but let's start with the war in ukraine. on thursday leaders agreed use the interest from frozen russian assets to raise $50 billion for kyiv�*s war effort, plus humanitarian assistance and reconstruction efforts. the g7 countries — which include the us, canada, britain, france, germany, japan and italy — are sitting on about $300 billion in seized russian assets. meanwhile, speaking in moscow, president vladimir putin on friday laid out his terms for a ceasefire. mr putin demanded ukraine withdraw from four regions of ukraine that are partially occupied by russia and abandon efforts tojoin nato. both ukraine and the west dismissed the proposal. 0ur diplomatic correspondent james landale is following reaction and the latest from the g7 in italy. the war in ukraine has been fought on the reference. you have the fighting on the ground, the industrial arms race to generate as much ammunition as possible, and then you've got the global diplomatic battle for international opinion. what we've seen here at the summit is that last battle being played out between a sort of contest between g7 leaders here and vladimir putin. the g7 leaders here are the summit have been saying we're gonna be fully behind ukraine, we're gonna try to counter the narrative that somehow the worst is losing patience with ukraine, we are going to agree to use frozen russian assets to get $50 billion worth of loans to the russians, we're gonna send more air defences, and widen our sanctions, and agreed to new defence pact with ukraine, all about reinforcing that message. in reply, you've got vladimir putin, the russian leader, saying you know what, ideally to have a ceasefire, engage in peace talks with ukraine, as long as they give up ukraine, as long as they give up huge swathes of the east of the country and their ambition tojoin nato. clearly that's something that's been rejected by key and ukrainians in the west say this is a nonstarter, effectively asking for ukraine to capitulate, surrender. but what i think mr gliddon is really trying to do —— putin, is divide the west and appeal to some countries, emerging economies of the global south, essentially appealing to those countries by saying maybe now is the time to talk about peace in ukraine, maybe it is a good thing and it may help the global economy which has been so disrupted by this war. what the worst is trying to do is push back against that, the us defence secretary said this was not an offer made by the russian leader in good faith, the leader of nato dismissed at saying this is not a peace proposal but a proposal for more confrontation and more aggression. what we are seeing play out is that part of the global opinion here which is in this war often a hugely important factor in how it shapes this conflict going forward. as much as what happens on the battlefield. and in another show of unity with ukraine, us presidentjoe biden and president zelensky signed a 10—year security agreement on thursday. here's some of what's in that deal. the us and ukraine agreed to meet within 2a hours to discuss a response to future attacks on ukraine. washington promised to help ukraine's military with training, joint planning, and cybersecurity efforts. and the us will help kyiv seek compensation for damage caused by russia. mr zelensky called the pact a bridge to ukraine eventuallyjoining nato. ukraine is expected to take steps toward membership at next month's nato gathering here in washington. i spoke about the new security deal with ambassadorjohn herbst, who formerly served as us ambassador to ukraine, and saleha mohsin, senior washington correspondent with bloomberg news. the war in ukraine played a big role at this year's summit as it did last year. what do you make of what came out of it, we heard a bit of the security products and this $50 billion loan to ukraine, how effective might these be in terms of helping ukraine in its war effort? . , ., _ , effort? the decision by the g7 which was _ effort? the decision by the g7 which was a — effort? the decision by the g7 which was a result _ effort? the decision by the g7 which was a result of- effort? the decision by the g7 which was a result of strong i which was a result of strong leadership, was a major step forward in the water deal with putin's aggressions. the administration, they had to unlock the potential of that $300 billion of frozen russian assets in the international financial system and the administration was pushing for months, the canadians and brits were on board, but the other four members of the g7 were not. . , , ., four members of the g7 were not. ., , ,., . . not. there was some reticence because they _ not. there was some reticence because they did _ not. there was some reticence because they did not _ not. there was some reticence because they did not agree - not. there was some reticence because they did not agree to l because they did not agree to the full amount of money, just the full amount of money, just the interest on the money. it’s the interest on the money. it's actually more _ the interest on the money. it�*s actually more complicated than that. the eu had agreed that the interest on a yearly basis could go to ukraine, but would be three or 4 billion, but there was an ingenious scheme that was come up with to use but interest to collateralise a loan which would represent many, many years of interest. therefore, this calendar ukraine should receive $50 billion which can be used to run its economy to deal with the massive destruction of energy infrastructure, and of course find that military. this is superb leadership and excellence result but not the best result.