hello. thank you forjoining me for unspun world, where the bbc�*s experts give us their in—depth thoughts about what's really going on in world affairs. vladimir putin holds his referendums — that's what he calls them — aboutjoining russia in four areas of ukraine. but how great is the danger that this will bring us closer to nuclear war? in the event that those territories are attacked by ukraine, we've been warned that the nuclear doctrine applies. russia's way of fighting its war with ukraine has been pretty chaotic so far. but does that mean that vladimir putin might actually be pushed aside at some point? the youngsters, they are going to start questioning this policy and this worldview pretty soon, especially when we see the failures on the front line and more body bags arriving into the country. and kenya has a new president, a village lad who has made it to the very top. but how worried should we be about all the allegations of corruption against him? he called himself, styled himself as the hustler who rose from nothing. but that puts a lot of pressure mr ruto, because he has to deliver. so, russia's referendums in the four areas of ukraine that it's taken over have resulted in votes to join russia which are estimated at up to 99.2%. i suppose if you have a political culture where the leader and whatever the leader wants have to win overwhelmingly, anything lower than that sort of figure looks like a defeat. in the case of kherson, zaporizhzhia and the rest, of course, the vote takers were often accompanied by armed soldiers when they went from door to door, and they took down the details of anyone who dared to vote no. escalation in the war? the rhetoric has been there since the beginning. right at the point at which the invasion was launched, we were all told, "don't get in our way because if you do, you know what we might do to you". and there have been similar moments up to now where that rhetoric has been used. and i think with each time that it's been used, it has slightly lost its currency. and with each success for ukraine on the battlefield, there has been a moment where people have thought, what are the russians going to do now? how are they going to escalate or respond? and the escalations, whether they are attacks on civilian infrastructure or whatever, have not been that terrifying, frankly. so i think the west has become a bit bolder. when these territories have held the so—called referendums become, in moscow's eyes, part of russia, and in the event that those territories are attacked by ukraine, we have been warned both by mr putin and by his foreign minister sergei lavrov, that the nuclear doctrine applies. so we are reaching another point at which this whole theoretical debate could be tested. but ukraine is making it clear that it will carry on with its campaigns to recapture kherson and the other parts in the east. we are, still, seeing advances in the north—east, that kharkiv push which was so spectacularly successful recently. that hasn't stopped. it has slowed down considerably while the russians try and fortify their lines, but the ukrainians are still making progress there. kherson has been a slow grind since latejuly, but clearly, the ukrainians have not abandoned their intention, which is to get russian forces out of that half of ukraine altogether. so the question is, what is enough for ukraine, and do they feel capable of pushing even further? i think they do. the supply of western equipment, which was a bit piecemeal at the beginning and a bit haphazard, is a pretty steady flow. in fact, it's a flood now and that is giving the ukrainian military planners the ability to think, "what next, because we have the equipment to do it, so where can we look next?" if ukraine took back mariupol, if it gets back kherson, if it manages to make a sizeable number of russian soldiers surrender, putin's back is so firmly against the wall that surely he might then think about using nuclear weapons, even having an all—out nuclear war? he has to ask himself, "if i use these weapons, let's say theatre battlefield nuclear weapons, small nukes, what would that actually achieve?" would it appal the ukrainians so much that they throw up their hands and say, "ok, the war is over"? probably not. and of course the other thing is, politically, it would be catastrophic. imagine the reaction in beijing and in new delhi to the use of nuclear weapons. the question is now what mr putin would be willing to settle for. would he recognise that things have gone so badly that he simply has to settle for the minimum objectives which were always set out at the beginning, which was to secure the donbas? the west will have to ask itself, are we still with ukraine? do we support the entire return of sovereign ukrainian territory? all the rhetoric this year would suggest that yes, we do. do you think that the nato countries, which have so far been pretty unified, will keep that unity? or when things get a bit rougher, will they start to do deals? will italy, for instance, want to do a deal with russia to get gas and fuel? this was a prospect that the russians started talking about quite early. some people reckon this was a bit of a tactical mistake by moscow because the europeans have had a long time to think about it and to plan for it. it may well be that the gas weapon that putin thought was an absolutely killer blow will be less effective than he imagines. it all slightly depends on the weather. the mobilisation that started in russia has broken the