wow, you get to watch all your favorite stuff. it's to die for. now you won't miss a thing. this is the way. xfinity internet. made for streaming. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ announcer: funding for presentation of this program is provided by... woman: a law partner rediscovers her grandmother's artistry and creates a trust to keep the craft alive. a raymond james financial advisor gets to know you, your passions and the way you enrich your community.

life well planned. nicole: at bdo i feel like a true individual, people value me for me, they care about what i want, my needs, my career path, i matter here. 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" >> hello. i'm christian fraser. you are watchi the context. >> rhetoric coming from russia will not deter our support for ukraine. >> putin does not know whether he can use nukes or can't.

it depends on his emotions. we know he is a very emotional man. the decision to begin this war was also an emotional step. >> the changes are designed come at the very least, to put pressure on western leaders is that now have to decide if vladimir putin is bluffing or not. >> 1000 days of war. have we entered a new, more dangerous phase of the conflict? today responding to ukraine's first use of the long-range american vessels, the russians at lower the threshold for the use of nlear weapons. we discussed tonight the risk and course of the war. tonight the rural revolt. british farmers descend on white how to protest a plan hike on inheritance tax and are we soon

to make a breakthrough in wave energy, an experiment that could unlock the oceans potential is being trialed in the united states. we speak to the scientists behind it. welcome to the program. ukraine has fired u.s.-made missiles into russia for the first time in the conflict to move the russian defense ministry -- a move to the russian defense ministry described today as major escalation. the attack on an arms depot in the bryansk region northwest of kursk comes two days after the biden administration gave kyiv a green light to use a atacms or the russians a down five of six missiles fired. for several weeks vladimir putin warned that there would be dire consequences for such an escalation. is morning on the 1000th day of the conflict to the kremlin lowered it special for nuclear weapons saying an attack by a non-nuclear state, if supported

by a nuclear power, what in the future be treated as a joint assault on the russian state. our moscow correspondent steve rosenberg has this report. >> breaking news on russian tv. claims that ukraine had fired six american atacms missiles into russia's bryansk region, though there were no reports of casualties. the response from russia's foreign minister. sergey lavrov said the missile attack was a signal the west wants to escalate the conflict. is this escalation by russia? published today, a kremlin decree lowering the nuclear threshold. russia, now reserving the right to go nuclear, even if attacked by conventional weapons. if such an attack threatens russian sovereignty or territorial integrity. president putin had promised changes to the nuclear doctrine weeks ago.

a clear signal to europe and america not to let ukraine strike russia with long-range missiles. then, and even clearer signal. russian nuclear exercises. a warning to the west not to cross russia's redlines. the key question. in russia's war on ukraine, would vladimir putin use a nuclear weapon? >> i think it is quite serious because even vladimir putin does not know whether he can use nukes or can't. this depends on his emotions. we know he is a very emotional man. the decision to begin this war was an emotional step. >> the lowering of the nuclear threshold does not mean vladimir putin is about to press the nuclear button. of these changes are designed, i think, at least, to put pressure on western eu leaders -- western

leaders that now have to decide if putin is bluffing or not. earlier at the museum of victory, the kremlin kick started commemorations for next year's 80th anniversary of the end of world war ii. not a word was said here about the 1000 days of russia's war in ukraine. i war which come -- a war, which, for the kremlin, has not gone at all to plan, but which it remains determined to win. steve rosenberg bbc news moscow. >> sera keir starmer has given the clear signal ukraine will be supplied with britain's storm a silo missiles. when asked whether they would be made available the prime minister said kyiv must have what it needs for as long as it needs. the storm shadow uses american technology for targeting, but has only been used it to this point within ukraine's internationally recognized territory into crimea. while refusing to set out a definitive position it was

nonetheless clear from the prime minister's comments in rio this afternoon that the british side open to president zelenskyy's requests. >> the irresponsible rhetoric coming from russia is not going to deter our support for ukraine. now we are on day 1000 of that conflict. that is 1000 days of russian aggression. 1000 days of sacrifice. in ukraine. we have stood with ukraine from the start. and i will be doubling down in my clear message we need to ensure ukraine has what is needed for as long as is needed to win the war against putin. >> what about the change of wording in the nuclear deeply -- decree? the pentagon just gave their reaction to the situation in moscow. >> we aren't at war with russia. the party here that continues to escalate this war is russia.

by bringing in another foreign country into the battlefield, by bringing over 11,000 dprk soldiers into the fight, that's an escalatory accident you have heard the national security advisor to say yesterday this administration told russia if they escalated the conflict by deploying dprk troops we would help ukraine respond. again, the parts of the war that has been escalated upon directly stem from russia's choice and decision to invade its sovereign neighbor. >> matthew smit is an associate professor of national security and political science at the university of new haven, an expert on defense and inlligence in russia and ukraine. thank you for being with us. you might have heard the russian analyst in steve's report saying he thinks this is quite serious. the pentagon clearly thinks it's

an escalatory step. what you make of the changes to wording in that decree? >> i think the wording in the decree make official what vladimir putin has been saying informally from the podium for some time. i agree this is a concerning situation. but i am not losing sleep over it now. though vladimir putin is many many things, at this point, i don't think he is a logical. it is true that in moments of heightened emotion that might slip away from him. but it has not yet. he risks a lot. he risks his global power if he draws in nato. he will lose his power projection. >> since the cold war we have characterized a nuclear weapons as a deterrent. everybody agrees not to use them. we seem to be in a new domain doubt -- now. we have threats from russia and north korea.

