the wind has nothing to read. definitely. pull just the yes. yes, that's what you present. purple apples very special to georgia, choose your favorite color. since the start of the russian invasion, ukraine's military has held the front lines even advancing with arms and munitions supplied by western allies, weapons for homeland defense only no attacks into russia allow as the us president had said, we don't want this to escalate. well, the us is, or the u. k has already given the green light for its weapons to be fired across the border. and now the us may soon followed suit. so what has changed? why would this, you turn not put us on the path to world war 3. i bring golf berlin. this is the

day, the ukraine's bravely this thing being so homeland against russia. they brutal themselves and we have everything, you know, a problem actually is that the rock for self defense includes all striking military targets, digits and printers, targets outside ukraine. they need what funds and they need them cost extra. 99 percent of the mean for support to to train homes from the twilight. let's stand up to do that. also coming up the us in chinese defense geez, will be holding one on one talks this weekend can the 2 big powers in the pacific turned down the temperature in this volatile region will last a leading expert if there were to be

a conflict between china and the united states, the costs are so high that it's important for all parties to try everything in their power to preventive or to our viewers watching on cbs, in the united states and to all of you around the world. welcome. we begin today with a possible change in the user instructions for western weapons. a more tonight, nato foreign ministers are in prague where there is open discussion about lifting restrictions placed on ukrainian forces when they use weapons supplied by the us in europe. the question here should ukraine be allowed to aim and fire at targets inside russia? how is ukraine supposed to win this for? otherwise, i believe that the time has come to consider some of these restrictions to enable their kindness to really defend themselves and restaurant in either the content they, the ukraine on ukraine costs, according to international law. the right to defend themselves isn't showing the

new instructor. on the rock for self defense includes also striking military targets of judgment. printer targets outside ukraine. will ukraine to president bought them? is a landscape is also calling on need a members to set up an air defense shield over his country to protect it from russian airstrikes in an interview with the new york times. he said, so my question is, what's the problem? why can't we shoot them down? is it defense? yes. is it an attack on russia? no. dw is alexander phenomena is following the talks force in prague. she has more of the growing pressure on nato allies to deliver weapons with no strings attached . we heard from the install from the quite a, quite a passionate fleet. he argued that it cannot be, that the russian troops are sitting just across the border. so actually on the front lines and they're launching their attacks from that point to from their

military base as their and ukraine is not allowed to use western made long rage weapons to attack those positions. however, we also have to say that he is urging elyse to reconsider the limitation restrictions, but nato is not providing weapons to ukraine. it is up to individual allies to decide what kind of weapons to are providing and whether there are any restrictions on the use of those weapons. and there are some members of the alliance for us as for most of course, the u. s. and germany who are very skeptical, when we talk about the usage of the west and made weapons senior queen are going to take the story now from prague to washington. i'm joined now by douglas lutes. he's a former lieutenant general of the us army, and a former us ambassador to nato and faster it's good to have you on the program to

the united states so far is banned to ukraine from using us made weapons inside russian territory. we're getting reports now that the us may partially lift, that ban. what do you think has changed? i really think the most immediate change is the russian massing of ground forces. just across the border inside russia, but opposite the 2nd largest city in ukraine parties. and from the mass forces, russia has been showing car key, showing the civilian infrastructure, endangering just simply an occupation. and this, i think, is the proximate reason for this apparent shift in us policy. the bigger story, however, is that for more than 2 years, russia has been launching attacks from russian territory on of ukrainian civilian population, civilian infrastructure, and has largely been doing so with impunity. so this is a f major,

an early step which may lead to something more significant. we have heard from you as president biden results. we've also heard from the german chancellor schultz for the past 2 years that any change in the weapons use stance would be an escal atory move. so why is this change then? not just that. what the 2 reasons. first of all, we now have 2 years of experience that rushes stress, hooton's threats of escalation if a particular step were taken. so remember initially we're talking about shoulder fired into tank weapons. this would be dangerous. now we're talking all the way up the scale towards f sixteens, and in each case, each step was accompanied by a threat of escalation. and what we've actually seen over the last 2 years is that russia has escalated as far as it can. it is already after striking with impunity in many cases,

