alex's era or b, the news, and current to fast met at the helm. elizabeth bronman done home with the top stories on challenges era. millions of people in the southeastern united states are seeking refuge from extreme heat. parts of california, arizona, texas, louisiana, and florida are among states that have full costs to reach up to 50 degrees celsius this weekend. well, the 90000000 people live in area is that an asterisk on the air today he's been here for 12 years seem doesn't like it

to sleep on concrete. my whole 3rd degree burns on the dangerous hate is also building across europe. some parts of southern europe are registering temperatures over $45.00 degrees celsius. many people are being advised to stay at home. the population in general is not aware of the dangerous dep display magic phenomenon. composing tens of health and available, we are talking about elderly or people, or people with a very fragile social network. and the situation has been further aggravated by depends on me, period and then, and to look down. and at the same time, our high concern needs the social isolation to be star. good people may experience due to the high temperatures that imposed them to stay to stay at home. india is capital is also experiencing extreme whether a heavy mountain rains have led to flooding in several areas in new daddy water

levels in the yellow river that flows through the city, or in the highest and 45 years. hundreds of people have been evacuated off to the breached it's bang. that of who says it's reached in agreement with the buses was no group to train its troops. is providing no further details, but some of its soldiers are already being trained by flashes from the bus and recruit a campus being special needs a capital mens following the walk, the music in russia last month. meanwhile, the kremlin says the sasha, the status of logging that needs to be reviewed, it comes a day off the president food. instead, the group has no legal basis to operation russia. last month, short lived rebellion against the military leadership by the messenger east was the most serious challenge to pollutants. 23 year old. the face of the walls in the group and its chief, ganesha, goshen has been a mystery since the mutiny us secretary of state antony blinking, says russia has already lost the war and ukraine. since letting the person has failed in the goals he set out to achieve when he invaded last year,

lincoln also criticized his russian counterpart farm minutes to say again, that brawls saying has vermont street and amazing and honestly on confidence in jakarta with totally negative i think it's fair to say that based on what we heard from foreign minister lever off today, his interventions engagements were not constructive or productive on, on any issue. he focused on like the united states and unlike many other countries on a totally negative presentation, an agenda in which p effectively ascribed every problem in the world to the, to the united states, the film and television industry and the u. s. has been thrown into crisis and its biggest shot down for the 60 years around a 160000 performers stopped was friday morning at

a several stalls list of premier and london wants to strike was declared. the act as union is demanding, move royalties from streaming services, palestinians protesting against the expansion of settlements and being attacked by the is randy military, villages and own stuff. i know from a say some just beach thousands of demonstrations and used to gas and stone names to disperse them. they had gathered to stop settlers seizing the land. violent clashes and communications blackouts are being reported in the bathroom control of sued in these capital costume. as it tries to win it's conflict against the rapids support forces. the sudanese army has now open to training camps for thousands of volunteers. well, those are the headlines on elders 0. do stay with us. the bottom line is coming up next. the

a. hi, i'm steve clements and i have a question. should ukraine be a member of nato? let's get to the bottom line. the ukraine has always been stuck between a rock and a hard place historically and geographically, it's always been in russia's orbit. but in the last 20 years, many of its politicians lobbying to join the defense against russia alliance, the north atlantic treaty organization. or what we all know is nato in 2008 president george w bush, that ukraine should be part of nato. and that set off alarm bells in russia big time. so some would say that the seats, if this were, were planted way back then. now nato leaders have met in building is that the way the and ukraine is pushing hard to get some kind of commitment from the alliance. so what are the options and what are the risks? today we're talking to john mearsheimer, one of america's leading political scientists and

a professor of international relations at the university of chicago. his latest book is coming out this paul, how states think the rationality of foreign policy, dr. mere cyber? it's great to be with you again, thank you for joining the show. so i'm just interested who one and who last, and what we've seen thus far out of the nato summit as well. it's not that black and white, steve. i mean, obviously, nato is committed at some point in the distant future to bring in ukraine into the alliance. but they don't want to do it any time soon because of it was brought into the alliance in the middle of the war. that would almost execute medically involve dado. and that means the united states in a war with russia. and we don't want that. the real issue here is that from a russian point of view, there's nothing more important than making sure that ukraine is not in nato. so the

more we promise to bring ukraine into nato, the greater the incentive for the russians to rec, ukraine, as a functioning country. and that's really what's going on here. so there are all sorts of people who feel really good about the fact that we're working hard to bring ukraine in to nato. they think this is a noble cause, but they're wrong. the end result of this is that ukraine is going to be turned into a dysfunctional rob state as well right now, as we see things president zalinski is enraged, reportedly he's saying they don't respect the data when we do asked understand that there are a lot of people that see heroism, at least in those that have tried to defy, you know, russians invasion and are saying that this, this lack of a clear timeline for inclusion and nato is disrespecting that and i understand where you're coming from. but is there any argument there is you kind of look at it

