that of a winter mix moving in so no way. and we are expecting some heavy snow to effect the likes to finance. pulling down across the baltic states and heavy rain coming in for ukraine and western areas of russia. but across more central areas. more in the wave sunshine through the cloud, 19 degrees celsius in paris on wednesday. ah . around 3 quarters of sub saharan africa's cultural heritage is on display in western museums. it didn't happen overnight. we were rob color time. the 1st episode reveals how european colonization removed tens of thousands of artifacts and the uphill struggle to reclaim restitution. africa stolen on episode one blunder. oh, now jazeera ah, will vladimir putin go? you hear in ukraine,

the russian president said he'll deploy nuclear weapons in neighboring fellow, ruth said, could the war taken you turn and how might nature respond? this is inside story. ah, ah. hello there, welcome to the program. i'm nick clark. so president vladimir putin says russia will deploy nuclear weapons in belarus, that strong, sharp criticism from the west. the european union called putin's comments irresponsible and warned that russia's ally beller is a could face more sanctions. crane has called for an urgent miti of the insecurity council. accusing moscow making mince nuclear hostage. brewton says the moved 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 armor piercing ammunition containing depleted uranium. mr. city go or of 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. the nuclear shinkel makes a point. why did the americans deploy nuclear weapons with their allies on their territory, train crews, pilots and have this type of weapon if needed? we agree that we will do the same without violating our obligation to get. 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 a 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 the right to say we can join, i guess. now join me in moscow is a pebble american house who's defense, a military analyst and utrecht. susie snyder is join us program coordinator at the campaign international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons and in london, somebody romani who is an associate fellow at the roll. united services institute. welcome to all of you. probably if i could start with you in moscow, say repeat and says this is in response to a long standing request for the bell resume needle. it sounds like a shank safe to say there's more to it than that. orchestra has been for some time

publicly. one thing that he made a grave mistake in the 90s. why? and here re, patrick, the former soviet nuclear weapons from the territory of bowers to rush in the turn numerous into a new, queer state that if he were to retain, he said these weapons and to our roots would be better off. and he was asking moscow to return some weapons bag and woe like now russia sort of agreed. and this is more politico of course bargaining thing of the military significance is there is of course military significance. but this is primarily political move to reinstate some nuclear weapons and barriers. 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 threat level girl, apparently these weapons will be kind of a dumb bo key mimicking a walk a year american nukes in europe are double key, meaning needs are ok from washington and respective european a cap of those for usage. and here it will be billed through some f aircraft and bo, or roofs, and missiles supplied by russia. mean short range, ballistic is gone. there's the could, the are nuclear capable on there be some brush and nuclear weapons stored that may be attached to them. but of course, of this way, give addition no capabilities, but not that much. this is not the cuban most our crisis of

b 1962. because while russia has become integral down quicker than the past, nuclear capable weapons. and apparently, the official has not confirmed nuclear weapons and brands and go in a grant is more to the west than bell ers and more, less comments get as you know from you trent. people. thanks to that. so says he's not at 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 are still safety issues that are of growth 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 man mentioned 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 at what he would perceive to be his advantage. well, i think that's 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 as you deter western arm shipments ukraine, especially to move into tanks and fighters. yes. that clearly is dale insurance. so now she basically rushing absence 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 black, vienna lithuania, isn't it? well, definitely does. and this has been in the motion for over a year now because the russians are a friend of last year,

55 percent of the people voted to keep these and you feel wise on those are the bows of lay under those john for conditions. and then the preparations are well underway. and given the fact that russia has so many tensions with poland in lithuania, over issues ranging from the trade from cal undergrads to poland, very hawkish support for the ukranian. now cause early movement of tanks in rapid increase in defense spending 3 percent of g d. p. and with laney as effectively annihilated a presence inside russia. this is clearly a warning shot and a threat to both of those countries as well as a show of solidarity. beller is because since the 2020 protest balance is said, as sovereignty is being threatened, i need bipolar by the way, india now you grant. and this plays into this 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, the offices of the, the crating conflict? how does 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, it 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 point 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 nuclear weapon, and we've had gender of 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 to nuclear weapons into the current conflict, in which there's already almost no human hand capacity left. and to bring it to bring this possibility to bring the long term effects of a nuclear weapon into this would be interest, be terrifying, and, and construct. alright, we can see the threat. probable. what about the time line here? you mentioned matron, 2023 experts to say that there isn't as yet, doesn't appear to be in the 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 12 main directorate of the russian defense ministry to keep the year and maintain the nuclear devices when they're not attached

to every systems. oh gosh, hunger 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 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 that 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 or any large numbers on the earth territory? because even if it's on their russian kind of control, there's other bowers and military there. and the strength has demonstrated and said

that he may be 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 we're more than the earth does not bring back much. no, a 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? these are real nuclear weapons, are just dummies to the hockey. that's an open question. that's an interesting, as i told the susie, isn't it, that the fact that it, 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 the tactical weapons which are often described as

smaller the 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 problem reference to, 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 with 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. sorry. what about the argument that the russian

president's arguments would have putin saying, well, you know, europe, you host us nuclear weapons, but why should we not dispatch some to batteries? first will just tell us which countries host 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 it is new up as a base to stored i'm. i think that you know, the needle sherry 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 the nuclear brinkman ship. moreover, rushes with drugs a suspension of from new start, which are also followed to allegation that has been non compliant with di f agreement, which trump out withdrew from unilaterally at points to a broader tendency of old rush using nuclear threat monitoring, as well as that sabotage in charge alarm strategies, and when he read,

