and was admitted to rome's gemelli hospital on friday. the vatican said in a statement tonight that laboratory tests, chest x—rays and the clinical conditions of the holy father continue to present a complex picture, but that he remains in a good mood. we'll bring you more on that developing story as we get it. france is set to convene a second meeting on ukraine tomorrow, with european nafions ukraine tomorrow, with european nations who weren't present at talks yesterday. nato ally canada has also been invited, according to diplomatic sources. that comes as us secretary of state marco rubio and russia's foreign minister, sergei lavrov, have agreed to appoint high level teams to begin working on a path to end russia's war in ukraine as soon as possible. a kremlin delegate says the us and russia had a positive, constructive four hour meeting in saudi arabia about the war. lavrov added that the deployment of nato troops in ukraine is unacceptable for russia. and speaking this afternoon, president zelenskyy of ukraine

has reiterated that negotiations should not take place behind ukraine's back and has delayed his visit to saudi arabia to not give legitimacy to the us—russia meeting in riyadh, it is understood. it comes as sir keir starmer said at a meeting with european leaders in paris yesterday that any ukraine peace deal would require a us backstop to deter russia from attacking ukraine again. home secretary yvette cooper discussed the situation earlier today. >> well, we need a lasting peace for ukraine that safeguards the sovereignty of ukraine. the prime minister has met with his european counterparts and will be meeting president trump shortly as well. clearly, there can be no negotiations about ukraine without ukraine, and there's a huge amount of work to be done. as the prime minister has said, this is an early stage in the process. >> elsewhere, kemi badenoch and the government have responded to criticism from the lady chief justice today, with the

conservative party leader saying that politicians must be able to discuss matters of public importance in parliament. a government spokesman also said that the prime minister has made clear that it is for parliament to make the laws and for the government to decide policy. the responses come after the head of the judiciary for england and wales said today that she is deeply troubled by an exchange at the latest prime minister's questions between sir keir starmer and kemi badenoch about an immigration tribunal decision. during the exchange, the prime minister said a decision allowing a palestinian family the right to remain in the uk after they applied through a scheme designed for ukrainian refugees, was wrong and that home secretary yvette cooper had got her team working on closing this loophole. kemi badenoch raised the case, describing the decision as completely wrong. the lady chief justice, baroness carr, said it's for the government visibly to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary. those are the latest gb news headlines. now let's go back to

nigel. >> for the very latest gb news. direct your smartphone. sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code, or go to gbnews.com/advent alerts. >> so the big debate, i guess, over the last 24 hours in this country has been was the prime minister right to say that we would send troops as part of a peacekeeping force into ukraine? to be fair to peacekeeping force into ukraine? to be fairto him, he did say if to be fair to him, he did say if necessary, but that part's been completely missed. i wonder up to 20,000 british troops. could we even manage the manpower? and doesit we even manage the manpower? and does it make any sense to do it before we see the final shape of a deal? well, it was very interesting that starmer went off yesterday to paris at a european leaders meeting and found absolute resistance to the idea of sending troops from the polls and indeed from the

germans as well. the french wanted the scandinavian countries were about the only ones that really wanted to play. ihave ones that really wanted to play. i have no objection in principle, if there is a good peace deal that looks like a lasting peace deal. you know, if we had, let's say, a demilitarised zone, but equally backing that up some kind of force, if we were a part of that, in principle, i don't oppose it outright. but i do think the prime minister was really acting prematurely in really acting prematurely in really saying anything on this subject. i think he hoped that he would go to paris and get other european leaders to support him, so that when he goes to dc next week and sees president trump, he can say, look, i've acted as the bridge between america and europe. that plan clearly isn't going to work today. there have been talks going on between the russian government and the american government and the american government that's been taking place in saudi arabia. let's have a quick look and let's see what mike waltz, us national

security boss, had to say about the talks. >> president trump spoke with president macron just yesterday. prime minister starmer is coming to washington next week. so i think we'll the facts will continue to push back on this nofion continue to push back on this notion that our allies haven't been consulted. they're being and they are being consulted literally almost on a daily bafis literally almost on a daily basis and will continue to do so. 50. >> so. >> so we don't know the final shape of this deal by a long chalk. many are saying, look, the americans are being far too generous to the russians. but equally, this still has, i think, quite a long way to go. your thoughts at home, please, with starmer right to commit troops to ukraine. tweet farage on gb news or email farage. i'm joined on the line by major general tim cross, retired british army officer and the man in charge of the post—invasion planning for the iraq war. thank you again for joining

planning for the iraq war. thank you again forjoining us. and as somebody who's been used to planning big operations, did the prime minister attempt to go just a little bit too early here? >> yeah, i think he did. i should make it clear that i was the uk senior player in the post—war staff working with the americans. and of course, that was strategic failure. so it's not my greatest moment in life, ihave not my greatest moment in life, i have to tell you, but you could come back on a different occasion. i do think he is. i think there's 2 or 3 lines here that you've raised already. we don't know what this this piece in inverted commas agreement would look like. there are different sorts of deployments that historically we've been involved with classic peacekeeping in places like cyprus, which have been going on for decades. but then there are peace enforcement operations, which we i was involved with in the balkans, where people have signed up to a deal. and the multilateral force, the coalition of the willing, under nato command, often is there to enforce that peace and is therefore prepared, if necessary, to deliver fighting power to engage in high intensity war fighting. should

that be necessary? so until we know what this and this whole spectrum of things in between, really. so until we know what this looks like, it's difficult to know. secondly, i've said from the beginning of this conversation that i just can't see putin accepting nato troops inside ukraine, of which uk clearly is a major player. so who would make up this force? who would command it and who would provide logistic support? and, you know, all of the crucial enablers when you put a force in. understandably, the media tends to focus on, you know, we've got 5000 infantrymen or whatever, but you need to be able to sustain this organisation. you need to be able to move it strategically, get it in there and turn the people over, etc. so there's that aspect of it. and then there's a third dimension, which as you touched on again, is, you know, how much will europe and more importantly and crucially, will ukraine be involved in any agreeing to any final deal? >> yeah. no, i mean, absolutely. and i think, you know, to think that the americans will purely do a one sided deal, i think, is to perhaps underestimate the

american negotiating team. but i don't know the answer to that, tim, any more than you do right now. but that's just the sense that i have of it. you know, if trump really wants, you know, access to rare earth minerals in ukraine, he's going to have to give something, i suspect, to get that quick final thought from you, if i may, could we would it even be possible for us to put 20,000 soldiers into ukraine for a period of a few years? could we even begin to think about it, given our current levels? >> no, no. i mean, whenever we talk about troop numbers, you immediately have to recognise that after a six month operation, you've had a pile of people who've been in that theatre of operations for that toun theatre of operat