over the philippines, scattering a showers, their cross malaysia, and also into indonesia might see a share or 2, grassy, making its way into west rancor. over the next couple of days. the for much of india, much a pakistan, it stays hot and sunny. ah, how do you state controlled information? moscow is one of them. will vail, the case in the world? it has an incredible facial recognition technology. how does the narrative improve public opinion? no walker asked. how is it in journalism? we're leaving the video spread like wildfire. they denied depressed or in your brain. the listening close dissects the media. we don't cover the news, we cover the way the news is cover. what shapes europe, security as munich hosts its annual conference? there are concerns about the continent future with the war in ukraine,

still raging. how will europeans face potential security threats, and can they do it alone? this is inside story. ah hello and welcome to the program. i'm danny navigator. the war in europe on the new alliances of the future are some the issues being discussed that one of the most important meetings on the international agenda. the annual munich security conference leaders on top officials from the european union and nato have been focusing on ukraine and how the war is shaping their future. while chinese and american delegations tried to resolve the recent diplomatic damage between beijing and washington, the russian president, vladimir putin is not attending the conference, but he's dominating most of the discussion or diplomatic editor james base reports

from munich. the conference that takes place every year here in munich is one of the key points in the us european security relationship. that relationship has for 74 years been defined by nato, the north atlantic treaty organization, which was. busy role was originally to deter any attack from the soviet union that changed rather radically when the berlin wall fell and many european countries, eastern european countries added to the ranks of nato members. then the fears i think in europe of russia started to subside, many european countries neglected. the u. s. would say that defense budget, there was private concern about that in the us became very public. when donald trump became president, is euro wasn't pulling its weight. well, that of course, is all changed in the last year since the war in ukraine and european leaders. i

think have been much of the driving force or what's gone on in nato for the 1st time in the last year. many of those leaders saying we need to support present lensky incredibly strongly. it's up to him how long this will last. when the negotiations start, the message really is for as long as it takes. but i think the u. s. still has a very important role here. it's still the biggest funder of nato. and in the end, the u. s. election campaign is going to be very important for the war in ukraine presidential elections in just 2 years time on a different party. a different president may have a very different view of ukraine. james space for inside story in munich. ah, it's now welcome our guest joining us from vienna as wolfgang post i a security and policy analyst. wolfgang is a former defense attache and a senior advisor to the austrian institute for european security policy from ty pay

. joining us from there, i do not. oh buck on a professor, dublin city university and author of domestic politics of post soviet unrecognized states. and over in oxford we have samuel romani who's the fence analyst and associate fellow at the royal united services institute. welcome to each of you. thank you so much for your time with us on the inside story. we'll kinda go over in vienna on the issue of ukraine. perhaps this conference is giving ukraine's allies a chance to assess the war one year on. so, despite the warm words of support for a key that we've seen behind the scenes, what would the allies biggest concerns be when it comes to european security as a whole? as this war drags on to biggest security for the europeans is certainly the aggression of russia. but there is also concern about the cohesion of the rejection of the russian adventure in ukraine. please be aware that neighboring fans to enlarge that there are 2 northern countries,

sweden and finland beach would like to join nato and this is blocked by turkey. so natal is not that united as it might seem to be ok to knock on tie pay, do you agree with that that there unity is being tested and surely the countries don't all have the same concerns. no, that's true in this debate about, you know, a future european, you know, security architecture is, is, is not you, it's been going on for some time. and you know, i guess if it 1st came in recent times into the forefront, when donald trump was elected in the united states, there was a fear that the united states was no longer going to be committed in the same way to europe, king security and, and then of course, yes, russia's invasion of ukraine, which has revealed shortcomings, really in european security not least in the ability to produce sufficient ammunition weapons, not least he of course, because of the end of the cold war. but also because of your a crisis. because these are democracies,

people are always worrying about how their taxes are being spent. and it's difficult for politicians, certainly in peace time, to argue that the defense is, is, is worth spending money on over health and education. and what rushes invasion of ukraine has revealed is that you don't all forward hearing government which can focus its resources in a much more focused way can be a real danger. and i think europe made a fundamental mistake in 2014, in how it responded to the annexation of climate. you might say the 1st invasion of your brain that emboldened vladimir putin and 9 years later they're, they're back at the drawing table, trying to see how they can make amends for that and prevents well firstly, of course, getting ukraine to win the war, but then prevents similar occurrences in the future. okay. a samuel way in on this, on the security front for europe. what, what do you think of the challenges are going forward? when you get there is i just respond to the comment is heard. i substantial amount of unity. it's a board of ukraine that we really saw at the me a security conference. it was really calling to see how germany is gone one year