civilian infrastructure of civilian populations. and so for the 2nd key reason, i think that's collation has a cap. now that is the deterrence still works. russia understands, but it does not want a direct conflict with nato on in washer. here's received very clear signals for both united states and from its erstwhile l. a. china, that nuclear escalation should never be considered. it has received those signals, and yet that's exactly the threat that has come from the kremlin to be we. it's been made clear that exercises together with bella ruse include tactical nuclear weapons that would be used if there were to be any type of move against russia by nato. i mean that that's a clear statement, isn't it? it's a statement, but it has not been followed up by any actions. we have not seen the intelligence community here in the united states and across the lines has not seen any practical

measures that suggest that pollutant is moving closer to using nuclear weapons. that remains intact. so again, why confidence level here remains that deterrence and a particular nuclear deterrence, which is neutral. brian, it works both ways, that neutral deterrence is still in effect. would we be talking about changing the rules about using weapons had the us and this really is looking just that the us had the us not taking so long to get this latest shipment of weapons approved for you? correct. i mean, it is, is the us congress, the political blockade, is that responsible for what we're seeing right now? the bill? partly so because at least for the 6 months of which was the result of the congressional delay, that 6 months of time allowed the russians to get their feet uh,

retailer themselves and begin to press against the front lines. and part of that pressure is the pressure i mentioned earlier around the this the ukrainian city of carpet. but the story is actually longer than that. this is a 2 year story. the where we have in placed on the ukrainians, caviar us, are restrictions and so forth. which have actually impeded their ability as the secretary general mentioned, i thought very, very strongly and clearly. and his comments have placed restrictions on the ukrainians against their ability to defend themselves. so we've impeded the right of self defense, and i'm hopeful that these recent moves may actually remove those restrictions. i'm trying to get a read on what you're in stoughton brig said earlier today, you're a former ambassador to nato. i mean, it's not very, came out in public and said very clear now is the time to rethink our stance on

weapons use. he would not have said that in public had he not received the green light from the united states. is that a correct re uh, not precisely, the sector german student burden his predecessors. i have often mostly mostly consulted closely with united states and particularly with the white house, but they also have a, an important independent policy voice. and i think in this case, such a general sort bird may be leading the way towards a change in policy. so maybe he actually moved the need or today some what is that where you're say as well. i think he's been on this path for some time. so this is not completely dues. today he's been on, he's been straightened in his reminders of what the, for example, the you and chart says about the right of all member states to self defense and the right of other member states to support

a member state at risk in this case ukraine. so he's been a strong voice for some time now. i think the, the tactical initiative by the russians a wrong car. keith is what has caused this, this, this shift today. but as i've said, actually the, the problem has persisted for months. and that is that russian air strikes against ukraine from inside russian territory have been watched from bases that have largely been in sanctuary because of our restrictions. and the secretary general is calling that up. you work inside the beltway in washington. you, you know, what season we're in right now. they are, i mean, we have a presidential election coming up in november. the can you give us a, just maybe a read on what the, the, the future for us support for ukraine will be at the end of this year. and

it really depends on what happens in november. so how, how do you craft a policy that's going to be election proof as well? that 1st of all, there's no predictable path for a year, right? there is no policy decision that could be taken today. that will guarantee some outcome 6 or 12 months from now. so there's the uncertainty of war that flavors, everything that's going on in ukraine. i think the sure assign, however, is the strong bipartisan, both republican and democratic party support uh for ukraine as witnessed by eventually the passing of the more than $60000000000.00 of military assistance. that's critical. that's $60000000000.00. more than matched by european contributions, by the way, rule combined give you create enough to do to fix 1st of all, stabilize the front lines and prevent any small tactical gains incursions further,

incursions by the russians. and 2nd of all, ideally, coupled to these policy decisions in terms of relaxing restrictions, did the ukraine is what they need to strike deep to hit these watch sites, air bases and muscle sites from which the russians are heated and crank. and equally important to hit the russian logistics nodes. so i'm in occupied ukraine and some inside russia that are actually supporting and feeding the occupation the illegal occupation of ukraine. so it's, i think the next 6 months will be critical to see if you can, can do those 2 things, stabilize the product, and strike deep investigator douglas lake. we appreciate you taking the time to talk with us. um, excellent, insight and analysis just when we need it. thank you. thank you as well the united states and chinese defense chiefs are set to hold rare direct talks

