we, i'm losing freedom shot. so the 16 corruption compassion outages 0 was a selection of the best films from across our network of channels. the i money in sight and only a top stories on al jazeera heat, waves of sweeping across the launch parts of the world. the us west coast is among the office with racquel breaking temperatures, stretching from california to gulf states like texas and florida. china has also observed as high as a temperature of 51.7 degrees celsius. discussions on house and combat climate change on the way between the 2 non just producing countries. china and the united

states. the american climate envoy, john kerry, is on a full day visit to beijing. he's expected to discuss plans to call me thing, gas emissions, reduce deforestation, and boost aid for developing countries. the south korean president visited areas affected by devastating floods and lance nights of killed at least 40 people in secure order all out effort to deal with the damage a few minutes. how long is this? we only need to take the situation gravely and mobilize all available resources in particular, please make every effort in the field to ensure that the rescue is carried out quickly. extreme weather events like this will only be around this. we need to tear down perceptions that we can help it, because this is an unusual situation. we need to deal with the situation with extra ordinary determination. a branch and linking crimea and russia has been closed using what the official was a cooling, an emergency. and these 2 people were killed,

a child injured residents of the area were important explosions before doing the cause of the damage has not yet known. the bridge which sounds the coach straight was closed. following a major explosion in october. the agreement allowing gray next bullets from ukraine is due to expire, and russia has yet to announce whether it will be extended the last shipment to a few cleaning grains now sailed from the black sea for to, for desa on sunday. russia has threatened in the last week to withdrawal from the un broken deal if it's demands on met. the loan agreement has helped maintain much needed supplies of food to find in strict and regions. so busy on the european union have announced the deal and stopping migrant boats and shutting down people smuggling operations. tennessee a is major departure points and migrant seeking a new life in europe. we will work with tanisha on an anti smuggling operational

partnership. we will also increase our 40 nation on search and rescue operations. as we agreed to that, we will cooperate on board of management and peace marketing, reach her and enter dressing root causes. in full respect of the international law . for this, we will make available more than 100000000 euros of the you funding to tens of thousands of people have rallied in taiwan capital, demanding affordable housing. real estate prices have risen rapidly in the past decade. process to say they're all unable to buy a house, blaming president trying when on her democratic progressive party. i'm 40 years many, many people in taiwan just like me. we don't have enough money to buy house. we cannot afford to get married and raise to start tiwana on monday. in taiwan, the ratio between houses and wages is more than 9 times. we must save everything we earn for the next 10 years without spending on anything, even food,

the what the government needs to fix the housing situation. they promised and locked during the last election. we still don't feel they are striving to fix the problems as a new champion at wimbledon off to carlos, to authorize beat novak joke evictions, epic men spinal set the quote a match between the twin 2. 0, well, number one on the 7 time champion went through this friday and also move in full and a half hours of play. it was a spanish play. he claimed the victory. all correct. it's his bus wimbledon title. adding to his success. last year's us open in the ground slide tense events. volcano in iceland is continuing to a rom, sending claims of dangerous gas into the eruption began last monday, near the capital on saturday. authorities closed off full access to the sites and when people to stay away, the bottom line 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 fall. how states think the rationality of foreign policy. dr. me, your cyber, it's great to be with you. again. thank you for joining the show. so i'm just interested 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 involved 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 into 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. i mean, you have to 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, it 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 abandoned the idea of bringing 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 or ukrainian victory. and then we can bring ukrainian ukraine into nato. 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 and 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 is 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 the general level. at the more specific level, there are 2 key 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 insist that ukraine not be in nato. needless to say, the ukrainians at this point in time desperately want to be in tomato. well, there's no way that you can square that circle either it's in data or it's not in nato. 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 in 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 2 states 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 ukrainians cluster bombs at this point in time is so that,

that will compensate for the fact that they're running out of our towering. 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 is a form of artillery. so this has 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 jo frazier and who hom, 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 the 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. she went in with a relatively small force and it's very clear to me and a number of other analysts. what 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 she 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 was 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 of by these massive economic sanctions. but the economic sanctions have had little effect and therefore we're in this protract or, and therefore artillery production matters enormously. and the wagner group and per goshen 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 russia's 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 starts. it goes, you would be thrown in jail. then a deal was worked out where she was going to leave the country and permanently be stationed in belo, russia. that didn't work out and now he's back in moscow and he's talking to this is really hard to understand. it's hard to know what's going on with my clear sense. and 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 funny because it is a formidable site for us. and at the same time, he wants to keep going 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 rushing 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 production 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 just 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 republican 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 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, who can give them that security guarantee? and the only country or group of countries that can give them that security currency, or the united states and the west more generally. and once you do that, whether it's done formally through nato, or in formally through nato. uh, 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 wherever 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 a roy good. it's a wonderful thing. it's all designed to check russian expansion in to 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 finland and sweden are in nato, and you'll look at the baltic sea, which matters greatly to the russians because cooling in grad is only reachable by the baltic. sea is good 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's bring sweden and finland, antenatal. let's get the church against the russian says keep a whole world against the russians. the idea of scary to 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 m 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

the bottom line, the i'm charles the razor stuff i you sides dramatized podcast from, i'll just here and this season re here from some of history's blogs, notable women, and unconventional and extraordinary office. i am 40 that kind of coming this revolution of everyone in china, new my state. you've heard all of them. power it's time you have from these and 6 of hindsight is out now subscribe wherever you listen to pop. cast. the great thing about being a nice presenter than that, but it's like going to 0 is that it's a truly global operation. if you will, challenges here, you'll see news from parts of the world. the other networks just don't come up. you're getting a fairly global perspective. we have an extensive network of bureaus around the

world. we have many, many correspondents in corners of the globe. if you really want to know what's happening in the world right now, you need to be watching out. just hear the i'm on insight into oh hear top stories on out to 0. heat waves a sweeping across notch pulse if the weld us west coast is among the horses with reco, breaking temperatures, stretching from california to gold, states like texas and florida. china has also observed its highest of a temperature $51.00 degrees celsius clement invoice for the us in china on basing for talks on.