tv Inside Story Al Jazeera April 11, 2022 2:30pm-3:01pm AST
as much as 27 percent of eligible voters will participate in the recall referendum for below the 40 percent needed for the results to be binding. president lopez, obadiah lord, however, has bowed to respect the outcome of the referendum and resign if he receives less than 50 percent of votes, regardless of voter turnout. though polls have now closed election, official say it could still take several days for the official count to be announced. manuel did up a low al jazeera mexico city. ah, this is our desert. these you top stories, politicians and pakistan national assembly on debasing now. who should become the next prime minister? they will decide on a success the tim ron con. he lost a no confidence vote over the weekend. meanwhile, more than a 100 m. p. 's with cons, pakistan to rekey and soft party have resigned to protest against his ousting. some
binge of aid has moved from slum about but it's been a dramatic good day at the national assembly focused on the lawmakers that have been arriving in the last few hours. you heard from prime minister in round hon, deciding that his party is going to resign on mos from the national assembly, often losing a vote of no confidence. and this is gina and i was just moments ago in a fiery speech by the former, a foreign minister sharma with gracie, who says that they will not be part of the imported set up. he calls this an important government, a government which is being brought in due to a foreign conspiracy. french president, him on my cause back on the campaign trail this time in the northern city of the name. he's looking for extra votes before run off against the far right challenge of marine. the pen and smith has moved from paris. i think we can expect 2 weeks of intensive campaign, and you'll see it out, particularly from emanuel micron. only about one rally before the election on
sunday. he's going to be criss crossing. the country start in northern front today, but if you everything thing, towns and cities across the country, a marine pan who was already campaigning before sunday. she'll become paving hard in the next 2 weeks. she's already said, this is going to be last election campaign her last attempt to try. and when the president, president vladimir putin is due to have his 1st face to face meeting with an e. u. lead us since russia invited ukraine. the austria and chancellor call me, hama, is traveling to moscow a few days after you visited the queen in town of boucher. that's why russian forces have been accused of war crimes which russia has denied me how much spoken out against what he called russian aggression. okay. as you headlines coming up next inside story. ah
president vladimir celeste. he tells all 0 he regrets ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in the 19 nineties and he named several governments that could give security guarantees to protect his country. one of them is china. another is russia . but will anyone actually do that? this is inside story. ah hello, welcome to the program i'm rob madison. ukraine is preparing for what it says will be fierce fighting with russian forces. president vladimir zalinski told al jazeera
that russia could renew its attack on. keep, if you cranium, forces fail on the eastern front. massive accusations been carried out on the eastern city of commer tossed on friday, more than 50 people were killed in a strike on a railway station. ukraine says russia fired missiles while thousands of civilians were waiting to catch trains. rush, i says, it's not to blame it. says keith is responsible, ukrainian forces have managed to retake other times and zalinski says that's giving people new hope. yes. so we can see that the war is not over yet, but so many people are excited and happy that some areas have been liberated and on please to speak about such places. because in others, people are dying. some because of the blockades and others because they're being killed by russian soldiers. but we have put up a face response and they have failed to take keith with residents. zalinski also says that if ukraine was to be a neutral or non aligned country,
it would need security guarantees from foreign governments. and russia would have to be part of that push. ah, yet yonce kasanya was irish. i think that this agreement would be impossible without russian federation. so that's that, that's another story really. me then i now that island being wanted and some other countries wanted to consider becoming a security guarantees. we will also ask for china, france and germany. they also are aware of this situation and so forth. they are showing some sort of respect, hooked and support bad sir. in addition to support and assistance, we need to have very detailed negotiations in order to understand which country is ready to provide, provide, which specific support and assistance and that guarantees. gonzo lensky suggests.