in single port this weekend. the expected meeting between pentagon chief lloyd austin and his chinese counterpart on june will take place at the shangri la dialogue. it's a security for him that has become a barometer of us china relations. or if they go ahead, they'll be the 1st substantive face to face talks between us and chinese. defense cheats in 18 months. it's hoped in open dialogue between 2 of the world's most powerful militaries will prevent confrontations in the region from spinning out of control. especially the flash point, disputes over tie one in the south china sea. and the dispute at south china sea filipinos civilian flotilla is shadowed by the chinese cuz going its mission to deliver supplies to filipino system and discover or so the activists group is called, this is ours,

which volunteers have written in tagalog on the boys. they're floating here, but of the 100 vessels that set off and leave a handful, reach that destination many to and back of to being followed by laundry. chinese coast gunk ships. the stand off is one of the number of maritime incidents that have started the tensions between manila and beijing. he'll a rival claims to a number of locations in the world has west of the philippines. the leaders, the scarborough sol, is one of the disputed areas. its photo fishing grounds full within the philippines, exclusive economic sun, which he can see and yellow here. but they're also within china, so called 9 dash line in china claims the area within the spine to 2016 international court ruling. it had no legal basis to do so. they jane has dismissed the philippines civilian mission as a publicity stunt. but also,

it keeps money less frequently aggravating tensions in the south china sea just seems, or if the philippine side is bent on having its own way, well, what china will take the necessary measures, routes of firmly defend its jane a bit right on your end to interest you in 5 minutes, the said to dunc tree, since those comments tensions have risen even further in the region with aging launching, who games around the philippines know the neva, taiwan. citing the defense ministry in taipei. reuters reported the chinese will. planes also flew into the posse channel, which separates taiwan and the philippines. manila didn't directly address paging slate. just the news is that at a navy cetera, many last week, the philippine defense secretary said his country was committed to defending its territorial interests. with drain

moriello kelly, bear with me more modifying for a family peace between us and like minded nations. mark paintings are not more and better off in a minute. the exercises in moving also our significant 3rd parts in early may. manila already state is large scale board rails, with its mutual defense tray to ally the united states. it involves more than $16000.00 military personnel and infuriated staging, a full se. last week, the philippine coast gone to announce the opening of new security outpost on a found northern island. a stated response to china, the military build up and the a tie one over the past 2 years. and a way to come to threats including quite foreign intrusions.

like doing now by or you on the skylark masters, she's an expert on chinese politics. she's currently a fellow at the freeman spoken the institute for international studies at stanford university. she's also with the carnegie endowment for international peace or latest book is entitled upstart, how it china became a great power. the book looks at how china has successfully competed for power in the past 3 decades. it's good to have you on the program with this. we've got a lot to talk about and talking about difficult dialogue. what can we expect from talks between the us secretary of defense and his new chinese counter part? i want to ask you, are these 2 men in your opinion, are they able to speak the same language? well, they're not able to speak the same language and they're also not even in the same positions the minister of defense. and the chinese system is primarily the top corner handler. he doesn't have operational control over the armed forces. he's not

at the top of the hierarchy in terms of decision making in the military. so the united states has tried for many years to get a different counterpart for the secretary of defense, a vice chairman of the central military commission, or someone that has the power more commensurate with what the us secretary of defense has. so it's not only that they have different interests, they quite literally do not speak the same language, but they also are not really peer, it's within their system. so, so is it a good sign then that he's even at these, these talks in single poor. i mean, isn't it an attempt to meet at i level i wouldn't necessarily take it as a good sign the chinese or that the united states are attending these talks as being real law has been a very useful place for defense ministers. and secretary of defense is to meet and in the past, so they always go. the question then is do they have the side line meetings and how

productive they are? and i don't really expect for the united states in china to really reach any sort of significant agreement, is probably going to be more of a drive by handshake. perhaps an opportunity for the united states to re emphasize some messages on tatooine and without trying to see. but i don't think it's a really a reset or new beginning to more constructive. milton, no relationship that we know the concern about escalation, you know, is, is strong. and of a salient is ever how important is a direct line between the chinese and us military is mean potential for disastrous misunderstanding. seems enormous. if there were to be a conflict between china and the united states, the costs are so high that it's important for all parties to try everything in their power to prevented. that being said, these types of dialogues are direct contacts between 2 sides that only really prevent conflict if there's some sort of misunderstanding or accident that lies at