it changes the atmosphere that has been in place for decades and that a nurse people. >> and apps -- it absolutely does. in the case of north korea it is a little different. because, kim is a true autocrat. there is not really an organization around him to mediate his decision-making. putin is an autocrat too but not like him. -- like kim. we have to remember there are interests with the political, economic, business elites and a senior military officers that i think would restrain putin in all but the very worst of situations from losing -- using these weapons because their interests would be at risk if he drew nato into the war directly. >> that is obviously one consideration. the other is that they would be firing them in their near neighborhood. how powerful are these tactical nukes that the russians were deployed? what follows would there be if they were used?

>> yeah, so, they are variable. you can build them for different yields. you cannot build them that go all the way up to hiroshima style bomb. but most are designed, the theory of their youth -- use is to use them against heavy troop concentration, heavy nato troop concentratns, tens of thousands of divisions coming through. that is probably how you would use them. of coue they would release radiation. there were to be fought out from the dust. but, they are not particularly designed to leave widespread, large-scale, radioactivity. >> the point is, as you have already indicated, there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war, is there? >> absolutely not. again, this puts us on an escalatory spiral if we see the

weapons used. it violates a redline that has been there since 1945. we really don't know how modern leaders in the modern interconnected world would react to it. >> talk to me about the strike earlier this morning. the first use of the atacms. whato you see in that? the way the ukrainians have used it? >> i think what you will e with the atacms is it is allowing them to potentially hold onto the kursk salient longer and it shape the battlefield on the expectation some kind of settlement is coming. it gives them a more leverage if they can use it in a combined arms way with their infantry and artillery. to push the russians often hold russian territory longer and longer. that is really where they have lovers now against the kremlin. >> matthew schmidt always good to talk to you. thank you for coming on the program. >> my pleasure.

let's get perspective from the ukrainians with the former deputy minister of defense in ukraine. thank you for being with us. how does the change in nuclear doctrine change things for you? >> four ukrainians, it has actually changed nothing. because, russia was, even before, had a doctrine that they can use nuclear weapon if they see a threat to their defense or threat to their national interests. from now on they may make it more concrete, but it has actually changed nothing. we know the only way to go with russia is to demonstrate force. they won't react with force. but if you demonstrate weakness they react with escalation we for us, now it is wargames. >> i wonder if it is changing

views within the united states, within the public perspective in the united states because, clearly, they will see ukraine is fighting a nuclear state. this is an asymmetric war. people in america think you can never win. >> well, actually, mt of our partners thought that we could never win starting from the 24th of february 2022. we are still here. we still exist as a state. we still keep most of our borders. we still fight. we still have intention to fight. what we are facing will be some kind of questions from our partners on each and every stage of the war. we know that we can win. we have demonstrated many proofs of that. i do not think that the american public has so much influence on decision-making in political circles. the general public actually

demonstrated emotional support. but, the politicians, those that made the decision about whether to provide that assistance or not. >> the foreign minister said yesterday the use of atacms would be a game changer. his words. what did you see in the way they were used this morning? what do you expect out of the way they will be used into the future? >> there is no game changer in this war. this is like a concentration of the capabilities. this is the game changer. unfortunately, we cannot find one weapon or one equipment which will make a substantial change now. it all depends on the number of outcomes we assess now. everything depends. from possible limitations we have. we need to gain capability and use them in accordance with the strategic plan. this can win the war. no war can be won by one

missile, one jet, or one unit. it should be strategy. ukraine has this strategy. the problem is, our partners, in most cases, don't have their vision and strategy of whether they want to win this war. >> you pointed to thfact there is a finite supply of the weapons. at their use will need to be strategic, is that what you are saying? >> absolutely yes. we have an operation. we should have a plan. we should be future focused. one missile can make a difference. >> do you put much store in reports by the russian ministry of defense that they were actually shut down on this occasion or do you have intelligence that would differ? >> i obviously don't have any intelligence. i am just relying on other sources.

but from what we see, russia really has problems with economy, supplies, logistics, production. today they had a lack of fuel. official claims from them economic head of the national bank is that they are not capable of addressing most of the critical economic problems in a short period. i think totally, all of the efforts done by our partners, we still need to be stronger, to be one step ahead. we need to last longer than russians in the war to win the war. >> matthew schmidt seemed to suggest the use of the atacms would give ukrainians an option when it comes to negotiation. do you see an end game could work? >> i do not think vladimir putin is ready to negotiate now.

