least effective code name, caesar collected thousands of photographs of debt and torch and civilian detainees . i says to do was sent to my department to watch me off to fling, syria is, sees a file saved his testimony to the extreme brutality of the us had regime it was really attorney between good and i'll just very well presents an exclusive interview with caesar. as he reveals his identity and tells his dramatic story, these are on last, on al jazeera, after a public rating and washington, ukraine's leader got a much warmer welcome to london. european leaders have fledged to increase their supports and work on the plans in the world. with 10 they reach common ground with donald trump on a piece deal. this is inside store the

hello and welcome to the program. i'm several then you, after a disastrous trip to the us ukraine's president. all of them is a lensky, was warmly received in london by european leaders plus canada and turkey at a special summit. this was in contrast to the public dressing down he received from donald trump and his vice president jd events in washington a day earlier. u. k. prime minister care storm are assembled, what he called a coalition of the willing who have promised to keep back and keep and present the us with a peace plan. but the group has been clear the despite their unity, they still need the us on board. so what will the trump administration's warming ties with moscow and public scolding of ukraine's leader mean for a possible ceasefire and for transatlantic ties, we'll get to our guests in a moment. first though, this report by friday, a car, a warm embrace between the leader of ukraine and one of its main european backers, the united kingdom. lot of me savanski is visit to the u. k. came on the heels of

the now infamous trunk meeting, where he was publicly been raised by the us president in the oval office. don't tell us what we're going to feel. i'm not telling you the decision was a case that received fucking charles the training presents welcome to great britain, could not have drawn a sharper contrast. but the main event was on sunday. ukraine security so much with europe and leaders plus canada and turkey. you. what you k prime minister, cure storm, are called coalition of the willing to present a peace plan to the united states. that's as washington prepares, its own peace talks with moscow. but you pay is prepared to practice with boots on the ground of plains and yet, together with all this, europe must do the heavy lifting, split to support peace in alcohol to noon. to succeed. this efforts must have strong us back a clear message to donald trump,

who has repeatedly told europe to bear the costs of peace on the continent. urgency have to re, i'm to and so that i will present a comprehensive plan to read on 0. on the 6 of much of when we have, i was your opinion, positive to the but after such a public folder, strong us packing appears far from certain republicans. there are calling for savanski to 1st sign over ukrainian mineral rights and apologize to donald trump. i hope and pray, frankly, the president's landscape will come to his senses, come back to president. trump express gratitude as he should ex, you know, apologize for his behavior there and accept his mental rights deal. because that is the best way for us to get to a point of peace over there. in that region, extend the show president savanski said he doesn't see the need to apologize and it's still depending on the us to continue it's longstanding opposition of russia. some we or is there

a we can't on assistance from the united states of america without a doubt. i think stopping such assistance will only help coaching. and because of that, i think that the united states and representatives of the civilized world leaders of this will definitely won't help put in your and other western allies are now preparing for a future, which they can't always rely on the united states for their defense. but with war still raging and ukraine, europe's message to washington on sunday was clear. we still need the pretty a car out is 0 for inside story. the. so let's bring in our guest same key, robert hamilton, head of your razor research at the foreign policy research institute is also retired us army colonel, thanks for being with us in munich. marina, i meet on a post doctoral research or the defense studies department at kings college, london and in washington, d. c. p. j. crowley, former us assistant secretary of state for public affairs, also author of red line,

american foreign policy and a time of fractured politics. and failing states a warm welcome to each of you. if you just allow me to start with you and allow me a little bit of a preamble here under jo bite, which was only after all, one and a half months ago under jo, by the us supported ukraine for 3 years. to the tune of tens of billions of dollars for 2 main reasons that at least but it shared with the general public. and one was broad values like you can't and beta foreign country. and the us is going to make sure that stops happening or doesn't continue to happen. the other reason was self interest, as it explained to the world. it's so broadly, russia as a flow that needed to be contained maybe even punished by the us, that those were the reasons why they us supported ukraine militarily. but donald trump doesn't seem invested in any of those explanations. he has never spoken about preserving territorial integrity or defending international rules. he has never

