small and it is turned much more calm for south africa here. that is breezy. same goes for southern areas of mozambique, but we've still got our seasonal showers falling to the north of vin. took still breezy conditions, though to be found for central and northern areas of mozambique on tuesday. gutted ash sees him ah, but from the al jazeera london broke authenticate to people in thoughtful conversation with no haste. and no limitation of the artist by nature or person who on last part t left i way way and, and miss cooper. society is not interested in the individuality, the freedom, the spirit of the young person studio b, unspent, data analysis era. will vladimir putin go? you here in ukraine,

the russian president said he'll deploy nuclear weapons enabling fellow, ruth said, could the war taken you ton and how might nature respond? this is inside story. ah another welcome to the program i'm to clog. so president vladimir putin says russia will deploy nuclear weapons in belarus, but not strong, sharp criticism from the west. the european union cold putin's comments irresponsible and warned that russia's allied belarus could face more sanctions. crane has called for an urgent, meaty, of the security council, accusing moscow making mince nuclear hostage fruit in says the move does not violate any treaties and is no different to america basing its arsenal of nuclear weapons in nature member states. the russian presidents also warranty would be

forced to react if the u. k. supplied ukraine with a p s. c. i munition containing depleted uranium semester to go as for our negotiations with president lucas shanker, with better is a pretext with the statement of the british defense secretary that they were going to deliver depleted uranium rounds to ukraine. but it is still connected with nuclear technology. it's obvious, however, even out of context of those events and this statement, lucas shanker has been bringing up the question of deploying russian tactical nuclear weapons and better routes for a long time. nuclear shinkel makes a point by to the americans deploy nuclear weapons with their allies on their territory, train crews, pilots, and this type of weapon if needed. we agree that we will do the same without violating our obligations. so what about the relationship between russia and barriers swell that both part of the collective security treaty organisation, and that's a military alliance of 7 former soviet states, led by moscow. russia offered financial support and security to the president

alexander to shanker, during a crackdown or major protest against his rule. in 2020 russian forces also used the territory in bel ruth to invade ukraine and launch and offensive against keith. and russia continues to hold military drills in belarus, near the border with ukraine. that's force key to deploy forces that ah, i say we can join, i guess. now joining me in moscow is a pebble falcon, how he's a defensive military analyst in utrecht. suzy snyder, his join us playground coordinator at the campaign, international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. and in london, some a romani who is an associate fellow at the royal united services institute will welcome to all of you travel. if i could start with you in moscow, say loud, repeat and says all this is in response to long standing request from the belly receive lead. alexander lucas. shank, i safe to say there's more to it than that has been for some. 7 time

publicly, women think if he made a grave mistake in the 90s, why and here repatriated former soviet nuclear weapons from the territory of bowers to russia and turned numerous into a new queer state. but if he were to retain, he said these weapons and bruce would be better off. and he was asking moscow to return some weapons bank and low. right now, russia sort of agree. and this is more politico of course bargaining thing of the military significance is, well, there is of course military significance. but this is primarily political move to reinstate some nuclear weapons and there were rows. and of course, that will happen somewhere in the 2nd half of $23.00 of the airways. isn't it just

about really all it's about is just raising the threat level puzzle. oh, yes, it's crisis to some extent. the 30th level bill, apparently these weapons will be kind of a dumb bo key mimicking a watt. a year american nukes in europe are double key, meaning needs are ok from washington and irrespective european capitals for usage. and here it will be billed through some f aircraft and bo a rooster missiles supplied by russia. mean short range, ballistic is con. there's the could the, our nuclear capable there be some russian nuclear weapons stored that may be attached to them. but of course, of this way, give addition, know, keep abilities, but not that much. this is not the cuban most, our crisis of b,