that may be when you have 2 powers, like russia and, and, and the united states in the west. the nato basically bringing ukraine, as you said, is the, the bulwark. uh, you know, in the right side of that alliance, um, might be the right thing. is there any, is there any argument for that? in what sense is it the right thing? i mean it's very easy for people in the west. all these virtue signals who are not doing the fighting dying to say that ukraine shouldn't be brought into nato. and therefore, giving the russians even more powerful incentives direct the country, makes no sense to me. we should have a band and the idea bring in ukraine antenatal long ago, and had we done that there would be no war today in our little likelihood that if these people believe that fueling this war is going to ultimately lead to

we're ukrainian victory. and then we can bring ukrainian ukraine in today though they're living in a full paradise craniums are not good with this war. if anything, the russians are going to win this war. and if you look at what's happening with this highly touted ukrainian counter offensive, it's been going since june 4th. the fact is it's going nowhere and huge numbers of ukrainian troops are being slaughtered and many of their armored fighting vehicles are being destroyed. john, you've written a paper, i mean, it's a very compelling paper. i highly recommend people read it. it's called the darkness ahead where the ukraine war is headed. and so you see this awful dark future i had. can you share with our audience a little bit about what the key pillars of your argument are to? well, 1st of all, as you describe it, steve, i think that both sides at this point in time, the russians on one side and ukraine in west and the west on the other side view each other as x. a central threats that have to be defeated in

a world like that. there's very little room for compromise because you're dealing with a mortal enemy. that's at the general level. at the more specific level, there are 2 t issues that are on resolvable. the 1st has to do with territory, and the 2nd has to do with neutrality. and let me start with the 2nd because it gets to what we were talking about a few minutes ago. the russians and says that ukraine not be in nato. needless to say, the ukrainians at this point in time desperately want to be in to nato. well, there's no way that you can square that circle, either it's in nato or it's not in need. then there's the issue of territory. the fact is that the russians have cleaved off about 23 percent of ukrainian territory, and they have made it clear that they're not giving it back. indeed, they have a next all that territory. and they promised to take more territory of the

craniums, understandably, one, all of their territory back again. how do you square that circle? if the russians keep the territory the ukrainians can't get it back and the russians are going to keep the territory. so you have a territorial issue, as well as the issue of neutrality. and then on top of all that you have the problem that you described, which is you have to stage or 2 sides that approach each other as ex, substantial threats that have to be decisively defeated. you know, basically american political support and financial support of ukraine. we've right now seen seeing cluster bombs committed. we've seen a, you know, a big buy in essentially from the united states president into the outcome of ukraine. where do you see that going? a lot of people saw joe biden in his white house, maybe acquiescing to a frozen conflict, but then solved a cluster bombs as may be an effort to,

to move this war more quickly. how do you see it? and i don't see it like that, steve. i think the by the administration knows that for the foreseeable future, that the best they can hope for is the stalemate. and the cluster bombs are not designed to allow the ukraine to defeat the russians on the battlefield or help them win on the battlefield. the fact is that the most important weapon on the battlefield in this war of attrition is artillery. and the russians have somewhere between a $5.00 to $10.00 to $1.00 advantage in artillery. this has massive consequences. but on top of that, the ukrainians are running out of artillery. and the reason we're giving the premiums cluster bombs at this point in time is so that, that will compensate for the fact that they're running out of work. hillary. so we're just trying to maintain the balance bar tillery,

by substituting cluster bombs, 4 or tillery rounds. and that still means the russians will have somewhere between a $5.00 to $1.00 to $10.00 to $1.00 advantage in artillery. if you categorize cluster bombs as a form of artillery, so this is not been help. you're basically just stemming the tide by giving them cluster bombs. what does it say about the world i've? i've talked to senior white house officials about these $155.00 millimeter shells that they say are going to decide everything. and that the world that america, they're, all of italy's aren't producing enough of this ammunition to supply the 9000 rounds a day that ukraine needs a true. it says that you're doomed. if you're involved in a war of attrition, aside from the balance of resolve, the 2 things that matter most. number one, the balance of manpower and number 2 is

a balance of artillery. and in terms of the balance of man power, ukrainians are outnumbered 5 to one. that means the russians can produce 5 soldiers for everyone, ukrainian soldier. and again, remember this is a war of attrition. where you have basically joe frazier and who home at all the standing toe to toe and beating the living daylights out of each other. and then the main weapon of this battlefield is artillery. and by almost all accounts, the russians have somewhere between $5.00 to $1.10 to $1.00 advantage. and as i said before, the ukrainians are running out of work. hillary. this is a colossal disaster the ukrainians were facing. and the problem here, steve, is that when we initially got into this war, after the russians invaded ukraine and we sided with ukrainians, and we began to supply them. we didn't understand that it would turn into

