now on bbc news, global questions. hello, welcome to global questions with me, zeinab badawi, from kyiv, the capital of ukraine. the government here has been monitoring the intense talks between russia and the west very anxiously. have the negotiations this week defused the tensions on the ukraine—russia border, where moscow has been amassing troops? or is it the start of a new cold war? applause welcome to the mystetskyi arsenal cultural centre here in kyiv. let me tell you who is on my panel, who'll be taking questions from the audience here. the deputy prime minister of ukraine is 0lha stefanishyna. although ukraine was not party to the talks this week, she's been presenting the government's position. kristina kvien is the acting ambassador for washington here in ukraine. carl bildt is a former swedish prime minister and one of europe's leading statesman. and professor sergey radchenko is a russian—born political scientist based in europe. that's our panel. welcome to you all. give them a round of applause. applause and, remember, you too can join the conversation. it's #bbcglobal0uestions. got a lot to get through in this programme so, without further ado, let's go to our first question from 0ksana cabal. 0ksana, your question, please. my question is, why has ukraine become a geopolitical flashpoint? deputy prime minister? we have been welcomed in the european family, we are becoming part of the west, and occasionally one day we will become a part of the eu and nato. this brings a new round of tensions from russia, and this shows that there is a new way and new room for manipulations and ultimatums from russia. we have this experience with our leadership in 2014. we do not need to have to face this crisis of leadership in europe. so we are happy with the strong response from the western world, but more to come. just very quickly, because we have seen these cyber attacks on ukrainian government ministries, as well as embassies. who do you think�*s behind it? well, first of all, we've built a strong resilience over that. so we faced it all and we safeguard everything, and our critical infrastructure. but it's not a secret that behind standards of this issue are those backed up by the russian federation. so it's early to say... so you're blaming russia, you're saying quite categorically? the investigation is going on, but the cyber attacks are happening on a daily basis on all the websites of ukraine, regional and central nature. so it's very clear that there should be a shadow of russian influence. and that's your position, that russia's hand is in this? 0k, thank you. carl bildt, so, is ukraine the centre stage because it wants tojoin the european union, it wants to join nato? that's why it has become this geopolitical flashpoint? well, i think it is more fundamental. it is basically because russia wants to deny ukraine its possibility of choosing its own future. its own democratic, european, whatever it wants to. russia, for all sorts of reasons, wants to deny that. we have seen that time after time. and we now see it in a more acute phase. and that is also why this is a crisis not only for ukraine, because every nation should have the right to choose its own destiny. and that should include ukraine as well. can ijust say, you are not exactly welcoming ukraine with open arms in either nato or the eu, are you? i mean, it is a long way before it can even join either, particularly the european union. it's a long way, absolutely. membership of the european... so why all this fuss then about something that is not going to happen maybe for a very long time? well, ask the kremlin, not me. the reality of this way and the irreversibility of this way is becoming more and more clear to putin, and it is now even when ukraine has military troops on ukrainian territory, as the war threat and crimea annexed, and the heavy sanctions, and he couldn't undermine the unity of allies, he couldn't undermine the unity of eu, but he couldn't even blackmail the us president, so now he only has other ultimatums to put. because the reality is that there is no way to reverse our aspirations. 0k, kristina kvien, you are the acting ambassador for washington. hasjoe biden, is he being blackmailed by putin, as the deputy prime minister implies there? well, perhaps president putin has tried, but no, president biden has not been blackmailed because he won't let himself be blackmailed. and we won't let nato be blackmailed either. so president putin can try, but he will fail. and your response, though, to 0ksana's question about why ukraine has become this flashpoint? well, i think because the ukrainian people have chosen a western path. 60% supportjoining nato. 70% supportjoining the eu. and russia doesn't like it. so they've decided to use aggression to try to stop ukraine from joining the path that it and its people have chosen to join. but can ijust make the same point that i made to carl bildt, which is this is all then about a principal which actually may not be realised for a very long time, i.e., ukrainejoining the european union or a nato. well, for any country tojoin nato or the eu, it takes time. there are reforms that have to be made, there are requirements that have to be met. but ukraine has gone a long way on that path already. i think that is why president putin feels that he has to perhaps act, because ukraine has made progress on that path. and the ukrainian people are behind that progress, which is very important. sergey radchenko, how would you answer this? i mean, i know you