1962. because while russia has become integrated, adequate in the past, nuclear capable weapons. and apparently, the official has not confirmed nuclear weapons and brands and go and grant is more to the west than bell ers and more, less comments get as you know from the trenton people. thanks to that. so says he's not, does this ramp up the danger of escalation? do you think? well, absolutely does increase the danger level. i mean, anytime that you start moving nuclear weapons around, there are lots of risks. and what we're seeing here is they add the addition of new actors into the decision making process. and that opens the door to, to miscommunication, to accident even under a double key arrangement. there's still safety issues that are of grave concern. not only that, but it also introduces the possibility of further use of nuclear weapons or the use

of the weapons, which would be catastrophic no matter where they are targeted. and samuel, that's the thing, isn't it? because just the mere mention of the word nuclear makes everybody sit up and take notice, and this is the president using that kind of ramp up of the threat level using the uncertainty what he would perceive to be his advantage. well, i think that's been a long standing russian policy that really dates back out long before this conflict . i think that we saw the directions use us right up is to deter western arm shipments ukraine, especially to move into tanks and fighters. yes, that clearly is dale insurance. so now she basically rushing out to the rather needle support for your grand continues one year into the war. and what susie's saying? also, you cannot throw into the pot the fact that the moving weapons to bela roost moves and place it to poland to vienna. lithuania, isn't it? well, definitely does. and this has been the motion for over a year now because the russians held the referendum last year,

55 percent of the people voted to keep these annual awards on those opposable under those non pre conditions. and then the preparations ra underway. and given the fact that russia has so many changes with poland and with land. yeah. over issues ranging from the trade from cannon in grad to poland, very hawkish, the board or the ukranian cars, early movement of taxi rapid increase in defense spending. representative gigi, pe, and was laney as effectively annihilated systematic presence inside russia. this is clearly a warning chart and a threat to both of those countries as well as a show solidarity by the risk. and since the 2020 protest dollars is said, as sovereignty is being threatened, i need bipolar by the way in the i now you grant. and this plays and you allocation is propaganda as well. suzy, outside of the general nuclear threat, how do you think? how do you perceive the game on the ground within the auspices of the ukrainian conflict? how did it change that? do you think?

well, i guess it's what it is. it brings, again, like i said, more actors into this. and it also raises the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons. and that is something that we have seen that repeatedly makes people in ukraine mix people in the eastern europe makes people here in my neighborhood. and it's like a, you know, an hours drive away from us nuclear weapons nervous, and it increases our, our concern to a boy that last year we had a run on ida and tablets. not just him in ukraine, where, where we seen the images of school teachers trying to explain to children where they need to go in the case of the use of the nuclear weapon. and we had to enter a generation that this hasn't been at the top most of people's mind. and yet now it is. and we know we know without a fact that any use of nuclear weapons on any popular should be catastrophic. and there is no humanitarian response. now we can imagine the horrifying result to

introduce nuclear weapons into the current conflict in which there's already almost no human hand capacity left. and to bring it to bring the possibility to bring the long term effects of a nuclear weapon into this would be just be terrifying and, and construct. alright, we can see the threat pebble. what about the time line here? you mentioned matron, 2023 experts say that there is an, as yet, doesn't appear to be any satellite imagery that suggests that there is a nuclear weapon storage facility is being built in batteries at this point in time . what do you think about the timeline is vladimir putin exaggerating the? how soon all this will happen? i. yes, of course you need them. ah, ah, nuclear special facility of the 12th main directorate of the russian defense ministry to keep the of the year and maintain the nuclear devices when they're not

attached to whoever systems are showing a has brought a couple years ago. but he, when he was asking for russian nuclear weapons that he maintained in good order of the nuclear facilities, the so called s bankers that were embarrassed during the cold war. and soviet times when, of course, the bowers and military district was one of the main and most militarized parts of the red army. and so right now you don't have to build it. you. 8 have to sort of renovated and say that it's in working order, and that's basically what, what you were saying that we're going to renovate it. so it won't really take that much time to prepare. most likely, the other thing is, does russia manage for really want to have nuclear weapons and large numbers on the ocean territory? because even if it's on their russian kind of control, there's other bowers and military there. and though cachemba has demonstrated and

said that he would maybe want to have some nuclear weapons of his own to maintain his rule using a new, queer blackmail. so there could be some dragging our feet by the russian military because the earth does not bring back much more tree, direct a village then, but bring some risks. so yes and say that will be after the 1st of july, but will there be there? how many will there be real nuclear weapons or just dummies to the happy? that's an open question. that's an interesting, aside to all the suzy, isn't it the fact that if russia deploy nuclear weapons and batteries could end up being a threat to russia itself? oh absolutely, and i think that's something that is often underestimated the use of any of these weapons,