unwritten, unspoken agreement under which vladimir putin has run russia for getting on for a quarter of a century — "you let me run the country as i choose and i will let you get on with your lives without too much interference." now suddenly, mr putin is demanding that hundreds of thousands of ordinary people should put their lives on the line to fight his war in ukraine. what effect will all this have? i asked famil ismailov of the bbc russian service. russia as a country is very farfrom democracy. it's ruled by a single person at the moment. it's absolute autocracy. up to now, the war was something happening far away, thousands of miles away from most of the russians. now it is knocking on their own doors. people are seeing their friends, their close ones, their fathers, brothers and husbands, to be taken to war. and that, in many cases, provokes protests. we've seen protests in the north caucasus, in dagestan, quite active ones. but in most of the country, people vote with their feet, they run away. most of the young population, young men have tried to leave the country as soon as they can. there must be people in the upper ranks of the leadership who understand that this is a bit of a disaster and feel that putin must go? the system that mr putin has created is such that these people either cannot openly tell him that the whole thing is wrong, or they fear for their own safety. most of the decisions he takes on his own are sometimes consulted only with a very closed number of people. and this very close circle is impenetrable. we don't know what they are thinking. but obviously, what's happening on the front line and the losses and the level of failure probably is known to him. he knows what's happening. but this should be kept hidden from the public. if putin says, "we must use nuclear weapons", would you think there might be somebody in the upper structures who will say, "i'm sorry, mr president, we're just not going to do that"? is there a possible force that will start thinking about putin and his ideas as a liability? it's really hard to say. i think over the years of propaganda and promotion of a particular worldview of exceptionalism, russia has a third way different from the rest of the world. those sort of views have been promoted heavily and the propaganda machine has been quite successful, especially with people of middle age, older people. but the youngsters, they are going to start questioning this policy and this worldview pretty soon, especially when we see the failures on the front line and the more body bags arriving into the country. if the ukrainian forces still continue to attack the russians in kherson and in the east and so on, what does putin do? does he say, "you're now attacking russian territory and we have the right to defend ourselves by any means including nuclear weapons"? does he do that? maybe massive strikes on civilian infrastructure, yes. russians still have superiority in firepower, although the firepower is not precision firepower in many cases. but i doubt that the use of nuclear weapons will be on the cards as part of the plan for russians, because that would mean not just an escalation of this particular war, that would mean an escalation against the bigger and much stronger nuclear opponent, as nato is. italy's voters, flailing around in the hope of getting a stable and effective government, have plumped for giorgia meloni of the far—right fratelli d'italia party. she is the first italian prime minister from the far right since benito mussolini, although she vehemently rejects any link to him. italy was a founding member of the project that has become the european union. what will giorgia meloni's arrival in power do to the eu? i asked the bbc�*s europe correspondent nick beake in brussels for his thoughts. first and foremost, the fact that she is an unknown quantity and she had arrived on the scene hot off the heels of mario draghi, the man who was doing the job before her, he was a former european central bank president. and so people in brussels and the european capitals knew him and saw him as a steady pair of hands. giorgia meloni's someone whose spent most of her political career railing against the european union. she said that the gravy train in brussels must end. and, of course, there are members, i'm thinking obviously particularly of hungary, who will be delighted to see her. so, in the past, for italy, germany and france would have been the big beasts that they naturally club together with. will it be the case that giorgia meloni is looking towards hungary and poland? and, of course, that would be a big headache for the people here in brussels, because those two countries over the last few years have caused them quite a lot of headaches, whether it is the rule of law and how independentjudiciaries are, all those sorts of things. and it does sort of feed into the narrative, doesn't it, that the eu isn't what it was? well, here in brussels they say they're as strong as ever. they would say that, wouldn't they? but they point to the covid pandemic and how the various countries came together within this 27 country club, how they managed to get a vaccine and distribute them. and, crucially, in the ukraine war, how the countries have been pretty much unanimous in passing the sanctions against vladimir putin. but, at the same time, we've seen some far right parties in europe gain momentum. just a few weeks ago, in sweden, the far right there did extremely well in their election. and now in italy. and on