from opposing leave large transfer grant. and at keeping events badge actually low to supporting more than 2 percent of g p and defense spending. and forrest destroy the defense minister sank. we mean even more so there's been a lot of progress come forward in terms of security challenges. obviously the 1st most immediate one is you're venting the gray is the russian storm. achieving renewed military success in ukraine. ebert killer, the events of the launching and don bass. so artillery ammunition air defense systems and maybe even down the line fighter jets or is and joe free again. the 2nd is on securing some of the ab that the handed it states, they're coming to the european union like georgia, moldova, and making sure that they are not vulnerable to russian aggression. and the 3rd, obviously, is creating a harmony as den northern europeans, security, france. that's why resolved in the bass with turkey or sweden. finland is so important. so seeing if in land can use a substantial military resources and experience dealing with hybrid threats like cyber to coordinate with the baltic states. and make sure that the northern flank

of nato is unstable as the southern and other flanks of the alliance. ok and a samuel stick with you for a moment because i'd like you to also comment on what a mr. tanaka said from taipei, when he was talking about the role of the united states in particular, that has been a pivotal and may so has been the major player when it comes to ukraine. so do you think that the europeans can actually rely on themselves going forward or do they continue to rely on the us? why does interesting question? i think the certainly the at warren ukraine is exposed to limitations. i've europe's ability to produce military what men. so we see, for example, you foreign policy, she just a brow and other european officials talk about how we may have had difficulty producing the amount of ammunition needed to sustain this kind of a long range war. that's pretty realistic. so in some ways it's exposed the fact that the european ends cannot really defend themselves all on their own without america. but european countries are making encouraging investments in a defense budgets that would be suggestive of

a longer term in autonomy and sustainability. like i said, with germany and oversee and particularly coming from countries that are most vulnerable to russian aggression like poland, increasingly ged to 3 percent and really consolidating. there are the sources of artillery from countries as diverse as south korea, g, nato. so i think that the europeans were given a shock, but they're taking gradual and incremental action towards being more autonomous and be able to defend themselves against future threats coming from russia. okay, i will stand over and vienna. what do you think here? can your opinions live up to their pledges and take on more responsibility for their own security and, and move away from the united states? there is no doubt about this fits the europeans, will need to take some more responsibility, which is 1st and foremost because the hopes of the united states has shifted 10 years ago to the civic and the current born ukraine. distraction by the united states from the yoga. so ego checked the global,

more important era from the pacific. this means there is some kind of sharing the required between the united states and europe, which means the conventional defense of europe will and must, in the future rely more european forces. but it is absolutely correct that countries like germany needs to do much more in the future. there is no doubt about this. nevertheless, it will still be required to have the support of the united states. we keep mentioning germany, but let's look at france for a moment and. 2 we're going dollars, i'll stay with you for this question, franz, since the beginning of the war has been accused off, simply not doing enough when it comes to ukraine. so what is it that prevent franz from doing more? well, the french military is almost a ground found is the german military and the main role of defense of conventional defense in the sense of europe. all the rest of the united states and the germans.

the french have so many global obligations, especially in north africa about they are also need to be. so yes, of course, the french also need to do some more. but the already heavily have a heavy burrow in the presence in north africa, falsified galleries. and this is all the interest of the united states to keep differential north africa and to continue to find areas. and especially i see some type of market there, which is also quite costly. the french maintain also an old looked up force, and this is also extremely costly venture to naca if they do indeed increase their defense spending. and we heard from the german chancellor, all our souls whose vowing now to a quote, permanently meet nato's defense spending goal for individual members of 2 percent of g d p. how do you think the russians will be looking into this? because does this reinforce the sentiment amongst russia, that nato does, and will remain an exist and existential threats? yes, but of course, russia what your opinion and what nature was doing is responding to brushing

aggression mean russia states its fear of national expansion. but it never asks the fundamental question of why neutral has expanded into inter central eastern europe . it wasn't that nature was seeking new members. essentially, those countries which had been formerly part of the russian empire of the soviet union, involuntarily were banging on the door of nasal begging for security guarantees to protect them from the historical cycle of abuse that they have received at the hands of the prevalent over many many years, and you know, until russia changes its action for just neighbor, there's always going to be a demand. first, a strong security architecture around russia, containers, so to speak, what we sometimes get overall, which would russia as a try because it's tried. this is entirely military, you know, it has the largest new to our soul, but this more it has been illuminating in many respects that it has revealed us. you know, russia isn't a superpower. indeed, it's often forgotten that its economy is it's more of an issue means it's somewhat