including what are so called these tactical weapons which are often described as smaller fish, still nuclear weapons. they have a massive impact, much bigger than conventional forces. and the use of these weapons would have a detrimental effect on the soldiers, whether they be russian, bella, russian, or ukrainian, as well as on civilian population. and i thought puzzles reference to the idea of hanging onto to weapons in the future in order to kind of do a sort of nuclear blackmail is quite, quite a powerful statement because that's what we see constantly see. the threat of nuclear weapons used as a way to blackmail co worse activity that otherwise the international community would not stand for. and it is very unfortunate, and it's why the successful actions we've seen every time or seen steps back from this has been of tremendous condemnation from the international community for these types of escalate tory activities. so i mean,

what about the argument that the russian president's arguments, you know what a peach and saying, well you, europe, you host us nuclear weapons, but why should we not dispatch some to batteries? first of all, just tell us which countries have us weapons and how does it work? how many us bombs are there? as far as you know, i would like to say that, you know, 1st of all, this vans are located in several different countries, resilient germany. you have turkey, you have vall, jimmy italy, so there are areas where new new up is obese to start. and i think that, you know, the needle sharing is the knology that rushes, obviously using. but germany has said that that's definitely not the case. because this is an act of ration and also russia as a really escalated to nuclear brinkman check. moreover, brushes with drugs suspension of come to start, which are also followed to allegations that has been non compliant with di f agreement, which trump out withdrew from unilaterally. and points to a broader tendency of gold rush using nuclear threat monitoring,

as well as that sabotage in charge alarm treaties. and when he read, they rejected dialogue with united states in cairo. but infection seems to me a rejection of diplomacy in dialogue as well. so it's less that russia is even proliferate in each of the was bad because the u. s. nato have done that q, but it sat more in the context of brushes, other actions and mason sessional armies. you concerning thing, i think, but you can see something you can see prudence point caught you the years in europe work together. so why shouldn't russian bellow roof not withstanding that, the, the holes filled nuclear threat which opens his enormous but as far as his strategy is concerned. well, that's interesting, cuz nieto says statement about the russian nuclear diploma says there's no discernible change. we noticed in the russian nuclear dr. so the russian nuclear doctrine has been restated many, many times to side of the war, sometimes is a veil. threat is that russia will only strike the yeah. when you go up and if it feels is territorial, integrity or security is under some kind of immediate threat. but the problem, as it defines its territorial integrity,

very differently to include illegally occupied regency, the grand crimea, don. yes, the highest occurs on the operation. he had the picture here. so russia is effectively not only broadening the cliff ration regime by going from brad george miller, as all the threatening to use use the weapons to effectively justify illegal occupations in illegal seizures. the territory is using nuclear threats to justify violations of international law, whereas needed to go up is use are through sovereign agreements with, with respect to member states have been used to defend the sovereignty of countries under international legal frameworks. but neither was done is illegal, illegal in about board or russia has done is clearly illegal. a pebble, what do you make of up the russia using threats to justify violations of international law. whoa russia is using, of course it's nuclear arsenal. for, for nuclear deterrence, basically, and that's how nuclear weapons have been used since 1945 by all sides.

and that's the basic who a gentleman because whoa, whoa, that's what nuclear weapons were made for, for deterrence, which is the same time and same word for break one ship or actually more west like black male. but there's worse. so that's when russian threatens of bears that, oh, says that there's a possibility of usage of nuclear weapons because it's involved in a rather high intensity military conflict. as it is a nuclear superpower. yes, that's true. and that's the normal use of nukes a. but going from there over the nuclear threshold to actually use the one that's a totally different story. and that does not seem right now. it's just you can say that that is impossible. it's not of it's 0 possibility. it's not 0, but it's not very high, right? now, because going over the threshold, what was nuclear deterrence works both ways. and then russia must work with does

not want to go into a nuclear conference station at o, and is using it in the women that way i just ukraine. also with bring russia much dividends are both equate or actually militarily. so right now, i believe it's going to be on the main deterrents and blackmail, and that's where it's going to stay for the foreseeable future. i hope through did you want to become back at that? said the use of nuclear weapons not very lightly. not very high. right now. i'm sorry, with all due respect, we've seen overt threats to use nuclear weapons which we have not seen for generations. the risk of use is higher and it's been, you know, across the board. everyone acknowledges the risk is higher than it has been, perhaps since the initiation of the cold war. and, well, we'd like to all believe that the years is unlikely. let's be really honest. here.

