← Global News Podcast
Global News Podcast
Russia and Ukraine carry out major prisoner swap
00:25:14
Moscow says 150 people were set free from both sides
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
Nicola Coughlan
This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. I'm Nicola Coughlan and for BBC Radio 4, this is History's Youngest Heroes. Rebellion, risk and the radical power of youth. She thought, right, I'll just do it. She thought about others rather than herself. Twelve stories of extraordinary young people from across history. There's a real sense of urgency in them. That resistance has to be mounted. It has to be mounted now. Follow history's Youngest heroes wherever you get your podcasts. You're listening to the Global News Podcast from the BBC World Service. Hello, I'm Oliver Conway. This edition is published in the early hours of Tuesday, 31 December. Russia and Ukraine exchange at least 300 prisoners of war. The UN warns of climate breakdown, with all 10 of the hottest years on record occurring in the last decade. And Donald Trump backs Mike Johnson for another term as House Speaker. Also in this podcast, he issued the first report that the world was actually warming. He put solar panels on the White House, remembering the former American president who was ahead of his time. Foreign Russia is thought to be holding at least 8,000 Ukrainian prisoners of war and may be capturing more as it advances in the East. Ukrainian families are desperate to get their loved ones back and even held a Christmas demonstration calling for their release. Their fears are made worse by reports that Russia is executing increasing numbers of POWs, at least 127 this year, according to Ukrainian prosecutors. On Monday, though, there was some good news as Russia and Ukraine exchanged hundreds of prisoners. The Russian Defense Ministry said 150 soldiers were swapped by each side in a deal mediated by the UAE. Ukrainian officials said they had received 189 soldiers, many after more than two years in captivity and some seriously injured. Our correspondent in northern Ukraine, Will Vernon, saw them arrive. The wait is finally over. Ukrainian families overcome with emotion as they greet their loved ones. First time they'd seen or spoken to them for years. I'm very happy to return to my own country, to my own land. I have no words to say what I feel for those unable to make it the phone call they've been waiting for. I'm coming home, says this man. Yes, I'll be home soon. How does it feel to be home? I'm overwhelmed by feelings. Thank God this day has come. We're home now. We're going to support Ukraine with everything we got. Well, some of these men have been in captivity for more than two and a half years. You can just see the emotion on their faces. To finally return to their homeland, Ukraine, to their families, just in time for the New Year holidays. The Russian authorities said 150 of their citizens had returned from Ukrainian captivity and were being given medical treatment. Back in Ukraine. For some families, the wait continues. These women show photos of their loved ones to those released, hoping someone will recognize them. We want to know he's alive, says Mariana, who's looking for her nephew. We're asking everyone we see. With thousands of Ukrainians still in captivity or missing, the desperate search for many families will go on. A report from Northern Ukraine by Will Vernon. Cyclones, wildfires, 50 degree heat waves and record breaking floods. The past year has seen a series of extreme weather events made worse by climate change. And the world needs to act now. That is the message from the UN. 2024 is on course to be the hottest year on record, even as greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. The World Meteorological Office said climate change had added 441 days of dangerous heat over the past 12 months and extreme weather events had claimed at least 3700 lives. The UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres had this warning today. I can officially report that we have just endured a decade of deadly heat. The top 10 hottest years on record have happened in the last 10 years, including 2024. This is climate breakdown in real time. We must exit this road to Rune and we have no time to lose. So just how bad is it? Esme Stallard is our environment correspondent. Well, we've seen a year of extreme weather across the globe. You know, we started in April with an extreme heat wave which covered dozens of countries from Lebanon all the way across to India. Temperatures in excess of 40, 50 degrees C, which even if you have a well ventilated air conditioner mentioned, home, can be difficult to deal with, let alone those people that are vulnerable as a result of not having access to proper shelter. We then saw Hurricane Helene, followed by Hurricane milton in the US which led more than 260 dead. Despite being very a very wealthy country, even the US was struggling to cope with that extreme weather. But climate scientists I talked to say this is no surprise. You know, greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. We see average global temperature rise, continue to rise, and therefore, as a result, these extreme weather events are going