just a few showers tucking into the very sal and thunderstorms popping off in shanker. but the wet to where the confined to that northeast corner bangladesh, northeast in india, as well as new pope, is going to be a change within a wesley disturbance. pull its way across pakistan, bringing the rain with it. and that'll end to new delhi by the time we get to thursday, ah, one day i might be covering politics in the next. i might hear by crossing from serbia to 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 does is it? we believe everyone has a story worth hearing. ah, we'll vladimir putin go. you hear in ukraine. the russian president said he'll deploy nuclear weapons enabling vela. ruth said, could the war taken you ton and how might nature respond?

this is inside story. ah hello, welcome to the program i'm to clog. so president vladimir putin says russia will deploy nuclear weapons in belarus, not strong, sharp criticism from the west. the european union cold putin's comments irresponsible and warned that russia's allied deliveries i could face more sanctions. crane has called for an urgent miti of the insecurity council. accusing moscow making mince nuclear hostage. prison says the move does not violate any treaties and is no different to america basing its arsenal of nuclear weapons in native 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. pity. 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, those events and this statement, luca shameka 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 to the americans deploy nuclear weapons with their allies on their territory, train crews, pilots, and use 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 organization, and that's a military alliance of 7 former soviet states led by moscow. russia offered financial support and security to the president alex something to can shanker, during a crackdown or major protest against the rule in 2020 russian forces also used

a territory in bel ruth, to invaded crane and launch and offensive against keith and russia continues to hold military drills in belarus, near the border with ukraine, force key to deploy forces that ah, i say we can join, i guess. now joining me in moscow is a pebble falcon. how use a defensive military analyst and utrecht susie snyder is join us program coordinator at the campaign international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons and in london, some a romani who it's an associate fellow at the roll. united services institute will welcome to all of you travel. if i could start with you in moscow, so let me ph and says all this is in response to long standing requests from the belly received, lead, alexander lucas. shank, a safe to say there's more to it than that. orchestra has been for some. 7 time publicly, one thing, if he made a grave mistake in the 90s,

why and here re, patrick, did. former soviet nuclear weapons from the territory of bowers to rush in the turn did 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 there is of course, military significance. but this is primarily political move to reinstate some nuclear weapons and bowers. 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 dumb bo key mimicking a walk every year are american nukes in europe. our double key meaning of needs are okay from washington. and irrespective with european a cap are those for usage. and here it will be billed through some f for aircraft, and bo ruzen missiles supplied by russia. i mean, short range, ballistic is gone. there's the could, the are nuclear capable. there be some russian nuclear weapons stored that may be attached to them. but they're, of course, of this way, give addition mo, capabilities, but back not that much. this is not the cuban most, our crisis of b, 1962. because while russia has become integral,

downgrade the past nuclear capable weapons. and apparently, the official has not confirmed nuclear weapons, and rather than go in a grant is more to the west than belle arose and moralist, connecticut, as you know from the trenton pebble. thanks for that. so susie's not at this ramp up, the danger of escalation. do you think? oh, absolutely does increase the danger level. i mean, any time that you start moving nuclear weapons around, there are lots of risks. and what we're seeing here is the added the addition of new actors and to the decision making process. and that opens the door to, to miscommunication, to accident. i even under a double key arrangement, they're still safety issues that are of grave concern. not only that, but it also introduces the possibility of the further use of nuclear weapons or the use of the weapons, which would be catastrophic no matter where they are targeted. and some will, 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 person using that, like kind of ramping up a threat level using the uncertainty to 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 that direction use of nuclear weapons to deter western arm shipments. you ran, especially the movement of tanks and fighters, asked that clearly it's fail insurance. so now she basically rationing up to threaten native support for ukraine continues one year into the war. and it was soon as you say, it also, you cannot throw into the, the fact that the moving weapons to bella roofs moves them closer to potent blood via to lithuanian. well, definitely does. and it's been the motion for over a year now because the russians referendum last year, 55 percent of the people voted to keep these annual wise on there. so supposedly under those john trade very conditions. and then the preparations are well under

way. and given the fact that russia has so many changes with poland in lithuania, over issues ranging from the trade from calvin in grad 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 as if americans inside russia is clearly a warning china 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, in the end. 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 enter 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 eastern europe makes people here at 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 in, 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 have gender of generation that this hasn't been taught 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 can struck. alright. we can see the threat probably. what about the time line here? you mentioned matron, 2023 experts to say that there is an, 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, 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 whoever 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 to 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 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 now cachemba has demonstrated and said that he would maybe want to have some nuclear weapons of his own to maintain his