larger than spain's. it's g, d, b per capita is very small in all the other kind of important benchmarks. russia is a medium size developing power, but what it has dawn, and this is what dictatorships can do, is just focus a lot of those raw materials that is, that it has on the state control into military production. and what europe has moved on is it hasn't kept pace of that. russia is firing more ammunition in a day than europe is producing in a month. it's a remarkable statistic. and the estonian prime minister college has said that europe has 2 coolants resources in the same way that it did, for example, with vaccines during coal. but it has to do the same with ammunition production. but, but there's no way to respond to this question. but bye bye bye if and she making your more secure by, by enhancing its defense production of the state. but the not when the united states also says that the u. s. would have a permanent army base near poland. i mean, this is not going to be, well,

come by russia. how does this help security in the confidence while it helps security by helping the poles and those other countries and the neighborhood feel more secure? this isn't about just pandering to, to russia, security concerns that we have to ask ourselves what rights to the countries have bordering russia. they are not simply buffer states, are proxies or paul. these are software democracies who have elected governments who have a right to choose their own geopolitical alliances. and they have chosen for very good evidence based historical and contemporary reasons to throw in their lot with europe and with your atlantic structures. and as i said, that's something that russia should really examine why this is happening rather than seeing as a, as an aggression towards russia. it's a response to russian regression. and it says there's a lot of evidence to, to, to prove that over long periods of time, and samuel romani, if sweden and finland actually join nato, then this would mean that russia would have nato on its border. the alliance would

have a about a 1300 kilometer border, so russia's actions created exactly or could create exactly what puts in didn't want. exactly, it's always been the recurring problem. so in russia started using hybrid context, for example, against countries like it's joni and 2007 with cyber attacks or the position of energy against ukraine using chrome, ukraine in georgia, express interest. you need a membership precipitating the russian aggression the georgia war. and then the annexation of crime in 2014, i receive the exact same scenario. play out here, russia invade ukraine, this offensively to prevent and new animals and the armed anti russian nato member from urging on his borders and all the guests more nato expansion on his waters. it's important to keep in mind that there was no political consensus in sweden and finland towards banding neutrality before this war. and maybe only 20 or 30 percent of the populations of both countries actually were strong supporters of nato membership. so rushes aggression against ukraine as legible, fundamental shift in the country public opinion. i lead once again to the expansion

of the alliance on the waters and samuel the did another thing. the significant innovation for european security and defense is that the you is now, of course, financing the purchase and delivery of lethal weapons to ukraine. that's a 1st and e u history. is it not on how big a game changer is? this going forward? was president his staff that really shows the general unity of your country's round army. you know, obviously there's some exceptions like hungry which says that does not want to be a party to the war. and bulgaria also has intimately gone back and forth on this because the socialist party is much more accommodating towards russia by general. it just shows the degree of unity around this and also we, we should just be looking at the armstrong is just looking at you efforts into the military training for your grants. because that's also significant in terms of the rate of unity that you're saying. not just the individual members dance like or within nato, like britain, leading ad hoc training initiatives or bring other countries together received the

you actually invest in this to get before the why the britney's based. similar question. 2021 are. that's why this kind of, for any living get it so in terms of training and arms, all right, it's a lot of unity that we're seeing coming for the european union was going to agree on that, that we're seeing a unity in terms of whether we're yeah, go ahead, we forgot. see, there are 2 sides of the coin. by no means i don't want to defend the russian aggression way ukraine. but we said that each country has a cost, right? who decide if he wants to chime the live? yes or no, no doubt about these and that will you agree with this? i don't, the russian side. people see that this could be expressed for them. be perceived that any basing of nathan, besides or maple almost closer up order would allow nathan aggression or weapons. and even more important, we, st natal intervene, stablish visa. busy has not been causal. they say things that mean to fight their own, born in boston against the people down there and to see the same fault causal. so