he did not change its requirements from the beginning of the war. and even if there was a negotiation, which we don't see as an option now, i don't think putin will agree on the line that part of russian territory will be occupied by ukrainian forces. i don't see any lack of movement in the positions. we don't see serious negotiations because nothing is on the table yet. but we understand there could be negotiations. any war has negotiations. that does not mean that in the beginning of negotiations the war has ended up. we observe different scenarios but don't see a high probability of solution, at least for now. >> do you think that there is a certain naïveté on the part of some political leaders? there has been a phone call between chancellor scholz and vladimir putin in the past few days.

we have heard bravado from washington about finishing it within a day of taking office and maybe in some sections of the media. as you rightly point out, vladimir putin won't want to negotiate from a position of weakness. >> we can ll it naïveté. we can call it absence of good analysis and strategic thinking. there are still many leaders, european leaders, american leaders still within the last decade. the world has changed. we needed to be more realistic. we need to evaluate russia with a more realistic approach. russia, china, everyone. we see a lot of misleading perceptions of who is russian? what is russia as a state?

what is its intention? we need to rethink analytical thinking, providing this scenario for basing the political decisions. yes we need to be more realistic. you need to be more realistic in this case. >> thank you for coming on the program. >> thank you. >> we will take a short break. you are watching bbc news.

>> the district attorney in manhattan, alvin bragg is urging the judge overseeing donald trump's criminal hush money crowd to reject the president-elect's attempts to toss out the conviction and derail sentencing. melvin braga does not -- alvin bragg does not oppose a stay or pause in the case as proposed by trump lawyers and proposed the ideal as one of many

non-dismissal options. trump is due to be sentenced next week. officials urged a new york judge to dismiss the case before the upcoming inauguration. the court must act to avoid any unconstitutional obstacles to the president-elect's ability to govern. let's speak to our north american correspondent nada tawfik in new york. where the district attorney to get his way, and obviously it is a decision still for the judge, how long would that pause last? until after the inauguration? until after the end of a four year term? what options does the judge have? >> christian, prosecutors what the kind of legal process to play out on this attempt by the defense to try to throw out the verdict, the case. it could take some time. i think that with the

prosecution here saying that one remedy, apart from an outright dismissal of the case, could be to freeze it until after donald trump's upcoming election, i think that is really an acknowledgment that, perhaps, getting through just the legal arguments of a dismissal could take longer and run into donald trump's presidency. they are throwing that option there at the judge. as he tries to weigh the best way forward in this unprecedented situation they find themselves in. nevertheless, prosecutors are adamant that they don't think the case should be dismissed. that they don't think donald trump's temporary presidential community as the defense argues has any impact on a case that did not deal with official acts in office and also does not deal with the fact that he is waiting

for a decision. he has been convicted. >> there is some lore on this. the presidential transition act, 1960 three requires government offices "to take lawful steps to minimize disruption to transition." i guess the judge will be mindful of that. at that in the final weeks before the transition he does not want to be dealing with court matters in new york. >> what prosecutors argued was you have to balance two competing constitutional issues here. the independence of the presidency and also the integrity of the criminal justice system. what makes the case different is the fact donald trump was convicted by a unanimous jury. how do you move ahead with a sentencing that was supposed to be next week?

that is something the judge will have to weigh. a key piece of that is the transition, the independence of the presidency. of course, just the spectacle of the president-elect going into court to be sentenced, that is the optics, of course, that i am sure the judge understands the severity of that, the weight of that. he will have to factor in all these things when he eventually weighs in on what side he agrees with your, -- with here or if he comes up with his own remedy. >> i will read you a statement for trump's spokesman review says it is a total definitive victory for president trump and the american people that elected him in a landslide. the manhattan d.a. conceded his witch hunt cannot continue. the lawless case is now state. that might be premature. he says president trump's legal team is moving to get it dismissed once and for all.

that's trump's communication director. to the winner goes the spoils. his alvin bragg at some's care? he is an elected official in new york good clearly when the trump administration is in situ they will come after people in the department of justice. is he one they will look at? >> yes. christian, look, that statement from donald trump's team certainly is premature as the legal process plays out. certainly for them they see this as a victory. they see the writing on the wall that perhaps this will be delayed until after his upcoming presidency. in four years time who knows where the world wi be? minds may have shifted by then. as you say, donald trump is seeking to put his loyalists in the department of justice. donald trump, during the campaign was outspoken about wanting to seek political

retribution or retribution against his enemies. alvin bragg was the first prosecutor in the country to bring charges against a former president, against donald trump. he may certainly be wondering what a future donald trump presidency means for new york here. >> an interesting one to watch next week. thank you for that. we will take a short break and be right back. stay with us. hort break, we will be right back, stay with us. 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: get the free pbs app now and stream the best of pbs.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ announcer: funding for presentation of this program is provided by... woman: a law partner rediscovers her grandmother's artistry and creates a trust to keep the craft alive. a raymond james financial advisor gets to know you, your passions and the way you enrich your community.