to be exacerbated. Now, Antonio Guterres did say there was still hope, but can the world pull back from the brink when greenhouse gas emissions are, as you say, actually still going up? Well, I think we can see that the rate of increase is slowing down. So there has been some impact in terms of policies and actions taken by countries around the world. At the same time, you know, we've seen a massive increase in the amount of renewable energy generated across the world and that countries are moving away from using fossil fuels. In the uk, coal stopped being used earlier this year for the first time amongst developed nations. But at the same time, clearly it's not happening as quickly as would be liked. Some of the difficulties is getting all countries to agree. You know, even at a national level, countries are taking action, but actually agreeing a way forward and how quickly action is taken without potentially damaging other priorities for countries, for example, around economic growth is fear for some, that is the challenge at the moment. Yeah. And how does the arrival of Donald Trump as US president change things? The main concern is that he'll be looking to pull the US out of a Paris agreement, as he did previously. But at the same time, when that happened at the state level in the us, the States really stepped up to demonstrate that they are still committed to climate action. Remember, for example, California has been very progressive in this area in terms of going forward with their ambitions, particularly around deployment of renewable energy. They are such a big state and their economy is so big that they can have a significant impact on the US's emissions as a whole, even if at a federal level. He's not committed to that. But at the same time, there is a concern that any action he takes might filter through to other countries. And I think the un, and particularly Antonio Guterres, is keen to make clear, or was keen to make clear in his speech, that countries should remain united and taking action on this issue. Our environment correspondent, Esme Stallard, A typical smoker can gain an extra day of life by giving up smoking for a week. That is, according to a new study from University College London. Based on an average consumption of just over 10 cigarettes a day, the researchers found that smoking a single cigarette takes about 20 minutes off a person's life, double the amount previously thought. Dr. Sarah Jackson is the principal research fellow at UCL's Alcohol and Tobacco Research Group. So how did they come up with their findings? Well, we've got really good epidemiological data in Britain on how much life smokers lose on average, compared to people who don't smoke. So these studies have followed people up for decades, up until the point of their death. And so these studies tend to suggest that people who smoke and don't quit lose, on average, about 10 years of life compared to people who've never smoked. And so what we've done is we've taken that estimate of 10 years of life lost to smoking and basically apportioned that to the average number of cigarettes people would smoke across their lifetime. So it's a crude estimate. It will give an indication of the amount of time people will lose per cigarette smoked. Of course, it'll differ between individuals depending on their consumption patterns, the age they take up smoking, the age they die, etc. But it gives an indication of just quite how much smoking affects your life expectancy. It was thought that smoking reduced your life by about six and a half years. Whereas now the more up to date data that we have that's followed people over a longer period suggests that it's actually more like 10 to 11 years. So that's why we're seeing a greater loss of life expectancy for each cigarette smoke. Smoking doesn't eat away at the unpleasant part at your end of your life, which often comes with chronic illness and disability. What it does is it actually erodes the relatively healthy period in midlife, so it brings forward the onset of ill health. So in effect what you have is, for example, a 60 year old smoker might have the health profile of a 70 year old non smoker. It shortens that healthy bit in the middle of your life and you still get all of the unpleasant illnesses at the end of your life that you would have had otherwise. Sarah Jackson of University College London. The former US President Jimmy Carter, who died on Sunday, lived for most of his life in the small town of Plains, Georgia. It is a tight knit community where many people knew him well. Jill Stuckey was a longtime close friend of the carters since the 1990s. She spoke about his death to Andrew Peach. Ah, you know, it's bittersweet. He is finally gotten his wish and he is with his beloved Rosalind. So I celebrate that. I celebrate his life. But selfishly, I'm going to miss him terribly. Tell me about the last time you saw him because it was really recently. I left for vacation Christmas morning and as I typically do before I go out of town, you know, always worried about his health. He has been in hospice now for 22 months, so constantly checking and he seemed to be having a good day, Christmas Day, and just reflecting on the relationship you've had over