don't speak on behalf of moscow, obviously. you are an academic. but you are russian—born. i will have to serve as the lightning rod here. in order to understand the problem 0ksana has alluded to, why has ukraine become a geopolitical flashpoint, we have to understand russia and where russia finds itself 30 years after the break—up of the soviet union. russia in many ways has been pushed out of europe or has pushed itself out of europe, maybe has shot itself out of europe. you know, as a russian, i think a lot of those wounds were self—inflicted. yeah, the fact that russia has authoritarian backsliding. who are we to blame for this? it's us. we did it to ourselves, the fact that russia doesn't have freedoms that you would expect in a democratic country, the fact that there is serious corruption, all of those problems. i would not blame them on cia agents or western consultants. so we have this side of the problem. 0n the other hand, i also have to say that if we look across, notjust to this crisis, but back, 30 years back, to what has transpired, we can see that the west never formulated a conception of where russia should be and how it should fit with the west. russia was never institutionally brought into the west. so, you know, it has been othered and it has become the other. and that is the sad situation we find ourselves in. there is a well—known chinese saying that i like to cite. "it takes two hands to clap." and perhaps russia bears most responsibility for the current crisis, but i would certainly say that it is more complicated than that. ok, let's go to our second question now from alexander petrilenko. hello. when the international community shakes hands with the kremlin, is it immoral and dangerous? is it immoral and dangerous to shake hands with the kremlin? kristina? should you be having a dialogue? because, i mean, look, the russians are saying, "america is our principal negotiating partner. "that's what these talks have been about." should you talk to them? i think absolutely we should talk to them. that's what we've been doing the past week in the three different forums where we've had talks. the only way that we can come to an agreement and address the concerns that russia says it has is to talk about it. we think that's, in fact, the appropriate way to do it, and we hope that we continue the dialogue and have a discussion about the concerns and come to some sort of agreement rather than turn to aggression and no talking. deputy prime minister, i mean, you have been involved in the talks ukraine has at the organisation for security cooperation europe, because you are members of that — as is russia, for example. i mean, do you think it's right that you should be in these dialogue forums when you say that they have invaded ukraine and putting a gun to your head? first of all was the cross—cutting line ukraine and all the western leaders were pushing for is that there is no other but diplomatic scenario in any discussions related to the peaceful settlement in donbas and de—escalation. so using these platforms was a good format to refresh ourselves and to bring back, not only to ukraine, but the common western understanding of what russia is. you mentioned the donbas region there, in the east of ukraine where you have these two breakaway states, luhansk and donetsk, by pro—russia separatists. 0k, carry on. we deal with russian aggression on a daily basis, ever since the first day when the annexation of crimea started until now. there is no difference for us because we are struggling on a daily basis. but i think... i should just remind everybody, of course — 2014, crimea annexed by russia. in 2014, yes, part of ukrainian territory was annexed and, on the other part of the ukrainian territory, we have the ongoing war with the russian military troops permanently present. for all of these eight years, the dialect was the same. but i think it's a good refreshment for the western leaders to see how the dialogue with russia looks like, and ukrainians never had any high expectations from this dialogue on each and every platform, but what we are proud of is that we see the real transatlantic unity and the real red lines, which are there. first of all, russia will not put ultimatums and dictate whether they should be or should not be an enlargement of nato. there should not be another revision of the security architecture. and it's really important that we have already used the instruments of talk. now we should use the instruments of actions against russia. let's go to you, sergey. well, i would tend to agree with whatjust has been said about the need to continue dialogue under all circumstances. russia is a major regional player, you would argue a global player. no question can be solved without russia. russia has done some nasty things on the global stage, there is no doubt about that. it's not the only country that has ever done nasty things on the global stage. but still, dialogue is important because the stakes are too high. carl bildt? there could be, depends on the circumstances. i mean, of course, there must always be room for diplomacy. i was foreign minister, i think, for eight years, and apart from the close circle of eu friends there was no—one i spent as much time with as with the russian foreign minister. on all sorts of issues. sometimes we didn't agree. often we disagreed, but it was important to keep the communication channels open. then, certain occasions, crimea, ukraine aggression, we imposed sanctions on russia. but even more important, i