for us, you'd be supposed to ration for the russians. it's in garrison. i would say it would be important, but right now is not the right moment, but is to be more thrust to build some more thrust. and especially if nato enlargement works in sweden and finland are able to try and nato and assist before this was significantly changed the cheap that's used to explanation europe because the russians will be fossil, people have the receipt and if we can man, but groups in it's not and frank to protect the strategic important hobble moments and to call up beings. bad about half of the nuclear submarines are based and from the banjo, fred by nathan, indicate of the russian aggression in central europe. so this means if the northern countries will try and nato and the russian aggression in sent to europe, europe would be much more risky. and i'm sure that the russians would have much less expedite for military aggression against made and decently. she could be also

used to be some more trust, again, by having some inspections on both sides of the border and by having some common activities. so yes, the russians are the ones who are the rest of us. there is no doubt about it. but it's all about the sections and it will be necessary also to take into account the concerns mr. then i can type a, would you like to comment on what we just heard from vienna? yeah, i mean, i think there's a consensus in, in europe at the moment it's, it's not foreseeable that you could make a deal with the current russian administration. that would be ensuring you have to remember that deals have been struck in the past with this administration. and indeed, with russia, i mean, we go back even to 1994 when the russian federation guaranteed the territorial integrity, the sovereignty, independence of ukraine in a binding agreement. and, and of course, that has been flagrantly ignored since then. so i think that's the big fear in ukraine and indeed within the european union, the reason to partner at the moment to establish this trust on which to build kind

of a common understanding. indeed, europe has tried out in the past the whole idea of, of nord stream and an economic engagement was that somehow russia could be changed to economic engagement. and in fact, what has been revealed is that it was the kremlin, which was using a mac engagement to further east objectives. and it had kind of logged itself into the belief that europe was sufficiently dependent and divided that it wouldn't act robustly if, if russia have further extended its invasion into ukraine and that it has proved fundamentally wrong. but as you know, i mean, i'm, i'm speaking here in from taiwan. you know, there are other parts of the world who also have a vested interest in seeing ukraine, wind and russia. russia's invasion, be defeated, because if i gain something from the brush again, something from this invasion, it will send a signal not only to put mentor russia, but to other authoritarian states that military aggression pays. so that i'm glad

you bring that up. i'm glad you're bring that up. let me just put this to you, mr. the not because we heard from the nato secretary general, who said this, what is happening in europe today could happen in asia to morrow. to what extent do you think europeans and nathan are, are concerned about any potential, let's say, cooperation between china and russia going forward. yet they are very concerned. and indeed, secretary said johnson the blank and made this here where he was saying, there was a real threshold of china providing military age to russia. because ultimately, you know, china has tried to hedge in sped, but china doesn't want to see russia lose in the spot. and that's where it is a fundamental disagreement between china and the west on the, on the outcome of this, this conflict. and there are obvious parallels between somewhere like taiwan, you have an authoritarian, china, increasingly repressive at home and aggressive abroad. it's, it's, it's a dictatorship versus democracy. of course, here in taiwan, and of course,

taiwan was considered an integral part of china in, in a similar parallel way that russia ukraine is kind of part of its no legitimate interested sphere of influence. so, how, how the west responds to russia's invasion of ukraine will have a domino effect in other parts of the world. there's no doubt about that. so this is why there's a lot of stake, european security, the future of ukraine and the outcome of this war. it's, it's not confined to those areas. it's actually a global significant samuel. behind the scenes though, i do think that governments will be questioning the extent and duration of their involvement, particularly as economic pressures grow. europe is having to pay a high price. there's high inflation, increased gas cost, of course, the issue of refugees as well. so far we've seen the economic costs at the war, he inflation energy prices and dare rising food prices, for example, be much less of a deterrent for support. you grant. and many people predict it is also notable that

populous candidates, you ran on down platforms about die rainy in support for ukraine, and also not grabbing against embargo against russia like marine le, pen and france were sally defeated. whereas other candidates who support army, grandly georgia, bologna in italy, i've been successful. so i don't think that those economic pressures are really white. you in the short term limit at western square feet grand, but obviously their disagreements on 2 key areas. the vs on long range missile, and the 2nd is to do with fighter jets. so you see britain personally elaborate you to nack, be pretty vocal on both of these issues and supported them. and poland also be supportive of us. but even within britain, for example, ben wallace has a very different view, is that you're a fighter taking typhoon jackson will be delivered after the war. whereas, you know, because we're open to having them being delivered during it. and other countries, like germany are probably gonna be less willing to give that kind of equipment. so this agreement is what's going to be on whether we support your grandeur of ammunition artillery and helping them economically. also hold up against the

