is needed to keep russia at least where it is, then we can demonstrate good results on the battlefield. so again, we have to focus on solving problems, which would be to increase the output of our own defence industrial base, but also the continuation and stepping up the support coming from ukraine's partners. if the war was only about the scale, we would have already lost. just a few days ago, in the financial times, you said, "if it continues like this, we will lose the war." your message with me is a little bit different. is that because when you say things like that about losing the war, that has major negative impacts at home in ukraine? i'm not concerned about making the point that speaks the truth. i think it's time to speak the truth. and, yes, i said what i said to financial times. i did not specify when, meaning that we are on a trajectory

that needs to be changed, but i didn't say when exactly we will lose the war if we continue on this trajectory. and we are very slowly losing our territories. it's very unfortunate, but again, if you compare the scales, if you base a calculation only on the scales of two countries, then in pure math terms, we should have already lost much more. but the capacity of ukraine to fight back is still there and we are still fighting back. do you worry about signs that there's a lack of coordination amongst ukraine's forces in terms of building defences in the east? there's some concern that trench lines, for example, haven't been completed properly, that corruption is draining resources from the defensive arena. does this concern you? because it seems to concern many people in kyiv right now.

well, again, we have our issues, but if we were as corrupt as some argue, we would have lost the war by now. if we had done everything wrong, we would have lost the war by now. it's very simple. war is a standoff of two systems, in this case, russia and ukraine. both systems have their issues and shortcomings, and it all boils down to how efficient you are in addressing this issue. and from what i've seen in the last months, since i'm not the foreign minister any more, but what i've seen in the acts, in the actions of the government of ukraine, we are trying to address these issues, to improve our standing. do you think kursk and the push into russian territory in the kursk region was a very costly mistake? because the russians are gradually taking that territory back, they have deployed north korean forces to help them in that fight, and it is costing

you massive military resource, in terms of personnel and materiel. i don't want to sound cynical, but when you have a choice between fighting the war in the territory of your enemy and in your own territory, you should go for the enemy. and whatever the cost of fighting in enemy's and whatever the cost of fighting in enemy's territory, seeing the same level of fighting and destruction on your own soil is much costly. those who believe that it makes more sense to withdraw from kursk and throw and redirect these ukrainian forces to donbas, they do not take into account one crucial element. if we do so, the russian army will move into the territory of ukraine in the direction of sumy — the city where i was born, by the way — and they will continue their offensive, so we will have to keep some forces there, but to fight the war in our territory, defending the city of sumy and the region. so it makes perfect sense now to continue this operation.

let's talk about recruitment just a little bit. i mean, you're a ukrainian citizen. you know the feelings of young ukrainians. many of them, it seems, now, are desperate to avoid being mobilised into the ukrainian army. we see desertion rates rising. some say 100,000 ukrainian men have, one way or another, avoided mobilisation since 2022. we also see that in terms of corruption, people are paying hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars to get a ticket called a white ticket, to be given permission to avoid the military draft. again, ukraine can't afford this. how do you counter it? well, i believe it works the same way for every nation at war. the longer the war lasts, the more difficult recruiting gets. it has been the case for throughout human history. but when you mention the attempts to buy

the so—called white ticket, yes, there are people who are trying to avoid service in the army. there are criminal cases which are being investigated in that regard, including against those officials who get involved in them. but this is the reality of any war and ukraine is just no exception from the overall rule. nevertheless, we still have a capable army. abouti million of people serve in the army now. i don't know the exact number, but it's somewhere around that. and this army is fully capable of defending the nation. it's a very hot debate in your country whether president zelensky and the government should reduce the age of recruitment, military conscription, from current 25 — which is already younger than it used to be — but reduce it all the way down to 18 to get school leavers direct into

the ukrainian armed forces. do you think that is going to have to happen? i don't see that discussion taking place in the ukrainian society. i see a discussion between ukraine and the united states on that matter. and the ukrainians are largely against lowering, decreasing the mobilisation age. we still have the mobilisation resource in the country without decreasing the age. and i think that personally, i believe we should stick to the current policy. hang on. so what you've just said about the american pressure is interesting because your former counterpart, while you were still serving as foreign minister, antony blinken, he said not so long ago — on this very issue of getting younger recruits into the army — he said, "even with the money we give, "even with the munitions, "there have to be people on the front lines