said that russia was a fault, and he doesn't seem to consider that ukraine is an ally, or at least not an ally that, that really is worth defending. so what is the us national interest in ukraine is a very sharp departure. sure. unless you just outlined in fact, in some of their follow on interviews explaining, you know, what happened on friday and what has to happen now? you're very suddenly, you know, the trump administration there said, you know, the mineral deal would give us a national interest to protect, you know, going forward in a post war ukraine. so the basis of the us future support for ukraine is shifting from common values of defense of democracy to a narrow economic interest. and in fact,

you know, it's also what is undergirding, the warming relation between the trump administration and the put in ministration saying, you know, we want to normalize relations again. so we can do business with with russia soda, you're right. the foundation of us support an interest in ukraine and russia has shifted dramatically in a matter of just weeks. i love it, you're, you're in keith. i want to put to you a quote by the ukraine. you present in volume your zalinski on x after his london summit, he said quote, our resilience and ukraine is based on what our partners are doing for us and for their own security in your view. and, and i should say at this point or of yours that you spent decades in the us army in your view, is there a us national security interest at stake in ukraine? absolutely. i, there is a positive and negative uh, national security interest and state care for the united states. the positive

interest it's, it's based on the use, the framework you use at the outset, both values and hardcore economic and security interest us has more. there's a part of the world that the us has more values in common with at least part of the trump administration, historically than europe. and then the interest based argument is that given the size, population, resources, and capabilities of a broader europe. so europe, in your rage that the us has to remain engaged there, one from a negative perspective to prevent the emergence of a hedge, a monic power into the system on that would be can only get security partner for the us. but trump doesn't seem to really mind the idea that maybe russia games territory. he, he's never at least said that that's a problem for him. that's true. and that's why i said, until the trumpet registration. these were sort of cor us national security views

or precepts. but the trump administration and trump personally don't seem that concerned with the violation to view in charter with a violation of international law with a violation of international norms, or even with the daily russian work crimes that are being perpetrated here in ukraine that are intentional and strategic, these aren't mistakes, these are accidents, these are the, the actions of lower level commit and there's a road units. these are coming from the kremlin. and so i think you're correct to know that this is a departure from decades of us, national security and foreign policy. mira, europe, most european countries have a very different outlook because they're much closer geographically. of course, the ukraine, they border ukraine. in fact, donald trump likes to say, hey, it's europe's from a lot more than it is america's problem. because we have an ocean between us and russia. of course, europe doesn't. what is the, what is the overriding interest for europe going forward?

the problem is that you're a does not have a unified voice when it comes to ukraine and we see a division between eastern europe and western europe. then we have solves in europe in states which have a completely different balance rest perception. therefore, i think this is very problematic for europe. on the one hand, we will recall a change events of speech as a munich security conference, which has signaled that the us under the current administration is not aligned with 0 again, as europe maintains its political course, which is logical from the view of the us administration because the, the trump administration represents more post global list project arises under global this project, which is being sought by europe. so we have the political issue here,

and we also have the issue of the europeans, essentially since the end of the cold war of thinking that the future of war will not require a lot of men power and can solve everything was in 90 days. but using a power and precision guided munitions and the europeans are relying on the united states of protective umbrella. so there is, is a huge disparity in terms of european struck perception and a, some sort of a common identity and a common foreign policy which doesn't exist at the moment. because not only countries are represented, let's say, let's take hungry for instance. and on the other hand, european slacks of capabilities, even if they wanted to help ukraine, now the seas that gives, they don't change their political post. sure. they will lose the protection of the united states. so we have a dilemma here. yeah. and that's what we're exploring to them. first of all, what we've established in the 1st few minutes of this conversation is that there

isn't, there is no longer an alignment of interest between europe and the us. and what mirror just told us is that there isn't an alignment of interest within the european union or within europe more broadly. mirror a stain with you. what security guarantees can european countries provide? now let's remind her of yours, that what the extra storm are, the british prime minister said his stomach was all about when he welcomed um zalinski along with 17 other countries. he said, we're going to try and put together a framework for security that we can then present to the us to try and get their commitment to it. so let's stick to the european side for now, and then we'll get to the americans. what could be europeans do and then offer a quote unquote to the us. oh, good is interesting what your opinions can do, because the europeans are not taking into consideration that there is another part is of how the se, in this game. and that is russia essentially. so what your opinions can do,