they rejected dialogue with united states in cairo. but inspection seems to me a rejection of diplomacy and dialogue as well. so it's less that russia is even proliferate in each of the weapons. but because the u. s. nato have done that q, but it sat more in the context of brushes, other actions and the session alarming. it's concerning thing i think. but you can see something you can see prudence point caught you the years and you're at work together. so why shouldn't rush from bell 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 that 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 avail. 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 grant crimea, don, yes, the husk occurs on the operation. he get the picture here. so russia is effectively not only broadening the plan ration regime by going from brad, george miller, as ralph threatening to use nuclear 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. a russian has done is clearly illegal. a pebble, what do you make of up the russia using threats to justify violations of international law? well, russia is using, of course it's nuclear arsenal for nuclear deterrence basically. and that's how nuclear weapons have been used since 1945 by all sides. and

that's basically a gentleman because, oh wow, that's what nuclear weapons were made for, for deterrents, which is the same time and same word for break one ship or, or actually more west like back now, but is worse. so that's when russian threatens of bears that, oh, says that there's a possibility or 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 them or 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 0 possibility. it's not 0, but it's not very high right now. because going over the threshold, well, nuclear deterrence works both ways,

and the russian must work with does not want to go into nuclear confrontation at o and is using it in the women that way, just ukraine also with bring russia much dividends are both equate or actual militarily, so right now, i believe it's going to be on the main deterrence 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, little to 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 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 are destined to go. so the fact that we have seen this is threat that we're not taking this threat as seriously as we should, that is extremely concerning. and i think about what we're seeing over the last year is 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 a particular the states that have signed onto the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons i've made the strongest multilateral condemnation of the strength ever. and after result, they have been walked back and it is absolutely necessary for any state that does not want to see this threat. to continue to sign onto that treaty and to put their money where their mouth is. sudden not going to come to you in just a 2nd, but i just want to throw that to pavel in moscow. do you want to respond to as soon as comments that people oh yes, i say usage is possible. the possibility is not 0 but not very high. and of course usage and several minutes. that's only about strategic nuclear weapons. 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 he's gone there. and the other crews massage with charleston you were capable now there use conventionally. so you have to attach the war hands and that will be noticed in around by say, the american spy satellites, they'll 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 new to be your delivery systems. so we're not here to the 9 out in the maintenance 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 what 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 undermine moscow obligations? why the kid dash 3 degrees?

obviously though, the russians would come back with some kind yet that most likely this information exaggerated racial britain bringing you aim shall grant, which i think seems to be an extension of some of the dirty bach experiences that we saw. the russians come up with a convey to the americans, the british, and the french back in october. but going back, what did i tell you munition with depleted uranium? isn't it not the same as a nuclear weapon, but still not some are the same, but as for the russians, are going to likely retort with in fact, i think this denouncement and timing this nonsense, even though it was a contingency policy that goes back a year was related to britain's announcement about the uranium shells by 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 of actually go up. and i think the peak of that in the short term stated, because i will buy from my research in september for food. it's very difficult choice. i let you surrender mobilize or you just go up. and it was very clear that china, in particular, pushed not do you 0 up and,

and it will look as huge beings meeting in my last week. no use of nuclear weapons as well as that know, bombing or destruction of nuclear power plants are 2 of the 12 points of that piece plan. so i think that even if the west in russia and having dialogue about nuclear weapons right now. and that's a very disturbing trend because the russian instruction as a child at least, is still putting some pressure on russia to back off. so that's why i think the chances are very low. as 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 seeing is that couldn't have 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 about bella luce itself probably 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 the actually this is most likely mostly there wickersham because i idea good boy, you were weapons in bella luce and used both roofs 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 a 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 question with

want to be seen as a nuclear capable leader, where i 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 bella roost? do they support this? well, it's hard to say, because right now, bill ursus arrived there. well there with controlled society. want the people really think about that, but we 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 military's tiny mouth, rather 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, economically, 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 that keep ability. so maybe he sees nuclear nuclear weapons as a grinder, source of last resort. okay, i just want to try and squeeze in a couple more questions. and the 1st one to samuel samuel at ukraine is cool for an emergency meeting of the un security council. it's not going to happen as it whitening 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 traditionally back rush f on the showroom says no, i said earlier that may not be wanting wash these nuclear weapons. and they certainly had not refused to join you start negotiations when the i say, to try to put them in, in part because they feel that the washing nuclear weapon supplies completely the ones are be held in europe, are not sufficiently regulated by international charities. so i think that 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 ukraine war has done for nuclear proliferation? and once the war is over, how do we rebuild the trust that has clearly been lost? well, always saying is that it has brought 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 2 to one 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's blackmail to their nuclear weapons. again, this, it calls for urgent action for complete negotiations to eliminate all arsenals. 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 neither and some remarks, thanks very much indeed for this important discuss. 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, nick clocks and the whole team here. it's by from the

me ah, and a join the debates. we know that the sectors is empowered by those really government and they, and by the government today they are the government, african count, security is also global health 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 toward a sustainable economy. at the end of the day, it is ordinary objects that are paying the price. this tree anal does there. one day i might be covering politics or in the next i might hear up my protege from

serbia hungry for 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 except $1000000.00 money, loans, drink operation to coal. marsha is bigger than the company with financial institutions, regulators and governments complicit with it. right. i've described that in a 4 part series. al jazeera investigative unit goes on to cover in southern africa, pittsburgh. we can fill the 90 percent. it was developed once it's the following. it's perfectly brandon. good. part one on al jazeera. ah.