♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ announcer: funding for presentation of this program is provided by...

woman: two retiring executives turn their focus to greyhounds, giving these former race dogs a real chance to win. a raymond james financial advisor gets to know you, your purpose, and the way you give back. life well planned. announcer: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation. and by judy and peter blum kovler foundation, pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. announcer: and now, "bbc news" . i am loosing gray. . you are watching "the context." >> we are inching towards authorization for the use of western missiles inside russia. >> by thinkers there is a degree of impatience here, and -- i

think there is a degree of impatience here and ukraine at this moment is time to improve its position and i account on the battlefield. >> if the decision to lift restrictions is really taken from that moment, nato countries are conducting direct war with russia. ♪ lucy: the special relationship continues. prime minister sir keir starmer is set to meet president joe biden and washington in the next hour and tonight they will discuss among many things, the latest diplomatic row with moscow. russia stripped six officials of their accreditation and accuses them of spying. the u.k. says the claims are baseless. and putin has issued a red line warning the west against the living ukraine to use a long-range weapons to target russia, saying any use of that weaponry would mean a direct participation of the conflict.

we will look at the weapons in question. numeral get to that meeting in washington and the ramifications from putin's claims shortly, but first some, more reaction to that press conference we heard from the international space station that ended a few moments ago. nasa astronauts butch wilmore and suni williams who are stuck on the iss, answered questions about how they are coping. when they blasted off on june 5, there were only supposed to be there eight days, but after major issues with the boeing starliner cap so, they were forced to stay on board and will be there until february when a spacex rocket will collect them and bring them home, a full eight months after there were supposed to be heading back to earth. despite that lengthy extension, the pair said they were in great spirits. >> we are here with our friends, i think that is a key part of

being on the international space station, and then just doing the work. the good part is working with our friends, we got a ride home, and we are looking forward to the next couple of months and doing a lot of stuff on the international space station. >>. >> every time i talk to someone, they say we are praying for you, there is players coming up. street signs from people who don't even know across the we are praying for you. come on back. . all those things. it goes a long way. we so much appreciate it. lucy: let's speak to our climate and science reporter georgina who has been watching that. lovely, they are saying they appreciate the messages, but i don't think they mind too much that they are there. reporter: not at all, they seem happy and in good health, they have been following their exercise routines, but it was fascinated to hear their voices, this has been a big story, we have heard their names around the world, so to hear from them for the first time since nasa told them they have to stay up there for months longer than expected and will not return

home to earth until next year, it was a chance to actually answer some questions. butch was asked, did he feel let down by nasa and boeing. and he quickly replied, absolutely not he said they are trained for this type of mission and to enjoy difficult situations. he also said that there were things about the boeing starliner capsule that they were comfortable with, which is an interesting comment from him about the capsule that had taken them up there. but then he said that given the timing, he believes they would have managed to sorted out. but, of course, that iss has a strict schedule of departures and arrivals and they have to fit into that and that is, ultimately, why nasa said they'd made the decision to use spacex to bring them back. lucy: he did dodge the question about what he felt could have been done differently in terms of the starliner when he was asked about that, didn't he? reporter: he did.

these estimates work for nasa, we would not have expected them to be critical of the organization. they are very proud to be astronauts, they spend years training to go into space. so we wouldn't really expect to see that from them. and it is true that they are up there to do these incredible, difficult missions. if you speak to any estimate, they would say they love to spend as much time up in space as possible, longer on the iss, whher they can. so no surprise, they are happy, they seem to be in good health and they will be carrying out these experiments. i think we wouldn't have heard any critical comments about boeing or nasa. they did say they are looking forward to getting to know the acex's dragon spacecraft that will bring them back next year. lucy: going to bail them out, isn't it? thank you so much, georgina, for talking to us. we will be speaking later on in the program to a former commander of the international space station, so stay with us.

