supported the livelihoods of coastal communities around the world. in many developing and least developed countries. communities living in coastal areas remain quite profoundly dependent on unhealthy fish, duck fish. populations have been depleted by the fishing and destructive fishing practices also by the degradation of coastal habitat like like men growth. and those impacts that can pounded by climate change with thing, the decline and progressive collapse. systems like car race, the performance provide food for so many people, so that the, the declining health of the ocean has, has quite profound impacts the humanity. but there is type. we do not have attendance around, but it requires a commitment and an action for all righty that's. that's one of the, the opportunities presented to us here this week at the national conference to redouble our efforts to trend like commitment interaction. ah

hello again. the headlines on al jazeera russian massage of had a crowded shopping center in the city of cremmit trunk, killing. at least 10 people around a 1000 people are believed to have been in the building at the time of the attack. charles stratford isn't key with more ukrainians, a saying that there were no strategic targets that could have actually been aimed at in this attack. what we do know though is that the city's bridge crunch, it sits on the didn't the per rivers. the cities bridge yesterday was hit by a russian shell match, according to the ukrainian military saying that at least one person was killed and 5 others were injured. so were certainly according to the president this country, he was saying that there were around about a 1000 people in that shopping mall, emergency services saying that they expect more to be injured. those kind of figures with that amount of them all. that would not be inconceivable. emergency

service is saying they are continuing to look for bodies while the strikes come at the same. thomas leaders are gathered in germany for the g 7 summit. they pledge to stand by ukraine for as long as it takes to end the war. ukrainian president vulgar landscape joined by the video link and asked for more weapons, aid and sanctions. nato chief un stoughton berg calling for a huge increase in rapid reaction. troops on the eastern flank, from 40002300000. he also called russia the greatest threat to security as the alliance repairs for a summit in madrid. so don is planning to recall its ambassador to add a sub, a ball following accusations a few years are murdered. 7 stood any soldiers in one civilian decades. attention have been aggravated by a dispute over a border region and allow the court has sentence. a catholic priest is 30 years in prison for the murder of a man with albinism. 12 people were convicted for the 2800 killing with 5 handed

life sentences. relatives of at least 21 young people who died in a bar and a south african township, or waiting to find out what caused their death. samples from the bodies have been taken to toxicology labs. where news at the top of the hour on august 0 right after the story. thanks for watching. bye bye for now. ah . what could the g 7 do to stop the war in ukraine? leaders of the world's biggest economy, set of air, imposing more sanctions on moscow. but is that enough? and can the group remain united against vladimir putin? this is inside story.

ah, ah, ah. hello, welcome to the program. i'm adrian finnegan for months of war in ukraine. have exposed deep divisions in the global ot up, but the fighting is also highlighting and testing some of the oldest and strongest alliances. the g 7, a group of the world, 7 largest economies is meeting this week in germany. sanctioned by some of its members and counter sanctions from russia. have disrupted everything they've touched from oil prices to supply chains to the price of bread. on the other side of the world, under germany's presidency, the g 7 is pushing for solutions to reduce the impact of the war on the global economy. but she certainly does issued a statement to remove any doubt about their commitment to keep saying that they will continue to provide financial humanitarian,

military and diplomatic support and stand with ukraine for as long as it takes. they also announced targeting sanctions on those responsible for war crimes or exercising illegitimate authority in ukraine. the statement added that russia bears enormous responsibility for rising threats to global food security. as a result of the conflict, china is also on the g 7 summit agenda. $600000000000.00 had been pledged to counter beijing's belt and rhode initiative. and beijing has been quick to respond too long. she don't blame each. i know what it comes. od initiatives that be more global infrastructure, we believe that there is not any initiative named at replacing each other. what we avoid is to advance geopolitical calculations and smear the bet, enjoyed initiative in the name of promoting global infrastructure development. ah. so let's bring in, i guess, for today's discussion from berlin,