"to deal with the russian aggression." what do you make of the americans sending that kind of message to ukraine? well, secretary blinken is not only a colleague, but also a friend who did a lot to help ukraine since the very beginning of the invasion. and he personally advocated numerous decisions taken by the biden administration to provide ukraine with necessary weapons and equipment. but on this particular point, i think we have to start with the weapons and equipment. today, there is no shortage of men for the use of weapons and equipment produced by ukraine and delivered to ukraine. so when we receive all the weapons, which hopefully is going to be the case, and if we see the shortage of people who can run that equipment and use it, then we can raise the issue of age, but it shouldn't be done the other way around.

if i may interject, dmytro. i'm a little puzzled why you seem so positive that the trajectory of military assistance is going to be going upward in the nearfuture. surely it is going to be going downward. we are about to see donald trump re—enter the white house injanuary. he calls this a "needless war" which must end straight away, now, and he's intent on proving that he can achieve that. his signal is clear that if ukraine doesn't bow to his wishes, us military and financial assistance will be pulled, switched off. well, i was not positive, stephen. it was an irony from my side. my position is clear. before... send all the weapons before raising the issue of aid, and then we will see how it plays out. but, yes, we are facing challenges with. .. ..in relations with our

partners regarding the supply of sufficient amount of weapons, and of course, the campaign and elections in the united states is something that puts things... ..puts certain decisions on hold. and this is why we see the biden administration dispatching some volumes of weapons and equipment in the very last weeks of december to ukraine, which will, of course, be helpful. but strategically, we will need sustainability of supplies in sufficient... i mean, let's be realistic. what we've already heard from trump is that he thinks it's fundamentally wrong for the us to give permission for ukraine to use american missiles deep into russian for ukraine to use american missiles deep into russian territory. he says that's a terrible decision, and the indications are he would reverse it immediately.

and it seems president zelensky appreciates the way that the winds are blowing, and it seems as though i just wonder how you react when, for example, in recent i just wonder how you react when, for example, in recent days, zelensky has told a newspaper in france that "while we cannot give up sovereignty claims "to the territories that russia now occupies," he says, "we have to accept that we do not have "the military capacity to recover those lost territories." it seems he's coming to terms with russia, in a peace settlement, maintaining its forces on your territory. well, you can read his words two ways. first is coming to terms, as you mentioned, and second, as a diplomatic way of urging the partners to send more weapons. but you are right, in a sense, that president zelensky is well aware of the attitude dominating the trump circle, and he is trying to engage

with president trump constructively at this stage. but this is only the beginning of the road, where every party is playing its game to structure the process in a way that will benefit them in the long run. well, let's tap into your experience as a diplomat on this very vexed issue of how the war might come to an end. trump's ukraine envoy, general keith kellogg, has written various things which give us big clues as to what he thinks a settlement will look like — a frozen front—line, which basically keeps the russians pretty much where they are now, holding, what, about 18% of ukraine's territory. a total delay on discussion of nato membership for ukraine for at least ten years, and a carrot for moscow of a gradual easing of international sanctions should putin agree to stop the war and accept these conditions. for you as a diplomat, does that sound like anything

ukraine can work with? well, if that is the plan and not an article published by general kellogg, then i don't see where in this plan putin achieves the goal that he pursues in this war, which is getting ukraine, submerging ukraine to his rule. and i think this will be the most difficult question — how to make putin stop, not how to make ukraine agree to any concessions, or any... no, no, but this is really important. what you're suggesting is ukraine could at least talk about all of those conditions, yes, so that then the onus is on whether putin accepts it. but you're saying kyiv would be positive about that, are you?

