you, this is to my mother. they came here to kill us. they have no compassion for women and children, or the elderly. while scores of security forces have also been seriously injured in reading battles with protesters. the 6 fatal victim so far have been demonstrators . your 60 year old, bad 3 sammy. this insist their strike is just that. i mark i'm, i've got another i thought on. we worked a land with our picks and shovels to survive. we aren't rich. so we need the government to lower the price of fuel for so more. oh yeah, the government has agreed to alleviate farmers bank debts and improve health and education services. and it's offered to decrease fuel by $0.10 a gallon o. but indigenous leaders say that's not nearly enough and so the government continues to weigh carefully. it's commitment to i a methyl, stared, he measures against a govern ability crisis. that is worsening by the day to see

a newman al jazeera kito. ah, your geologist, there with me. so robert duvall, reminder of all top stories at least 46 people have been found dead inside and abandon truck in the state of texas. the vehicle was discovered on a road in the outskirts of the city of san antonio. 16 people were found alive including 4 children. paces that we saw were hot to the touch. they were suffering from heat stroke. heat exhaustion are no signs of water in the vehicle. it was a refrigerated tractor trailer. but there was no visible working ac unit on that rig as being widespread condemnation of a russian missile strike on a shopping mal in ukraine. 18 people were killed and dozens more injured in the central city of clement shook. 7, geez, heavenly does meet in germany. have described was that strike as

a war crime. they announced plans to impose more sanctions on russia and pledge solidarity with ukraine for as long as it takes while nature says it'll boost true numbers for it's rapid response forces to $300000.00. james base has more from germany, literally moments before hours before the summer. we're going to have this separate meeting to try and resolve one of the central issues. because obviously finland and sweden will still be at the nato summit because they are close partners of nato. but the plan was them to as them, to have that to have them there is inviting nations, it's very symbolic. and if that doesn't happen, it perhaps shows some cracks in the western alliance to president putin. a tank of chlorine gas has fallen from a crane at the jordanian port vacaville, killing at least 13 people at least 260 were reported injured and those living nearby were told to stay at home and keep their windows closed. police in india

have arrested the co vander of top fact checking website out news. mm hm. and there has been a vocal critic of prime minister and remote is government is often called out hate speech by hindu wright, twin groups. those were the headlines. so you can follow stories on our website at al serra dot com and back with more news in half an hour. next, it's inside story. with hash him to stay with us, talk to al jazeera, we ask you be more specific. how many pills are you asking? for and what kind of military equipment we listened asked the people of cuba industry. if there is a difference between donald trump angel bite for them, it's the same. we meet with global news makers and talk about the stories that matter on al jazeera. what could the g 7 do to stop the war in ukraine? leaders of the world's biggest economy, said the baron, posing more sanctions on moscow. but is that enough? and can the group remain united against vladimir putin? this is inside story.

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 suddenly 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 dollars have been pledged to count a bay james belt and road initiative. and beijing has been quick to respond too long. she don't blame each. i know what 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 belt, enjoyed initiative in the name of promoting global infrastructure development. ah. so let's bring in, i guess, for today's discussion from berlin,

were 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 and from oslo, glen decent professor of international relations at the university of se norway, gentlemen, welcome to the program. i'm a rec that start 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 some itself, 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 but we don't go into detail because everyone is affected differently. ready wrong, 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, 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 a, 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 in peace? 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. they have a very different implication for the cost and the length of time. glenn,

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 and just 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, these weapons would only keep boring in sound, so i'm not sure how that's how the mixture would be even possible. i think we'll find all the way to the end. so and so i,

i just don't see 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 fer, from moscow 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 of a clear object. what this would actually mean, 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 to 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 believe in anything we just 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 a diagnostic cation, whatever. what we have now is united way, much stronger nato, and even extended nato, a stronger investment in records intervention forces. so basically the opposite of what could in try to reach you. but the also african situation in which all the different leaders pay different domestic class. some struggle more with inflation, some more dependent on for zone or we and others. when we look

at the internal discussion about what is prior to paid for express and solidarity, what kind of upper school, if we look, for example, have 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, based 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 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 and 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 is leadership, but there's not domination. i think that what we see going forward is indicated mecropolis hated political situation, a 3 party government bearing significant energy cause even in the us, the politics is not going to be easy outside of washington. you know, support. busy 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. gran. did 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 war in ukraine? well, i guess you're a business split 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 um,

