its 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, me soon followed suit. so what has changed? why would this, you turn? not put us on the path to world war 3. i bring go from berlin. this is the day, the ukraine's bravely this thing, the homeland, again, thrush of the brutal self. and if you have everything, you know, a problem actually is that the rock for self defense. thank you. it's all so striking military targets of widgets and printers targets outside ukraine. they need what funds and they need them foster action. 99 percent of the meat for

support to to train comes from nathan lives. let's stand up to the bullet also coming up the us and chinese defense chiefs will be holding one on one talks as we can can the 2 big powers in the pacific turned down the temperature in this volatile region will last a leading expert to 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. let's do 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 of war. tonight, nato foreign ministers are in prague, where there's 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 rush up?

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 for either the content they, the ukraine on ukraine hoss, according to the national, the right to defend themselves isn't showing the new instructor on the rock for self defense includes also striking military targets and a judgment printers targets outside ukraine where you create the president board of is a landscape is also calling on need a members to set up in 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 you and still from the quite a, quite a passionate plea. he argued that it cannot be, that the russian troops are sitting just across the border. so actually on the front lines and they are launching their attacks from that point to from their military base, is there an 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 allies 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. first and

foremost, 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 band 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? the only take 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 keys, showing 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 us 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 it would take 2 reasons. first of all, we now have 2 years of experience that russia's threats, 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 to 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 escalation has a cap of that is that the current still works. russia understands that it does not want a direct conflict with nato and washer here's received very clear signals for both the 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. it'd 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 kaufman is level here remains that deterrence and a particular nuclear deterrence which is neutral, right? if it works both ways, that mutual 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 at the us, had the us not taking so long to get this latest shipment of weapons approved for

you? correct? i mean, this 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 uh, get their feet re down there 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. but where we have and 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 berg said earlier today, you're a former ambassador to nato. i mean, it's don't break. you 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 stilton, bergen, his predecessors have often been sleep, 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 the changing policy. so, so maybe he actually moved the needle 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 un chart says about the right of all member states to self defense and the rights 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 dis, the shift today. but as i 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 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. uh, 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 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, saw me 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 ambassador douglas late. we appreciate you taking the time to talk with us. um, excellent, insight and analysis just when we need it. thank you. thank you. for the united states in chinese defense jeeps are set to hold rare direct talks and single for this weekend. the expected meeting between pentagon chief void 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 taiwan and 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 into good luck on the boys that floating here, but of the 100 vessels that set off annually a handful reached the destination. many turned back after being followed by laundry chinese coast gunk ships. the stand off is one of the number of narrow time incidents that have started the tensions between manila and beijing. he'll a rival claims to a number of locations and 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 cold, 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 use money less frequently aggravating tensions in the south china sea just seems or if the machine side is bent on having its own way shop, what china will take the necessary measures. routes of firmly defend. it's a little bit right. does your end interest? do you find made such a donkey? since those comments, tensions have risen even further in the region? no. with aging launching, who games around the philippines? know the neighbor, taiwan?

citing the defense ministry, and ty pay royce has reported the chinese will. plants also flew into the bass, the 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. we will train more realistically, bear with me more modifying pump. and i think a family piece between us and like minded nations. mark paintings are not more and better off in a moment the exercises in moving also our significant 3rd parts. in early may, manila already staged launch scale will drills 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, going to announce the opening of the 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. what i'm doing now by or you on the skylark masters, she's an expert on chinese politics. she's currently a fellow at the freeman's, but me institute for international studies at stanford university. she's also with the carnegie endowment for international peace. her latest book is entitled upstart, how 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 where there's we have 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 administer 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 systems sense of. so is it a good sign then that he's even at these, these talks in single 4? i mean,

is it an attempt to meet at i level or i wouldn't necessarily take it as a good sign the chinese or that the united states or attending these talks. a shame were locked, has been a very useful place for defense ministers. and secretary of defense is to meet 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. it's 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 a new beginning for more constructive. milton, all relationships 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. i mean, the potential for disaster is misunderstanding,

seems enormous. if there were to be a conflict between china in 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 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 call visioning 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 our 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 at 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 border, the things that keep me up at night taiwan is definitely at the top in terms of the chinese military strength, 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 terms 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 of 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 allies and 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 my view before, even though time want to ask you, do you think the united states is being locked into a regional conflict? if china over steps? and i'm thinking of the security agreement with the philippines, for example. and i would ask you to about last year a for started us general abroad and

a member that was obtained by nbc news that his gut tells him that the us will be a war with china in 2025. how do you read that as well? i don't have any personal interaction with that specific general someone who has 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 is 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, are 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 videos. you can follow me of rent golf tv and remember whatever happens between now and then tomorrow is another day. we'll see that if the

what's new we'll tell you we are happy that we are back to the story. we have a getting a visa is more difficult than finding gold hosted to use force and for the future in the stories and issues that are being discussed across the country. news african next on d w. conflicts zone, a special edition on the european election. we have a lot of new challenges, anybody's,

the outside of the role which has influence inside the how can people trust the elections? they don't know whether that voting for a russian pop it or somebody who's just t s. t is the most popular party among young world has a job in sebastian investigates. the question is democracy under threats conflict in 16 minutes on and d w the . 7 daniels in june. you belong to the 77 percent comfortable. i just got on 65 last last those top 5 years, 31115. we're here to help you make up your mind. we are here on please find your mind. so we got all of the topics, i'm much up to you from couple top fixed, a new culture and in 15 minutes,

let's say together parts of our community life on the research is now on the this is dw news advocate coming up on the program as european countries tried to restrict migration from africa. they also could badly funding human rights abuses. and a new investigation says you funded operations of moving migrants on mass and dumping them in dangerous border areas. invest the higher up with all the funds from europe, and inviting some africans to take up much needed jobs. we meet some prospects in kenya, i'm the president of the democratic republic of congo. finally, a points and new cabinets. find out what this means. all the country.