let's go to washington where keir starmer is due to be meeting joe biden in the next hour. we can speak to tom bateman, our state department correspondent who is there for us. obviously a lot to discuss. one of the main things they will be discussg is this idea about using western weapons, ukraine using western weapons to hit targets inside russia. i suppose the question is, are we going to see any movement on that? guest: guest: as far as the white house is concerned, we are not, they have said there will be no announcement today on this issue of permissions to use long-range weapons for ukraine fired into russian territory. of course the backdrop has been the growing pleas, the sense of urgency from president zelenskyy, who has been arguing for a long time now that ukraine needs the ability, has the

capability, but it needs to be able to fire these western-donated weapons into russia itself in order to counteract or repel the attacks. president zelenskyy has been arguing about that. they were hearing those arguments firsthand from the ukraians, particularly over the use of these storm shadow missiles that are at anglo-french developed munition that the ukrainians have. they want to be able to fire them deep into russia. the fact is biden has been pretty cautious about the idea of this happening. and so far, has not given permission to ukrainians to do this. i think britain's visit is an attempt to try to make the ukrainian case directly to the president from one of their

allies. but, as it stands, the white house is saying there is no change in policy here and no announcement on it today. lucy: is a part of the -- is it possible to see how much support they would have in washington if biden did move on this? guest: i think it would have a lot of backing particularly among democrats in congress, for example, particularly those voices within the u.s. military and intelligence services who believe this is one way to effectively prevent president putin from these more forceful attacks on the ukrainian frontline, particularly with the glide bombs. because it would free up the ukrainians and allow them to attack -- allow them to go for these attacks out there. but the point has always been

about the risks inherent in this. we heard last night from putin who said that this decision, if it was made, would mean direct confrontation war between nato and russia. so that is uppermost in the minds of washington. although those red lines that had previously been presented by putin, for example, over the use in ukraine of f-16 fighter jets, other red lines, we have seen those pushed back every time by the americans and its nato allies without significant significant consequences. so the belief among many is that this is saber-rattling by president putin. but so far, that has been a risk president biden is prepared to take. lucy: tom bateman for us in washington, thanks very much. let's bring in the author of, " america, made in britain: and the encyclopedia of the cold war." thanks for joining asked.

looks like he should be talking to us about the astronauts. [laughter] anyway, obviously the big question here is whether putin is blessing or not. it's the risk they are considering. before i ask you about that, can i check what you see whether it is possible that the u.k. and europe could go ahead and give permission even if america doesn't? tom: no, they need to have america behind them. i don't think you have the you and -- unilaterally, in this case. lucy: so the reason for starmer being there, i think, is to try to talk president biden around? guest: yes, and also they have their own supersonic muscles, the americans do. they have 3700 of them. the british and french have only about 1200. so the hope is that not only

would they get permission for the anglo-french but also for the american missiles. lucy: the question is how much of a difference can these weapons make, and if there aren't that many of them, i suppose that is part of the answer, isn't it? guest: that is part of the answer. there is some dispute as to how much difference it can make. they have a range of about 150 miles. now it's 150 miles from where the pleading manages to get to, they are bombs. but they reckon to 50 military installations could be effective. but over time russians are moving the military installations back away from the border with ukraine. so the number of targets is reducing all the time. lucy: even if the use of them wouldn't make much of a difference, clearly, putin is

talking it up at least, due to this regular and he is introducing in terms of him saying that this would be basically an involvement in the war. and going to the question of whether this is saber-rattling or whatever, what could he do, what could be the concern that putin might do as a consequence? guest: there is two things he could do. he gave a press conference back in august for the international press and was asked the specific question about what would happen if these long-range missiles were used. he said two things, one, we would probably breach some of our arms agreement and beef up our arms defenses. and two, we could give the same weapons to people who are opposed to thu.s. and the rest of nato, such as north korea, iran, venezuela. lucy: and i suppose the u.s. is

particularly concerned about that in terms of attacks on its personnel in the middle st, isn't it? guest: yes. but you don't want these sorts of weapons in the hands of north koreans, or in the hands of the cubans, for instance. lucy: ok. we will have to to leave it there, the thank you for joining us, tom arms, author of "america, made in britain." thanks to you. around the world and across the u.k. this is bbc news. , ♪

lucy: let's take a look more at the cuttings from president putin about nato weapons being used in russia. president zelenskyy says kyiv must be allowed to use nato pplied long-range missiles against targets on the territory of the aggressive state. would britain's storm shadow weapons for the bill? our correspondence takes a look.

