one trillion dollars in debt. morris's refusal to commit to facing out fossil fuels has also galvanized queen activists and independent candidates who can hurt as coalition. and then their worsting ties with china, which the government has been accused to weapon ising. but scott morrison is known for pulling off political successes before despite significant hordes priyanka gupta. alex is here. ah, i'm carry johnston with the headlines now here on out here. incumbent french president among omicron is set for a lie to run off against a far right count at marine. the pen will be held on april 24th. most opinion polls show he'll be turned round to, but the margin could be very tight. quickle's, your trust monarch mobley is an honor,

is an obligation and commits me. and you can all more count on me was to implement this project for progress. you can get more openness and friendship in independence and european independence, which we've defended throughout this campaign. in missouri pyramid, if premier meal director, i would like to thank the millions of voters, had given me their trust and with humility, i have hope for the recovery of the nation. it was clear from miss 1st round, that our mission is to go against divisions and maintain social justice against the divisions of emanuel mac, ron, to support the nation, the people. and so i'll be fighting against him. i want to have a responsible debate for the french people. tens of thousands of people have answered a call by pockets dawns former prime minister iran con, to protest against his removal from office. con, treated this video and thanked his supporters, proposing what he calls us back to regime change to bring

a country of tribal crooks to power i meant to select replacements on monday, ukraine's president vladimir lensky says he spoken to the german chance about imposing more sanctions on russia, local officials say they found graves of the bodies of dozens of civilians in the village of the near keith. russian forces have withdrawn from the area of the site of another mass, grave in boucher, especially designated ukrainian war crimes. prosecutors and forensic experts have exempt 9 more bodies total than that says $320.00 civilians have been confirmed dead, initial discovery of bodies in civilian clothes. england chap prompted more sanctions against russia. that is all the headlines. the news continues head on al jazeera, after inside. ah,

[000:00:00;00] with president validity, as well as he tells al jazeera he regrets ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in the 990 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 insights 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, forces fail on the eastern front. massive accusations been carried out on the eastern city of comma 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'm 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 of 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 yahoo, kasanya was i, she, i think that this agreement would be impossible without russian federation. so he, that's, but that's another story really me than i now that harland 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 suggest 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 there, ski moran jak, 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 of those people who dined this as one of the reasons which here. now, once again, i would like to reiterate, it's not. oh, 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 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. busy 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 my, one of my professors 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'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 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 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 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, to russia. but honestly, i, 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 grand, rather than solving any. and i think it could have been quite d, stabilizing in the regions. i think that you can make 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 of course is a 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 bob are seen, do you think,

given what are 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, the, the, the crypt 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 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 in extremely interesting question and i do not quite understand what sort of security guarantees mean and the moment. i mean when this talk of it initially came up, it was, i think, phrase or 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 and nation would not be able to provide to britain. so this is all rhetoric coming is 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 frame was denied for instance, defacto membership of 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 the heavy 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 goes 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. this is not a very tenable topic on the decisive battle. what is promising to be a decisive battle? you know, with the with tank arbys and artillery. this is what the ukranian side is saying. we should be expecting. and ukraine 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 pony up some victories to show his subjects during the military breed. so it's all going to be obviously decided on the battlefield, not diplomatically after that and latin was 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 a country 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, you know,

the several issues we made very 40. without them, we cannot hope for any sort of discussion of do it a guarantee unless russia commits 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 any significant breakthrough. and finally, find the key of has said that there will be no diplomatic agreement. no peace on, you know, if it involves white washing russian war crimes during the invasion. obviously budget david, i want to ask you because the just that have to talk about this, this idea of security guarantees. it gives us interesting 5. the president should

feel it's appropriate to bring it up, given the points that the gentleman 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 told 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 be sure 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 create 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 not 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 the nuclear weapons. so i think he's looking for a much more legally binding in. and as you say, i think 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 seen it move 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 get a mass significant enough group of forces in the east of ukraine to essentially crush your cranium, meals your resistance claimed 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 plan see like, and, you know, look into that. that's why david, i'm told, 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 tend 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, to install a puppet 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, 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. book is completely given up on the idea of a wider military victory or graph linking and 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 dog was, i'm not even sure he's been dissuaded from trying to storm a 2nd time. you know, german chancellor schoultz 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 off the number of soldiers a lot. the grading has 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 hell bent on destroying ukraine as not just as political entity, but as a culture. there was a, well, a very widely quoted piece of 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. it di 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 is failed to hold russia on the eastern front, is that a concern? do you think in ukraine? that's foreign governments may, frankly lose interest if the fighting moves further east and towards the russian government. i don't know what the new grain are thinking 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 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 on 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 all 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 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 baba since 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 or 0 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 at ha, inside story of the rob matheson and the entire team here in doha. you buy from

a ah. the rays to succeed there was the da da as president of the philippines is heading into its final stretch, struggling what it's worth. and he says that in years the country is desperate for a solution. but what are the candidates offering and what direction will the philippines say on there? you leadership, special coverage on al jazeera, it's the largest war in europe since world war 2. is president putin reclaiming what belong to russia? was natal coming to close? and what does the end game look like?

an in depth look at the war in ukraine. hooton's, blonde, or the west neglect ukraine. the seeds of room on it just, you know? we understand the differences and similarities of cultures across the world. so no matter what we've been using kind of for that matter to you in 2018, a journalist lead 40 days of civic action against the armenian government. and president, soc, is younger group on power. i'm going to liberate this where a new documentary follows his non violent campaign to bring down a corrupt regime, astonishing outcome with a democratic alicia. i am not alone on mias velvet revolution on al jazeera

ah o l g 0 with every oh i'm carry johnston. indo how the top store is hair on al jazeera incumbent, french president to manual macro. this set for a likely run off against the far right candidate, marine. the pen icon hoped to become the 1st french president to be reelected in 20 years. while the pen is on her 3rd attempt, the top job in total 12 candidates were listed on sundays by that. but at smith reports when the capital pairs, emanuel micron only did one campaign rally. but the man who bronze himself