research. but i do believe that a lot of this unit was based on the premise data would have victory over russia or ukraine supported by natal. 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 european so becomes therefore reasonable and reasonable. i'm more of the vision is within the g 7 so, well for example, mid argument that the u. s. and the u. k. will probably like to see this war going for a while because it has many good objectives for in the us. so the impulses block, discipline within the west, which the u. s. has not been previous able to achieve. the us been able to get there the couple from russian energy and economy, which in doing the past. we also see that the us can extend it. european divorce to

china, so you credible the bulwark against russia, where the foreseeable future and the you have to separate unity of making it create enough on the stands for the russians to lead drives, economy, and his military. so it has many opportunities for the us, but that's what i mean. there's a split because for the your, for the p. and there's a much higher cost, an incentive effort to push them to this more because it's 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 harder hurting their much more, not just this temporary energy crisis and installation, but also see that your be in industries will no longer be competitive on international markets and all of this cheap brush energy and metals are now export to asia. so the production costs will therefore increase dramatically in europe and overall the appearance become more and more dependent on the us as the results. 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 split now. and with this 3 leaders from the, from germany and the problems, going to keep asking to start negotiations with russia. meanwhile, you know, there, after you have the johnson coming from the case saying, this is not the right time for peace. and americans sending have your weapons. so i think this of the counselor 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 that 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? will it come 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 not as a party of war. but we are massively affected far more than the united states, but it is very difficult to predict because we don't have is 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 there is something like that 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 not show us for a minute. my call at this point in time, don't really have much to doug. i just wanna give you an opportunity to respond.

what plan to what glen was saying about the us, perhaps liking to keep this war going for the moment. and then i want to ask you what the g 20 you think be a solid in its support for ukraine and condemnation of russia. as the g 7 is the broader you go, the less support to 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 us believes in a rural based order,

except when it doesn't that and invades countries and occupies them even if it's against the international law, kills a lot of people are, you know, the president biden is talking about human rights and 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's clearly in the wrong. but they're also much more skeptical the following leadership that they frankly aren't 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 it happens, i think, would be difficult for everyone involved. glen 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 shows with the numbers was joined in on the sanctions. and well i, it's pretty much restricted 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 come them this. however, while this seems to be some consensus around condemning, it does not have much interest in punishing us currently because they're not that many see the moral authority of the west. and also they see 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 doing that. the nato obviously provoke this to great extent. i mean, this is, you hear this around the world, you know, not just somebody in the, in 5 nato's well with the turkey now saying the same thing even heard the same from the. so you, so this is to be a large consensus that 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 p, 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 asia. because european economies have been very competitive because we've had access to all this cheap russian energy metals in russia. they're diverting their

entire economy towards the east and preparing themselves are permanent divorce with europe. the asian countries will become much more competitive as russia offering even discounts to a show for their 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 has now still them and begun to destroy ukraine. oregon has the g 7, signaled 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 no

appetite to be involved in a military conflict with the 2nd largest nuclear arsenal. in the world that makes no sense. what frightened russia was the 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 westwood give in and say, well actually we didn't expect it to be so expensive and it also has externalities on the rest of the world. with dr. sanctions, what would be the situation on the ground? they could 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 site. 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 2nd statement said that the, the group of foster coordinated initiatives, the promot, 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 accept the war aside. you know, the lack of exports, particularly from ukraine in terms of grain are posing 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. that, you know, there have been proposals to try to forcibly open your ports of ukraine in the

black sea that would require number one. busy 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 actual 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 of 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 of 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 fear a loss, 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 hire food prices at a time of raging inflation? i don't think the vitamin ministration would for all of its humanitarian rhetoric. the democrats face a potential disaster member by elections. i to got of raise prices further to appear to be giving away american product that 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 shortage is abroad. glen, i've got less than a minute here, just a quick on so please bear in mind 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 economy is stabilized at financial systems named 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, 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 . neighbor expansion towards the water. it said for more than 20 years is next essential, correct. so they're not gonna give up because some, some economic problems. so they will probably continue to fight this to the end and only exacerbating the conflict. so i, i, i depends. i would define the effectiveness of success,

or i'd 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 enjoy the conversation on twitter handle at ha, inside story from me a free and so they can the team here and how, thanks for watching. i'll see you again. my phone number, ah ah

ah ah, around 3 quarters of sub saharan african cultural heritage is on display in western museums. that didn't happen overnight. we were rob color time. the 1st episode of a new series reveals how european colonization remove tens of thousands of artifacts. and the appeal struggle to reclaim restitution.

africa stolen on episode one blunder. oh, now jazeera cool. with getting a, getting back down the ideals, the french republic, islam for a claim. but just what is modern? france in a 4 part series. the big picture takes an in depth look. the trouble with france episode won on al jazeera ah, at least 46 people are found dead, did an abandon truck in the u. s.