but joined by all rick brooklyn, who's professor of political science at stanford university in berlin from washington d. c. doug bando senior fellow at the cato institute, i'm from oslo. glenn, decent professor of international relations at the university of se norway, gentlemen, welcome to the program. a rec, that's not with you. so g 7 lead us will stand with ukraine for as long as it takes, as long as what takes what is it? the g 7 leaders want on how long is long? well, all these questions have not been answered yet. what we saw was a strong signal, and that's the symbolism of summits of that kind that sometimes feel a bit like 20th century as if we are not having phone calls or so meetings. so it's more like we send a signal that we don't go into detail because everyone is affected differently from

the sanctions. and everyone also has a different agenda or is more or less careful with all the balances that need to be considered. doug, what do you make of it? how long is long and what is it? the g 7 leaders actually want here? i think they even know clearly perspectives differ in the different capitals. countries are affected differently, they have different past relations with russia. they have a different, i think, willingness to tolerate cost as in terms of where we're going. everyone would like to see russia to lose, but that doesn't necessarily mean a victory for ukraine. and in many ways, i think that is the biggest issue is the emphasis going to be on trying to reach some kind of a ceasefire and piece or is the emphasis to help by ukraine? have some kind of a military victory on that. we don't know and those outcomes are very different. and i have a very different implication for the cost and the length of time granted victory

for ukraine humiliation fought for russia. what is it? the chief 7 leaders are often oh, that's kind of unclear because going to talk about victory. ukraine. what does this mean? because at times ukraine has expressed interest in, in re conquering all of us even taking by crimea. so this would entail my actual war with russia. and again, part of the russian motivation behind this is obviously to stop the expansionism and it is increasing amounts of american weapon system calls this border. so it's prussia would pull out. obviously this would, the weapons would only keep boring in sound, so i'm not sure how that's how the mixture would be even possible. i think ross would find all the way to the end. so and so i,

i just don't see him see clearly how victory hasn't been conceptualized. also it's unclear and how even a stalemate is going to result in any kind of a diplomatic solution. because again, the, the fair for moscow that would be obviously that the west will take advantage of its temporary peace agreement to merely re, are you pushing nato? so i, it's there, it's very, it's sort of big statements without any clear operationalization, a clear object. what this would actually mean. all right for, oh, rick, they put on this united front as you say, they made this strong statement of support for ukraine. but what is actually going on behind closed doors? do you think? how long can that unity last given the economic consequences of the war? well, that's what i meant by the different balances that need to be considered. and in my

humble understanding of what has been the motivation of the objectives, because clearly don't understand how put in ticks. that was a calculation that the west is post heroic, not willing to fight a war and not taking a risk. we don't even anything we list we are sexual and so as wimps as we. ready are it would be easy to go in and to achieve objectives that made no sense in terminology like denot, 60 cation, whatever. what we have now is united way, much stronger natal, and even extended nato, a stronger investment in records intervention forces. so basically the opposite of what put in try to reach you. but we also have to asian in which all the different leaders pay different domestic class. some struggle more with inflation, some more dependent on for zone or than others. when we look

at the internal discussion about what is the price to pay for express and solidarity, what kind of lead up school if we look, for example at mccaul, his position was way stronger before the parliamentary elections a few days ago. and this is all something that needs to be taken into consideration . doug, who's leading the g 7 right now. okay. johnson shells his hosting this meeting but, but who's in the driving seat? as far as policy is concerned, is the us at the moment taking a back seat and following the rest, or is it actually leading? do you think, at least in terms of the war in ukraine? well, in terms of the war, i think the us, broadly speaking, has driven the process. the u. s. has contributed substantially more in terms of money and weapons. it, you know, has the advantage of having the real. busy military, you know,

the dominates nato. frankly, the country that most european countries have cheerfully cheap written on, you know, for decades. so there's an element of which the u. s. has a natural leadership role there, but it's not alone. the other countries matter. it matters a lot to have other european countries indicate they are prepared to do more. and we see even the country like turkey can throw a spanner in the works over the issue of bringing in finland and sweden for its own purposes. so there's leadership, but there's not domination, i think that what we see going forward is indicated, micron has his own domestic issues. certainly, germany may not, you know, complicated political situation. a 3 party government bearing significant energy costs, even in the u. s. the politics is not going to be easy outside of washington. you know, support for a deep commitment to ukraine does not necessarily that strong. i talked to my non political friends and they are asking why $40000000000.00 when that's

