and using these for the state just to the highs and those only dreams and aspirations. that's just not let me, you know, body with dreams coming soon. on our 0, unprompted, and uninterrupted discussions. from our london broadcast center on al jazeera in 1996, a group of young people, newton away describe the immigration experiences. i don't know what i do. if they sent me back to say you got 25 years on al jazeera wild asks how norwegian they now feel. well, you have to accept that you might never be seen as norwegian. i feel like i didn't belong. then you who are they now? no ways. lauren is the tone on al jazeera. ah

this is al 0. i'm darian abigail with a check on your world headlines. ukrainian troops say they've encircled thousands of russian troops in moscow controlled supply hub of lemon in the don. yet region. it comes a day after president vladimir putin declared for eastern regions including tanya's part of his country. the head of the moscow backed administration in don. yes, says leman is partly encircled by the ukrainian army. a news on the front line was alarming. charles stratford has more from sla of yan skin, the don, yet region. these are some very significant lines coming from the ukranian military . they saying that they have surrounded the strategic town of lee amount of town that fell under the control of the russians of the face. fighting in may, it is a huge strategic importance because it is a railway hub and supply line to russian forces across this region. of course

fish news, if indeed it is true, is significant because it is part of what has been a very successful counter offensive in the last couple of weeks by ukrainian forces . pushing south from concave and re taking control of thousands of square kilometers of territory. we are hearing also, according to the ukrainians that they believe that up to $5500.00 russian troops could be trapped inside li man. and it was the presidential advisor present zalinski, the ukrainian presidential adviser mich halo polack, who is tweeted that moscow should appeal to you if they wanted them to release those soldiers. if not one can only presume the implication is that they will be taken prisoner. we understand that a lot of these men could well be russians special was, is it possible to verify any of this news at the moment? it's very, very difficult for the media to get any kind of access even close to li man. at the

moment, i'm the surrounding villages of lima as well because this operation isn't just concentrated on the city itself. there are a number of villages both to the north and the south that we understand the military operation is ongoing. inside these villages and settlements. one of the big reasons, again, why this is important news is that from lima, and it means that ukrainian forces can potentially push north east towards lou ganske, which we know, they pretty much don't control any of it. there are pockets of lucon scope los that they have been fighting to retake over the last couple of months. and it also means that they can push down from lee mount potentially south east towards what is increasingly becoming the besieged city of buck moot. where there is an ongoing heavy shelling in that city over the last few weeks and we understand at least 20000 people civilians still in that city. so yeah, if indeed this is true,

this is highly significant in terms of military strategy and a military success for the ukranian army, thousands of gathered in the iraq capital to mark the 3rd anniversary of major demonstrations against the government. the protest in 21900, called for an end to ramp and corruption and high unemployment and what became known as the to city movement security has been tightened around iraq capital. most if it's bridges on main roads are closed for testers are demanding the removal of a political establishment. they say is corrupt. students from a number of iranian universities are holding a sit in against violence that followed the death of master. many, many died last month after she was arrested by iran, morality police. many of the demonstrators, including some university professors, are refusing to attend crawford in law, feel people are voting and parliamentary elections influenced by russia's war on

neighbor ukraine. opinion polls predict the ruling center, right? new unity party will win the most seats. a victory for the prime minister could widen a growing rift between the lot, the majority and its russian. speaking minority. the election campaign was dominated by questions on national identity and security. as well as high inflation and storing energy costs across the country. here today, we're the latest headlines on al jazeera up next it's b bottom line. thanks for watching. bye bye for now. i hi, i'm steve clemens and i have a question. as russia finds itself backed into a corner in ukraine, could this war go nuclear, let's get to the bottom line. ah,

it started 7 months ago and there's no end in sight. the ukrainian military has made some major advances, but russia still controls 20 percent of the country. and there's nothing to suggest that this war is winding down. the ukrainian military is backed up by western weapons and western intelligence gathering, which tells them where the russian soldiers are and where ammunition is being stored. president joe biden has asked congress to provide a new package of about $12000000000.00 of aid to ukraine on top of the nearly $50000000000.00 sent there in the past year. and moscow is doubling down to hundreds of thousands of military reserves are being called up. now, referendums are being held in the ukranian territories, that russia controls asking folks whether they'd prefer to belong to ukraine or to russia. and put recently said something really remarkable. he said he's not bluffing when he threatened the quote, make use of all weapon systems available and you know what that means? he is talking about nuclear weapons too. so are things taking