there are 9 men in the world to decide whether or not to use nuclear weapons and we cannot imagine what is going through their brain at any given moment. 9 the individual to make that decision to push the button or not 9 guys, so that the threat perception of any one of those 9 could change rapidly and could lead to the initiation of the use of nuclear weapons. and we know that once the order is given, it is minutes until it is executed, and it's less than an hour until missiles arrived, where they're destined to go. so the fact that we have seen this is threat that we're not taking these threats as seriously as we should, that is extremely concerning. and i think about what we have seen over the last year because the threats have escalated because there's been an erosion of a taboo against even threatening the use of nuclear weapon states are responding

and states, particularly the states that have signed onto the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. i've made the strongest multilateral condemnation of the threat ever and after result, they have been walked back and it is absolutely necessary for any state that does not want to see the threats to continue to sign onto that treaty. and to put their money where their mouth is suddenly remind, i'm going to come to you and just a 2nd, but i just want to throw that to puzzle in moscow. you want to respond to as soon as comments or paddle. oh yes, i say usage is possible, the possibility is not 0 but not very high. and of course usage and several maintenance that's only about the nuclear weapons and they are on readiness. the tactical ones are not really so you have to attach the weapons to the delivery systems. the same delivery systems are being used in ukraine. where

is there another cruise massage with charleston you were capable. now there use conventionally, so you have to attach the war hudson that will be noticed in view around by say, the american spy satellites, to help us that the russians are preparing for usage or, and they don't see that preparation happening, or the russians will notice that the americans are actually attaching the news to be your delivery systems. so we're not here to the 9 out in the minutes zone. we're talking about a longer time period where you can actually try and negotiate something on hot lines and not just simply press the button and go. right. so yeah, i can see when a jumping back come back to just a 2nd, samuel, what about the disease was talking about the nuclear proliferation treaty. doesn't this move under my master's obligations? why the kid, das re degree?

obviously though, the russians would come back with some kind yet that most likely disinformation are exaggerated, racial britain bringing uranium charles g grant, which i think seems to be an extension of some of the dirty bomb experiences that we saw. the russians come up with a convey to the americans, the british in the french back in october, but going back, what did i munition with depleted uranium? isn't it, not the same as a nuclear weapon, but still not some are the same, but that's where the russians are going to likely retort with. in fact, i think this denouncement and the timing of this down front, even though it was a contingency policy that goes back a year, was related to britain's announcement about the uranium shells. but just go back to the broader question about her point. they were trying to discuss here, i agree that there's a non 0 chance to rush you up. and i think the peak of that in the short term is faded because i think in my research into camber, very difficult choice. i was just surrender, mobilized, or used to go up, and it was very clear that china in particular, pushed not using 0 up and,

and it will look as huge and big meeting in my care last week. no use of nuclear weapons as well as that know, bombing or destruction of their powerful answer to the 12 points of that plan. so i think that even if the west russia and having dialogue about nuclear weapons right now. and that's a very disturbing trend because the russian constructionism, china, at least, is still putting some pressure on russia to back off. so that's why i think the chances are very low. susie just come a 30 seconds, we're just going to move on. but just come back to that if you would. well, i think what we're saying is that putting had 3 things at his disposal energy, a massive conventional force and the possibility of, of use of nuclear weapons, the energy risks and the conventional force we've seen have been decimated. i worry about how close he is to authorize and that nuclear strike, which i have noted, we are minutes away from a strategic strike. i don't want to worry populations. i think i don't think it's extremely likely, but it is a desperate concern and we need to make sure that governments take this seriously