the idea of foreign policy, i think that's one thing people will be looking at to see what giorgia meloni says and does. she says she is avowedly pro—nato, she's pro—ukraine and she's been supportive of sanctions against vladimir putin. but if you look at the people she'll be in coalition government with, two big figures there have either been big fans of putin in the past, or have questioned the wisdom of continuing sanctions against moscow. now, from your vantage point in brussels, what do you feel that far—right actually means nowadays? some people will say that in the last few years the far right has shifted to the middle ground. not because they've changed policies, but because they've become more normalised. and that's whether people just find they have less cash in their pockets as a result of the slump in their economies after the covid pandemic, or more the fact that some of these parties are chiming more with what they believe. i think in italy, they had a record low turnout. it wasn't so much that millions of people were very pro—meloni, they were just fed up with the other lot. i've noticed in the french and german press, slightly kind of perhaps nervous articles saying, well, you know, meloni is really a pragmatist, it'll all work out. in the short term, what she has to do, she needs to keep brussels on side, if italy is to get this 200 billion euros of recovery fund. so, cash that's been allocated from brussels. and, along with that, comes lots of things that italy has to do. it has to keep its debt in check. it needs to make sure its spending is not out of control. it also needs to carry out some reforms. picking a fight with the eu in her early months is not something that is going to benefit her or benefit the european union as a whole. the rise of kenya's newly elected president, william ruto, seems like a heart—warming one. from the poorest rural background, he ended up at university, where he got a doctorate, and then went into politics. the problem is, that since his early days as a politician, he's been accused of corrupt land dealings. what should we make of president ruto? anne soy, the bbc�*s senior africa correspondent, and herself a kenyan, speaking from nairobi. there is reason to be optimistic and to have an optimistic outlook. because when you look at his campaign, he really went out of his way to do ground work across the country. he had more than 200 meetings with people in rural areas, in small, urban centres, taking their ideas, before he drafted his manifesto. and when it was drafted and published, the criticism from his rivals was that it was too detailed. and, you know, his campaign targeted people who have felt forgotten. he called himself and styled himself as the hustler, who rose from nothing, who went to school barefoot and has risen now to the highest office in the land. but that puts a lot of pressure on mr ruto. because he has to deliver. he is inheriting a country that is in dire straits, to use his words. the debt levels are so high, the government is spending about 65% of its income from taxes on repaying loans. he is really an interesting character. but there are these darker sides to him, aren't there? i mean, there are many questions about issues of corruption. how can we square these two sides? well, he certainly has a chequered history. he has been accused of being involved in corruption allegations. the president denies all the allegations. the challenge, and especially for us as journalists is, in kenya, we have so many corruption allegations against prominent individuals, against politicians, but they hardly ever go to court. and when they go to court, they hardly ever result in convictions. so, we are at a place where it is very difficult to do clean business. so, when you talk to these people, do they worry that some of the politicians they are electing are tainted? absolutely not. sadly, it has become the modus operandi here in kenya. does he fit neatly into some sort of box? or is it still too early to tell what sort of president he'll be? i think people are giving him the benefit of doubt for now. his foreign policy, however, is not very clear. is he going to face west, like its predecessor? is he going to face east, and work more with china? it is not clear. it is interesting, because in a recent interview with the bbc, he was asked a very direct question about whether he was going to work with russia. you know, because they have offered cheaper fuel to lower income countries. his response to that was that, you know, kenya's options are open. i notice, though, that at the united nations, which is his first sort of real exposure to the outside world, he kind of supported some of president biden�*s ideas. now, that must have been deliberate. it wasn'tjust done in passing by mistake, was it? by going as far as saying that we're going to grow the economy from the bottom up and, you know, using words which president biden uses, he definitely was trying to play to those similarities between their approach to the economy. it is a very challenging period. more than 4 million kenyans are facing hunger in the north of the country. climate change is a big, big issue at the moment. and for the first time, we have a leader who is talking about that. but it's one thing to talk. so we're waiting to see what exactly he will do. four years ago, a wonderful thing happened in ethiopia — a country which has suffered so much over the decades. its president, abiy ahmed, was awarded the nobel peace prize in 2019 