a turn for the worse and could this war go nuclear? today we're talking with cory shockey, the director of foreign and defense policy studies at the american enterprise institute, who served this director for defense strategy and the national security council under president george w bush. she's also author of america versus the west. can the liberal world order be preserved? and john wolfol, former adviser to president brock obama, and now a senior advisor to the global 0 initiative, which works on the elimination of nuclear weapons. he blogs at the sub stack site. boom boom, boom, read it. it's very interesting, let me just ask you both, and i'm going to start with you, corey, where has the notion that we need to know about nuclear weapons and how to respond of them gone structurally. in our defense analysis in our defense plants. well, there's certainly still a cod tray of people who care ad desperately and work carefully on the issue

that james martin instituted in monterey that m i t political science to var read my stratcom all sorts of people. but we have had the good fortune for the last 30 years to not have to care about this problem and the return of nuclear menace as russia loses its war and ukraine and the germanic expansion of china's nuclear weapons program. emergence of programs in iran and north korea. ah, our cause seeing a lot of people who study national security to focus their attention back on this field. well john, you have written a piece to this point called deterring deterring. putin's nuclear threats in your boom boom boom ah, sup, stack websites, fascinating piece. and you sort of reveal that there had been simulations in thinking about this when you served in the obama administration. so vladimir putin is out there right now. looks to a lot of folks like he is in a bit of a corner,

taking some desperate actions inside ukraine, mobilizing hundreds of thousands of new forces to be deployed to ukraine, but also threatening potential use of nuclear weapons. what's your take on how serious latimer putin is? well, we don't. first of all, it is very dangerous. it does as the people of ukraine and as the people of europe who have been disrupted by it. but the reality is, you can't put a percentage on risk, but we know the vladimir putin has nuclear weapons. we know that he's willing to use force to achieve his goals, and he's fully capable of launching nuclear weapons. and so the risk is not 0. and therefore, we have to take it seriously. fortunately, inside any administration, there are professionals who work these issues, both in the military and in the civilian side that think through. what are the threats? is the united states, if insecure, our allies safe and secure, and more importantly, how do we deter enemies from doing things that we don't want them to do? we can deter them by denying them the benefits they might seek to achieve or by

punishing them to such an extent that they never benefit from their attacks. obviously, what we'd like to do is be so effective. it determined that they never even think about using nuclear weapons, but putting already cross that threshold. and now we're very much in the business has been seen by president biden. and secretary state tony, blinking, making very clear publicly that they've communicated to russia, that any use of nuclear weapons would never succeed, that they would be punished to an extent that would never make the attack worthwhile. and they shouldn't even think about it. corey, i would ask you, what can the west do credibly, and do you feel like we're handling this defining moment for the solvency of american power for nato, for the western alliance? is, are we doing well at this moment? i think we're doing reasonably well. i agree with john. i know that it matters that though white house and other parts of the government have made clear that we are

talking to the russians and making concrete consequences clear. should russia choose to use a nuclear weapon against the people of ukraine, where i think they could do better? is to be even more explicit about what the consequences of russia's actions would be. should they make that fateful policy choice? it sounded to me in the coverage of i, the biden, our administration's talks with the russians, that the, as the president said, you know, we're, we're talking about in general, we're not talking about specific concrete responses. i personally think, given how broad the gap is between this strategy of the biden administration and its willingness to an ability to carry out its strategy that we need to be more explicit. we should be telling the russians that our intelligence has been very

good in this war. so far. we are dedicating intelligence assets to determining whether the russians are moving weapons into operational positions. and if they are, we will make that intelligence public. so russia has to bear consequences, not just with the united states in ukraine, but other countries. second thing we should be doing is telling the russians that if we see them moving to use a nuclear weapon in ukraine, we will interdicted. if we have the ability to do so, ah, to take that tool out of their hands. 3rd thing if we fail to interdict their use, that we will, sans american and other nato forces to ukraine to help ameliorate the consequences of it. so am so effects, consequence management, but we will also joined the war on the side of ukraine. and because we need to make