and condemn it at the least. ok, let's shift away slightly from this. the threat to issue and to that bella luce, itself, problem. you mentioned it a bit earlier. what's their role in all of this? is it acting willingly or does it just have to accept rushes plans? oh no, actually this is the most likely mostly there wickersham, cuz i idea good boy, where weapons in bo, a ruse and use bo, a rouge and delivery systems as a did deliver these russian weapons. so he would want to have nuclear kind of capability at proxy, at least, i mean, after the rather disastrous 20, 20 august for presidential elections. his regime was at both robbery. there was massive and the government demonstrations. and he was one to and of course lots of

western sanctions imposed. so right now the better and with one to be seen as a nuclear capable leader. like say the leaders of north korea and i came down with these people, started jumping back. how did that go down with his people with the people of bell roost? do they support this? well, it's hard to say, because right now, bill ursus arrived there. whoa, bear with controlled society. want the people really think about that, but we, you should mount this, the trunk of this fight being kind of threatening my good. possibly he would go also in some conditions in the conflict with ukraine has not mobilized his military and none of the standing doors. the motorists, tiny mouthful, he's afraid of going in mirage numbers, a reservist because you never know ruin. bowers school. they're going to turn their weapons against. so he used to have as a rather broadway regime economic,

where he was in a very tight spot because he was always too surviving on band of mediating between russia and the west. and now he's lost keep ability. so maybe he sees nuclear nuclear weapons as a kind of source of last resort. okay, i just want to try and squeeze in a couple more questions. and 1st one to samuel samuel at ukraine is cool for an emergency meeting of the un security council. it's not going to happen, is it? why is she man likely to happen? and also, if it did happen, she may likely to produce any kind of guarantee results, in part because china has traditionally back rush f on the showroom. since i, they said earlier that may not be wanting brush these nuclear weapons and they certainly had not refused to join you start negotiations. when the i say to try to route the man in part because they feel that the washing nuclear weapon supplies come quickly. the ones are be held in europe are not sufficiently regulated by international tragedies. so i think the china and russia will definitely block this kind of investigation, and it will go anywhere in the un security council. as susie, finally, if we could,

we could have a min and a half left to say, in general, what would you say the crane war has done for nuclear proliferation? and once the war is over, how do we rebuild the trust that has clearly been lost? well, only thing is that it has brock's the issue of nuclear weapons to the front of people's attention. and it's an issue that we thought was, may be gone and possibly forgotten that. and it is not, we have seen that states are overwhelmingly more states are joining the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons to reject any suggestion of nuclear weapons is any threat or any possession of nuclear weapons. then they are leaning towards nuclear weapons as some sort of security strategy. and i think to, to want to really, there are more states rejecting the option of nuclear weapons. that is a pathway forward and to move forward after this war is over, we need to do my,

anyone the option of holding the world blackmail to their nuclear weapons again. this, it, it calls for urgent action for complete negotiations to eliminate all arsenal. fortunately, there's a treaty that makes the weapons illegal and provides a pathway towards their complete elimination, and that is the next step all around. susie, thanks very much indeed for that and thank you indeed to all our guests a couple of fell going how susie and some ramadi. thanks very much indeed for this important discussion and thank you for watching. you can see the program again at any time by visiting a website out there a dot com. and for further discussion, just go to our facebook page. that's facebook dot com, forward slash a j inside story. you can also join the conversation on twitter. handle is a j inside story. for me, the clock and the whole team here. it's by from the

me ah, along with one day i might be covering politics. major minutes. i might hear of i protest from serbia. the hungry to what's most important to me is talking to people understanding what they're going through so that i can convey the headlines in the most human way possible. here it al jazeera, we believe everyone has a story worth hearing. join the debate, we know that the sector seems empowered by those really government and stained by the really government today. they are to government africans how security is also global. help security on an online at your voice. there is no right to defense.

there is no right to protest, we can't just keep relying on aid. there has to be some work towards a sustainable economy. at the end of the day, it is ordinary objects that are paying the price. this green anal dedira. it's a $1000000000.00 money known green operation. the coal mafia is bigger than the company with financial institutions, regulators and governance complicit. i'm always offering what it is with right. i've described that in a full part series. al jazeera investigative unit goes on to cover in southern africa, pittsburgh we can fill 90 percent of dylan once it's the following. it's perfectly brand new. good part one on al jazeera. ah ah.