ukraine became weak and at greater risk from invasion when it gave away its nuclear capabilities without 1st securing stronger guarantees than those in the budapest, memorandum of 1994. would up my ski, moran yog, moore's nimble of duck. how could you give bob to weapons and such way without finding any serious document just making a big present for what those who have received that. i mean, what have received what, what we have received, what ukraine have received. we have received a war, and this is one of the reasons why we have become weaker. we have weakened our status, our defense. we have weakened our population. this is what we have given away. we have given away the life. those people who dined this as one of the
reasons here. now, once again, i would like to reiterate it's not are because you would you would be willing to use that. absolutely not. ah. okay, let's bring in our guests. peters are my of is executive director of eurasia democracy initiative is joining us on skype from near keith. i'm from brussels. david o'sullivan is a former secretary general of the european commission, is currently director general of the institute of international and european affairs and from glasgow in the u. k. anton baba shane is the editorial director at riddle russia. it's an online journal on russian affairs, gentlemen. thank you very much indeed for being with us. i want to talk about this reference that the president of ukraine has made with regard to nuclear weapons. peter, let me start with you. if ukraine still had nuclear weapons after the 19 ninety's, what could we have been seeing in ukraine now?
well, you know that that remark actually he 1st made to june the buick security conference a few days before the invasion. i was there in the room when he said it and the russians actually then later use this as an excuse. you know, one of the reasons to start the war that look, ukraine is gung ho about going nuclear and they're going to new cars. but, you know, unfortunately, you know, russians would have used a pretext to do so they don't, they don't need a pretext. obviously, i, when i was getting my master's degree at columbia diversity, one of the bottom of the chest was kenneth was very well known as the retention of the so called a theory of nuclear peace. according to each nuclear weapons are, you know, probably the closest countries have to a security clad guarantee of their security. needless to say, you know, when you're dealing with a country like russia,
it does appear that ukraine would have been probably better off if it had kept it nuclear weapons. and that's why we have this situation destiny, where we are right now, and which 5 to find the formula, which would be the next best thing to nato membership real quick. but that will be the topic of discussion today. david sullivan, if i understand correctly, many of the nuclear weapons we've been talking about in the 1900 ninety's, we're actually soviet weapons and the ukrainians had access to them. but the russians, at least in the early days, had the codes for them. do you think that it ukraine was wise to give up that nuclear power and did it actually have much of a nuclear power to begin with? well, i think that's a very good point. grove. i indeed they were so weapons. they were based in new grain and ukraine had physical access to them. but i also understand that there were some limits to their ability actually to, to use them or 22225 m. i also understand that meant
a lot of the equipment was already somewhat degraded and not in, not in very good shape. so my personal view, i mean, i perfectly understand why you brain feels extremely g, particularly from the guarantees that were given of their territorial sovereignty in return for letting the weapons go back to, to, to russia. but honestly, i, i don't think it was, it was viable for a relatively small country in the middle of europe at to be nuclear armed. i think it would have caused more problems for your grain rather than solving any. and i think it could have been quite d, stabilizing in the regions. i think the ukraine made the right decision at the time, but they are absolutely right to point out that the guarantees they've got in return for doing that have not been respected by russia and the supporters of flagrant breach of the undertakings which were given which started with the annex of crimea, i want to come on to the security guarantees in a moment. but until publishing, do you think, given what our 2 previous speakers have said,
that it would've made any difference at all? if you train had had access to some sort of nuclear power, some sort of nuclear force would have made any difference to russia. well, i have to say that i agree fully with what was already said. i mean, at the time in the early ninety's, it absolutely made sense to bring to give it up. and of course, it would have made the situation completely different. if in 2014 ukraine had bites . at the moment, we're only seeing that the talk of nuclear ukraine is being used instrumental lives by russian propaganda to kind of be for the efforts to d. r mills are great. ok, let's talk about the security guarantees that the president has been talking about that the in the cut that we heard earlier on, he was saying you give a list of countries that could be security guarantors. i want to ask 1st of all, and i'm told i'm going to stay with you. what is your understanding of what is
