their cause. he then headed to meet with presidentjoe biden, who announced an additional $200 million in weapons and equipment for ukraine, but the wartime president is still hoping for more. today's discussion across both parties in both chambers were very productive. i thank you for the bipartisan support. as we approach christmas on behalf of all our ukraine families separated by war and our sons and daughters on the front, ukraine's greatest wish is to reach a victorious and. it's mr zelenskyy�*s third visit since the war began and second in just the last few months. the funding he wants could mean the difference on the battlefield as the war ticks closer to its second year. congress has approved more than $111 billion in total since the war began. but the biden administration says that money is running out. mr biden told mr zelenskyy that it would be a christmas gift to russia's vladimir putin if congress fails to pass fresh aid. putin is begging on the united states to deliver for ukraine. we must prove him wrong. i will not walk away from ukraine. neither will the american people. president biden also said russia state media is celebrating republicans delaying aid to ukraine. republicans are looking to trade tougher policies on the us—mexico border in exchange for aid to ukraine. they want to see more done to address the surge of undocumented immigrants. democrats are unlikely to support their proposals and that has led to a stalemate in congress. mr zelenskyy met with republican speaker of the house mikejohnson to try to move the needle. mr zelenskyy called the meetings productive but mrjohnson said republican conditions for releasing more funds remain unchanged. our correspondent nomia iqbal is at the white house with more on mr zelenskyy�*s day. president biden says this is the easy bit. appointment in exactly the same page when it comes to passing aid for ukraine for the weapons that if it doesn't happen, it will be gifting the russian president vladimir putin. the difficulty for present since he was earlier today. we were at the capital where he met with all senators including republicans. also met with speaker of the house michaeljohnson. spoke to a few of the republicans afterwards and they said they admired present zelensky especially the fact that he had come here to make that case. they said this was no ordinary political showdown that we often see in washington. they were genuine, they want security changes when it comes to us border security and that is something they are not going to budge on. president biden said this package has to be passed before christmas. the senate minority leader republican mitch mcconnell setting where they can happen if democrats agreed to what the republicans want. the chances of that happening are slim. therefore the chances of this package being passed before the end of this year is very unlikely. the bbc�*s partner cbs news is reporting that the white house is open to supporting a new border policy to convince republicans to back aid to ukraine. the proposed border authority would expel migrants without asylum screenings and expand immigration detention and deportations. republicans have threatened to head home for the holidays without a deal if the biden administration doesn't come to the table this week. if the president himself gets a fault we can have it done by tomorrow morning. if he doesn't and allows this to continue, we are going to probably vote on a bill that went past and will go home for christmas and hopefully he will have time to think a little harder about his action or inaction and we can take it up the first thing we get back next year. democratic senator chris coons responded to senator cramer�*s comments. the president himself should sit down with the majority leader and minority leader wendy senna has done its work and it is clear there is a deal ready to be finished. as long as there is so much doubt and both caucuses about whether the other is really serious about getting this deal done, it is not yet time for the president to physically personally be in the room. joining me to discuss is samuel charap, senior political scientist at the rand corporation and kay bailey hutchison, former us ambassador to nato. good to have you on the programme. from what you saw from the ukrainian president in washington, do you think he was able to move the needle on possibly getting more aid for ukraine? it possibly getting more aid for ukraine? ., , ., , ~ ukraine? it does not seem like the political — ukraine? it does not seem like the political dynamic _ ukraine? it does not seem like the political dynamic has - the political dynamic has fundamentally shifted. we hear similar statements that had been made before today being made again today by leaders on both side of the aisle. doesn't really seem like the ball is moved. �* , ., really seem like the ball is moved. �* . really seem like the ball is moved. . _ moved. are you convinced by what you _ moved. are you convinced by what you heard _ moved. are you convinced by what you heard from - moved. are you convinced by i what you heard from presidents gonski today? i what you heard from presidents gonski today?— gonski today? i am not convinced _ gonski today? i am not convinced of _ gonski today? i am not convinced of anything l gonski today? i am not - convinced of anything except in the end — convinced of anything except in the end there will be an appropriations bill. it will include _ appropriations bill. it will include ukraine. hopefully it will also _ include ukraine. hopefully it will also include israel and hamas_ will also include israel and hamas and also the serious condition— hamas and also the serious condition on the texas border right— condition on the texas border right now _ condition on the texas border right "ow-— right now. that is something the are right now. that is something they are certainly _ right now. that is something| they are certainly discussing. sam, coming back to you for the one of the big issues we are seeing from republicans is what they say is a lack of clarity over what ukraine is looking to do at the moment and what the endgame is. you have written extensively on this. you are an article called an unwinnable war and foreign affairs a few months ago on how the endgame is indeed an issue. the ukrainian say the war ends when all russians leave their territory. is that possible? i think we have seen no indication the ukrainian military is in a position to completely push out russian enforcements out of its territory. russia has been occupying part of something ukraine since 2014, almost a decade now because we have to take into account eating ukraine. doesn't seem like a likely outcome in the foreseeable future. doesn't mean ukraine does not deserve support. it means we have to think about what the endgame and what victory looks like in different terms. find and what victory looks like in different terms.