a protracted war of attrition. and our ability or the west, the ability to manufacture artillery, tubes and artillery rounds would be of profound importance. and as the war war on, it became clear that we did not have the manufacturing capability necessary to produce an adequate amount of artillery for the ukrainians. and at the same time, the russians have a truly impressive ability to pump out or jewelry rounds and artillery tubes. and furthermore, they have huge stockpiles of artillery. so they have a significant advantage here. and this is why in good part ukrainians are in so much trouble today on the battlefield. and it's why we can't rectify the situation . and it's why we're giving them cluster bombs, which is not, as i said before, a magic wiping. or there's, are there elements on the russian side of this that we should be looking at of

miscalculations by putting and, and fragility on the, on the russian military side. but there's no question that both sides made miscalculations. it's hard to say what miscalculations are which miscalculations prove, made, simply because we don't have a lot of information. we really don't know. know what he was thinking about as he went into the war. but the one miscalculation he made was that when he invaded on february 22nd, should be february 24th of 2022. he went in with a relatively small force and it's very clear to me and a number of other analyst when he was interested in doing was getting the ukrainians to negotiate about the future of ukraine in data. he was interested in the question of ukrainian neutrality, and at 1st it looked like he might succeed because as you remember in march,

the ukrainians and the russians were actually negotiating in east on both an issue . the main issue that they were negotiating about was this question. of neutrality versus nato membership for ukraine. how had those negotiations worked? it would've been a brilliant calculation on this part. but obviously the negotiations failed by early april. and we ended up in this war of attrition. and i think in those circumstances, one could argue that the miscalculate, i would know it also that i think we miscalculated, we in the west, as i said before, we was calculated because we didn't understand how important artillery production would be. but i think that the west miscalculated in another way, and that is that they thought that the sanctions, the economic sanctions would bring the russians to their knees. and therefore, we wouldn't have to worry about producing artillery in the lengthy war of attrition

because the russians would be knocked out was by these massive economic sanctions. but the economic sanctions have have little effect and therefore we're in this protract or, and therefore, artillery production matters enormously. and the wagner group and progressions activities, we had 24 hours of what looked to be a fairly dramatic insurrection in russia, against the kremlin, that disappeared quickly. was it a factor at all? and i don't think it's had any effect on the battlefield up to this point in i actually believe with the passage of time it will work to rushes advantage, but i would qualify that by saying it's very difficult to know exactly what's going on here. when it 1st happened and the, the mute did, we shut down. i think almost everybody thought that uh for goes,

you would be thrown in jail. then a deal was worked out where he was going to leave the country and permanently be stationed in fellow russia. that didn't work out and now he's back in moscow and he's talking to cool. this is really hard to understand. it's hard to know what's going on. but mike, clear sense. i may be wrong here, but my clear sense is that what is up to is he wants to keep the wagner group intact and he wants to keep it in the fight because it is a formidable fight for us. and at the same time, he wants to keep goshen on his side, but he will go to great lengths to new to progression so that he can not cause any significant trouble in the future. if he's successful in doing something along these lines, this'll be in that positive. if promotion doesn't play a long,

he's gonna have to deal with progression in harsh ways because precaution has the potential to cause really big problems inside the russian chain of command. and i believe that if he did that, it would ultimately have an effect on events on the battlefield. and given the nature of this war, the russians cannot afford that. so they have to deal with precaution one way or the other. exactly how they do it is hard to say with any degree of certainty at this point. you have argued in this, in this paper very compellingly, that united states and russia and a proxy war. yes, can't quit each other, they're just going to continue add it. but there happen to be a lot of republicans who do want to quit this war. if the republicans come to office, will they be able to find an off ramp in this conflict, or do you think it still keeps grinding on as you've written? well, if i had to bet steve, i would bet that the republicans would not take us out of the war. you want to

remember that although there is a substantial slice of the republican party that is in favor of getting out of ukraine, there are. ready a large number of super hawks in the republican party. and this includes people like lindsay graham and mitch mcconnell and those folks want to make sure we don't get out. i think that, you know, even if a trump get selected, the trump, although he may talk about pulling us out, that won't happen in, in large port because the blob or the foreign policy establishment or the deep state, has so much influence that it's just hard to imagine the united states walking away from the war and ukraine at this point in time. and you understand that because ukraine has no ability to produce its own weaponry. and in fact, it can even support itself as

a functioning government is absolutely requires our backing. so if we were to walk away in any meaningful way, it would have devastating consequences for ukraine, ukraine blues and russia would when i find it hard to believe and a public and administration or public and dominated congress pushing us down that road. i mean, it could happen, but i do not think it's likely. i think we're in this one for the, for the future. and i think really, the only interesting question, steve, is whether we get dragged into the fight right at a globe. second meeting in may. i heard french president emanuel mac crone and you're paying cash. a commission president are sort of underlying, essentially both shrugged off. then any chance of near term nato meant membership or ukraine. what they're trying to put in place are essentially bundled security assurances, which to me sounds like taiwan. is there another strategy here that side steps?