decades where you've seen him for dinner almost every week. I know. Talk to me about some of the conversations you've had with him. So he loved good conversation, he loved the people that would challenge him and tough questions. He cared about women's rights, he cared about world hunger, he cared about global warming. It wasn't about things he did. He, he was just such A giving, caring individual and he cared about the well being of this world. And it's so interesting, I think that, you know, we'll have a lot of people listening who are in their 20s or 30s, who won't remember Jimmy Carter as president and yet will care about many of the same issues. He was sort of onto this stuff well before his time, decades before, indeed. You know, he issued the first report that the world was actually warming. He put solar panels on the White House because he wanted to lessen our dependency on global oil and he wanted a clean environment. He doubled the size of the National Park Service in the US So he was a true environmentalist and really cared about the well being, well being of, of the globe. And do you have any sense of what people in planes there in Georgia are saying about his life, his century today? So, you know, he always came back home to Plains. He traveled the world, but he always returned to Plains. And even in death, he will return to, to Plains and be buried literally in the front yard of the house that they built in 1961. His church family, you know, was just devastated. Even though he's been sick for a long time, it's still a shock to us all and he will be sorely missed. Carter family friend, Jill Stuckey. And still to come on the global news podcast, maybe in 100 years time they might be considered formal. Look at the lounge suit. 100 years ago, that's what a gentleman would have changed into, almost like a tracksuit. So maybe jeans eventually will be formal. A fashion debate triggered by a row at the World Chess Championship lives. When Elon Musk and Donald Trump torpedoed a spending deal between Republicans and Democrats before Christmas, some believe it signaled the end for Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Republican congressman who negotiated the ill fated agreement needs the support of Trump allies if he is to be re elected as speaker later this week. But despite failing to deliver on Mr. Trump's demands on scrapping the debt ceiling, Mr. Johnson has now received the complete and total endorsement of the US President elect. So is he now a shoo in for re election? I asked our correspondent Rowan Bridge in Washington. I think saying anybody is a shoo in for anything in American politics these days. If you're going to go down that road, you're a braver man than me. I mean, I think ultimately it's likely that Mike Johnson will get reelected House speaker, but I wouldn't say it was a certainty and I certainly wouldn't say it was guaranteed he was going to get there on the first vote. Because the problem that Mike Johnson has is that the maths of the House of Representatives is somewhat against him. There is a, you know, it depends how the maths work out. But you can see there is a potential scenario, for example, where he can only lose two votes from Republicans and lose the gavel. At the moment, there's one person who's already said they're not going to vote for Mike Johnson. That gives him one vote that he can still afford to lose in certain scenarios, and that could cost him the speakership. Now, also worth bearing in mind that last time they were electing a Republican speaker, that went to 15 rounds of voting. Now, I'm not suggesting necessarily that's going to happen this time around, but you can see that this is not necessarily going to be a straightforward process for Mike Johnson, certainly not necessarily a rubber stamping. Now, the speaker is next in line of succession for the presidency after the Vice President. But arguably it's an even more important role given that the House has a big impact on spending legislation in the US So what might Donald Trump want in return for his support for Mike Johnson? Yeah, I mean, worth bearing in mind that the founding fathers of the United States deliberately split power between different branches of the government because they didn't want anyone to be too powerful. And that means that, you know, power doesn't lie solely with Donald Trump, it doesn't lie solely with Mike Johnson. But both of them clearly have significant influence over what happens with the United States, especially, as you say, when it comes to money, because Congress controls the purse strings. Donald Trump hasn't been explicit in his demands about what he wants. And it's worth bearing in mind that, you know, Donald Trump's influence hasn't always been successful. You know, he called for the lifting of the debt limits, which is how much money the US can borrow as part of this deal to keep the government funded. That was announced just before Christmas, and Donald Trump didn't get what he wanted there. So it's not necessarily the case that, you know, even if Donald Trump says to Mike Johnson, I want you to push for these measures, it's going to get through because Mike Johnson has got a difficult balancing act because, you know, he is. Mike