of that competition. this time last year, we were seeing clear signs that ukraine's much—heralded summer offensive wasn't doing very well. russia had had plenty of time to prepare its defences and ukraine simply couldn't break through them. the next phase, inevitably, would be a russian spring offensive, after the snow and mud of the winter gave way to firmer ground under the tracks and wheels of the tanks and armoured personnel carriers. ukraine's supporters around the world were nervous. might this be the moment when russia came crashing back, recapturing the ground it had lost and even maybe threatening kyiv, the ukrainian capital? the delays in getting the big us support package through seemed to make things much worse. and yet it hasn't happened. russia has made some gains, admittedly, but there's been no actual breakthrough. the bbc ukraine correspondent, james waterhouse, is back in london briefly, and i asked him for his view of what was happening. after ukraine weathered that initialstorm, managed to liberate some territory — notably kherson at the end of 2022 — but the ensuing counteroffensive did not go remotely according to plan for kyiv. and now what we are seeing, alongside american disagreement over how best to support ukraine, we've seen russia really flex its muscles, and what we're starting to hear now from ukrainian generals is that they think invading forces are trying to keep them guessing by stretching them ahead of what they hope will be the arrival of f—16 fighter jets. although we've had several promises, we haven't seen one used operationally yet. and what about crimea in all this? i mean, that's been quite a ukrainian success in many ways, hasn't it? if we talk about the black sea, we have seen ukrainian cargo vessels loaded with grain, for example, freely make their way out of ukrainian ports like odessa, down through an informal route along the black sea towards the bosphorus strait. they have, crucially, forced the black sea fleet, russia's stronghold, really, symbol of strength in that area, they forced them back with targeted missile strikes. so that's one major success. and the second one is, of course, that they have used western—supplied missiles, like storm shadows from the uk, on military and naval targets in crimea to either take out command centres as well as dry docks, for example. what they're not doing, i don't think, yet, are engineering for any kind of counteroffensive on crimea. and whilst it is the cornerstone of russia's occupation — it is somewhere vladimir putin has tried to display, or portrays, as being spiritually russia — it's actually the most vulnerable in the sense of russia trying to keep hold of it, which is why i think ukraine will use crimea to leverage a concession elsewhere. we are looking at a kind of pre—negotiation stage, aren't we? we have just seen a peace summit in switzerland, and we are seeing president zelensky, somewhat reluctantly, i think, who said, "look, we don't have time." you know, "we we're fighting for our survival and we need "to engage in this diplomatic process." you look at the comments of the saudi foreign minister, who said ukraine needs to consider difficult compromises. and given that russia is holding on and pushing, as we've discussed, the idea of a compromise only becomes all the more likely. ukraine's faint hope of changing that, i think, would lie in a potential counteroffensive next year, if it makes it that far. so we're talking about may... april, may next year? if you look at what the analysts are saying, if you look at what, you know, ukrainian generals are hoping for, and if you look at the precedent we can now look back on in this full—scale invasion. ukraine needs to address its shortage of manpower. it is looking to train troops sufficiently enough for them to fight on the front line. this unlocking of £60 billion of american aid is only gradually arriving. it wasn't a silver bullet. they're onlyjust getting some artillery shells. they're not getting abrams tanks and they're not getting the f—16 fighter jets we talk about. so all of these things take time, and you really need to have your ducks in a row if you are hoping to launch a counteroffensive to the extent that could cause ukraine to win this war. and when you speak to troops, this summer, notably, for the first time, they are saying things like, "we don't really know what our goal is "other than to stay alive." the idea of pushing the russians to the border, certainly in the east, where they have such a strong foothold, feels far—fetched to them. and that's saying something. despite all the defiance and everything else, you know, what always strikes me, john, is how different this war feels. you had that shock and trauma at the start, you had those who volunteered, and now we're seeing men reluctantly mobilised, men who are fearful of being called up, men who don't see themselves as killers, trying to fight on the front line. these are democratic grapples that vladimir putin doesn't have to worry about. we've heard a lot in recent months about the world being in a pre—war state, though