infrastructure strikes and russian aggression is going to be more about the escalation rests long range miss out the the fighter jets in the more get his on that was going to take in the more you learning because i see you shaking your head with gaming will european countries find that politically challenging to spend more on defense when faced with an economic downturn? well, bit they both us will ask people additional to justify these. but let me have a brief point on the delivery of the chat. so you're going to build up an air force on 5 generation like the unified form. thanks. yes. so this means there is no way that the 1st unified that's gotten good to be opperation in ukraine before in let's see. it's best to re yes. so this is not like him and to thank you sign or not like a tank that could be operations a couple of months we're talking about years. so it's really was the question. last is the threat malika priority. i don't think it is because it will be simply not available in time, but there is not also no doubt about this,

if their voice frozen, or if there is a ceasefire, it will be necessary to establish, to reestablish all of the force of ukrainians. and this is certainly something where the west and the chat needs to come to ukraine. ok, mr. the not, i mean, what is, what is the way forward? do you think? but i think it's been a transformation in, in how we understand, secures, in europe since russia's invasion. i think one of the, i mean, if we mentioned about germany, i mean germany open to this point being the most reticent in adopting a ra, a robust response church to russian vision. they have changed so much in one year. i think that emblematic of the changes and thinking that have occurred. i think one of the big takeaways is, is that java pre matters, but more than john fee values matter. and that's why i mentioned the issue of democracy versus dictatorship. this is a fundamental schism in europe. we've been down this road before of how to organize european society along the lines of the dictatorship or democracy. so there's only

one top of europe and take, there's only one key take away from that democracy is worth defending, and therefore it's worth investing in. and that's not confined to europe. as i said, it's not based. justin geographies based on the neighborhood is based on values. ok, we have somewhere to minutes remaining, bang gang. you can comments. well, i would say the 1st priority is all the security office security be reconditioned, the economy economy interests and there are support values. if you don't have security, if you don't have the comic prosperity, you can probably your values. say last sentence, these 1st new like this is the 1st and only constant in a new age. the age of globalization is over, is over europe, and there is no more peaceful cooperation of the rock b, russia whatsoever. ok, samuel, a final word to you, what, what lessons can be learned from this and what's the way forward? obviously that needs to be launch dirty. i think job with towards your grades ravendie kind of repeat situations, asia and hopefully this security conference leads to a more of

a long term coordination than the dresser. political pressures do not kind of really blur with j national security. the way it's so often done in the past with regards to russia. just one more question to you, samuel, do you think that ukraine will join the european union? why think he's got a long past, you had any they'd be, i'm candidates that day, it's gonna be a long way towards i direct memberships or maybe some kind of an informal agreement between them that leads to greater economic integration is probably more likely. so i think it's a long term process. okay, we'll leave it there. thank you so much for joining us. we'll ganga post i, donna, co, buchan and sam your money. we thank you for your time. thanks for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website al jazeera dot com for further discussion. go to where a facebook page dots, facebook dot com, forward, slash ha inside story. can join the conversation on twitter as well or handle is adrian side. story for myself. whole team here in doha, thanks for watching time. bye bye for now. ah,

ah, along with the american people is spoken. but what exactly did they say? is the world looking for a whole new order with less america in it? is the woke agenda on the decline in america. how much is social media companies know about you? and how easy is it to manipulate the quizzical look us politics the bottom line? the wind blows, the fishing boats home as it has for the countless centuries. people have lived here, these are malagasy migrants. they move from the drought written south in such

a means to survive. and their story is the interface between climate change and biodiversity laws. the arrival of the migrants is adding to the precious on fish dogs. i'm marine by diversity already stretched by over fishing, and this is going to happen all over the world is impacts like sea level rise, cause people to move further and further in learn, putting more pressure on environmental resources for people fleeing the impacts of global warming. it's survival at all costs bold, and i'm told stories from asia and the pacific on al jazeera. when the news breaks, families still have hope, and they say they want to leave without getting their relatives out of the robber. when people need to be heard and the story told, my dad and what is the way we are left without anything to keep us room with exclusive interviews and in depth through us. on the shelving doors here,

a precious side of things specimen al jazeera has teeth on the ground to where you are award winning documentaries and live nice in syria citizens or collecting evidence, a show of crimes committed against civilians. we've moved out of syria now about $600000.00 pages of material so that one day they can bring the outside regime to justice. it puts a human face on the charges. it's a dead human face, but it's a human face. syria. witnesses for the prosecution on al jazeera ah i'm hammock enrollment, ohio. these are the top stories on al jazeera, north korean leader kim jong.