Johnson has a broad coalition underneath him and a very small majority, and that makes it very difficult for him to get legislation through, even if it's what Donald Trump wants and Mike Johnson might want. Yeah. So even if he is reelected speaker, there could still be trouble ahead in Congress. He is going to have to try and corral a group of people to all vote in the same way who are not philosophically all on the same page. That is going to be a difficult task for him and it's going to be complicated because he's going to have a small majority and Democrats who are in opposition are in no mood to really give him a helping hand on this. For the Democrats, it serves their purposes for the Republicans to be seen to be squabbling and unable to govern. Rowan Bridge in Washington. A court in Serbia has jailed the parents of a 13 year old boy who carried out a mass shooting at a school in the capital Belgrade last year. Ten people died, nine of them children. Under Serbian law, only the boy's parents can be held responsible. His father and mother will serve sentences of 14 and a half and three years respectively. Here's our Balkans correspondent, Guy Delaunay. Last year's shooting at Belgrade's Vladislav Rybnikar School shocked Serbia. But the suspected perpetrator was 13 years old, below the age of criminal responsibility. So prosecutors focused on his parents instead. The court heard that Vladimir Kacmanovich legally owned the guns his son used to kill 10 people. But he had failed to keep them securely and also taught his son to use them at a shooting range. That led to the father's conviction on charges of endangering public safety. Along with his wife, Maria, he was also convicted of child neglect. A shooting club instructor was jailed for misleading police. The boy gave evidence to prosecutors. He claimed to regret the shooting, but didn't explain why he did it. Parents of the children he killed criticized the length of the sentences and lamented that nobody would ever be held to account for the multiple murders. The family lawyer said the parents shouldn't be held responsible for the behavior of their son, who remains in psychiatric care. All of those convicted plan to appeal. Our Balkans correspondent, Guy Delaunay. Now, what might make people want to have more children? It's a question facing many countries as birth rates around the world continue to plummet. So far, few if any policies have worked. So what can be done? Alice Evans is a senior lecturer in social science of development at King's College London. David Canning is professor of Popular Population Sciences at Harvard University. They've been talking to Reema Ahmed. The fundamental problem is that our collapsing fertility rate, which is happening worldwide, has massive, massive economic consequences, because as our populations age, that elderly population will be increasingly dependent on a very, very small workforce. So that creates a massive pension time bomb. So economically, if we want to have a wealthy, prosperous society and decent safety Net we really need to get fertility up. How can we do that though? Because it's not just about women not wanting to have babies, is it Alice? Because that's usually the narrative that we hear. So a key underrated factor in falling fertility is the rise of singles. So previously, you know, in my grandparents age, for example, you know, women got married and pumped out babies. But as societies liberalize and stigma fades, people can afford to be choosy. And this is the biggest trend in the EU right now. So up from 2013, been a 20% rise in single adult households. It's increasingly men staying single. And this is worldwide marriages over the past 20 years down by 20% in Turkey, they're down in Iran, they're down in China, they're down in South Korea. Absolutely. It's a one on one relationship almost with people staying single. And it's not just choosing single, but there's a more introverted life across many dimensions. People are spending less time with their family, people are spending less time with their friends. David, I must ask you in, in all of your research, is there any one overarch factor globally that is stopping people from having children? Because it does seem like there are different issues from, you know, nation to nation. For example, I would emphasize the social norms. I think the economic incentives approach hasn't worked very well. I think it's much more about social relationships, the way people live, it's about women working and these things are really set in our culture. And I just don't think government is the right approach to deciding. So I think we're actually moving into some agreement that it's institutions that should change to adapt to low fertility. You mentioned this problem that we need to have children to finance pensions for older people. I don't think that's correct. We can set up pension systems that are self sustaining where people save for their own retirement and you don't need young people to pay in taxes to pay for those old age pensions. And so I do think there's a lot of change that is needed. One is that individuals need to change because of a longer lifespan and societies have to change to a world in which people are going