think, we stressed the importance of building up the democratic resilience of our respective societies. that is the biggest deterrent to aggression. that you have the democratic support of the respective countries, be that ukraine or be that whatever other country it could be. diplomacy, absolutely essential. diplomacy, absolutely. but we've heard also from the americans in particular, a range of financial, political and economic sanctions, which could be implemented if you don't make progress on the talks. so a point on that, then, carl bildt? that's not something we want. we want... i think i can speakfor... who is we, then? the europeans? we europeans. because you need russian gas, don't you? that's the reason why you don't want the sanctions. well, we might need russian gas. we want to have trade, a friendly relationship with russia. russia is a european nation. we want to live in peace and harmony. that sounds rather idealistic at this particular time. we spent a lot of time building cooperation with civil society, economic links, we don't want to have a conflict with russia. period. but when russia acts in a way that is at the detriment or against the basic securities of european order or denying european nations, democratic nations, their right to choose their own destiny, then we have to react with sanctions. we don't want it. but we need to do it. but do you think europe will really accept the sanctions when europe depends on about 30% of its gas needs on russia ? some countries in europe, 100%. yeah, true. there's a price to be paid. but we are even more dependent... hang on, hang on — you arejust saying that is a price that has to be paid. do you think democratically elected governments are going to see the lights and the heating go down in their countries? i think so, because we are even more dependent upon peace in europe. and peace in europe is dependent upon respecting the right of each individual nation. that is something that we are far more dependent on — peace — than gas. kristina, i mean, on this issue of sanctions, yes, carry on talking, you are all saying, but you have got to have a threat of "or else" and the sanctions path. i mean, do you see unity between washington, which isn't dependent on russian gas, with the europeans on this? yes, we have actually seen very good unity. first of all, in nato, all 30 members together on wednesday said the same thing. that is, that they are not going to give up ukraine's choice to join the alliance, despite russian demands. and on the sanctions part, yes, russia has two paths. it can take the path of discussion, dialogue and trying to address some of its security concerns, which is what we have been trying to do the past week, or it can take aggressive action. if it takes aggression action, make no mistake about it, it can expect very severe consequences. not just financial and economic consequences from the united states, from europe. and by the way, from the g7. which has some other members that are not part of europe or the united states. it's a global approach. but they'll also get some things they don't want. if they go into ukraine, then we have already said that we are going to have to reinforce our eastern flank of nato. they say they don't want nato forces closer to their border. well, then don't go into ukraine, because that is what it will end up doing. so i do think that they do have to think twice about what they are going to do because they will face very severe consequences in several areas. all right, thanks very much. let's go to our next question from ulia koltac. what do you want to ask our panel, ulia? if a military conflict cannot be avoided, | what consequencesl for russia, ukraine, europe — and usa, of course? well, four regions there — four countries. let's start with russia. if there is a military conflict, sergei, what are the consequences for russia? well, the problem is we don't know what kind of military conflict we could have. could it be a small operation, a long operation? could the russians, you know, invade and try to capture more territory? or, you know, will they even invade at all? there are lots of uncertainties. i think the ambassador has rightly pointed out that there will be sanctions for russia, so that is something that i'm sure is influencing calculations, putin's calculus, as he considers what to do. their — obviously, if the war becomes long, which i don't think they want, it would have an impact on putin's domestic popularity. long wars do not help anybody�*s popularity, so i'm pretty sure that russia, if it were to take military action, it would want to avoid a quagmire, that's for sure. what are the consequences of a military conflict for ukraine? we do not consider that there will be a full military aggression on the territory of ukraine, but until there, it would be anything which would happen with a country in war. we will be a country in war. we will not be in a position to think about any longer perspective of further integration with the west because we will be fully concentrated on the war and again, the war will be on the borders of nato and the eu. all right. consequences for the united states of any military conflict? well, the united states wantsj to see a europe that is stable, that is predictable _ and that is focused on things like economic growth and prosperity. - we want them to be our best trading partner, i as they are now, so i think that the instability that. russia would bring by trying to attack ukraine in any way would reduce that. not to