involved in being a security guarantor under circumstances like this? well, that's an extremely interesting question, and i do not quite understand what sort of security guarantees mean and the moment . i mean, when the talk of it initially came up, it was, i think, fraser, something close to the article, 5 of nato, which sounds quite bizarre because russian side actually dot com and all that much on that because they knew quite well that this is something you were a p, a nation would not be able to provide to brain. so this is all rhetoric. i mean it's nothing, no one could guarantee brain to intervene. to give it more that it's already giving at the moment or to give something that it was brain was denied, for instance, defacto membership of nater. so i don't really think that at this point we're quite there yet to be discussing would be the security guarantees. because the war is
still valid and we are probably going to see maggie fighting next week and pretty much throughout april. my at this moscow still focused on achieving a decisive military victory on the ground. so all the talk about potential security guarantees. well is a bit too mature. peter, what's your assessment of this talk of security guarantees is, is this just rhetoric goes there is a, could it actually leads to, to something the basis of some sort of discussion that the very least well, i absolutely agree with the previous speaker. you know, this is not a very tenable topic on the decisive battle. what is promising to be a decisive battle, you know, with, with tank armies and artillery. this is what the ukrainian side is saying. we should be expecting a new queen is getting heavy weaponry as well. not only defensive but offensive on, you know, so we are looking. we're staring at a very,
very difficult scenario in the next 2 weeks. and keep in mind that main 9 to the sacred in a deed in account is over the nazi germany plat map which is gonna have to pull up some victories to show you the subjects during the military breed. so it's all going to be obviously decided on the battlefield, not diplomatically after that. and blood malesky has said this, you know, he does believe that only by meeting blood report and personally we could hope for some kind of a breakthrough diplomatic breakthrough, but only after ukraine when the battle. i mean, it's contrary to what we, you know, grow up hearing from diplomats, you know, there is no military solution to this or that catholic. unfortunately, we are at a point where only a military solution is feasible and only after decisive showing by ukraine's military. and let me just add a few points, the several issues we made very 40. without them we cannot hope for any sort of
discussion of a secuity garrity unless russia commits to the ukraine. reparations hundreds of billions of dollars of damage has been inflicted on ukraine's infrastructure needs just to say countless lives. we don't know that the exact figure, but it be thousands and thousands and thousands. then the very difficult question of territorial concessions. i mean, are we talking about pre february 24th withdrawal of troops right? or 32014. obviously, without the withdrawal of troops, i at least be able to, to the positions before the 24th of february. we cannot talk about india significant breaks. and finally, finally, i've had said that there will be no diplomatic agreement and no peace on, you know, if it involves the white washing russian war crimes during the invasion, obviously, butcher. and david, i want to ask you because they just that have to talk about this, this idea of security guarantees. it gives us interesting 5, the president you feel it's appropriate to bring it up,
given the points that the gentlemen have or have already made. and also one would imagine that if like the list he gave of a possible guarantors include the u. s, the u. k. and russia, if those guarantors were in place, then surely if there was any incident at all in ukraine, it could bring those guarantors directly into conflict with each other. and one would imagine foreign governor governments do not want to do that, which is actually what we're seeing at the moment with nato. yes, i think i understand we're prisons in teams trying to do is trying to on the one hand, can see that you grant would not join nature, which is a sort of slightly false. but nonetheless, it is the line that moscow's peddling, and he was, but at the same time he was trying to give his country a secure future by saying, well, i'm not going to join. we'd love to join nato, but we want the rest of you collectively to agree to underwrite our security. and he wants the permanent members of the un security council. he wants a range of other countries. now i agree entirely with 2 previous speakers and on.