a lot more than europe is done. why? $40000000000.00 and we have a trillion dollar deficit. and we see in the republican party increasing willingness on the hard right to ask questions about this. so this is going to be a very difficult process going forward. nothing is guaranteed grant. granted that the european union it well represented at this, this summit doesn't the g 7 itself doesn't represent all european nations? how does that the rest of europe minus the u. k. france and italy view the boy ukraine? well, i guess you're a business in many ways, western european countries are more cautious while the countries, poland, in the baltic states, they're more hawkish, more aligned with united states and the u. k. on this matter. so i would say that the, initially, i think we've had a lot of unity because it's a nation by russia took everyone by surprise and shock,

which was why you have this common interest in balancing this common research. but i do believe that a lot of this unity was based on the premise that made it would have victory over russia or ukraine, supported by nato. but i think what you will see is not just a split between the us and european, but within europe as well. they will see more of the emissions displaying themselves. now that the conflict is not going our way because again, russia winning now on the battlefield. and the sanctions i terribly on the or so becomes therefore reasonable and there isn't more of the vision is within the g 7. so well for example, mid argument that the u. s. and the u. k. would probably like to see this war going for a while, because it has many good objectives for in the us. so it imposes block discipline within the west, which the us has not been previous able to achieve. the us been able to get the, the couple from russian energy and economy, which in doing the past,

we also see that the us can extend european divorce to china. so you credible the bulwark against russia for the foreseeable future. and you have this oppertunity of making you create enough to understand for the russians to lead joins economy and his military. so many opportunities for the us. but that's what i mean. there's a split because for the your, for the or p, and there's a much higher cost and incentive effort to push them to this more because they're simply because they're paying higher price. they don't want to knock on their weapons. stores have been depleted from all this transfers to ukraine. the sanctions are hurting their much more, not just this temporary energy crisis and installation, but also see that your industry will no longer be competitive on international markets and all of this cheap, fresh energy metals are now export to asia. so the production costs will therefore increase dramatically in europe and overall the appeals become more and more dependent on the us as a result. so all the goals of strategic autonomy will not collapse. so i think you

will see more push now from, for example, that germans italians and the french to, to have some more diplomacy for, to sit down with the russians. and so this on the splitting now and with this 3 leaders from the, from a, from the terminal. and the problem is going to keep asking to start negotiations with russia. meanwhile, you know, they're, after you have the johnson coming from your case saying this is not the right time for peace and americans sending have your weapons. so i think that the of the conflict continues to go the wrong way for us. i think this division is within the west. it's kind of become more and more obvious. oh rick, how long before the european electorate begins to demand the government's ease, the sanctions and pull back on this war? a people in europe prepared to endure a winter of power council rationed energy supplies. do you think when it comes to that? well, if things continue like this, there is no other way than to restrict,

not only industry, but also heating or have other means that clearly show that we are part of this war and not as a party of war. but we are massively affected far more than the united states, but it's very difficult to predict because we don't have this one european electorate. we have very different conditions in each and every member state. and we also have different communication techniques by them more or less popular leaders that also play a role until they is something like a change of power within european union member states. and this point, of course, german politicians would love to see a diplomatic solution for this. but public opinion is still very strongly in support for the actions of solidarity towards ukraine. and will show us for a minute of my call at this point in time. don't really have much to doug. i just

want to give you an opportunity to respond. what graham was going was saying about the us perhaps liking to keep this. ready were going for the moment, and then what to ask you, what the g twin teach you think the a solid in its support for ukraine and condemnation of russia as the g 7 is the broader you go, the less support you find for the u. s. european position of the top 10 population countries in the world. only one is taking this position america, you know, very notably not only china, but india. i've resisted indian purchases of russian oil have skyrocketed very dramatically. but you go beyond that, you look at brazil, you look at south africa, or you look at indonesia. i mean, these are countries that have not jumped on the sanctions bandwagon. there's a lot of reasons for that. i mean, the global south is much more cynical about european and american pretensions and

