24/11/2015 Newsnight

A stab in the back, says Russia as Turkey blows

It's the first time a Nato country has shot down a Russian plane

in over 60 years, and Russia is warning of "serious consequences" -

Is tomorrow's Spending Review the moment George Osborne reshapes the

I said "Dad, they're telling us to get under our desks

"and put our books over our heads".

My dad said "That's not exactly going to be effective

"against a 50 megatonne hydrogen bomb".

And Hollywood legend Stephen Smith meets the director Steven Spielberg

to talk about his new Cold War movie.

Today, Russia and Turkey, two of the countries purporting to be

Each country issued its own radar pictures showing

attacked the Russian bomber to assauge

Turkish discontent at Syrian attacks on the Turkomen in Northern Syria.

And into this volatile mix may fly British warplanes,

if David Cameron wins a House of Commons vote as early as next week.

Our Diplomatic Editor Mark Urban takes us through this drama.

His piece does contain some distressing images.

When two Sukhoi bombers took off this morning from their base, it had

been planned like hundreds of previous sorties. The planes flew

north to hit groups, not previous sorties. The planes flew

to Turkey's frontier. in northern Syria, were very close

to Turkish airspace. Turkish F-16s had taken off

from Diyarbakir airbase With

the Sukhois turning towards Turkish As the second of the jets dipped

into Turkish airspace, for just 17 seconds, covering 1.15

miles, one of the F-16s fired a Sidewinder air to air missile

that struck the Russian jet at 9.24. It plunged

into the ground moments later on a Both pilots ejected. As they floated

down, rebels shot at them. Russia's first responses came over social

media. They denied that the jets were over Turkey, and said ground

fire had brought them down. Even as these denials started to circulate,

images were emerging of one of the pilots, filmed by the rebels and

presumed dead. Allahu Akbar! Cos British Russia attacked from the air

against the operation we started to go. Turkish planes immediately

brought down the Russian plane. This is part of the parachute of the

plane which fell in Syria. Both pilots were captured dead. Our

friends brought them. Our friends fired in the air, we all did. They

died in the air. Turkey brought down the Russian plane. After it bombed

our region and violated the Turkish the Russian plane. After it bombed

border, it was bombed by Turkey. the Russian plane. After it bombed

After the crew ejected, a Russian rescue mission went into action,

looking for the one pilot that they believed was still alive. At around

10.30, a pair of rescue helicopters were seen flying over the Turkmen

Mountain crash site. President Putin made his first statement.

TRANSLATION: Today's event is a stab in the back that has been given to

us by the accomplices of terrorists. In Syria, things were going from bad

to worse for the Russians. One of the rescue choppers was forced by

rebel fire to make an emergency landing. Using an American supplied

missile, the Syrians then destroyed it. A second Russian, one of the

rescue party, was killed. By the time Russian TV came on air, there

was a clear line that Turkey had deliberately engineered this

incident. The presenter said it was intended to harm the anti-IS

coalition, and interviewees pointed the finger at Turkey's leaders.

TRANSLATION: This was not a spontaneous decision. It wasn't just

taken at the tactical military level, it was taken at a political

level, because these things have to be decided by the country's

leadership. Turkey's air force has been used to send a message. Nato

publicly backs its member in defending sovereign airspace, but

privately, many allies on the other President Erdogan's escalation.

Tonight, he was defiant in defence of the air force and in his support

of Syrian Turkmen across the border. TRANSLATION: We are feeling

distressed for encountering such and in the incident, but the actions

were fully in line with Turkey's rules of engagement that have been

declared before. Turkey does not harbour enmity towards its

neighbours. Russia this evening said it will fly future strike missions

over Syria with fighter escorts ma and has broken off liaison with

Turkey. Today's crisis has been managed, just. But another could be

around the corner. In a moment, we'll discuss

the potential consequences of this, but first to a former Turkish

ambassador to Nato, Onur Oymen. When I spoke to him earlier from

Istanbul, I started by asking him what he thought of Vladimir Putin

calling the shooting down of Russian Well, I believe that is mistaken,

because the problem is that it is a sensitive area. In the last two

months, there were three violations of Turkish airspace and it is too

much. Turkish aircraft acted according to rules. They imposed

warnings. The general said, we warned ten times.