sure the russians understand that the use of this weapon won't change the outcome of the war, it will simply change the cost of the war. and it will dramatically raise the cost to them. and the 4th thing we should be telling them is that we will hunt down and bring to justice every single ration involved in the policy decision or the execution of such an order. so you have just help define something. cory shockey that i was asking in a tweet when i heard by the national security advisor jake sullivan say the results of any action i have to ask myself in when joe biden and jake sullivan are talking about their concern of nuclear and chemical weapons. there must be some intelligence, his forcing them to, you know, express those concerns. and i ass, please define catastrophic. so you begun to do that, you know, begun to look at. but what i'm hearing you say is really something that sounds a lot like a next world war. am i am i wrong, john? but i don't think you're wrong and,

and i like to take the point to or the opportunity to agree with almost everything . corey just said, what have you not agree with? so i agree with most of the points, but i don't agree about the idea that we should be ready to interject and preempt nuclear used by russia. and i think why not, because one human beings make mistakes and we misinterpret moves. that could be a prelude to an attack, which are actually something else. we have to acknowledge that our tolerance is not always perfect, and that's been demonstrated multiple times in the past. but i think that's very much on the minds of president biden and other leaders, which is we want to do everything we can to make vladimir putin life difficult without turning this into world war 3. if putin chooses across the nuclear threshold, he can do so without moving troops or without moving missiles around. he has nuclear weapons deployed on submarines deployed on in silos that can be launch without any notice in any preparation. so we can't simply bomb our nuclear problem away with putin. well, we can say to him, and i agree with cory on us,

that if he were to use a nuclear weapon, we should make it clear that he's now in a war with united states and all of nato, and that we will hold everybody, including him directly and personally responsible, it would be the end, not only of russia's position of power in the world. what of his rule in russia, no matter how long it takes. and i think the united states is very credible on that, whether it is or some, a been lawton, or other people that have challenged the united states at a strategic level. but we have to be very careful and i think this goes in court. i may disagree on this in terms of what assistance we are prepared to provide ukraine . we should do everything we can to make sure you crane survives, that they can defeat russian aggression and they re, can reclaim ukrainian territory. and we have to do that without creating a dynamic where russia itself will feel directly threatened by ukraine or the united states. so that we can bring this war to a conclusion without russian troops on ukrainian territory. and that is a very, very small landing strip that the president and others are trying to get into. and

we have to be cautious not to overreach in terms of our capabilities or the consequence. let me ask you both where you think this conflict is going. is there a negotiated end or both sides? kind of, are they kind of negotiating with each other? the russians are saying, hey, here's what we could do. the lensky is out there saying we'll never give up an inch of land. we'll go forever. it's just sort of interesting that when you begin looking into the abyss of truly horrific global exchange, that could expand far further. does the world have to acquiesce to some butchering up of ukraine as a way to get to this corey? you know, where i disagree with john just a minute ago and with you, steve? is that it is, it does not deter adversaries to project. all of our fears. am on to the public record. right?

president bright and his right to worry about world war 3, he's right to as think we need to. i have policies that minimize the effects. but to tell your adversary repeatedly, all you are afraid of isn't deterrence, right? russia is losing a war to ukraine. it's losing a war with conventional forces to ukraine. it looks like the russians begin to try and make nuclear threats. and threats of, ah, you know, environmental terrorism attacking their own nord stream pipelines. um and so yes, this is scary. yes, it is dangerous. that is the nature of warfare. and yet we should not lose perspective that we are the strong ones in this equation, not the weak ones. and we should be projecting our strength into the conversation.

not all of our anxieties of what we're afraid might happen, because to do that encourages russia to believe that they can set the conditions at the end of the war. they are losing, that they can use nuclear and other threats to affect american behavior. that's just not good deterrent strategy. i find your perspective really fascinating, corey, and i think a very important contribution here. nonetheless, the russians are working to annex the large portions of territory. just sort of begs the question of, as you look at, i mean, this looks like a war that's not going to wind down anytime soon. and so maybe would be naive to even ask the question of how we get to that solution. but right now, clearly as a result of what core you see, you see the russians are losing this war, doing steps that are potentially very d, stabilizing inside moscow. with the mobilization of these men, we just saw pictures of a 10 mile long line of folks trying to get out of the country. so it is now come