i think no. i think that at this point, kyiv will continue to constructively engage with the trump administration and invite them to talk. trump administration will reciprocate, and there will be a conversation. but the moment both sides go one layer down in discussing the specificities, this is where they will hit the wall. nato membership, a principled issue for ukraine, for europe and for the entire euro—atlantic area. because without nato, you can theoretically establish a ceasefire, but without nato membership, you cannot stop the war. and more importantly, you cannot prevent the next warfrom happening. yeah, but, i mean, we know from jd vance and others that it's... ..you know, the trump administration is not minded to talk about nato membership for ukraine right now. they are prepared to talk about security guarantees, so, again, this matters. it's a question of what you believe kyiv will

ultimately settle for. if there are security guarantees which tie in the europeans and the americans to certain commitments to ukraine's security during and through a ceasefire and peace deal with putin, can that be enough? ifind it hard to imagine what kind of trustworthy security guarantees could be offered to ukraine at this point so that it can agree to make concessions on other issues. let me ask you about elon musk. as i understand it, musk has been present — was present during trump's first call with zelensky after trump's election victory. we know from trump's prolific use of his own social media site that he is extremely negative about the us

continuing to fund and help ukraine. he says, "there is no way in hell russia is "going to lose this war." as a diplomat, are you worried about the importance and the power of elon musk right now? well, i think it should....it is the people of america who should be worried about the power of elon musk right now, because we see a wealthy businessman, a mogul who is speaking, who is defining... ..who is speaking about domestic and foreign policy of the united states. i cannot recall any such example in the past. but what we know about trump is that in the end, it is him who makes the decisions whatever people around him think, and there are different people around him. so now it's in the hands of the ukrainian team and europeans, as well, to use the art of diplomacy in a way that will lead to strategic...to the decisions that make strategic sense.

just one quick question on the europeans. if trump made good on his threat to walk away from ukraine if ukraine doesn't play ball with his peace plan, do you believe that, in any way, the europeans could step up their levels of military and financial assistance to, in essence, replace everything that you currently get from america? well, they should do it even now before anything happens for one simple reason — because it's a war taking place in europe. and despite all the talks, europe has the resources to do so, but shall president trump withdraw his support, that will be a completely new level of challenge for europe, and they will have to step up their assistance anyway. yeah.

i mean, you've been critical in the past of many european governments, suggesting they are not doing enough. one could look at germany. one could look at the south europeans. many, many countries in europe. you have not in the past had much faith in them. well, i always appreciate france, but i was always guided by the words of your compatriot, winston churchill, who once said, "there is nothing worse than having allies "except not having them at all." so it doesn't matter how critical i am, they are still important, and they still. . .and you still have to work with them so that they make the right decisions. my point is that they have resources. they should make the decision to deploy them, because if ukraine falls, then nobody should then nobody should get surprised. the next war will be taking place in the eu and nato territory. and trust me, i'm not exaggerating. listen to the discussion that putin had with his ministry of defence just a couple of days ago. they are preparing for

a largerwar, and europe... well, hang on, that idea of yours — that putin is preparing for a larger war — gets to the point that in the end, as far as you are concerned, putin is in this war for the long haul. if that's true, i just wonder whether you — as an official that, to be blunt about it, was sacked by president zelensky — whether you worry that there are now political divisions inside your own country that are in the next year going to weaken ukraine. well, when it comes to opposing russia, i don't see political divisions because all ukrainian politicians, be in opposition or in government — they realise that if russia comes, they will be gone. i mean, there will be no politics in ukraine. there will be the regional russian policy, not... sure, but what we see is zelensky centralising power. he no longer has a democratic mandate because, of course, his five—year term is over and he's now using special emergency powers. and you did say recently zelensky has to let strong people back into his government, the implication being that right now there is a sort of centralising