Each country has to protect its airspace and I remember that

some years ago, the Russians shot a Korean civilian commercial

aircraft because it was flying in a sensitive security zone.

And the Americans have shot down an Iranian passenger plane because

Can you tell me why, there seems to be some suggestion

that in Turkey, a number of people are quite happy about this action

because Turkmen in Syria have been targeted for bombs by the Russians?

Turkmen have been living in this area for centuries and

in the recent months and weeks, they were attacked by Assad forces

and they're fighting Assad forces in the area to protect their villages.

I do not believe that it would be appropriate to link

So what do you think the impact of this event will be

Turkey is also fighting and have detained some Isis members

Imagine, we have a 910 kilometres long border with Syria.

So we have all the reasons to be extremely careful and we are

confident that if the international community work together,

then we will find a way to finish with Isis.

Nato has called tonight for a de-escalation after this

Do you think you can achieve that de-escalation?

We have a lot of common interest with Russia,

therefore I believe that we can solve this problem and find a way to

Thank you very much for joining us tonight.

With me now from Washington is Kurt Volker, the former US permanent

representative to NATO and from Moscow, Oksana Boyko, a presenter on

Oksana Boyko, when Vladimir Putin talks about serious consequences,

what is meant by that? I think he is still trying to figure that out. As

you pointed out, immediate matters have already been taken and there

has been military build-up in the area. From now on, attack our planes

will be accompanied by bombers for protection. Russia has also

repositioned its cruiser in the Mediterranean Sea. But it is obvious

that Russia will have to reassess its relationship with Turkey as well

as the Turkish role in this whole nascent coalition to fight Isis. But

what exactly will happen is anyone's guess at this point. You talk about

the reassessment of relations between Russia and Turkey. I wonder

what impact you think this might have on relations between Russia and

Nato? Well, we have yet to see that, I guess. The prevalent theory in

Moscow is that one of the reasons why Erdogan felt the need to do

something like that was to provoke confrontation between Nato and

Russia over Syria and provoke Russia into doing his bidding, creating

this so-called safe zone in northern Syria where he put, among other

things, to clamp down on the Kurdish groups. As far as I know, Washington

is still opposed to that because they see Kurds as potential allies

in their fight against Isis. But for now, both Nato commanders as well as

Nato leaders have been calling on both sides to stay calm. And this is

what the Kremlin is trying to do. Kurt Volker, what do you make of

Oksana Boyko's analysis? A couple of things. I don't believe that either

washer or Turkey has an interest in this escalating into a Russian-

Turkish conflict. There will be some hot language and positioning in the

next few days. But I don't believe either side wants to have a

conflict. I think we will see things stabilise. Secondly, the differences

over what should happen next in Syria will persist. Russia will

continue to back Assad and to attack rebels fighting Assad, even though

they are not Isis. And Turkey will not want to see a sad state in

power, but will view Isis as the more critical threat. And I think we

will see a play for more European support on Russia's side. We heard

some interesting statements from President Hollande on from the

German Foreign Minister today, saying that maybe we need to work

more closely with Russia. So the irony would be that this is adding

to the volatile situation, but Turkey might ironically bring Europe

and Russia closer in terms of dealing with Isis? That is right.

Seeing a Russian plane downed, nobody wants to see that. We all

feel for the pilots, they were just doing their job and now they are

dead. That said, seeing a Russian plane shot down will make every

European leader want to say, we don't want to see this escalate into

a bitter conflict, how do we work with Russia on this? Oksana Boyko,

there have been reports, and Nato have said that since October, there

have been many violations by Russian planes into Turkish airspace, and we

know that Russian aeroplanes often test Nato boundaries. I wonder why

this has been happening, what is the purpose of this? Well, that has been

happening on all sites. Turkey is itself a frequent violator of other

countries 's pace. This summer, it violated Greek airspace around 20

times. But there are obviously other ways of dealing with that situation

apart from shooting the plane down and killing the pilot. You have also

shown to job the pilot's body surrounded by roubles, with them

proposing to burn the body. Imagine what would happen to an American or

British audience seeing their pilots' bodies being treated in that

way. I want to remind you that in Syria, the Americans and the British

will be operating without a Syrian mandate. So the Syrian air force has

the right to do the same, but of course, I hope they will refrain

from that. Coming back to your question, there have been many other

means for the Turkish sites to escort the Russian plane out of its

airspace if it violated Turkish airspace, which is still debatable.