home to moscow, the consequences of this. and so i'm interested just just very quickly. and as you begin looking at it, and maybe we don't translate and transmit our fears, but when you come to the broader question of what this nato and the transit atlantic alliance need to achieve, percent, where does this go by way of russia? is it, is it the complete emasculation in defeat of russia, or is there some middle ground? so that's up to russia. i was in key a couple of weeks ago and president zelinski captured it perfectly. he said that there are people trying to persuade him to make concessions to russia, to bring the war to an end. what ukraine is instead, trying to do is set the conditions for bringing the war to an end. you know, it's popular to say military force can't solve this problem. military force is solving this problem, and russia can lose in

a bunch of different ways. it can enter into negotiations now with the ukrainians. it can enter into negotiations once they lose crimea. there are lots of different off ramps, but we shouldn't be either ourselves or pushing ukraine to make concessions, that russia's invasion of ukraine and the catastrophic performance of russian a terry have imposed upon russia itself. as the great i frank miller, he who works a lot on nuclear strategy is fond of saying that the line judge doesn't disqualify a swimmer. the swimmer disqualifies the swimmer. russia has set the conditions for the outcome of this war by invading ukraine. and by having a catastrophically bad military strategy that they can't even execute, john, i know you wanted to jump in. yeah. all because i agree with corey. i mean,

i don't think the united states should be pushing ukraine at all to make concessions. i think the bravery shown by the ukrainian people, the creativity of their military, i think, does change the landscape in europe. and quite frankly, i think a lot of people are going to be asking when this war does. and why don't we bring ukraine into nato? because they know better than anybody how to hold risks and threats like russia at bay. i think the question is, what is the end goal for ukraine? are they going to be satisfied with repelling russia from the territory they've occupied since february? will they say now that we've liberated those areas, we now want to go and liberate the crimea, and recognize that even if that is the legitimate right of ukraine to do. and even if the united states wants to support that, that does create new challenges and risks of escalation for potent. i think court and i would agree we would like to be gone. we'd prefer an internal coup. we prefer to him to be defeated. we want to see ukraine victorious on the battlefield. and so far right now that's working. the united states, however, to make that possible,

needs to deter putin from escalating this crisis. and that is a very difficult challenge. who can use nuclear weapons? he's clearly threatening it to try to influence it, influence us, and that's just a reality. nuclear weapons do influence foreign leaders. we'd be naive to suggest otherwise. but i don't think that means we're projecting weakness. i think the president has said very clearly the vladimir potent don't even think about it. and by demonstrating our resolve as an alliance to support ukraine. and if necessary to respond to the use of nuclear weapons, i think we are projecting strength. i think the real question is, where does the line get drawn? and the reality is that neither putin nor president biden, nor anybody on this interview really knows where that line is going to be drawn. we have to play it day by day, john, you put something in your article, which i had not thought about is that bladder, mere putin could decide as a, as a demonstration of resolve to deploy nuclear weapon in the air. and not use it for

by tactical battlefield use to just send a signal that he was willing to do that. and that would be historic that might create an electromagnetic pulse, it might have consequences. what kind of response does the world offer to that? and i guess the other thing i feel so strongly, i've learned this from cory shockey, from listening for, for so long. these are not siloed issues from others. the north koreans are watching the iranians, who are watching lots of pakistan and india are watching lots of other worlds that are at nuclear threshold or nuclear capable nations are watching what transpires in these moments and it gets it just, it just haunts me. that the action while we may not want to escalate the horror, you could create a permission slip in the future. and i'm wondering how do you not do that and how do you respond to something like the scenario i sort of, i'll be honest, i thought that the way that folks thought about your response was rather weak. and if i were north koreans, i would take heart, frankly, in what you shared. so look,