impulse in zelensky�*s government that you worry about. well, strengthening the team during the wartime is a challenge and a task for every war leader, and this is my point. because you should always look for solutions on how to make your country stronger against a very strong enemy, whose power should be respected. we talked about your feelings at the beginning. at the end of this conversation, do you feel 2025 is going to be the toughest year yet for ukraine? no, i think the toughest year for ukraine was winter, february 2022, and the next, the march of that year, because this was the year when no—one believed in us, when we were fighting with bare

hands because the supplies of weapons had not begun yet. and we proved that when we have everything we need, we can sustain the pressure and we can win. we showed that in the course of 2022 that we can liberate our territories and throw russia back. 2025 will be a difficult year, a challenging one, but we learned a lot of lessons. and i hope that ukraine's partners will also learn them and will not be making strategic mistakes. this is not the time to concede to putin. dmytro kuleba, we have to end there. thank you very much forjoining me from kyiv.

hello. after the overnight rain across england and wales, thursday promises to bring lengthy spells of sunshine. it'll be a little on the chilly side, particularly across the north of the uk with a noticeable breeze, but overall, not a bad day. now, here's the satellite picture of that weather system earlier on, spreading across the uk. the rain has been mostly across the southern half of the country — in the north, we've had showers and clear spells. by the middle of thursday, that weather front is way towards the east of us — and in its wake, we're in that northwesterly airstream. so, this is what it looks like early in the morning — still the remnants of the rain there across east anglia, but 1—2 showers also further towards the west. frost—free for england and wales, typically five celsius, closer to freezing in northern ireland and scotland. so here's that weather, then, on thursday —

sunshine, particularly across eastern and central england, but notice a few showers in scotland, and 1—2 elsewhere. but on the whole, a fine day. the temperatures — around eight for cardiff and for london, about that for liverpool. in edinburgh and belfast, it'll be a shade cooler than that. and then, friday, we're expecting more rain to sweep in. this next weather front crosses the country — middle of the day, it'll be in central areas of england. gusty winds for a time, too, before it clears away and the skies turn clear, as well. now, let's have a look at the forecast for the weekend, because it will be very blustery. a nasty area of low pressure is expected to sweep just to the north of us — it'll introduce really strong winds to northern and western scotland, and really blustery elsewhere. 60—70mph gusts there in the north of scotland, 50mph across many central parts of the uk. the temperatures may reach the temperatures may reach 12—13 in some spots — 12—13 in some spots — but, because it'll be windy but, because it'll be windy and there'll be showers, and there'll be showers, some of them wintry some of them wintry over the hills, it won't feel over the hills, it won't feel particularly warm. particularly warm.

and it's notjust saturday and it's notjust saturday that'll be windy, that'll be windy, another very blustery another very blustery day on sunday to come day on sunday to come — look at that, gusts — look at that, gusts approaching 50mph approaching 50mph further south, too. further south, too. approaching 50mph approaching 50mph but it will be colder but it will be colder on sunday, on sunday, you really will feel you really will feel that wind chill. that wind chill. those temperatures will those temperatures will dip to six celsius — dip to six celsius — add on those 40—50mph gusts, add on those 40—50mph gusts, and you'll need your thick coats. now here's christmas week — tt turns out that christmas day will be about the mildest day, will be about the mildest day, but it is going to be but it is going to be generally settled. generally settled. bye— bye. bye— bye.

live from washington, of most notorious gang leaders. live from washington, this is bbc news. this is bbc news. in one of his first tv in one of his first tv interviews with western media, interviews with western media, the de facto leader of syria the de facto leader of syria tells the bbc his country isn't a threat to the world. tells the bbc his country we haven't committed any crimes we haven't committed any crimes thatjustify we haven't committed any crimes thatjustify we haven't committed any crimes that justify calling we haven't committed any crimes that justify calling we haven't committed any crimes thatjustify calling us a terroristic group. in the last thatjustify calling us a terroristic group. in 15 years we have not targeted civilian areas.— 15 years we have not targeted civilian areas. speaks with one of most notorious _

civilian areas. speaks with one of most notorious gang - civilian areas. speaks with one |