hey alive, dr. ahmed says finding donors his hard. he says he's met many people. he believe they'll die if they don't. nate. he speaks on tv and radio every week to educate and encourage people. the bank stores enough blood to treat just a few 100 patients. it's a start, but he says he has a long way to go to meet molly as needs malcolm web. al jazeera, mogadishu, somalia, ah, this is al jazeera, these are the top stories. early figures suggest a lower level of enthusiasm for the french presidential election than previous balls, voter turnout is at 65 percent so far down from 69 percent, 5 years ago. incumbent of annual corn is one of 12 candidates in the running. that house, or butler is in paris with more on the main issues for friends, voters. who i think the biggest issue has been the cost of living people, is simply very concerned when they are looking at their bank accounts when they're

looking at their finances because they are seeing prices rise, the price of fuel petrol to put in their cars, the price of food and it is an issue of course the spot. those are yet invest protests some years ago. it is still an issue today. people really, some of them feel that they are struggling financially and they are very worried eden linked to the cost of living, of course is, are the war in ukraine that also pushing our prices. ukraine's president says he's spoken to the german chancellor about imposing more sanctions on russia for laudermill. polanski says they also discussed an increase in defense supplies and financial support in the war against russia. pakistan's prime minister in my car has called on supporters to rally nationwide. after he was asked, did in no confidence vote, opposition party secured 174 votes. in the 342 sea parliament. a funeral has been held for

a palestinian woman in the town of her son who was shot dead by israeli forces. hundreds of people attended the burial of the mother of 6. these ready army said troops fired warning shots in the air before they fired towards the woman. voters in mexico are deciding whether the president should finish his 6 year term or be removed from office. on that manual lopez offer a door, says the referendum is vital to confirm his democratic mandate. peruvians calling again for president pedro castillo to resign. proved to clear the state of emergency on thursday to clear highways, blocked by truck drivers, demonstrating against inflation. protest isn't sure that say they won't stop until the president resigns that continue to demonstrate against casa bio walk the in colombo despite heavy rain. and i was the headlines. the news continue here on out there right off the inside story. see soon, bye. ah

. with president vladimir silence, he tells all 0 he regrets ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in the 1990 s, 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 fears. fighting with

russian forces. president vladimir zalinski told al jazeera that russia could renew its attack on. keep, if you cranium force is 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 i am pleased 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 eyes. i think that this agreement would be impossible without russian federation. so that's that, that's another story really me than 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 wood up a ski moran jak moore's animal 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 of those people who died. this is 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 a. my of is executive director of eurasia democracy initiative is joining us on skype from near keith. i'm from brussels, david or 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 munich security conference a few days before the invasion. i was there in the room when you 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've been a nuclear. but, you know, unfortunately, russians would have used any 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 test was kenneth was very well known as the retention of the so called the theory of nuclear peace. according to each nuclear weapons are all 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's 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 solomon, 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 good weapons. they were based in ukraine 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 it 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 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 destabilizing in the region. so i think that 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 this is what is a flagrant breach of the undertakings which were given. we 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 have made any difference at all? if you crane 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 the, the, the efforts to d r. militarize great. ok, let's talk about the security guarantees that the president has been talking about . the, the in the clip 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,

i'm telling, 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 in extremely interesting question and i do not quite understand what sort of security guarantees meaning and the moment. i mean, this is the talk of it initially came up. it was, i think, phrase is something close to the article 5 of nato, which sounds quite bizarre because russian site actually dot com and all that much on that because they knew quite well that this is something you were a p and nation would not be able to provide too great, and so this is all rhetoric, i mean is nothing, no one could guarantee grain to intervene. to give it more that it's already giving at the moment or to give something that is frame was denied for instance, defacto membership or later. so i don't really think that at this point were quite there yet to be discussing, would be the security guarantees because the war is still valid. and we are

probably going to see have the fighting next week and pretty much throughout april like this. moscow is still focused on achieving 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 because there is a to the actually lead 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 arbys and artillery. this is what the ukranian side is saying. we should be expecting a new queen is getting heavy weaponry as well. not only defensive, but all fence on you know, so we are looking. we're staring at