it usually comes from politicians and senior military people who believe that we need to spend a whole lot more money on defence. some of this is genuine fear of russia, but some of it is getting into position in case donald trump wins the us presidency in november and insists that every nato country should pay around 3% of its gdp on defence. with nato approaching its 75th anniversary, how serious is the threat that vladimir putin is posing to europe? i asked the bbc defence correspondent, jonny beale, for his view. i think people would argue that he is already making life for a lot of nato countries unpleasant. so cases of sabotage... you've seen a number of countries kicking out russian spies recently, cyber attacks, you know, interference in elections. he seems to do that every time western countries ramp up their support, whether it's long—range weapons, f—16jets, extra money for ukraine. you know, there is the rhetoric, often using nuclear weapons as the sabre rattle. presumably he's got china behind him saying, actually, you can threaten, but you mustn't actually use nuclear weapons. remember, china is accused by the west of helping russia with its weapons. no hard evidence that it has actually supplied weapons, but certainly the electronics of some of those systems that they're using, the drones that they're using, the technology that they're using. but china, it's believed, has also been explicit to president putin that they do not want and they would not support russia using even tactical nuclear weapons, which are the ones that are used on essentially the battlefield. let's just think about the realities of a tactical nuclear attack. what would nato do if that happens? they'd have to do something, but i don't think that something would include themselves using nuclear weapons, because you don't know where that would end. it'd be a dangerfor president putin using nuclear weapons, because even if you use a small—yield nuclear weapon, radioactive wind could blow back in his direction. it could blow anywhere across mainland europe. one of the problems that ukraine has had is that although it's been receiving quite a lot of money and quite a lot of weaponry, it's got no kind of guarantee... long—term guarantee. ukrainian official... the senior official told me that the pledge of $60 billion from the us that eventually got through congress, that would give ukraine enough to fight the war in defensive operations at least until the end of the year. but it wouldn't be enough to do offensive operations to try to get back more of its territory. what they need is five years, ten years. and that's whyjens stoltenberg is trying to get nato countries to agree to a long—term financing of ukraine. and it's proving hard. and of course, there's the whole question of the americans trying to trump—proof the money and weapons that they're giving to ukraine. if donald trump wants to play awkward — and we've seen that with viktor orban in hungary, just blocking the eu's aid to ukraine, saying he won't take part in nato�*s financial support to ukraine... if you have trump doing the same, then it would make life very, very difficult for ukraine. and that is why ukraine would like a long—term commitment that could sort of trump—proof what happens next. you're starting to hear people raising questions about whether a country like hungary, its attitude towards russia and ukraine, mean it ought to be shoved out. there's no doubt that hungary is a spanner in the works for nato at the moment. jens stoltenberg had to go to see viktor orban before he went to the nato summit to say, "please don't block "this additional aid to ukraine. "you don't have to give any money butjust don't block it." he got that assurance from viktor orban. but they are not on the same page as a lot of nato allies. you've got a lot of western diplomats and western ministers talking up the kind of pre—war atmosphere. how nervous should we be? it kind of depends who you speak to in the military. so if you look at the uk military, you've got a chief of defence staff, admiral tony radakin, who is playing down the threat. he says russia's losing, you know, we're not going to have world war iii. and then you've got the head of the army, or the one who's just left, general patrick sanders, who is saying, "we need to prepare for war. "we need to prepare citizens to fight, if necessary." there aren't many people saying, "get ready for "world war iii," but there are people saying that we're in a dangerous time at the moment. there is, i think, a concern and a realisation that at the moment most western countries are not doing enough on defence. three, two, one... ..back to the moon and beyond. ok, let's break away from all the messy politics now and look at something completely separate from our earthbound existence — the moon. except that, depressingly, we seem to be exporting our politics and national rivalries into space. there's a moon rush going on, with all sorts of countries heading there. but who actually owns the moon, anyway? i talked to rebecca morelle, the bbc science editor. no—one owns