morality. i mean, the u. s. believes in a rural based order, except when it doesn't that invades countries and occupies them even if it's against the international law and it kills. busy lot of people are, you know, the president biden is talking about human rights in about to make a trip to saudi arabia to beg, the saudis have killed hundreds of thousands of people in yemen to provide more oil . so the u. s. can sanction russia mean that the problem is those kinds of, in consistencies really play out in other countries whose view is much more cynical, they don't like the aggression. i mean, so, you know, russia clearly in the wrong, but they're also much more skeptical the following leadership that they, frankly are quite so happy about the potential of indonesia inviting russia to the g. 20 meeting. you know, adds a quite a complication exactly how that would play out if that happens, i think, would be difficult for everyone involved. glenn, while the g 7 understandably sees the war in ukraine is critical to global security

. what about the rest of the world? how supportive of the tea, 7th position up, asian african latin american countries to, to what extent to many countries while sympathetic towards ukraine simply have to put their own citizens 1st. well that's kind of show us with the numbers was joined in on the sanctions and well it's pretty much restrictive tomato, the rest of the world hasn't really joined in on any of the sanctions. but i would agree with doug, it doesn't mean that they support the russian invasion of ukraine by no means. i think my most countries would combine this. however, while there seems to be some consensus around condemning it, there's not much interest in punishing us currently because there's not, that's not that many see the moral authority of the west. and also there's a more dubious interest behind this in terms of knocking out the key area as

opposed to standing up for the market. but it's also more recognition around the world that's, that's the, even though this is word, process full for dating, that the nato obviously provoked. this to great extent. i mean, this is, you hear this around the world. you know, not just somebody in the, in 5 nato as well with the turkey now saying the same thing even heard the same from the pope. so you, so this is to be a large consensus, the brush made or promote this, but then the process shouldn't necessarily have made it for the reasons. but you also of course, have this economic interest behind it. so it is for the pm's, for example, to dictate to the indians that they shouldn't buy any russian oil or gas. it seems very provocative, especially as the west by russian oil and gas. but overall, i think they will look after their own interest and also see the huge opportunities for ation. because and european economies has been very competitive because we have

access to all this cheap russian energy metals in russia. they're diverting their entire economy towards the east and preparing themselves for permanent divorce with europe. the asian countries will become much more competitive as russia offering even discounts to asia, where the oil and gas. so i think they will look after their own interest and not get involved in what is effectively european conflict, 30 year old trucks war between nato and russia, which is now steal them and begun to destroy ukraine. oregon has the g. 7 signalled clearly enough that it understands the gravity of the global commodity price crisis and, and other economic shocks linked to the war, and that they will take realistic steps to address them. well, the question is, what would realistic steps b and what has been said before that repeating the russian myth of nato is threatening. russia doesn't make it any more credible. nato has know

what happened times to be involved in a military conflict. with the 2nd largest nuclear arsenal in the world, that makes no sense. what threatened russia was that economic prosperity, west of russia, if we compare ukraine and poland, and poland became poor times, which are by joining the european union. and if the anti ukraine would do the same thing that would undermine the credibility of an authoritarian regime in moscow. so if the west would give in and say, well actually we didn't expect it to be so expensive and it also has extra fees on the rest of the world. we stopped the sanctions. one would be the situation on. ready ground they couldn't possibly find something like a frozen conflict, but then both sides would try as much as they can to strike back and to win the upper hand. that is not the end of the conflict. there is no military solution in

this conflict. and it's, we need more than giving in off the one or the other side. this would only my understanding the solution if other heavy weights like china would step in and to their contribution to stop it. doug, the g 7 statement said that the group of foster coordinated initiatives that promote global food security. to what extent should that along with a rising price of fuel and commodities, be the number one priority at least in terms of maintaining support for the war and the rest of the world. all the obvious, humanitarian reasons to do it, set the war aside. you know, the lack of exports, particularly from ukraine in terms of grain or opposing, an extraordinary hardship on poor countries that are least able to deal with it. the problem is again,