the nato question? provides what, what macro and said was compelling. security assurances that might possibly deter, you know, russian re invasion down the road. once this conflict gets the result. is that a sensible strategy or not? you know, it doesn't work and this is basically what you had right before the war. i've argued in a number of places, the ukraine before the war started on february 24th 2022 had become a de facto member of nato. this is one of the reasons that the ukrainians have thought so well. they were trained and armed by the west, between 20142022. the ukraine had become a de facto member of nato. and this is categorically unacceptable to the russians.

the russians want ukraine to be a genuinely neutral country. and the problem is that the ukrainians want a security guarantee, and this is completely understandable, who could blame the ukrainians for wanting a security guarantee forever and ever. but the question is, can give them that security guarantee and the only country or group of countries that can give them that security current t or the united states and the west more generally. and once you do that, whether it's done formally through nato or informally, through nato, you end up in a situation that's intolerable to the russians. and this is why i find it hard to imagine. it's one of the reasons i find it so hard to imagine that we're ever going to get a genuine piece agreement. and instead i think we're going to end up in a frozen conflict. i mean, just to switch to the subject, to bringing in sweden, in to the alliance and bringing finland into the alliance in the west. this is seen

as an on roy good. it's a wonderful thing. it's all designed to check russian expansion into all of europe . and make 2 points. one is the russians have never had any intention of extending their military in to eastern europe, much less in the western europe. the idea that this is the 2nd coming of the soviet union is not a serious argument. so we don't need to strengthen nato to contain russia. but the 2nd point and maybe even more important point is you want to understand the directions, feel that they're under siege now they feel encircled. and if you look at a map of nato, you can understand why. so if you have a situation where both of finland and sweden are in nato, and you'll look at the baltic sea, which matters greatly to the russians. because colleen grad uh is only reachable by

the baltic sea school to make the russians very scared. it's going to make them feel very insecure. it's going to make them feel vulnerable. and the question you want to ask yourself, is this good? my, for many years studying great power politics, tell me that you don't want to put a great power in a situation where it is really scared. because you never want to underestimate the extent to which a great power this really scared will pursue risky strategies. and the russians may very well pursue a highly risky strategy. one is highly undesirable to the west, some down the road because they're scared. so i'd be very careful about scaring the russians. and i would note here, steve, the reason the russians invaded ukraine,

in my opinion, is that they were scared stiff at the thought of ukraine becoming a western bulwark on russia's borders. so we played this game once before. and what we're doing here in a very important way is trying to up the, let's not only talk about bringing ukraine into nato. what spring sweden and finland, antenatal. let's get the church against the russian says keep a whole world against the russians. here in the scary the country have to do that, has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and in which many of those nuclear weapons are aimed at the united states of the west. more generally is in my humble opinion, not a very smart strategy. but we'll have to leave, leave it there. fascinating conversation professor john mearsheimer at the university of chicago. thank you so much for your candor and your insights today. my pleasure, steve. so what's the bottom line?

nato is a one for all and all for one alliance and ukraine is just not in the club and won't be for a long time. if ever the alliance requires all members to agree to any new member and the u. s. ranch. germany hungry and turkey have all expressed reservations. most eastern european capitals are frustrated, and the issue is dividing allies who see the absence of benito track in vilnius as a victory for russian president vladimir putin. this is not an easy not to work through. realistically, this conflict is going to grind on and on the costs of the war while horrific. have not yet been high enough to force the 2 sides to sit at the same table. it's clear that ukraine will become the taiwan of eastern europe, of sorts with lots of western security assurance, is bundled in a way that hopefully deters future regression. but let's face it, a lot of assurances just isn't the same as one for all and all for want. and that's the bottom line, the

in the same as a full front, a progressive change, the locked in america. this time the slides remain high, active violence against gender and sexual minority. i've come to windows irene, 2 young women who have taken place and it's great to establish greater freedom and equality. welcome to generation change as level series attempts to understand and talents. the idea is that move like use around the world. generation change on out you 0 the

the drama, there's of a toronto mendoza over the top stories on alice's era. millions of people in the southeastern united states is seeking refuge from extreme heat. parts of california, arizona, texas, louisiana, and florida are among states that are full cost to reach up to $50.00 degrees celsius. this weekend, more than 90000000 people living areas that are at risk on the air.