the moon and everyone owns the moon. and this really goes back to the 1960s, with the united nations�* fantastically named treaty for outer space, which basically states that, even if you go to the moon and plant yourflag on the moon, it doesn't belong to you. and anyone who does any research there has to do the research for the benefit of all humankind. and that's notjust the moon, that's outer space in general. and this really came out of the space race, this treaty. this was when the united states and soviet union were both vying to get to the lunar surface. but now it's notjust two superpowers, is it? i would say we are definitely in the midst of a moon rush at the moment. china, who've planted their flag on the far side of the moon. it's their fourth mission to the lunar surface. japan has landed there in the last 12 months, so has india. it's the first time they've got there. it's notjust countries, it's companies too. a company called intuitive machines became the first private firm to actually get to the lunar surface. you've got humans going back, with nasa's artemis missions. china wants to get people there by 2030 as well. they're taikonauts. and it's notjust fleeting visits, it's about building permanent bases so you can eventually have these sort of lunar communities of people working and existing there. you look at pictures of the moon and it looks as bare as anything, but actually there's a lot there. there's rare earths there, there's metals there, like iron and titanium. there's helium there. people have valued what's up there as being anywhere between sort of billions of dollars and quadrillions of dollars. if you go down to the polar regions, within the craters which never, ever see sunlight, they're permanently in shadow, scientists actually think there's frozen water within there. so if you're going to build a permanent lunar base, having access to water is really important — for drinking, you can split water into hydrogen and oxygen, so oxygen for breathing. it means you've got to take less stuff to the moon. and, also, its quite handy for using for future rocket fuel as well, which means you might be able to travel even further, to mars and beyond. there are lots of questions at the moment about whether the laws we have right now are sort of fit for this era of lunar exploration we're about to see. of course, we do have, on earth, a kind of equivalent, don't we, with antarctica. that is the model that plenty of people are seeing for the moon, this idea that you can have your research bases, there are the international waters, they belong to nobody, but everyone has to use them. the general consensus between the people i've spoken to now, today, is that it's more likely to be sort of individual memorandums of understanding or agreements between different countries which sort of lets the rules play out as these things happen. like the russians and americans were doing in the �*60s, they're doing it to show how wonderful their own systems are. these are not scientific reasons for going, these are purely political reasons. that does sort of mark you out as a sort of superior nation who can do these clever things, but it does bring in a lot of money. it creates jobs for the sector. you know, there are studies all over the world which show if you've got a decent space economy... i mean, the uk has got a good space economy — satellite building, for example. there was an attempt, i think in february... have i got that right? yes. ..to send up human ashes and things to the moon, and that that was a complete disaster, wasn't it? there was a question about what they had on board. so there was some human dna on there. there was a sports drink with some advertising on it. no! what was the... ? i can't say. all drinks are treated equally. he laughs but this united nations treaty still stands. so how does that fit into the kind of doing research for the good of all humankind, bringing up some advertising to the moon? for some people, the moon is really sort of culturally important. companies are all so wrapped up with space agencies now. so spacex, elon musk�*s company, when nasa's artemis astronauts land on the moon, well, he's providing the lander that's going to get them down to the surface of the moon. everyone�*s got their eyes on the lunar surface. i mean, it is the hot place to go to. i confess it — i love football. the sight of footballers running out onto the pitch to play a game at any level whatever is a thrilling one for me. and if, as at the moment, the euros are on, it's a delight to watch them. football isn'tjust about 90 minutes of play, of course. it's about international finance and international politics as well. perhaps it shouldn't be, but it is. so i asked the redoubtable dan roan, the bbc sports editor, who's briefly back at his base in salford, outside manchester, in between trips to germany for the euros, for an overview of the state of the game. and i started by asking about football hooliganism. there was a view, i think, up until recently, that the time of widespread hooliganism associated with football and