or if they can offer troops. but the question is, how many troops now there is a division amongst europeans, how many troops? how long will the seas fire last? and of course, the biggest question is, what does the us is going to support that? which is key because if we think you will be in need are members, we know that in terms of uh, for instance, logistics. uh, 50 percent of the logistics is done by the united states and a as are important functions such as operational planning, therefore am, europeans can provide main power. but the question is, what is this meant that we're going to do? if we'll look at the line of compact is a conflict is a we're going to be frozen along that line of contact, which is over the solve and kilometers. so who's going to monitor or how many troops do you need to morning tour. that line of contact, and essentially i believe's the on the line of the monitoring are we talking

ukrainian troops on the front line with your european troops uh, to back them up? or are we talking european troops really separate in standing in between ukrainian and russian troops as well if need cause a sees fires, then you would expect some sort of a neutral party in the middle and more you are and no to bring in troops facing russian troops directly, so that has to be some sort of a buffer. we're a neutral party would be located in order to monitor a compliance with a ceasefire. therefore, if it is to work, then you would have to put these troops in the middle. otherwise, how else are they going to ensure compliance by both sides? okay, p j, v europeans have been saying, look, whatever we end up doing and whatever we end up offering. and however much we commit to this, we're still going to need what they call a us back. stop. now you were,

you worked in the us state department. can you explain to our viewers because they're going to hear this a lot in the coming days and weeks. what is the us back stuff? what does that mean? well, just as she said, you know, who's going to do the, you know, not only the heavy lifting, but who's going to do the planning and the logistics to support, you know, such an organization in there. you know, right now there's only one such entity, you know, in, in europe, and that's nato. and, and so it is, in fact, while you could put a buffer force, uh, in the middle, you know, to try to ensure that the, you know, that the war will not restart at some point that needs to be sustained. and it's at some point there, there needs to be real consequences. yeah. particular for, for russia, if, if more work to be restarted. so i'm not, but i do think there's a, there's an interesting division of potential labor here. um,

i think it's totally appropriate for the europeans side to try to work with ukraine to try to devise your what kind of international force could be put in place, you know, to monitor a ceasefire there. and, and what, what does that mean in terms of security guarantees that obviously, from friday's meeting, you know, brought in merced lensky, you pill see needs in order to move forward. and then on the west side, let's have the trump administration work with, with russia to see what, how flexible with what his position is. yeah. the tropic ministrations, bainbridge disingenuously. so we're just trying to get russian to the table. and, and so let's get, keeps on saying, mean things about food and, you know, if you look at, at the gosh, a ceasefire or as an example, you know, you have no 2 more intractable foes than then israel or her mouse, you know, who are committed to each other's destruction, but that didn't prevent them. you're working through it. mediators to come up with

a she's fired, obviously is now is very tenuous, but you hope you will get into our face too. so, you know, if the troubling ministration, you know, serious about this spectrum, easily work with russia to try to figure out, you know, what the russians negotiating position is, and then try to work with the european. see where there's common ground. robert does, does soleski, does ukraine have any leverage at all in all of this? we're talking about americans, europeans about russians. but of course we're talking about ukrainian territory. you're in, keep. donald trump said to zelinski in the oval office. he said, quote, you don't have the cards here, which just means you don't have leverage to dictate outcomes or to make demands. does ukraine have any leverage and your view, or is it going to have to ultimately just accept whatever great powers europe us russia decide for it? well, i mean, you create a skinny, going to talk in a difficult position. obviously, everyone knows that is following the war,

but the position is not on retrievable or fatal. this idea you, you kept hearing both trumpet bad, say in the oval office, your country is being destroyed. it is being attacked every day, and the russians are committing work. try war crimes as an instrument of their strategy every day they're killing civilians. every day of you credit is a large and resilient country and it is not being destroyed. there are some parts of ukraine where they are subsidies like parents on for instance, i was there last year is largely deserted. it's down to about 40000 from a pretty, or population of 400000. then there are others like here in key where um you know, the attacks come daily but the wife goes on mostly fund interrupted ukrainians are losing territory, but they're not losing territory at a rate that is really more than tactical. in other words, from the operational or strategic military perspective, they're not really in a,