i think we had to be careful about not making decisions now based on what it might mean for precedence in the future. right. job number one is defeating vladimir putin in ukraine. my personal view is that if letter report and where to use a demonstrations right over the black sea, it would be sigh not of resolve, but of desperation. and it would show, as korea said that he is losing the war conventionally, i think the least effective thing we could do would be to respond to a demonstration strike with a nuclear weapon demonstration of our own. because we are winning the war. ukraine is winning the war. we don't want to feel that he can expand to the nuclear battle space because quite frankly, when nuclear states go off against each other, nobody wins. i'd rather win the war and beat him conventionally, right? i would rather fight a nuclear chest, beating competition. korea would love to get your thoughts on that as well. but i also want to ask you, as we get close to wrapping this conversation, which is so fascinating up, is to what degree you worry about ukraine fatigue and not all you treat ukraine

fatigue at home. here in the united states where the supplemental, the 12000000000 dollars, which we're debating to give the ukrainians people began saying, hey, we need that for other purposes. but also there's that adage, winter is coming and a lot of european governments are going to be under pressure with the high price of oil and gas and the fact that some supplies are going to be cut off for them. yeah, so i think it's right to worry about western fatigue of or ukraine bad. joyfully that is not when the american public or european publics are experiencing. there's a pupil jess out a couple of days ago that shows support for ukraine increasing as time goes on in the west, not decreasing. and i think germany is an interesting example. and i, the over whelming majority of even green party pacifists, and germany favor arming and supporting ukraine. and they are pushing the german

government to a more assertive position. and i think you see the same dynamic in the united states over time. so that's great. the answer to your question about what is the right response to a nuclear threat. the right response is to diminish the value of nuclear possession and nuclear threats by telling an adversary that the kind of weapon they use will make no difference to the outcome of the war. that we remain committed to winning the war. irrespective of what kind of weapons they years and it, we, well hi, dana and bring to justice. anybody responsible for the decision or the execution of an order to use a nuclear weapon in any aspect, demonstrative or otherwise. corey, before i leave it, you have said that now a couple of times very compellingly. and honestly and maybe i've missed this. i haven't heard jake sullivan said, say that i haven't heard our secretary of state tony blanket that have not heard

the president united states say we're going to hunt down and hold accountable any one involved in a long line of decision makers to that were involved with the use of that in basically saying this would be a horrific crime against humanity and hold them to account. why do you think we haven't heard those words? at least i haven't heard those words? well, i very much hope they are saying those words privately. and i very much hope they will soon say them publicly. john, what do you think about this challenge of fatigue? well, i worry about fatigue, not because the american public or the european public are going to get tired. i think corey is exactly right. that right now, particularly as the war is going well or better for ukraine support is very strong . i do worry about political instability and united states. i worry about political instability in europe. that's something that i think joe biden and the united states are very aware of. but i think that's why we need to keep making the case that this is not just about ukraine. is about protecting the international global

security order that has benefited the united states in europe more than anybody else. but i do also agree with corey that the message needs to be clear about accountability. i'm very confident that message has been really privately up and down the military chain of command in russia. when i was in government, that was part of the plans that we had in place to signal and message. we can debate whether those are needed publicly or not. i think vladimir putin through minister showing through general grosse and all the way down through the 12 gm. you understand that very well. and i think they know the united states is prepared and capable of carrying it out. will fascinating discussion. both of you. i think this is, you know, thinking the unthinkable is what we sometimes need to do and national security issues. i want to thank corey shockey, director of foreign and defense policy studies at the american enterprise institute, and john wolf's fall senior advisor at the global 0 initiative. thanks so much for being with us today. thank you. to pleasure. so what's the bottom line?

the 1st and last time a nuclear bomb was used in war with 77 years ago by the united states against japan . since then, there have been instances when a nuclear exchange almost happened. but is this going to be one of them to find out, we have to take a closer look at russia's leadership. president vladimir putin sees himself as the one person who can make russia great. again, according to his world view, the soviet union and russia suffered from decades of humiliation. and now it's time for payback, and that makes him driven and dangerous. no one knows if he'll decide to use a tactical nuke in this war with ukraine, but the u. s. and his allies have to figure out how to react, by the way, there is no polite way to respond to the use of nuclear weapon. and there are consequences for not responding and kind. that would be the day when we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. and that's the bottom line. ah,

there are some of the media stories. critical look at the global news media cast right on al jazeera government shut off, access to social media in these turbulent times, up front returns for new season. join me, mark them on hill as we take on the big issues from the state of democracy around the world to the struggles faced by the under represented. we will challenge the conventional wisdom up front one out to 0 with one.