say that the united i states has a treaty obligation to defend europe and so, if any of europe's — - nato's borders. were at risk, then united states would, of course, come - in and defend those. carl bilt. what happens in europe — orfor europe? we don't know. but i fear if this happens, another russian invasion — we've seen them before — i think the consequences would be pretty catastrophic for everyone involved. it is far easier to start — i agree with sergei — if they do it, they would like to do something short and sweet or whatever. it's far easier to start wars than to stop them and the one thing leads to the other. negative consequences for russia in terms of its international standing, european standing. negative consequences for europe in terms of the security order. negative consequences for ukraine. there's nothing, nothing, nothing good to come out of this for anyone — including, i'm quite convinced, for mr putin himself. that's my view. his view is, i fear, might be different. all right, let's go to ourfinal question. volodimir golovko, what do you want to ask our panel? what is the role and influence of china in the ukrainian—russian conflict? is there a possibility- for the west to coordinate with beijing in support- to stop russian aggression? which instruments can the united states, - european union, united kingdom and even ukraine to push china l to press on putin's politics? right, well, a lot in that question. let's go to you, sergei, because it's very much your area of expertise — russia, china, cold war, all the rest of it. there is no way that china will back western sanctions on russia. china will maintain benevolent neutrality, benevolent towards russia. russia and china have an alignment of sorts. it's not in china's interest. they are opposed — they're not too worried about what is happening in ukraine, they're worried about the us hegemony, global us hegemony. they are interested in opposing the united states, and what russia is doing basically serves beijing's purpose in this regard, so i do not think there is any scope for playing china against russia in this scenario. let me ask you about that, kristina. do you see any relevance to china here? what do you think about what sergei has just said? yeah, i guess i somewhat disagree with sergie. i would say that china is reliant on exports. that's what it uses to drive its very quick growth and its economy. and to have exports — europe is a major export market of china. the united states is, too. and they want a stable, predictable market to sell their goods and to grow their economy. so i think that it's not in china's interest to see russia destabilise all of europe by making an attack against ukraine. carl bildt? sorry, sergey? please. i was just saying that the argument against this, of course, is that it actually takes pressure off china. when you have instability in europe, china also has its ambitions in east asia. china has maybe its own designs with regards to taiwan. so that's another factor to consider. 0bviously, they may be worried about the economic impact of sanctions. that may inadvertently hit china. but i think there are multiple interests for them as well in this equation. this is an equation with many variables. it won't be... crosstalk. so if russia makes a land grab for wherever and gets away with it, china thinks, "0h, we can do the same in taiwan?" could it be that way? i don't know, that's a very dangerous proposition from the western perspective, if this were to happen. i would not be alarmist in this regard. i think china and — you know, china and russia, they are not coordinating at the moment their attack broadly speaking, against the west. they're all looking after their own interests and they're trying to reconcile them in areas of potential conflicts but they're not acting together at the moment. carl bildt? no, i agree. i mean, beijing might not be enthusiastic about what moscow is up to but they will not oppose it. they will give backing at the security council and whereever for moscow because, at some point in time, they might need the backing of moscow. so i don't think we should count on the chinese, to put it the mildest possible way. all right, thank you. 0lga? i tend to agree with sergey that there is no way in this i tend to agree with sergey that there is no way in this crisis, in this situation, we should look for any back—up from china. there is no way it's possible. but everyone is interested in economic relationships, including china and in the longer run, if there would be very dramatic developments related to the aggressive appetites of russia, i think china would make its decision based on economic interests. —— could revise its decision based on economic interests. very quickly, all of you. christina, is it the start of a new cold war? i'm more worried about the start of a hot war right now. i mean, a cold war would be a best case scenario at this point because i'm worried that russia's going to take aggressive, kinetic action against ukraine. sergei, is it a cold war? if we're, it's bad news for everyone. the cold war was cold maybe for the soviet union and united states, but it was very, very hot for many— other countries that got caught between the two superpowers, like, you know, vietnam or korea. thousands and thousands — millions of people died. so i hope that we're not in the new cold war. are we? it's hard to say. to say whether — i would put it this way. we have great power struggle that goes back — in many ways, it goes back centuries. we