— excellence result but not the best result. saleha, we've had ast best result. saleha, we've had past criticism _ best result. saleha, we've had past criticism of _ best result. saleha, we've had past criticism of the _ best result. saleha, we've had past criticism of the us - best result. saleha, we've had past criticism of the us and i past criticism of the us and west has been slow to respond and give ukrainians the weapons they have been asking for. what's been a reaction here in terms of what came out of the summit? ~ ,,., , ., terms of what came out of the summit? ~ , ,., , ., ,, summit? absolutely and the us, a lot of congressional _ summit? absolutely and the us, a lot of congressional leaders . a lot of congressional leaders reflecting what their electorate is saying across the us, electorate is saying across the us, they — electorate is saying across the us, they are wondering how much longer— us, they are wondering how much longer america needs to engage in the _ longer america needs to engage in the war— longer america needs to engage in the war that's overseas while _ in the war that's overseas while there are still problems at home, _ while there are still problems at home, with inflation, the housing _ at home, with inflation, the housing market troubles, and why are — housing market troubles, and why are taxpayer money is going to ukraine? joe biden had her find new— to ukraine? joe biden had her find new fresh lavage and realising age ukraine would be harder— realising age ukraine would be harder to — realising age ukraine would be harder to get through congress. so lets— harder to get through congress. so let's get creative. as the ambassador mentioned, the white house _ ambassador mentioned, the white house came up with a proposal that is— house came up with a proposal that is creative to use russian assets — that is creative to use russian assets and tell the american public— assets and tell the american public that we are not only sending _ public that we are not only sending our own aid from the us but also — sending our own aid from the us but also using putin's money that— but also using putin's money that we — but also using putin's money that we have captured and the collateralised interest rate in the future and collections on the future and collections on the to— the future and collections on the to help fund ukraine, so he is making — the to help fund ukraine, so he is making a payment.— the to help fund ukraine, so he is making a payment. there is a symbolism _ is making a payment. there is a symbolism as — is making a payment. there is a symbolism as well. _ is making a payment. there is al symbolism as well. ambassador, we heard from butter me putin laying out his own terms of a ceasefire deal. there will be this weekend ap summit which russia is not attending but what your thoughts on the proposal, is of a serious one? it is a serious proposal for the submission of ukraine to the submission of ukraine to the kremlin's will, roughly what he said when he started this big invasion in february 2022. the new pieces are, i'll settle for crimea, and all the other four parts of ukraine which were next, even though we don't control them completely. ukraine must see that and as he originally demanded, no ukrainian nato, the quote "denazification of ukraine which be described as the du 2010 of ukraine. and that the demilitarisation of ukraine. see ukraine would be open to an easy russian aggression in future. this is demand for surrender. it shows that russia's peace proposal is not serious, putin's object of his political control of ukraine. saleha, vice president kamala harris will be in switzerland for this piece summit. how is this being viewed by the us? do they see there being some kind of diplomatic way forward? i have to tell you the us is an election— have to tell you the us is an election mode, not simply because _ election mode, not simply because i'm in washington, but right— because i'm in washington, but right now— because i'm in washington, but right now the us electorate 'ust right now the us electorate just wants to know what are we getting — just wants to know what are we getting from this president and this vice—president because they— this vice—president because they are _ this vice—president because they are trying to decide should _ they are trying to decide should we pick the other guy and whether he is vice president is gonna be? at the same — president is gonna be? at the same time folks are talking around _ same time folks are talking around the world about american stability — around the world about american stability. and instability. 0ne stability. and instability. one way to— stability. and instability. one way to show the world and show americans— way to show the world and show americans that we are still in power. — americans that we are still in power, we still have some influence, is to show that we are taking action when it comes to russia — are taking action when it comes to russia and ukraine and meeting with putin sol to russia and ukraine and meeting with putin so i think, ella harris going there, building on top of everything biden— building on top of everything biden helped accomplish at the g7, biden helped accomplish at the 67. she — biden helped accomplish at the 67. she is— biden helped accomplish at the g7, she is america and its influence _ g7, she is america and its influence is still important. ambassador, american influence is still important, there were other six countries also there but many of them, they were calling this the six lame ducks plus giorgia meloni, little lot of leaders there are not in good shape domestically. how worried you think president zelensky might be that if a few elections don't go his way, he might start to lose some support from the west? i think that it is highly _ support from the west? i think that it is highly unlikely - support from the west? i think that it is highly unlikely that i that it is highly unlikely that as a result of elections we're going see in europe, that there will be a diminishment of european support for ukraine. for example, in the uk both the labour party market and the tories are all in for a bold policy of support ukraine to defeat a dangerous and ukraine. i think in france president macron, marine le pen had a good showing apology elections but we've seen this movement before and we know that marine le pen was embarrassed by ties to putin and stories about russian money coming to her party, so i don't think she is the best of shape when it comes to the final vote. so i think support in europe for ukraine will prove strong and i think that there is a growing indication that even if trump were to end, support in the united states for ukraine remain strong.