— different terms. and how to talk to the _ different terms. and how to talk to the training - different terms. and how to talk to the training is - different terms. and how to talk to the training is about| talk to the training is about that. dylan's gazette today giving up characteristic and the war is insane. following up on what you just said, what is the scenario most likely on how this war could end? i the scenario most likely on how this war could end?— this war could end? i don't think the _ this war could end? i don't think the ukrainians - this war could end? i don't think the ukrainians would j this war could end? i don't - think the ukrainians would be, should be asked to legally renounce claims to the internationally recognised territorial. that is not the issue. you can agree to a ceasefire without agreeing to see your claims to territory and pursue those claims and demands other than the military. for it the very least paul's pursuit of those domains. the reality is another that has the capabilities to achieve an absolute military victory on the ground. we are talking about a question of when and how many losses are incurred until that point. we are going to end up in a situation with a ceasefire at some point. that does not mean it means to be pursued tomorrow, even once. it is going to take a long time. again, that does not mean ukraine is not deserving of support. to get to an advantageous outcome they are still going to need your support. i still going to need your summ— still going to need your su ort. . ., i. support. i want to get your take on that, _ support. i want to get your take on that, ambassador. support. i want to get your - take on that, ambassador. what you think of what sam has said? sam has given the correct history— sam has given the correct history but all the more shows we must — history but all the more shows we must take the stand now. we did not— we must take the stand now. we did not do— we must take the stand now. we did not do enough after putin took— did not do enough after putin took two _ did not do enough after putin took two provinces of georgia. we walked away. then crimea and now he _ we walked away. then crimea and now he thought he was going to take kyiv— now he thought he was going to take kyiv and has been terrorising those people since february— terrorising those people since february of last year. that means _ february of last year. that means we are being tested and we must — means we are being tested and we must not in any way abandon ukraine — we must not in any way abandon ukraine. we need to help them win, _ ukraine. we need to help them win, not— ukraine. we need to help them win, not have a stalemate and we need — win, not have a stalemate and we need to give them the arms they— we need to give them the arms they need — we need to give them the arms they need to win this victory so that— they need to win this victory so that putin will not think he can recreate the soviet union liy can recreate the soviet union by invading other countries on their— by invading other countries on their border.— their border. ambassador, to follow up _ their border. ambassador, to follow up on _ their border. ambassador, to follow up on the _ their border. ambassador, to follow up on the stalemate. i their border. ambassador, to i follow up on the stalemate. we spoke to an ukraine defence minister about the current counteroffensive having stored and whether further aid can actually make a significant difference on the battlefield. i want you to listen to what he said. no army can win without - armoured personnel carriers, tanks, etc, - or technical aviation. so all of those investments are certainly needed - and certainly working. we, however, would need to do, l we need to make lessons learned analysis of the counter. offensive, clearly define what is missing. fill those gaps and move on. we should not lay down hands that just say 0k,| something's not working. that is not an option. what do ou that is not an option. what do you think _ that is not an option. what do you think of — that is not an option. what do you think of that? _ that is not an option. what do you think of that? i _ that is not an option. what do you think of that? i think - that is not an option. what do you think of that? i think it. you think of that? i think it is not an — you think of that? i think it is not an option. _ you think of that? i think it is not an option. i - you think of that? i think it is not an option. i think - you think of that? i think it. is not an option. i think they have — is not an option. i think they have to _ is not an option. i think they have to win this battle and we have — have to win this battle and we have to — have to win this battle and we have to help them. i think europe _ have to help them. i think europe is— have to help them. i think europe is stepping up. they are also _ europe is stepping up. they are also in — europe is stepping up. they are also in the _ europe is stepping up. they are also in the stage of creating another— also in the stage of creating another 50 billion for ukraine. we will— another 50 billion for ukraine. we will also do 60 billion more _ we will also do 60 billion more i_ we will also do 60 billion more. i have faith we will. i think— more. i have faith we will. i think the _ more. i have faith we will. i think the president should get involved — think the president should get involved right now in the negotiations. i think he understands the importance of staying — understands the importance of staying with ukraine. it has bigger— staying with ukraine. it has bigger consequences. the other despots — bigger consequences. the other despots in the world is looking at this — despots in the world is looking at this xi _ despots in the world is looking at this. xi jinping despots in the world is looking at this. xijinping is despots in the world is looking at this. xi jinping is looking at this. xi jinping is looking at this. _ at this. xi jinping is looking at this, kim jong at this. xi jinping is looking at this, kimjong un at this. xi jinping is looking at this, kim jong un is looking at this, kim jong un is looking at it. — at this, kim jong un is looking at it. iran _ at this, kim jong un is looking at it. iran is— at this, kim jong un is looking at it, iran is looking at it. we — at it, iran is looking at it. we have _ at it, iran is looking at it. we have to stand with ukraine and make _ we have to stand with ukraine and make sure we have the unity behind _ and make sure we have the unity behind ukraine so all of the people _ behind ukraine so all of the people who think it is ok to take — people who think it is ok to take over sovereign territory and — take over sovereign territory and we — take over sovereign territory and we will walk away because we get — and we will walk away because we get tired of war must be proven— we get tired of war must be proven wrong.