the heart of that escalation. if it's deliberate and provocative, like i would argue, is the case of chinese behavior in the south china sea, united states having a direct line to tell china that's what they're doing. these are the, the philippines, for example, is unacceptable and dangerous. doesn't really bring the temperature down in the region with it. how do you explain? but what we've seen in the past, there was this incident where the pentagon attempted to and said to call the aging and said that they wouldn't answer the phone as well. exactly. so in these cases, china is being very deliberate about their dangerous activities. it's a risk manipulation strategy. they're rocking the boat and they're saying, we're willing to let a tube over, are you. and so part of the strategies to increase things id in the united states by not allowing that communication to happen with the hope that then the united states unilaterally backs down and it's worked in the past. um, so it is a somewhat successful chinese strategy is a layout in my book,

but one that makes it problematic for the united states and its allies. what would you say is the biggest security threat in the asia pacific region right now? me? where could we see a dangerous escalation? i am personally much more concerned about an escalation over taiwan that i am in the south china sea. and that's only because the chinese military doesn't have the capability right now to project power across the south china sea. so the us military still has a significant deterrent in that theater. taiwan however, is very close to china and they have a local advantage and they are getting more more confident in their ability to achieve their goal is by force. and so if i had to rank order, the things that keep me up at night taiwan is definitely at the top in terms of the chinese military straits. it's, is there still this, this balance as you put it in one of your articles that we read of, is there this balance of deterrence and reassurance?

so the deterrence and reassurance is very hard, but this is what's necessary. i'm with one hand. you have to have a credible threat. we also have to promise the other side that you won't hurt them if they do what you've asked them to do. i would say right now the united states is very focused on the credible threat problem. and that's important. and we've moved a little bit too far away from the reassurance piece. and so work has to be done on both ends on the credible threat, as well as credible reassurance to ensure that peace and stability are maintained, especially in the taiwan strait. how much of a security threat or china is hyper so on the missiles, i'm wondering, does the united states its allies, do they have an answer to this weapon? so there's good news and bad news about this. i mean, the hyper sonics are extremely dangerous because of hard to defeat the hard to defend against their, to their specifically designed with the detection. and they therefore presented a significant threat to us. l as in partners. but it doesn't really change the

strategic environment because the missiles, china already has that are not hypersonic the united states and its allies cannot defend against adequately. so this just makes it extra hard, i guess, but it doesn't fundamentally change the strategic or operational environment and might be em. before another time going to ask you, do you think the united states is being locked into a regional conflict? if china over steps that i'm thinking of the security agreement with the philippines, for example, and i wanna ask you to about last year, a 4 star us general. i'm wrote in a memo that was obtained by nbc news that his gut tells him that the us will be at war with china in 2020 fox. how do you read that as well? i don't have any personal interaction with that specific general. someone who's worked with high level military leadership before my interpretation of that was more that it was a signal internally to try to get

a sense of urgency within the pentagon. to heighten the readiness of us forces for conflict in the future. but empirically speaking, there's a very, very, very low probability that the chinese military will be ready to take taiwan by force before 2027. so i'm not concerned about uh 2025. but i understand the nature of that letter and why it was written. all right, were you on a scale or master? we appreciate you taking the time to talk with us. we'll be looking forward to your new book. thank you. thank you for having me or whether they continues online. you'll find this on the x also known as twitter and youtube. that needs to be news . you can follow me of rent golf tv and remember whatever happens between now and then tomorrow is another day. we'll see that the

when you can't smell any face or when everything smells to the rate of smell related disorders has increased. since corona virus. how important is all sense of smell and what's his life like when it's gone? in 15 minutes on the w. 2, the points, strong opinions,

clear positions. international perspective is europe on the verge of a major shift are right. political parties are gaining strength ahead of the european elections and it seems like you've gotten are the days when conservatives dismissed them to form coalitions this week on to the point europe so far, right? attempting parker support and service to the point in 90 minutes on d w, the my. my name is steve, i'm on the cottage age perfectly. my name is simone sony. this is india is new generation. what else? a dream in the world's most populous country. what do they want to change in the society full of contrasts. the indian aids stuff june says, i'm

d w. we are all set and we're watching closely for him to bring you the story behind the news. we wrote about unbiased information for 3 months. the or the

this is dw news live from berlin tonight us president biden has given the green light for ukraine to fire american weapons across the russian border. it's a policy reversal that comes as ukraine urges other allies to take the same steps. also coming up guilty verdicts for 14 hong kong, the pro democracy activists. tonight we ask, what does this mean for the future of the opposition and the south africa, all the break of change the party that as we move the country since the end of the parts i may have to share power the.