reporter: at the heart of today's debate, the biggest storm shadow system which has an average of at least 250 kilometers. storm shad has already been used by ukraine against a russian base and occupied crimea last year. but up until now, the country supplying these weapons have told you frame it cannot fire them into russia. but there has been pressure for that to change. the reason is that russia has been making advances in the front inside ukraine. it has been hitting ukrainian physicians using glide bombs and its forces are supported from over the border in russia. what ukraine wants to do is use the longer range of the western missiles to strike deeper into russia, targeting the command centers and admonition depose, supporting most in advance. so what are the risks? vladimir putin says if you think using these weapons instead russia would be an escalation, cleaving the required western

assistance and meaning nato countries would be directly involved in the war. that russia has set out redlines like the supply of fighter jets in the past, which have been crossed thout leading to a wider war between nato and russia. moscow is argued to use a to make the west memphis, that they believe that russian leader does not want an all-out war. ssia could respond in other ways. maybe i think its existing campaign of sabotage with arson attacks, or perhaps through cyberattacks. these missiles are not likely to be a game changer, but they could help lift some of the military pressure on ukraine, and signal continued western support, and that means those backing their use believe it is worth the risk of antagonizing moscow. lucy: thank you very much to bargain for that. let's bring in our next list, a former nato analyst and not a

senior lecturer in security at the university of bath. thank you. i will ask the question i asked him a previous guest about the impact of this that make. obviously, president zelenskyy believes the impact of using these weapons would be huge, he has been asking for a long time now and it seems of your priority for him. what is your take on how much of a difference, could they be a game changer? guest: good evening. i don't think it's a game changer at this stage. when a new weapon system comes in and the maximum effort they have is when they are used the first time because they catch people out. of the event the decision is announced after they have got them. not the case here, it has been known for a long time. for storm shadow, it may or may not be used, but russia, we have heard is moving some of its air forces back to try to hit mobile missile launches. you need dynamic intelligence

for what you are targeting. so that's a different thing. where they could be used of course is dropping -- or denying access and heavily fortified areas, et cetera. but i think the period unfortunately, of that being an immediate game changer is probably past. lucy: president putin has been saying that the use of these weapons would require the use of nato satellite and nato personnel's involvement in their use. is that correct? guest: i would have thought so. they would have been help in terms of targeting technicians, but i am not 100% sure. usually in terms of the logistics of the way through to the tip of the spear, fixing and finding and then striking the ukrainian's, they may need some help to do that. i am not 100% sure. lucy: so on that issue of russia having moved its equipment out of range, presumably it can't

have moved everything, there must still be targets within the range, otherwise putin wouldn't be concerned? guest: absolutely. there wouldn't be. especially mobile missile launchers. what is really causing pressure, why ukraine has been asking for this, they are in this air defense battle which the russians, by dint of geography and nuclear deterrence, are able to use their aircraft's to launch these cheap, devastating glide bombs from out of range of raine and air defense and there is nothing they can do. so they want to try to force -- they talk about killing the archer, not just intercepting the arrow. that is the concept. same with mobile ballistic missile launches. but russia has read the winds and started to move some things back. it would have an effect. but the question is, it is going to be as effective as, say, the

introduction of himars, which completely turned the tide when it came in in september 2022, if you remember. i am more skeptical. also the scale at which it would come through. finally, you have this thing where, what is the precedent for this? unfortunately, what has happened in the war is it has increasingly become -- although ukraine was illegally invaded by russia, it has become a proxy war which the ukraine cannot win without western support. i can't think of a precedent where one nuclear power has given its satellite its weapons to target another nuclear power's air force on its territory. hence why we see this, what seems to be emerging in the u.s., a welcome back, that there will not be a policy change. today, anyway.

