Global News Podcast - Russia and Ukraine carry out major prisoner swap

Episode Date: December 31, 2024

Russia and Ukraine carry out a major prisoner swap with at least 300 people set free. Also: The UN warns of climate breakdown after a 'decade of deadly heat', and what will make people want to have more children?

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. I'm Nicola Cochlan 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. 12 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. BBC World Service. Hello, I'm Oliver Conway. This edition is published in the early hours of Tuesday 31st 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. 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 Defence 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 left ones.

The 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 have 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've got. Well, some of these men have been in captivity for more than two and a half years. After 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 41 days of dangerous heat over the past 12 months.

And extreme weather events had claimed at least 3,700 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 ruin and we have no time to lose. So just how bad is it, as May Stalhard is our environment correspondent? Well we've seen a year of extreme weather across the globe.

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-conditioned 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 Helen followed by Hurricane Milton in the US, which led more than 260 dead. Despite being 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. 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, 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. Even at a national level, countries are taking action, but actually agreeing a way forward in 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. 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 for 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 António Guterres, is keen to make clear, always keen to make clear in his speech that countries should remain united in taking action on this issue. Our environment correspondent, Esme Stalart. 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. These studies have followed people up for decades 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 will 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 of 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 Carter's since the 1990s. She spoke about his death to Andrew Peach. You know it's bittersweet. He has finally gotten his wish and he is with his beloved Roslyn. 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 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 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 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 planes. He traveled the world, but he always returned to planes. And even in death, he will return to planes 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 very 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 track suit. So maybe jeans eventually will be formal. The fashion debate triggered by a row at the World Chess Championships. When Elon Musk and Donald Trump torpedoed a spending deal between Republicans and Democrats before Christmas, some believe it signalled 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 shoe-in for re-election? I asked our correspondent Rowan Bridge in Washington. I think saying anybody is a shoe-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 re-elected as 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 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 Donald Trump's influence hasn't always been successful. He called for the lifting of the debt limit, 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 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 re-elected 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 Delorni. 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 Katsimanovich legally owned the guns his son used to kill 10 people, but he'd 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 planned to appeal. Our Balkans correspondent Guy Delaney. 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 population sciences at Harvard University. They've been talking to Reema Ahmed.

The fundamental problem is that for 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 a 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 liberalise and stigma fades, people can afford to be choosy. And this is the biggest trend in the EU right now. So up from 2013, there's 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 all of your research, is there any one overarching 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 these issues. 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 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 Reema Ahmed. On Friday, the world's number one chess player, Magnus Carlsen, was kicked out of the World Rapid and Blitz Chess Championships 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 Hansen, 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 color

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 color, 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 shirt 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 Hartford Street, even they allowed

for jeans. They say that jeans must be smart, they must be non-fraid, and they must be of a uniform color. I think anyone who has the sense to 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 straightforward about what jeans you are allowing in. But yeah, obviously it could be open to interpretation if you just said all denim is acceptable. No, genes 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 track suit 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 jeans 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 very quickly changed their dress code. I think that slightly undermines it. They can by all means review it, but take a few weeks, months, year to review it, not the next day. One person's elegant is another person's really sloppy. 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 Hartford 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. There was an 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 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 Hansen and Hannah Rogers. And that is all from us for now, but the Global News podcast will be back very soon. This edition was mixed by Caroline Driscoll and produced by Alfie Haberschen. Our editors, Karen Martin. I'm Oliver Conway. Until next time, goodbye. What do Tiger Woods, Mark Zuckerberg and Taylor Swift all have in common? Well, their lives and fortunes are all being discussed on Good Bad Billionaire, the podcast exploring the minds, motives and the money of some of the world's wealthiest individuals. I'm Zing Zing and each week my co-presenter Simon Jack and I take a closer look at the

world's mega-rich and we try to decide whether they're good, bad or just another billionaire. From celebs and CEOs to sports stars and tech titans, find out how billionaires made their For just as long as Hollywood has been Tinseltown, there have been suspicions about what lurks behind the glitz and glamour. Concerns about radical propaganda in the motion pictures. And for a while, those suspicions grew into something much bigger and much darker. Are you a member of the Communist Party? Or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? I'm Una Chaplin, and this is Hollywood Exiles. It's about a battle for the political soul of America, and the battlefield was Hollywood. All episodes of Hollywood Exiles from the BBC World Service and CBC are available now. Search for Hollywood Exiles wherever you get your podcasts.