and peter, that frankly, this is, you know, this is not the subject of the moment and will only come back if and when the military situation has created a situation where, where diplomacy becomes relevant again. but i do see what the president was was trying to do. i'm, i'm skeptical as to whether it's the key will we, we've had in the past that were guarantors for cyprus, u. k, greece and turkey. and then turkey was one of the guarantors. and they did an order in cyprus and neither of the other to do anything about it. so you know, the history of these things is, is not, is not particularly happy. so i understand the idea, i guess what the president was was trying to put, put in to play. but there are many, many obstacles to making such a move success. and the difference, i think, is that he wants a really binding international treaty, very different in nature to the budapest memorandum which, which was the guarantees on territory sovereignty given after the exchange of
nuclear weapons. so i think he's looking for a much more legally binding in and, and as you say any, any country will be very wary to sign up to that. it means that they might have to commit troops in the event of an engine. we've all referred to that the coming conflict that we're going to see in ukraine, that the president himself has referred to, particularly in the east. anton, let me ask you this so far. we have seen russia move towards here, but stop. we've scenic moved towards mario paul and destroy much of of mario poll. there seems to be a suggestion. it is, if not pulling back than refocusing towards the east of the country. what's your assessment of why russia is doing that? what putin is trying to achieve by making that initial move and then moving back. well, i think the answer is quite obvious. it was the initial miscalculation of how easy
it would be for russian troops from march to ukraine. and in fact, it turned out to be quite, may see, got quite bloody and rational are not able to acquire the goals that they had and plan in store for them. so they are just counting on the fact that they still go to mass significant enough group of forces in the east of ukraine to essentially crush. you're bringing military resistance to claim a certain amount of territory and probably to incorporate that either in g p r d o r or directly into the russian state. and claim this to be some sort of intermediary scenario or for the day, but this, it regrouping essentially is happening there because they were not able to accomplish what was initially planned because brushes taking haven't losses and the brain is biting quite fiercely. so this is, this is not a strategy a. busy probably not even strategy. it's probably a plan see i can, you know,
look into that. that's why david anton referred to the fact that moscow wanted, quote, decisive military victory on the ground. do you think that that is what we're leading up to the next few weeks or indeed months, i guess because there is a, a prediction of course this could go on for a very long time. yeah, indeed. i mean, i, i look, i'm not a military strategist, and i certainly don't pretend to know what's going on inside the head of prison. and i think the explanation given is the most plausible that they clearly have not had the early military victory that they hoped they had talked, i think, to take the installer, public government and basically declare victory. the ukrainian fierce resistance, huge cost, but with great bravery, has stopped that. and i think indeed they are falling back perhaps to a military outcome which can be described as victory. that's. that's what it looks like. but listen,
there could be many twists and turns in this. ready before we see anything like as far as, as a sion of facilities. so i think we need to be very, very careful in predictions because quite a few of them proven to be misplaced in the early stages of this conflict and even more recently. so i think it is plausible explanation, but i wouldn't say that mr. booth is completely given up on the idea perhaps of a wider military victory or perhaps linking at the eastern provinces with crimea down to the south of ukraine. there are probably a number of different ideas circulating in russian military circles and the question of what they think they can, they can, they can with that and this is probably going to be tested now, next few weeks. peter here were nodding through that. do you get the feeling that as far as negotiations are concerned, there's really not much point in trying to work out whether or not negotiations are actually working until we get to the point that our previous to guess of talked about. and russia has got what it regards as
a definitive military victory. indeed, i would, i would break my answer to 2 components. first of all, i would corroborate with david just said that, you know, goodness, not only not been dissuaded from his idea to continue this war. in ukraine concentrated the was i'm not even sure he's, but been dissuaded from trying to storm a 2nd time. you know, german chancellor sholtes has recently said that he is afraid that advisors are not giving him the full picture of what is happening in ukraine are not giving him the precise figures. all the number of soldiers lost. the radiance reported a number of almost 20000 military debt. we're not, we're not sure if mr. putting deep in his bunker is still not receiving the true picture or what's happening. and the 2nd one is that, you know,