— united states for ukraine remain strong. united states for ukraine remain stronu. ., ., , ., remain strong. saleha, do you auree remain strong. saleha, do you agree with _ remain strong. saleha, do you agree with that _ remain strong. saleha, do you agree with that that _ remain strong. saleha, do you agree with that that a - remain strong. saleha, do you agree with that that a trump l agree with that that a trump presidency would still mean pretty strong support from the us? ., . , ~ us? not necessarily. ithink the battle — us? not necessarily. ithink the battle that _ us? not necessarily. ithink the battle that we _ us? not necessarily. ithink the battle that we saw - us? not necessarily. ithink the battle that we saw six . us? not necessarily. ithink| the battle that we saw six to the battle that we saw six to eight — the battle that we saw six to eight months ago in congress to -et eight months ago in congress to get that— eight months ago in congress to get that aid package through kind of— get that aid package through kind of shows that the american public— kind of shows that the american public is — kind of shows that the american public is a — kind of shows that the american public is a little bit less interested in sending money abroad — interested in sending money abroad continued money abroad and that's— abroad continued money abroad and that's why biden and his white — and that's why biden and his white house had to get creative with how — white house had to get creative with how to get reconstruction money— with how to get reconstruction money to— with how to get reconstruction money to ukraine. it is possible that trump bringing a more — possible that trump bringing a more strong man foreign policy would — more strong man foreign policy would be — more strong man foreign policy would be enough to get some changes— would be enough to get some changes in foreign policy in the geopolitical landscape, he has a — the geopolitical landscape, he has a different relationship with— has a different relationship with putin at a different view of him — with putin at a different view of him. at the same time the us deadset— of him. at the same time the us deadset a — of him. at the same time the us deadset a lot of money very quickly— deadset a lot of money very quickly right away when the invasion— quickly right away when the invasion verstappen in 2022 at americans willing to pay more of the — americans willing to pay more of the gasp up when gas prices went— of the gasp up when gas prices went up— of the gasp up when gas prices went up because of sanctions, so there — went up because of sanctions, so there is— went up because of sanctions, so there is a feeling maybe we've — so there is a feeling maybe we've already paid enough, isn't — we've already paid enough, isn't there another way to solve _ isn't there another way to solve this? i actually think that— solve this? i actually think that the _ solve this? i actually think that the question remains open, if america — that the question remains open, if america has continued appetite to send money. big elections — appetite to send money. e: n elections coming up not only in europe right here in washington in november. we will see how that all shakes out but thank you to you both for being here. ambassadorjohn herbst, former ambassador to ukraine. and saleha mohsin, senior washington correspondent with bloomberg news. the war in gaza and the widening crisis in the middle east was slightly overshadowed, but it was addressed by leaders in italy. french president emmanuel macron announced that france, the us and israel would form a group to de—escalate rising cross—border violence between lebanese armed group hezbollah and israeli forces. meanwhile, ceasefire talks are ongoing as the us makes a push for israel's proposal of a truce between israel and hamas. as he arrived to the g7 summit, president biden was asked about the likelihood of an agreement. did you all have a chance to discuss the possible ceasefire, president biden? yes. i confident it can be done soon? no, i have not lost her. —— hope _ biden also said at the summit that hamas was the biggest hang—up so far in reaching a dealfor a ceasefire in gaza and release of hostages. us secretary of state antony blinken has recently been in the middle east to push for peace and hamas was to blame for a deal not being done. the group wants a full israeli withdrawal from gaza. prime minister benjamin netanyahu says the war won't end until hamas is fully defeated. he has yet to formally endorse the us—backed proposal. joanne held cummings, a former middle east advisor at the us state department discussed with us how the looming ceasefire deal impacted discussions at this year's g7. the second day of the summit had some focus on gaza but we surprised that it was not maybe a bigger topic or a bigger point of discussion among these leaders? �* . ., , point of discussion among these leaders? . . ., , ., ., , leaders? actually, no, iwas not surprised. _ leaders? actually, no, iwas not surprised. the - leaders? actually, no, iwas not surprised. the focus - leaders? actually, no, iwas not surprised. the focus of. not surprised. the focus of this was always going to be on ukraine. first, it is of vital importance to members of the g7 but also it is one where there is going to be a greater likelihood of agreement. the gaza conflict is one where the united states and europe don't necessarily see eye to eye. they are not going to need with that. it they are not going to need with that. ., : : they are not going to need with that. ., , , ., that. it was interesting to hear that _ that. it was interesting to hear that president - that. it was interesting to hear that president biden that. it was interesting to - hear that president biden had said that he was not confident about the prospects for a ceasefire deal, he said it's going to be tough stop by their nations there that could really start to take more of the role and putting pressure on both sides to come together and may be to this proposal or something similar? that's a very good — something similar? that's a very good point. _ something similar? that's a very good point. there - something similar? that's a very good point. there are l something similar? that's a i very good point. there are and have been for many years countries in europe that have taken a stronger role in speaking family to both israel and various palestinian bodies. states has tended to see its role as maintaining security in israel and secondarily to helping the israeli leadership with some sort of peace with palestinians and palestinians have never seen the united states as being an evenhanded player. 0n the other hand, if the united states is not on board with that movement, no european country is going to be able to effectively move things forward. that said, i think that to recognise that within israel the political dynamics, either bolster or constrain bibi netanyahu depending on what views rfm, and whether you like it or not, hamas as a governing body has local dynamics that affect the decisions. add onto that lebanon and you have a mix that is in no way a set of binary decisions. i is in no way a set of binary decisions.— is in no way a set of binary decisions.