President Obama said earlier today that even American intelligence

cannot confirm that. And the Russians deny that. A quick question

to both of you. Oksana, there may be a vote in the British Parliament

next week on whether the UK should join strikes. In your view, would

Britain's involvement in the air over Syria be good or bad?

The airspace above Syria is already crowded. The Russians and Americans

are there, the Syrians, the French. What we really need at this point is

diplomatic support to figure out the rules of engagement to prevent

incidents like we had today. I'm not sure in military terms that the UK

could add much. But it could do a lot diplomatically. Do you think we

should see a British aeroplanes in the skies in Syria? I will agree on

this, we do need more coordinated strategy for how to go after Isis.

Russia is not really going after Isis, it is backing the President

Assad regime which is going to cause more trouble down the line.

Including more refugees. If we could pull together a way to go after Isis

I think the more capacity we could bring to bear the better. Everyone

together, I think Isis is a scourge and dangerous to all of us. We all

have professional military is and we can coordinate and avoid these type

of incident. Turkey provided a lot of warning to Russia and this is not

the first time Russian aeroplanes have violated the airspace in Turkey

or with other countries. So I do not expect that to continue, I think

Russia will not want to do that. Hopefully this can be a pivot to

going after Isis together. You'd have to be living on Mars not

to know that tomorrow, the Chancellor

will lay out his five year plan in the Spending Review - not least

because the House of Lords gave him a bloody nose over his proposal to

axe tax credits, leaving him with fewer options to

obliterate the deficit by the end of

this parliament, a deficit which is George Osborne is planning deep cuts

to departments which aren't protected -

indeed, the NHS in England and Wales is to get a windfall - but does

the real austerity start here? Here's our political editor

Allegra Stratton. George Osborne residence is felt all

over town right now as he tries to take ?20 billion out of government

spending. -- his presence. Tomorrow is his third spending review and

possibly his last. His last chance to shape a state in his image before

he tries to become leader himself. Over the last six years he has been

tagging this government departments, leaving his mark on a series of

unprotected departments while political pressures have seen him

ring fencing others. International element, NHS, schools, this summer

he added defence. We already know much of what he's going to announce.

He will increase spending on health service and detect parts of the

Department for Education but also more cuts for some other

departments. The results of all that is we will see larger cuts to some

departments that are left by the Home Office and Department for

business, the department that those skills and productivity boosting

work. He would have to cut bills by 30% or use of on the pace of cuts.