once again mr. putting is help in on just wanting ukraine as not just as a political entity, but as a culture. there was a, well, a very widely quoted piece, a published on the nova b, r. i a news which is a governmental website, a few days ago, following butcher, which spelled out what russia's goals should be in your grade. and basically, the gist of the article is that, you know, it's clear that it's no longer there's some kind of anti russian who ruling to you . but the entire ukrainian people is very much against russians against russia. and so russia and used to solve the ukrainian question by trying to get rid of ukrainian culture deep, ukrainian eyes, ukraine. it's no longer do not again, asian had demoted ation d. ukraine is ation folks. so we take that the radical,
we take the practical butcher and we have all the inklings of the genocide that is being can be the great david they, we mentioned right at the top of the program that the president's lensky has told algebra that russia could renew its attack on keys. if ukraine force has failed to hold russia on the eastern front, is that a concern? do you think in ukraine that foreign governments may, frankly lose interest if the fighting moves further east and towards the russian government? i. well, i don't know what the new grain are. i think a, i would say, seen from brussels with nature the you, i think that would not be the case. i mean, i think people understand that this is a hugely important conflict. i mean, 1st and foremost, because of the enormous suffering of the ukrainian people, the refugees,
the deaths, the destruction of property. it's horrible, and none of us ever thought we would live to see this in europe in our lifetime. and people have understood that this is mr. newton war and this is, you know, nobody wants a direct confrontation between nato and russia for the obvious risks of nuclear that we talked about. but i think people are not going to lose. ready interest in this or. ready feel anything other than the fact that the outcome of this conflict is absolutely fundamental for the future security architecture of the european continent. and on, do you think that given the fact that there's a lot of speculation, this conflict is going to carry on? it's going to be a long term conflict. afghanistan was a long conflict that russian people had to go through. do you think that the russian people at the moment are prepared to go through a conflict that like that? are they going to tolerate something like that? is a very good question. i can certainly say that russians do not quite understand. do
scope over the call like the cost of the call list. i mean, sanctions only started to be manifested in the country. i mean, they are expected to be seen more in the summer and probably even more so in the fall. so this is probably the horizon that we should be looking at because up until the fall and maybe in the winter, it would not be sort of catastrophic for the russian economy. and it could be bearable for the propaganda to, to manage the expectations of the people if it takes longer than that, it's going to be kind of problematic. i mean, we're seeing criminal react to any sort of sign of descent and whole and is trying to create a picture, total unity behind the cause, which is understood, but the majority of russians as rushes, fighting nato in you, praying that's approx or war to defend russia i mean, a lot of propaganda they're being involved, but i don't think it is something that russia can endure for
a very long time. so it is critical to support and supply ukraine for as long as possible. so we could stop rushes and fans on the ground and military buying it more time. and the more time you bring can resist, the less likely it would be for russia to be able to maintain its pressure on ukraine. long term. anton roberson. thank you very much. indeed, and i want to say thanks to all our guests spaces on my uh, debit, sullivan, and anton barbershop. and thank you to you too. for watching, you can see the program again any time by visiting our website al jazeera dot com, and for further discussion, go to our facebook page. that's facebook dot com, forward slash ha. inside story. you'd also join the conversation on twitter handle is that ha, inside story of the rob matheson and the entire team here in doha hu bye for now. ah
ah. the ha, wrenching, good buys loved ones, not knowing when they were united again, women and children heading west to relative safety, often leaving ben behind among them. foreigners also trying to give out train rise of a free, but it's on a 1st come, 1st serve basis here at the bus station that only a few rides available and that's only to the surrounding villages. so people like for me in rose, now need to find another way to get out of the city. but for now they, like many others, would have to reach in, hoping to morrow is a better day. full of struggles full of pleasure,
no federal guar. i was, was on the label than with i am with me boy. and when i get a our, a brownfield, an intimate look at life in cuba, me for us on our cross. i got my boss hang on me. when i came out, i bought it on people, i may hang the my cuba. at this time on al jazeera m a big lake near the car, attract tourists and underpins the local economy. thousands to pen, don't it's precious. ah, i'll just hear a world explorer, the major environmental issues above and below the surface. the threatened lake red bus very existence center goals spring plate on al jazeera. we understand the differences and similarities of cultures
across the wound, sentimental handy take. it will bring you the news and current affairs that mattel to years ah. ready m ron con successor is pakistan's, prime minister is debated by parliament which removed him in a no confidence vote. ah hello, i'm sammy zaden. this is al jazeera alive from dell hall. so coming up french president emmanuel, my crohn campaigns in industrial hot lands ahead of a ronald vote against fall right challenger marine la pen palestinians, more a 17 year old boy.