rule and 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. 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 real nuclear weapons or 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 these 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 the idea of hanging onto 2 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 to co workers 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 he seemed steps back from this has been, oh, you tremendous condemnation from the international community for these types of escalate tory activities. sorry. what about the arguments 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 better is probably the 1st 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 virginia, italy, so there are areas where it is new up as a beast 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 brake major. moreover, brushes with drug suspension of from to start, which are also followed to allegations that has been non compliant with diet f agreement, which trump out withdrew from unilaterally at 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 inspection seems to me a rejection of diplomacy and dialogue as well. so it's less that russia is even

proliferating nuclear weapons. but because the u. s. nato have done that q, but it sat more in the context of brushes, other actions and mason sectional 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, he is enormous, but as far as his strategy is concerned. well, that's interesting is 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 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 as territorial integrity, very differently to include illegally occupied regency, the grant crimea, don, yes, the husk occurs on the upper asia. 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 our 2 sovereign agreements with, with respect to member states, have been used to defend the sovereignty of countries under international legal frameworks. but neither was them is illegal, illegal in about board. a russian is then, 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 basically 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 us. so that's when russian threatened, there's 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, 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, 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 then russia most work with does not want to go into a nuclear conference station at o, and is using it in the women that way,

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. oh, 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. ready is high 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 individuals

who 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 it has 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 the threat that we're not taking these threats 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, particularly the states that have signed onto the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. i've made the strongest multilateral condemnation of the spread

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 maintenance that's only about strategic nuclear weapons. and they are on readiness. the tactical ones are not really so you have to attach a v 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, don't notice 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 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 when a jumping back come back in 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 dash re degree? obviously though the russians would come back with some kind yet that most likely dis information are exaggerated. racial have written, bringing you a name,

chelsea grant, which i think seems to be an extension of some of the dirty voc experiences that we saw. the russians come up with a convey to the americans, the british and french back in october. but going back with hello, i am unison with depleted uranium. isn't it? not the same as a nuclear weapon, but still not, not the same, but that's where the russians are. going to like the rhetoric with in fact, i think this announcement in the timing of this announcement, even though was a contingency and it goes back a year. was it related to britain's announcement about the uranium shells by just go back to the broader question about a point they were trying to discuss here. i agree that there's a non 0 chance of actually using their weapons. i think the peak of that in the short term is faded because i think it will bother my research. in september, i propose, very difficult choice. i let you surrender mobilize or you go up. and it was very clear in china, in particular, pushed potent not to use nuclear weapons. and it will look as human beings, meaning in my last week. no use of nuclear weapons as well as that know at bombing

or destruction do their power plants are 2 of the 12 points that these plant. 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 of russian function as a china at least, is still putting some pressure on russia to back off. that's why i think the chances are very low. as soon as it is 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've seen is that put, had 3 things at his disposal energy, a massive conventional force and the possibility of, of use of nuclear weapons and the energy risks and the conventional forces seen, have been decimated. i worry about how close he is to authorizing that nuclear strike, which i haven't 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 the seriously and condemn it at the least. ok, let's shift away slightly from this. the threat to issue and to about

a better use itself puzzle. you mentioned to the bill. what's the role in all of this? is it acting willingly or does it just have to accept to russia's plans? oh, the actually says most likely, mostly there wickersham, cuz i idea good boy, where weapons in bella, luce and use 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 better and with one to be seen as a nuclear capable leader, where i say the readers 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 the spike 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 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 that 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 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, 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 traditionally back rush f on the showroom says, well i, they said earlier that may not be wanting rush 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 to be held in europe, are not sufficiently regulated by international charities. so i think the china and russia will definitely block this kind of investigation, and it will go anywhere in the un security council. it's 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, 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 if 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's blackmail to their nuclear weapons. again,

this, it calls for urgent action for complete negotiations to eliminate all arsenals. fortunately that 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 pebble fell going how suzy neither and some remodeling. 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. aah!

april and which is era from tortilla and syria, al jazeera reports on how earthquakes, survivors are hoping during the holy month of ramadan. 11 east meets the young russian men refusing to fight hooton's war in ukraine as they seek safety in past extent 25 years since the good friday agreement and the decades of violence. we report on how bricks is forging newly added in ours. in the lead up to date, al jazeera, explore the environmental significance of action, and inaction, paraguay holds general elections with corruption and organized crime. high on the agenda can the ruling colorado party hold on to power. april on al jazeera,

a week to look at the world's top business stores, from global markets and economies to construction and small businesses. to understand how it affects our daily lives. counting, the cost on al jazeera brought bought the law a will. the law, when with neither side, willing to negotiate is the ukraine war becoming a forever war is america's global leadership, increasingly fragile. what will us politics look like as we had to the presidential election of 2024. the quizzical look at us politics, the bottom line. hello, i'm fully battery, boeing, doha, with a look at our main stories on.