The largest unprotected department is the Department for business and

for some time the gossip in Whitehall and even amongst Cabinet

ministers is that as the arch free marketeer business secretary Sajid

Javid has put forward the most swingeing cuts. 55% cuts to his

department has done the rounds as a figure. I am assured by his aides

that this is not the case. But you can see the appeal of this. Dig deep

in one or a few areas and shield the rest of Whitehall. Just a little

bit. The most acute political problem is how to soft and or

reverse his tax credit changes. Over at the Home Office he will also have

to detail how he is cutting policing was protecting its cousin,

counterterrorism. To do this, he may eat into the ?10

billion of surplus he planned to If he spends much

of the surplus repairing the damage on tax credits, it leaves

him little room for manoeuvre What tricks might he have up

his sleeve? Will we see charges increase across

the public sector, so in a sense we stop using tax funded money going to

departments but those departments themselves, though services start

charging for their use. We've seen court fees introduced, tuition fees

for university 's famously five years ago. Lots of options around

that. If George Osborne wants to be Prime Minister at the end of this

Parliament, does he need to be more than the Butcher of Whitehall? Of

course, he needs to be creating a vision at the same time as cutting

the state. But with the idea be? Tomorrow he will tell Parliament he

has managed to reform the state alongside reducing its size. But

does he need more than that? If I was Chancellor I would make the next

leap into the network age. We cannot ever cuts unless we so. Internet

gives you the option to do things differently and much better. There

is a brilliant example in the Netherlands, the nursing community,

they reorganised their model where they had not enough nurses going

into homes to care for people and many people doing bureaucracy at the

centre. They flip that around and did some basic stuff using the

internet as the organising principle. We did some research in

the UK to show if we did the same year we would save ?6 billion. This

is a matter of extreme urgency. I do not believe we can properly weather

the storm that is to come unless we look at these examples extremist

seriously. Will it be George Osborne the visionary, painting and primary

colours, or the protector or the slayer of public sector waste? Which

one of these marks will last the longest?

I'm joined now by Isabel Hardman from the Spectator and the

What will be the characteristics of George Osborne and his vision of the

state after tomorrow? Take a step back and think about what will

happen tomorrow. We are halfway through what will be a

transformative decade. The UK has come really out of the banking

crash, it then staggered through the sharpest spending cuts since the

1920s and then George Osborne is going to take the state down to the

smallest level since 1948. Smaller than Margaret Thatcher even

planned. But there are protected areas, health, defence, education.

Those areas will not be reduced. These are massive areas. This is the

point at which his mass Brunson 's politics. He wants to do a surplus

at the end of the decade. And he also wants to protect big errors are

spending so he has to go back to making cuts in the same errors he

made cuts in for the past five years. That means cutting the

Department for business, the Home Office, the Minister for Justice,

local government. Is that the vision you think George Osborne has of the

state? I think it is the reality, you have a lopsided state where you

have areas protected for political reasons which are not up for debate.

So schools for instance. Pre-16 protected, post-16, sixth form

colleges, not protected. Social care is not protected. Health is

protected so you have people developing acute health problems as

a result of cuts in social care funding. But the health budget not

up debate. The way you put it it does sound apocalyptic put up but he

must have bread that will go down well and

where it will go down badly and what the result of political game would

be. I do not think the apocalyptic is a good idea. A lot of people made

predictions about the effect of the cuts in 2010. But some

predictions about the effect of the about. There comes a point at which

the about. There comes a point at which

if you are ring fencing others. That is the problem, you

if you are ring fencing others. That certain areas while saying you have

got to cut from others. certain areas while saying you have

credits, he was much less certain areas while saying you have

sure-footed than it would have been expected and now

sure-footed than it would have been reconfigure that. There will

sure-footed than it would have been on that tomorrow? The interesting

thing about tax credit cuts is it is a demonstration of the kind of

thing about tax credit cuts is it is that George Osborne will be forced

into more and more over the next few years. If you remember at the start

in 2010 he said he would cut tax credit cuts but for the better.

in 2010 he said he would cut tax protest. He does it again

in 2010 he said he would cut tax but on lower paid people and there

is a huge protest. This is what happens when you keep

is a huge protest. This is what cuts. What will be the biggest

is a huge protest. This is what losers tomorrow? Give us some ideas

of the big losers. Local government. losers tomorrow? Give us some ideas

Social care and local government. Well looking at this, if this is the

manifesto for the Well looking at this, if this is the

be Prime Minister, he does not want to be seen as the Butcher but the

be Prime Minister, he does not want Britain. What is this meant to say

about Britain. What is this meant to say

to focus on his vision Britain. What is this meant to say

house-building, the living wage, he has to change the tax credits... He

pro-business? He has got to show a vision of a chance of a Chancellor

who believes in handing things out as well. At the moment he tends to

do the handing out announcements dresses ministers tend to do the

miserable announcements. You can only sustain loyalty for so long

when you keep doing that to business, dashed to ministers. This

is a big moment to lay out his vision of what kind of person he

would like to preside over. Throughout the past five years there

has been an argument over George Osborne, ideologue or pragmatist. Is

he just inheriting MS and trying to do is best or does he have a beady

eyed vision of state. I do not think he is either, he thinks about the

economics of it, I think he is clueless. We should never have been

here in the first place, he should have finished his job by now anyway.