in a, in seriously difficult or und retrievable situation. the leverage they have is their resilience and their unity, which has been strengthened greatly by the treatment zalesky received in the oval office. and they also have a defense industry this operating at only about 30 to 50 percent of its capacity, not because of a lack of funding. so it's so it's not so much a question of american weapons, but it's a question of can ukrainians marshal the money to double or triple their defense, industrial capacity and make up for some last us assistance themselves. and that is an area where the parents can play a role, because either they can find that you currently defense in through directly, or they can use some of the 300000000000 unfrozen russian assets, most of which are in europe to find the crazy defense industry and let ukraine produced some a weapons for itself. marina, is that a mass or here? in other words, does europe have more leverage in just funding ukraine more than perhaps,

sending troops on the ground and going, you know, following roberts logic, if they fund ukraine, ukraine, build its own weapons manufacturers, more of them and becomes a more robust, full against russia, better able to defend against russia and therefore gain more leverage and any potential discussions. but seems to me like we're talking about a process that would play out over years that i pay fully agree with you. because i'm here in lies a problem. the europeans do not have a strategy or let's say, a viable and state for hauser war and ukraine shoot. and so there is this desired and state that to expel the russians from only korean territories including crimea . but we have to ask ourselves, do we have the capabilities and we have the political will to execute the strategy

without risking a nuclear war. and we have to talk about it. we have seen, put in trying to re establish the power of nuclear deterrence back in october of 2024 when he long start rationing. therefore, i think um, on the one hand that has to be some common ground in terms of what we're going to do in terms of helping you create, what are we going to settle for when we have to be realistic that it might not be possible to recover those territories. so we have to agree on something and then work out a plan because again, we have to sort of jumped the conclusion that should have been reached a long time ago when you say we need to be realistic. ukraine may not regain the territory. it's lost as a reminder to or where is it last about one 5th of its territory. is this a conversation that should have happened one year ago, 2 years ago, maybe even 3 years ago as soon as the war began? absolutely. absolutely,

because europe sleep walked into the situation and under the, by the ministration there was only one thing that was acceptable is ukraine winning, but nobody considers any alternative scenarios. and now we're suddenly caught by surprise and the europeans have not reacted one. donald trump one the u. s. presidential elections. they have time to readjust the strategic poster, but they didn't until he entered the white house. and even then, that's what we witnessed a at the munich security conference. we're still in that culture and do more to, to resolve this, you cannot have europe pulling into a different direction, knowing exactly that. europe is very dependent on us military support. now put in ukraine, the side we don't have the defense industrial capacity is that the united states has also the money look at the percentage of g d p, that's being invested into defense. and so we have

a huge problem. and that problem is not only ukraine, that problem concerns, also the future of nato, the nuclear umbrella, that is protecting europe and europe's own protection. so all those things should have been considered much, much earlier, as well as of course, what would be an alternative scenario for ukraine? because if you want to cease fire, if you want some sort of settlement, you have to compromise the both sides have to compromise. and i think israel garza is showing us exactly how that can work. even as teachers said, different parties, both parties are hating each other. so there is some sort of a strategic vacuum that we're talking about here. speeds a best back to donald trump and what this thinking might be in the oval office. if you start to think, just offering a theory here, if you start to look at this and think of this all as a negotiating tactic as a pressure tactic, including by the way,

the bow rating of the lensky and the oval office. right? with donald trump comes in with a maximum list position. i want half a trillion dollars of ukraine's mineral wealth. i'm ok with, you know, i'm, i'm not that angry at russia. and i'm going to show the entire world that i am bound by no rules, whether it's history norms, convention a usual traditional reading of allies anatomies right. or what if you look at the last just what month and office month and a half. he's got the u. k. recently to commit to increasing defense spending. france basically the same thing. the european commission president are to live on the land saying we need to re army or up and increase or defend spending. all of those things that donald trump wants. he's got ukraine to offer essentially the us to repay it's more time a with minimal wealth. all of these are things that are in donald trump's interests and he got them by, you know, just his, his public statements. and the way he's acted talk to put in talk to the lensky. is