— we get tired of war must be proven wrong. sam, we have about a minute _ proven wrong. sam, we have about a minute left _ proven wrong. sam, we have about a minute left but - proven wrong. sam, we have about a minute left but i - proven wrong. sam, we have| about a minute left but i want to ask, you said this may not be involved in the military arena because ukrainians have been clear they don't trust vladimir putin and any sort of negotiation. where does that leave the prospect of some sort of negotiated settlement? ukrainians have absolutely no reason to trust vladimir putin. that is not uncommon after the body conflict the two sides do not trust each other and have not trust each other and have no reason to trust each other. we have seen these fires held in similar situations in the past. korea is an example where there were tens of thousands of americans killed. we had a ceasefire that has more or less held for years. the trust is real and it is an important impediments but it has not stopped combatants in the past from ending conflicts. this one in that sense could be no different.— in that sense could be no different. . , ., a , different. ambassador, quickly, want to get _ different. ambassador, quickly, want to get your _ different. ambassador, quickly, want to get your thoughts - different. ambassador, quickly, want to get your thoughts on i want to get your thoughts on that as well. i want to get your thoughts on that as well.— that as well. i think the career example - that as well. i think the career example is - that as well. i think the career example is a - that as well. i think the i career example is a good that as well. i think the - career example is a good one. there — career example is a good one. there was— career example is a good one. there was never actually a treaty _ there was never actually a treaty but had been adhered to. ithink— treaty but had been adhered to. i think when ukraine wins this war will— i think when ukraine wins this war will come into nato, they will then— war will come into nato, they will then be a part of the alliance _ will then be a part of the alliance where if one is attacked, everyone is attacked and we — attacked, everyone is attacked and we will go to bat. that is there — and we will go to bat. that is there as _ and we will go to bat. that is there as a _ and we will go to bat. that is there as a deterrent, not for anything _ there as a deterrent, not for anything offensive. but that is the deterrent that has kept us safe _ the deterrent that has kept us safe 75— the deterrent that has kept us safe 75 years. the deterrent that has kept us safe 75 years— the deterrent that has kept us safe 75 years. thank you both. good to have _ safe 75 years. thank you both. good to have you _ safe 75 years. thank you both. good to have you on _ safe 75 years. thank you both. good to have you on bbc- safe 75 years. thank you both. | good to have you on bbc news tonight. around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news. let's look at some other stories making news. the british museum has given an update on their investigation into a former employee who is suspected of stealing or damaging around 2000 items over a 30—year period. the museum's chairman, george osborne, says the man the museum believes to have taken them isn't talking to them — and they are still trying to establish a motive. osborne has been speaking to the bbc�*s culture editor katie razzall. we are we a re pretty we are pretty clear that an individual who was employed here stolid from the museum and went to quite elaborate lengths to cover their tracks. one of the things we got to get to the bottom of is exactly the motivation of the individual we believe was responsible but he has not been talking or cooperating. he said the museum had big lessons to learn. a couple years ago there was a warning and it was not taken seriously as it should have been. some of the artefacts — most of which had never been catalogued by the museum — were sold on ebay for as little as a few pounds. 651 of them have been recovered or identified. the true value of all the items is still unknown. you're live with bbc news. the un general assembly has overwhelmingly adopted a resolution, demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in gaza. though it's non—binding, analysts say this second attempt is a powerful measure of international opinion. speaking moments before that vote, israeli ambassador to the un, gilad erdan, said the ceasefire was not a viable solution. there are no war crimes more heinous than the atrocities hamas committed a those supporting this resolution are giving the terrorists a free pass. a ceasefire means one thing and one thing only. ensuring the survival of hamas. and speaking after the vote — the palestinian ambassador to the un said it was a "historic day in terms "of the powerful message that was sent from the general "assembly". here's riyad mansour. today was a historic day, in terms of a powerful message that was sent from the general assembly, and it is our collective duty to continue in this path until we see an end to this aggression against our people to see this well —— this was topping against our people. it is our duty to save lives. saving lives is much nicer and better than taking it away. meanwhile, israel continues its bombardment of gaza, with the main focus on khan younis in the south. there's also been fighting in rafah, near the border with egypt. the world health organization says less than a third of the hospitals in gaza remain even partially functional. aid organizations are calling the situation in the strip desperate, with limited aid flowing in. with more on the international response — and the situation on the ground — here's our correspondent hugo bachega injerusalem. the israeli military has continued to pound ga