Instead we have another five years of cuts. The economy, we have this

tepid and mediocre growth and people are worse off than before the

banking crash. It is unfair to say he is clueless, I think you can make

political mistakes as we saw with tax credit cuts. They tend to be

when he thinks he's being his most clever. He has not been as clever as

he thinks this autumn. Tonight we have the makings of a crisis between

Nato and Russia with the downing of a Russian warplanes by Turkish

forces. 50 years ago at the height of that

conflict it was a US spy plane that That led to the incarcaration

of the US pilot Gary Powers and is the setting for Steven

Spielberg's new film, Bridge of The film is based on a true story

about an American lawyer who went In his only news interview

the Oscar-winning director talks divas, Donald Trump and deniable ops

with our man we don't You're going to be taking

pictures over Soviet territory. Steven Spielberg's new film is

a real life Cold War thriller about a downed American U-2 pilot, Gary

Powers, and the intrigue involved You're an American,

you could well be detained. I had absolutely no idea that

this story ever took place. Every American knew that Gary Powers

had been shot down and he had been But I did not know

about the spy swap or about And we agree to the rules,

and that's what makes us Americans. It's all that makes us Americans, so

don't tell me there's no rule book. And don't nod at me like that,

you son of a bitch. James Donovan, a lawyer who acted

as the middleman in the spy swap, is played by Tom Hanks

as an all-American family man. Tom Hanks is the kind

of moral centre of the film. Some perhaps slightly unkind people

have said he's a little too Well, there is no story without, you

know, the character that he plays. And the character he plays,

he's never quite played anyone I mean, Tom has played, you know,

men of principle But he has never played this kind

of a ruffian, this kind Have you represented

many accused spies? This will be a first for the both

of us. Where Mark Rylance got involved, I

saw Twelfth Night, and Jerusalem, and

was a huge fan of him in theatre. I had offered him Empire Of The Sun

when he was 23 years old to play one of the principal characters,

and he turned me down! He chose theatre over film

in the late '80s. I just simply said,

I'm going to try a second time to see

if he would play Rudolf Abel. Is there any outcome here where I'm

not either detained or shot? The next mistake our countries

make could be the last one. Now, a contemporary audience will

see this, it's about the Cold War, but they may well be thinking

of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Have you told that story via