it all just a bargaining tool? well, that's the great question. sure. who it is, whether there's a strategy behind the uh, the catastrophe and the oval office on friday. i'm. i'm not sure whether there is a realistic one, i mean it, on the one hand it so the version of the madman theory that emerged during the nixon administration. on the other hand, when you have to map them in part of the question trumping the one hand, putting on the other, you know, how does that interact? um i, i don't, i don't, i don't think there's a strategy that the, the truck administration seems to want an agreement. the details don't necessarily matter. and i think at some point they've got to fill in some details in terms of uh, for example, as marina was just talking about, are we talking about a cease fire? which is a, a, a pause, but then allows you to deal with the root causes overtime. or are we trying for a home run and a permanent solution in one fell swoop i,

i think you're going for some sort of interim agreement, stabilize the situation. and i've seen overtime, you know, what you can put together in terms of a permanent solution strikes me is much more realistic. a rather, what do you see as, as you look at this and you've been working on studying this conflict for a while. now, as we look at this, what do you see as a plausible investment from the us as a plausible way in which the us would invest it's clout, to try and bring this war to an end, which donald trump has said he wants to do. so um, if i could let me address the recovery of craig's territorial integrity question, because i think it's been clear, be clear to me and many others i think for at least like the last couple of years of this war, that neither side has the capability to achieve their maximum of war objectives through military means alone. so we've known for a while that ukraine through military means alone is unlikely to be able to restore

its territorial integrity. that does not mean that you give up on that as an overall or objective. and you certainly go through with donald trump did, which is conceded to the russians before you ever sit down at the table. the trump administration just said 2 things. they said would be ukraine cannot restore its territorial integrity and it should give up on that. and it should give up on the to membership. the problem is, of those may be things that you say in private, or those may be things that emerge during and negotiation. but when you do that, before you ever sit down with the adversary, let's be clear. the adversary is russian, that ukraine, you have could see that you've taken the bargaining space and you're moving it in the direction of the adversary before you even start negotiating. so you're, all you're assuring is whatever you agreed to is going to be much closer to the adversaries position than yours. and so i think it's very instructive, incorrect, that you, you said that trump came in with maximal as demands to ukraine. but we have to put that in context. he did that at the same time that he gave away 2 huge bar getting

ships, ukraine's territorial integrity. and they don't membership to russia before we ever sat down at the table with the russian. so that to be, is very instructive of what the emerging us position is, and i don't think it's good for ukraine, europe or ultimately the united states. oh, that's going to be where we're going to have to end it for today. that's the time we have. thank you so much to all, i guess robert hamilton reading, i'm your own and p. j. crowley and thank you to for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website, delta 0 dot com. and for further discussion is our facebook page. that's facebook dot com, forward slash a j inside store. you can also join the conversation on x or handle there at a james site story from me serve any a and the entire team here in doha bye. for now, the too much on al jazeera from trade was to size make 50

us policy on garza and ukraine. president donald trump is shaking up global politics. rigorous debates, unflinching questions upfront cuts through the headlines to challenge conventional wisdom. on the 14th anniversary of the city and revolution, the phone of the outside regime associated in the new era as syrians rebuild their nation in a wheel and is ready to make it discovers of palestinian film archive fees from the piano in 1982 that raises important questions about palestinian identity, while the buffalo ranges on the front line, the diplomatic pursuit for peace is in crisis. however, critical moments ahead. in fact, the ukraine war and the world order much on owls is era. trump's agenda includes everything from tax cuts to immigration, but how much is real and how much is bluster? is iran footprint across the middle east? franky beach trump administration is weighing options to end the rest of your brain more. but what does it mean for europe? a quizzical look at us politics. the bottom line, the holding,

the powerful to account was we examined the us each role in the, on alger 0. the, or i'm about to send and don't have the top stories on the 0. china is for the ministry on tuesday. you said the country will play along to the end for us wants to wage a trade walk or any other kind of war. the strong statement came off to china, put vitalia to retire ups in place against the us. canada and mexico are also imposing tartarus on a raft of us products in response to what leaders of all 3 countries are describing as bullying, tactics. english. robbie is the details us president donald trump has often pointed to financial markets.