lucy: do you think russia is surprised at how long support from the allies has continued for ukraine? guest: yes. i think part of the whole thinking here for putin would have been, the west is decrepit and falling apart and i just need to kick the doors and everything will follow. that has been proven wrong. nevertheless, he has concluded, i will switch to my strengths, which is grinding it out, and we will see how long they will last. and to some degree he has been proven right. germany is starting to waver. much less so britain, france,, the united states and others. lucy: really good to talk to you, thank you so much,. guest: thank you. lucy: let's look more now at putin's redlines and allegations of spying. we will speak to our next guest, ceo of an intelligence consultancy specializing in central and eastern europe and the former soviet union. let's talk about this issue of spying. we have heard president putin

claiming that six british diplomats it expelled were spying. obviously the u.k. described this as ludicrous. what is your take on this? specializing in central europe? guest: it seems to be just theater. i know there are people in the american embassy in moscow who are members of intelligence organizations, no doubt. but the surveillance situation in moscow is very intense. the idea that he would be actively doing espionage in moscow and recruiting and running agents and doing that kind of old-fashioned espionage is not credible. lucy, and what would they be doing that? guest: i don't really know exactly. [laughter] lucy: couldn't tell me anyway? guest: no. [laughs]

what they are doing is going about sort of meeting people in bars, doing dad drops and brass contacts and that's just not going on in moscow nowadays, i think. so what this is it just a form of signaling. i mean, the decision was taken in aust. so this is just, the timing of this shows that it is just signaling. lucy: but to the issue of the weapons and using the western weapons, it is the timing of this? guest: exactly. lucy: it's about russia trying to frame the u.k. u.k. of the enemy, isn't it? trying to tell people at home that the u.k. is the enemy to be concerned about, is it? guest: there is an element of that. also to some extent, in kremlin circles, the u.k. is regarded as a sort of blood enemy, as a

historic enemy of russia and the russian people, the masters of conspiracy and espionage, which i don't really think is the case . if you look at the things said on russian tv about the u.k., it goes in that direction. but equally, the u.k. is seen as a slightly ster target than the u.s.. there is some trepidation in the kremlin about directly confronting the u.s., but not so much the u.k. lucy: i suppose there might be a change of mood after november, we have the small issue of the election in the u.s., and what that risk would be fascinating, isn't it? guest: absolutely. there could be some mild disappointments in the kremlin if kamala harris wins. it was interesting to see in the presidential debate a couple of days ago that former president

trump was invited twice by the moderator to say that he wants ukraine to win and he refused to say that. but what i would add to that is that while president biden would say that in a heartbeat, his actions suggest he doesn't necessary want ukraine to win, he just doesn't want it to lose and that puts the ukrainian people in an awkward position. i think the thrust of what the new labor government is trying to do is to make the situation much clearer, that we really do, in the u.k. and the u.s., want ukraine to win. and he is trying to convince president biden that he should act that way. lucy: thank you for sharing your thoughts with us, neil barnett, ceo of an intelligence

consultancy specializing on central europe and the soviet union. in the last few minutes, the white house has said "putin's threats against nato are incredibly dangerous." we are expecting the meeting between sir keir starmer and president biden in about 20 minutes. it has also been announced that biden is expected to visit angola in the coming weeks, the first visit to africa for the u.s. president. stay announcer: funding for presentation of this program is provided by... financial services firm, raymond james. announcer: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation. and by judy and peter blum kovler foundation, pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

announcer:usa today" calls it, "arguably the best bargain in streaming." that's because the free pbs app lets you watch the best of pbs anytime, anywhere.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ announcer: funding for presentation of this program