for his work in ending the stalemate between ethiopia and eritrea. but, only a year after winning the prize, he launched what became a civil war in the north of the country. the situation�*s gone from bad to worse and there's been no aid coming into ethiopia for over a month now. what's gone so badly wrong there? kalkidan yibeltal of the bbc�*s african service in addis ababa. it's a dramatic turn of events, from hope and optimism back in 2018 and 2019. and now we are in this protracted civil war and reports and allegations of abuses and atrocities. back in 2020, war broke out in the north. there was a promise of a swift military operation, a law enforcement operation, as the government put it back then. but it has been nothing but swift, because two years later we are still talking about that. it resulted in a massive humanitarian crisis in which more than five million people are in need of desperate aid. are we looking at a regional civil war, do you think? for starters, ethiopia has been a sort of stabilising force in east africa and in the horn of africa for a decade or so. so any conflict here is bound to impact the region. but it's not only that eritrea is heavily involved in this fighting. eritrean forces were inside the tigray region, they were implicated in various allegations of crimes and abuses, including extrajudicial killings and weaponised rape. but also now, when when fighting resurfaces back in august, there is also concerns being raised by the international community that they are still being involved. the ethiopian army is reported to have crossed borders to eritrea and joined forces there to launch attacks from the north. and there are also reports of attempts by the tigrayans to recruit soldiers from sudan as well. so it seems that this is just growing to be a regional affair. we're hearing that there's been no food aid since august. that must be starting to get pretty worrying, isn't it? it is, indeed. the humanitarian crisis that has unleashed following this war is really massive. some humanitarian agencies have described it as one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world right now. back in march, earlier this year, there was this humanitarian truce agreed between the government and the tigrayans forces. and we saw an increase in the amount of aid getting getting through to tigray. of course, it wasn't sufficient, but it has increased dramatically. there was food and cash and fuel getting through to tigray. but that has stopped now since august, which means that millions of people are not getting any aid. they're not getting any medicine for diseases. they are not getting any support. it all seems very depressing, kalkidan. i mean, can you see any long term or medium term way out of this? there have been efforts to bring peace in this war. one thing that we must remember in this war is it's been unpredictable. there have been so many turns and twists. but it seems at least now the war is going on. reports of air strikes have continued. and, on the ground, it seems the fighting is intense and on multiple fronts. kalkidan yibeltal, speaking from ethiopia. economic woes everywhere, but especially britain. savage climate events happening right round the globe, almost daily, from canada to the philippines. and a chaotic and vicious war being fought out in front of our eyes in ukraine. it's not exactly a happy time. still, as we heard just now from famil ismailov from the bbc russian service, there are reasons to hope that president putin will decide against using tactical nuclear weapons in ukraine and that he's highly unlikely to use them against nato. absolutely no guarantees, of course. but perhaps we shouldn't totally despair quite yet. thank you for watching this edition of unspun world. until we meet again, goodbye. hello. sunday, for many, will be a mainly dry day, but not for all. we have a frontal system moving its way eastwards across southern england and wales, and that will continue to bring some rain through sunday morning. the heaviest of that rain will be across south—west england where we could see some rumbles of thunder through the morning, that rain also extending into south—east england then possibly into the south midlands but somewhat lighter and patchier here. and we are likely to see some outbreaks of rain for the london marathon, particularly through the morning, it shouldn't amount to very much and through the afternoon that rain will tend to ease with perhaps some late spells of sunshine. so, you can see that band of rain moving its way southwards. for much of the uk on sunday, fine and dry, good spells of sunshine, still some showers for western scotland, the northern isles, may be later in the afternoon for northern ireland. and where we've got the sunshine, temperatures getting into the mid to high teens, but still quite windy for the western isles, and also along the channel coasts. some more rain in the forecast in the week ahead, particularly for scotland, northern ireland, wales, and northern england, drier elsewhere. this is bbc news i'm lucy grey. our top stories. cheering. the ukrainian flag flies once again in a key town in the donetsk region, just a day after moscow claimed the territory would be russian forever. asa as a cleaner begins, the true extent of destruction in florida becomes apparent. people in tunisia take to the streets to protest against the high cost of living and food shortages. the final push for votes as brazil prepares for what could be its most election the