to live a long time and we're going to have lower fertility. And I think that it's not a sensible approach to say we need children for economic benefits to us. That's not the reason I'm having children. I think it's not the reason most people are having children. David Canning and Alice Evans talking to Rima Ahmet on Friday. The world's number one chess player, Magnus Carlsen, was kicked out of the World Rapid and Blitz Chess Championship for wearing jeans. He's now returned to the competition in New York after the International Chess Federation said it would relax its dress code. But should jeans ever be allowed at formal events? A question for Hannah Rogers, assistant fashion editor at the Times newspaper, and William Hanson, author of the Bluffer's Guide to Etiquette. I think it depends very much on the type of do it is if it's a black tie do, if it's a wedding. No, I would never advise that someone would wear jeans, but I think it's wrong to suggest that you can't dress up the right pair of jeans for a more elegant occasion. I think it comes down to the cut, the colour and the wash of the denim and also the detailing. If you have a pair of jeans that is, let's say, quite baggy, maybe it's in a lighter wash or in a bright colour, perhaps they're frayed or distressed. Obviously that's never going to look smart no matter what you pair it with. But a well structured pair of jeans in a dark wash or a black denim, perhaps in a straight leg, something that fits you really well with a smart pair of shoes a and a blazer, there's no reason that that couldn't be an easily trade in for a pair of chinos for example. If you look to some of the smarter locations in London, I think for example the quite she she Members Club, 5 Hertford Street. Even they allowed for jeans. They say that jeans must be smart, they must be non frayed and they must be of a uniform colour. I think anyone who has the sense can look at a pair of jeans and decide for themselves whether or not they think they are elevated and elegant. Of course you do have to be quite straightfor what genes you are allowing in. But yeah, obviously it is. It could be open to interpretation if you just said all denim is acceptable. No jeans, by definition they are not formal, they have a place but they are not currently. I mean I'm sure maybe in 100 years time they might be considered formal. Look at the lounge suit. 100 years ago that's what you would have. A gentleman would have changed into almost like a tracksuit or a onesie today. So maybe jeans eventually will be formal but not currently. But also, you know Magnus Carlsen, obviously very well respected chess player. Those are the rules whether genes scenes are formal or not. If the tournament has a dress code, that's the dress code. If you don't like it, don't enter the tournament. It's like a party. If you don't like the dress code for the party, don't go. No one's forcing you to go. It's a bit of a shame also that the tournament sort of very quickly change their dress code. I think that slightly undermines it. They can by all means review it, but you know, take a few weeks, months gear to review it, not the next day. One person's elegant is another person's really sloppy and dress codes need to be helpful. Where you get vague dress codes now on invitations to parties or conferences where they put smart. Well again, what one person considers as smart, another person will think completely different. So actually don't try and reinvent the wheel. Be as specific as possible. And clubs like number five Hertford street, as Hannah says, actually having additional information on the website spelling it out exactly what is and isn't allowed. Restaurants as well have it as well. They there was a incident years ago where Jess Glynn got thrown out of Sexy Fish, which is a sort of a rather over the top restaurant in London. But it was quite clear on the website what what is allowed and what isn't. So don't be vague, don't be ambiguous. If you're going to have a dress code, be clear about it and then don't change it. The next day, William Hanson and Hannah Rogers. And that is all from us for now, but the Global News podcast cast will be back very soon. This edition was mixed by Caroline Driscoll and produced by Alfie Habershon. Our editors, Karen Martin. I'm Oliver Conway. Until next time, goodbye. I'm Nicola Coughlan and for BBC Radio 4, this is History's youngest heroes. Rebellion, risk and the radical power power of youth. She thought, right, I'll just do it. She thought about others rather than herself. Twelve stories of extraordinary young people from across history. There's a real sense of urgency in them. That resistance has to be mounted. It has to be mounted now. Follow history's youngest heroes wherever you get your podcasts. Hello, I'm Katya Adler, host of the Global Story podcast from the BBC. Each weekday we break down one big news story with fresh perspectives from journalists around the world. From artificial intelligence to divisive politics tearing our societies apart from the movements of money and markets to the human stories that touch our lives. We bring you in depth insights from across the BBC and beyond. Listen to the global Story wherever you get your BBC podcasts.