have a replay of this, and that's how the russians see it — they see it as a replay of great power struggle. i don't think we have the ideological struggle between capitalism and communism. you go to moscow, there is mcdonald's. you know, they're not trying to build communism for the world. so from this perspective, it's not the cold war. carl bildt? no, i think the cold war�*s the cold war. as sergey said, there was an ideological component that we don't see here. from the russians. i agree with that as well. it's more of the 19th century concept of battles between different powers. i mean, the russians are fairly sort of old—fashioned in that particular respect. but i concede, the danger now is not a cold war, the danger is a hot war. that's really where we are. that's the danger of the day. all right, deputy prime minister? i would say that if we're talking about a european security order and the founding documents of nato and the eu, these are the institutions that were built on the demand of the post—second world war reality to make sure that europe is united and prosperous. now, the aspirations of putin are not let's say dictated by any necessity to do so. europe is united, europe is prosperous, and there is a transatlantic unity over democratic transformation. so what we see is the willingness of putin, and unfortunately, he has no other instruments but to threaten with a real hot war, and this is what is disturbing. thank you all very much indeed. thank you to my panel. thank you to my audience here, and those of you who have posed questions. so wwe�*ve been discussing ts this possibly the start of a new cold war and you've heard the panel here say. they're actually more worried about a hot war. that's all from this edition of global questions from the arsenal in kyiv. until the next time, from me, zeinab badawi, and the rest of the global questions team, goodbye. applause. hello there. we've got a much colder day of weather coming up today. it was yesterday that we had a cold front bring a bit of patchy rain southwards. as that cleared, we had a fine end to the day in hampshire — a lovely sunset here. for northern scotland, though, it was quite a turbulent day. gusty winds, and those winds have been bringing in some snow showers to shetland, we've seen some in 0rkney and, more recently, across the north of the mainland as well. that will leave a risk of some icy patches here as we get into the first part of thursday morning with the frost otherwise pretty widespread. for many of us, though, the skies will be clear. now, any showers in northern scotland very quickly will lose their wintriness and turn back to rain. some very slightly less cold air works in here. and for most of the uk, although a cold and frosty start, there will be sunshine pretty much from dawn till dusk. it's going to be a lovely, if somewhat chilly, winter's day. now, there will be some showers coming down the north sea. they'll be affecting eastern parts of scotland. and with the winds blowing more or less parallel to the eastern coasts of england, most of the showers will stay offshore. the greatest risk of a shower will be across norfolk. you might see one or two coming into the north york moors as well. another cold night to come on thursday night — if anything, even colder across parts of england and wales, plumbing the depths. temperatures could get down to about —5, —6 degrees in the coldest spots but it will be turning milder in the north—west — that's because we've got some thicker cloud here. that'll probably give us quite a nice sunrise for some but the best of the sunshine through the day will be across eastern wales, central and eastern england, eastern scotland, probably eastern counties of northern ireland, whereas in the west, you're likely to see some of the higher temperatures but you will also see the thickest of the cloud, perhaps with some mist and fog patches developing around the coasts and the hills at times. little overall change, really, into the weekend. high pressure stays firmly with us — the same one that's been with us for ages now — and for the most part, that will keep weather fronts at bay — this one just skirting into northern scotland but it will be a weak affair. so, for saturday, mist and fog and some frost patches around first thing in the morning. again, it's western areas that will keep the thickest cloud. and here's our weak weather front, bringing a little bit of light rain or drizzle — no great amounts. for the western isles and the highlands, temperatures could reach double figures here but otherwise, still quite chilly across the south—east — 5 or 6 celsius here. and, to be honest, looking at the long—range forecast through the rest of the week and most of next week, the weatherjust stays dry, thanks to that same area of high pressure. this is bbc news. i'm kasia madera with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. britain's prime minister, borisjohnson, says he will challenge any fight to his leadership as the row surrounding parties in downing street during lockdown continues. "you have sat there too long for all the good you have done. "in the name of god, go!" president biden sends a warning to russia if they invade ukraine, saying the us will do significant harm to moscow if it does. emergency aid flights finally set off for tonga five days after a volcanic eruption and tsunami cut the pacific nation off from the rest of the world. and making motoring history: we hearfrom guanyu zhou, formula 1's first ever chinese driver.