it's not clear exactly what the west can do. there have been proposals to try to forcibly open your ports of ukraine in the black sea that would require number one cooperation from turkey, which is not at all and my, my likely but 2nd, that would be itself a potential cost as well. i, i think what we have to recognize are the danger of this is, is the longer it goes on the more dangerous, i think it gets. which is, you know, for russia, this is a vital interest for russia. this is an extra central interest. we don't have to think it should be, but it is, in my opinion, it's not for the west. so i think that russia and burton are quite willing to risk and spend a lot more and along the way ukraine is the primary victim. in the world bank figures, the economy will be cut roughly and half millions of people have fled. the country cities are being reduced to ruin. so the longer we go, the more dangerous it could spread, the, the more the russian in the danger of

a question of a new use of nuclear weapons is one. most people assume won't happen. nevertheless, to the extent they are lost, i think it becomes more dangerous. so the, the so much at stake and certainly the issue of food is huge. but i don't know how we solve that absent ending the war. that is, unless, unless one is willing to forcibly try to open the black sea and get the grain out, the question is otherwise, are we at the west prepared to share its resources to accept higher food prices at a time of raging inflation? i don't think the by the administration would for all of its humanitarian rhetoric, the democrats face of potential disaster in member by elections. i to kind of raise prices further, just appear to be giving away american product. i think europe faces the same difficulty with energy prices rising at home. what can it do in terms of trying to ease the food shortages abroad?

glen, i've got less than a minute here. just a quick on so please berry, him. i'd what, what doug was saying that about russia being pushed into a corner on the sanctions against russia working by having the desired effect? well, they're having some effect it so well, so far then of course the, the west main goal was to destroy the russian economy, financial system, and the ruble. or so far, we see that the economies stabilize the financial system. same lesson. the rubel is much stronger than it was before the war. however, a lot of this punishment or the pain of sanctions will probably come later on. so i think the worst of the sanctions is you have to come for russia. but that being said, the point of sanctions is to change to political behavior, and i don't see russia changing as policies because are russia, this is deemed to be an existential threat. nato expansion towards the water. it's set for more than 20 years. is next. essential, brett, so they're not gonna give up because of some economic problems. so they will probably continue to fight this to them and only exacerbating the conflict. so i,

i, i de, depends. i would define the effectiveness of sanchez or i gentlemen were out of time many thanks indeed for being with us today. or rick brooklyn, doug bondo and glen deason. and thank you for watching. don't forget, you can see the program again at any time by going to the website of al jazeera dot com for further discussion, join us at our facebook page. you'll find that at facebook dot com forward slash ha inside story. as you can join the conversation on twitter handle at ha, inside story from me, a free and again, the team here and how, thanks for watching. i'll see you again. bye for now. ah. and a

blue criminal drug dealing shifted to place is beyond the reach of law and order through many people in the afghan government. when involved in the doctorate, gorilla was in columbia and to mexico, where the cocktails have been responsible for a muslim spiral of violence. the final episode of drug trafficking politics. our territories on al jazeera agreement to purchase 300 years of danish colonization and international interest in the islands results. his grades a younger generation, it matches determines to and their future no matter that difference. mm me to wrap up and his fiance, a student and a politician as they tackle h l issues with that power for the fight for greenland. a witness documentary

on al jazeera. the heart wrenching good buys loved ones, not knowing when they will unite again, women and children heading wis to relative safety, often leaving men behind among them. foreigners also trying to give out train rise of a free, but it's on a 1st come, 1st serve basis here at the bus station, the only a few rides available and that's only to the surrounding villages. so people like for me in rose, now need to find another way to get out of the city. but for now they, like many others, would have to reach and hope, hoping tomorrow is a better day. ah, this is al jazeera oh.