disturbances was getting better. since covid, there has appeared to have been something of a re—emergence of football—related disorder, certainly in the club game across the continent of europe. this is by far the most accessible tournament for a long time for western european fans, because the last euros, of course, were not only spread over multiple countries, they were covid—affected as well, so crowd restrictions were in force. you had the world cup in russia in 2018, in qatar in 2022. there were a handful of arrests in gelsenkirchen, where i was on sunday ahead of the match between england and serbia. i think, after the first few days, though, of this tournament, the authorities will be relatively pleased. the whole question of huge investment by billionaires buying up, cherry—picking the best players right across the world, that can't really, ultimately, be very good for a game, can it? there'll be fans of the clubs that benefit from that investment, of course, which welcome it. it means better players, better managers, and for them, hopefully more trophies, titles. i think they'll also defend these owners when it comes to, for example, the investment in the club, whether that's in the form of modernised or new stadia, a new academy and even perhaps investment into the local area, which generatesjobs and regeneration, perhaps. but there'll be other fans, politicians and campaigners who are concerned that sometimes the motivation for such owners — they're using and exploiting the game to further their interests. and it produces weird results. i mean, i speak as a chelsea supporter, where enormous quantities of money have been put in to rather limited effect. if you get to a stage — and we've seen this in certain leagues in europe — one team dominates too much, then perhaps that will begin to affect the popularity and the appeal of that competition. and in fact, there are some who are concerned that that's now happening in the premier league, a league which bills itself as the most exciting in the world. and yet it's had a team now that has won four titles in a row, in manchester city. having said that, as you've experienced yourself, john, as a chelsea fan, having huge amounts of money and investing hundreds of millions of pounds doesn't necessarily guarantee success. i'd like you to explain to me, if you can, what manchester city is doing in suing the premier league. so manchester city, john, are effectively taking legal action, as you say, against the premier league over the rules that govern what are known as associated party transactions. now, they're commercial deals, sponsorship deals, perhaps, that clubs can sign with companies that are linked to the club's ownership. and what manchester city have effectively said is that these regulations are anti—competitive and therefore they're illegal, that they discriminate against middle eastern—owned clubs. they're seeking damages, it turns out, from the premier league. and in fact, they've actually said that the entire system on which decisions are made — because the league has a process in place where, for there to be a rule change, 14 clubs have to be behind that proposal — city have reportedly suggested "a tyranny of the majority," as they put it. now, an arbitration has begun and is in process. now, other clubs, and indeed the league, would argue that these rules are necessary to prevent clubs from artificially inflating sponsorship deals. what's fascinating, john, is that, at the same time, there is a much longer—running saga surrounding a catalogue of charges that city were hit with by the premier league over a year ago — more than 100, in fact, of alleged financial rule breaches. now, manchester city deny any wrongdoing. the speculation is centring on whether or not the outcome of this current arbitration could have a knock—on effect on this long—standing dispute between the dominant force in the english game, manchester city, and the premier league. i also support blackpool, which is not a very successful team. i'd rather go to see a blackpool match, i think, than a chelsea match. there much more kind of a local feeling there. what you've just articulated, john, is felt by a great number of other people who feel that there is simply now too big a discrepancy between the haves and the have—nots. they say that this gulf between the top division and the rest is encouraging irresponsible spending by clubs who are desperate to get into the premier league. and in fact, there has been a lot of pressure from government and politicians generally for the premier league to give more away and to agree a deal. dan roan, the bbc�*s sports editor. i was in paris for a couple of days last week, and i was interested to see how worried friends of mine were about the outcome of the snap election, which president macron has called for the 30th ofjune, with a second and final round on the 7th ofjuly. they're now certain that the right—wing national rally of marine le pen will win, and that france will be thrown into chaos. opinion polls certainly bear that out at the moment. the national rally is on 