a very difficult scenario in the next 2 weeks. and keep in mind, main 9 to the sacred in a deed in account is over the nazi germany, platinum, which is gonna have to pony up some victories to show his subjects during the military grade. 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 a decisive showing by ukraine's military and let me just add a few points on several issues we made very 40. without them we cannot hope for any

sort of discussion of a security garrity unless russia admits to the ukraine. reparations, hundreds of billions of dollars of damage has been inflicted on ukraine's infrastructure. need this 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, no peace on, you know, if it involves the white washing russian war crimes during the invasion, obviously, butcher david, i want to ask you because they just that have to talk about this, this idea of security county 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, 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 were present 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 achievable 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 did. 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 get what the president was, was trying to put, put in to play. but there are many, many obstacles to making such a 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 territories sovereignty given after the exchange of the

nuclear weapons. so i think he's looking for a much more legally binding in 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 a 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 messy, 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 get a mass significant enough group of forces in the east of ukraine to essentially crush your bringing meals your resistance to claim a certain amount of territory. and probably to incorporate that either in dpr deal or, or directly into the rush state and claim 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 mike and 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 president . 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 a 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 the station facilities. so i think we need to be very, very careful in predictions because quite a few of them are proven to be misplaced in the early stages of this conflict and even more recently. so i think it is plausible explanation, but i would say that mr. book is completely given up on the idea of a wider military victory or graph linking for 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 i'm not even sure he's, but been dissuaded from trying to storm key of 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. put in is hell bent on destroying 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 pulcher, which spelled out what rushes 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 to crate. it's no longer do not to to get ation a devoted ation. it 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 that all the, the program that the presidents lensky has told algebra that russia could renew its attack on keys. if ukraine force is 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 but 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 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 countries. 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. the 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 highly problematic. i mean, we're seeing criminal react to any sort of sign of descent and oh, and is trying to create a picture, total unity behind the cause, which is understood, but the majority of russians as rushes, fighting nato, and 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 pads 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 all my of david o'sullivan and anton bobbin. 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 also join the conversation on twitter. now handle is not a j inside story from the rob matheson and the entire team here in doha. you bye for now. ah

ah ah, ah frances spoken, we will be live with the estimate of results from the presidential election. we a, we are awaiting, as i say, the 1st to estimate of results should be on any minute now in france's presidential election. are those things i in about one minute 30 will be closed.

ah, counting is already very well underway. early turn out figures are, have suggested a lower level of enthusiasm for the election than in previous poles, but voting picked up in the final hours. the incumbent, of course, emanuel con, is looking for another term, israel, squaring off against 11 other contenders, including the far right candidate, murray, the pen. but let sa cross over to natasha butler while we wait. who was standing by for us in paris, anna thought, i should be any minute now and him in and out. in fact, i'm gonna sort of keep looking down her because i'm just looking to see if those results will come in. i mean, we are expecting a very tight races, has been an election dominated by some rural key issues. the cost of living, many voters, really concerned about seeing price is going up the price of fuel the price of food

. the cost of living, of course, was a big, a big issue a few years ago. the yellow vest protests i care in france. it is still a big issue today because so many people cross routes, say they are struggling financially. that of course, is also an issue that is linked to the war in ukraine that has put more pressure on the cost of living, the warrior crane. another issue and concern that has been in photos minds the days they go to the ballot box. they are seeing a crisis in europe. they are seeing what is happening and it is, of course, a great worry of for many, but voters have also been looking at issues like immigration, the cove, it pandemic, security health, of course, after the cove it pandemic, some people saying hospitals need more funding. they're also looking education, so many things on people's minds are in this election. but what i have to say is we have seen very high rates of abstention. one in full people decided that simply not to vote. and i'm just going to take a quick look to see if we are getting a some of those firsts estimated a results. it looks as if maybe they have come in,

let me take a look. we have. so 1st estimations i have a manual micro.