the back door, as it were? No, I came through the front door

on this movie, and I told all The back door story,

I absolutely acknowledge that there are all kinds of relevant parallels

to things that are happening today I certainly, you know, can't avoid

the fact that we are spying on each other, we're cyberspying on

each other more than ever before. You know, there's all kinds of drone

overflights taking place today. There were U-2 overflights

taking place in the '50s and '60s. So there's a lot of parallels and

in a sense, all that made this story more relevant for me

in the current context, but didn't convince me to direct

it because there was relevance. What convinced me to direct it was,

it's just a bloody good story! In the name of God,

why aren't we hanging him? Are you comfortable with America's

role in the world, the surveillance There was no real, you know,

message in Bridge of Spies I didn't make the movie to push

my own political agenda out there, because my politics are

subliminal through my work. I did it more with Schindler's List,

you know. Who I was was relevant, at least what I believed in

and how strongly I felt. That came through in

Schindler's List. File a grievance with

the economic office. A big shot from the SS budget

and construction office came to lunch and he told us that to believe

a Jewish worker had a place in Reich economics was

a treasonable idea. If you have a political agenda,

and you really want to turn some heads and change some hearts

and minds to believe in the direction you're believing,

television is the greatest, you know, conduit for that

because it reaches more people. You're not just talking

about our show there, are you?! Will you be festooning your Chevy

with Donald Trump bumper stickers, What does that mean,

festooning my Chevy? I didn't imagine you ran

an old pick-up! But what about the Donald,

as people persist in calling him? There's a future biopic there,

if nothing else, isn't there? I think what will determine the

viability and the commerciality of What would you say about

the outcome, where's your money? History will tell us what

the outcome is. I'm not going to take a position

on that right now, except that everybody knows I am

a supporter of Hillary Clinton. This is the BBC, an organ of record,

so here you can speak freely about the actor who has been

the biggest... who has given you the most issues

on set. Sharks have given me a big issue

on set. Well, actually,

you have answered my own question. That's

the best answer to that question. The shark broke down because

of mechanical problems actually And I just went ahead and made the

movie anyway, using the ocean as the I think it cranked up the suspense

a lot more. That shark was a

complete prima donna! And just would not come out

of its dressing room. Its dressing room happened to be

the Atlantic Ocean. But we could not get

the shark to make an appearance. And I think in a sense,

because the shark didn't show up, the shark's no-show saved

the movie. when the world's nations gather

in Paris next week to thrash out a deal to tackle climate change,

in the bank already will be the pledges of around 150 countries

on what they are willing to do to It's evidence that at last, things

appear to be moving in the direction Our environment analyst

Roger Harrabin has been to see how one of the world's poorest countries

- Malawi - is offering to play its part in the climate battle

by getting renewable energy and reducing deforestation,

on condition that rich countries Nine out of ten of people in Malawi

have no electricity. He sells the charcoal almost all

people here use for cooking. William says he doesn't want to be

doing this for a living, She grubs in the dirt

for fragments of charcoal to sell. Malawi's carbon emissions

from fossil fuel burning are tiny. But bare hills are the result

of the charcoal trade. And that is heating

the local climate. And soil flushing

off deforested hills is also choking That in turn is

the country's prime energy supply. Dams like this make 95% of Malawi's

electricity. It is one of the cleanest

power systems in the world. But silt and debris have shrunk

reservoir capacity by two thirds, Man-made problems here are

compounded by climate change. So the rains recently have

been low and erratic. But back in February,

devastating floods strewed debris Like many developing countries,

Malawi is in a bind. Suffering already

from changing climate, This cooking oil factory is

a major employer. But it has suffered from regular

blackouts, until industry was Elsewhere, this might be thought

a good green solution. But here, it risks even

greater deforestation. Some environmentalists in the West,

in the UK and America, say we should be getting out of coal, we

should not be burning any more coal. Yes, probably, we should not

be. But what is the alternative that we

could use and run our factories? What is the alternative, what do

you suggest we should be doing? Should we be closing

down productions There should be some kind

of alternate energy source that we If I'm using firewood or I'm using

coal, I don't think it makes much Malawi is one

of 150 nations pledging to but only

if rich nations help to pay. And it says whatever Western

environmentalists might think, it also needs two new coal-fired

power stations. The Malawi government

is still developing. As a developing country, we still

need a lot So the government has decided we

still need to go We do realise it is one of the

main sources of emissions globally. A welcome song to

a village that is pioneering simple technology to reduce the destructive

demand for wood fuel. They are not the most efficient

on the global market, but they are creating jobs

and keeping costs down. But at the same time,

we have huge deforestation. We therefore need to develop

better innovative and sustainable Bolted onto a cook stove,

this is a thermoelectric generator. Developed with Irish

government funding. Creating a temperature differential

between two sheets of metal makes enough electricity to charge a light

or phone when you're cooking. And in the darkness, British

aid is casting a little light. Six-year-old Rachel's school grades

have improved But here is a reality check -

most people here can't afford the ?5 lamps

and whatever happens in climate negotiations, countless families

will still face a mighty challenge Just time for tomorrow's front

pages. They all have the dramatic picture of the Russian jet coming

down after being hit by the F-16. That is the Independent. Then the

Guardian, with two of the Syrian refugees on the front page. And the

Times has the parachute of one of the pilots. And looking forward to

tomorrow's spending review, the Daily Telegraph. A second SNP MP

quits amid inquiry. And the Financial Times, house-building

drive at the heart of Osborne was Mike plan.

That's all we have time for - good night.

Good evening. A split through the rest of the week. Outbreaks of rain

and Judy start to the day. But some sunshine. Rain drifting a little

further east. Quite mild and 10 degrees but still cloudy for the