33%, an alliance of left—wing parties is on 28%, and mr macron�*s renaissance is on 18% at best. this is a huge achievement by marine le pen, who took over the old national front of her fatherjean—marie, and turned it into something which looks pretty mainstream. and, indeed, a leading opinion poll found the other day that that's how a sizeable proportion of france now sees it. so the strong possibility exists that, come the 7th ofjuly, the national rally will form a government which will have to, as the french inevitably put it, cohabit with a president who stands for middle—of—the—road policies. and if the right doesn't win, the left alliance presumably could. the markets are freaked out by all this, which is why the london stock market has just become europe's biggest once again. it lost that distinction to paris 18 months ago after all the political and economic shenanigans in britain which have resulted from brexit. but more than $200 billion worth were knocked off the value of paris's listed companies last week after president macron called the election. my friends in paris aren't the only ones who are scared that things might get worse there. well, that's it from this edition of unspun world. thanks for watching. and from me and the unspun team, until we meet again, goodbye. hello. the next few days look set to bring the warmest weather of the summer so far. 2a celsius was our top temperature on saturday, but over the next few days, as this warm and rather humid air surges northwards, we can expect higher temperatures than that, perhaps into the high 20s celsius. some good spells of sunshine, but not necessarily clear blue skies all the time. there will be some areas of cloud. indeed, on sunday mornings, some areas of cloud, mist and murk for parts of western england and wales, particularly over some of the hills and around some of the coasts. we'll keep some patches of cloud through the day on sunday. sea breezes developing around some of the coasts. northern ireland having a nice—looking day, spells of sunshine. similar story for scotland, although a little bit breezy in the western isles — i6 celsius for stornoway, but more generally 19 to 25 celsius, a very warm—feeling day. and quite a warm night, actually, sunday night into monday. still some areas of cloud, a bit of mist and murk here and there, but those temperatures in the centre of london, no lower than 15 degrees, maybe getting down to ten in aberdeen and glasgow and in newcastle. but with this area of high pressure in charge for monday, it's going to be mainly dry and actually even warmer. this frontal system out to the west — we'll have to keep an eye on that — will start to bring a little bit more cloud, i think, into parts of northern ireland and western scotland with just a small chance for a shower. but elsewhere, some spells of sunshine, a bit of patchy cloud at times. but look at the temperatures — 2a for parts of northern ireland, 26 in northern scotland, across england and wales, widely into the mid—20s, 27 or 28 across the southeast corner. now through monday night into tuesday, that weather front in the west will start to make inroads — more cloud, perhaps some outbreaks of rain across northern ireland, parts of scotland, maybe into the north of england as well. so here a little bit cooler for tuesday, but further south and east, if anything, those temperatures climbing further, 28, perhaps 29 celsius. now, the big uncertainty in our weather story is about how quickly things will change, because it looks like our area of high pressure will loosen its grip, fronts pushing in from the west, low pressure drifting up from the south. one or both of those features will bring something more unsettled and a little bit cooler by the end of the week, but there is huge uncertainty about how quickly that change will take place and before it does some very warm weather on the way. live from washington, this is bbc news. the israeli military has admitted its forces violated protocol in strapping a wounded palestinian to the front of their jeep during a raid. ukraine's president has appealed for more help to counter russian glide bombs, after another attack on the city of kharkiv. and we take a closer look at the gang violence in haiti that's forced over half a million people to flee their homes. i'm helena humphrey. glad you could join me. the israeli army has confirmed its forces strapped a palestinian wounded man onto the hood of a military jeep during what they're calling a "counterterrorism operation" in west bank's jenin on saturday. viewers may find the video we're about to show distressing. in this footage from the reuters news agency, the wounded man can be seen lying on the hood of a jeep as it drives past two ambulances. we've decided to blur the image. the israeli army confirmed the incident, saying it "violated orders", adding that the "conduct of the forces in the video of the incident does not conform to the values" of the idf and the incident would be "investigated and dealt with accordingly". the military said the injured man was transferred to medics for treatment.