discover the world are well with subscribe to w documentary on you to russia has stepped up its attacks across ukraine, the largest invasion for seen in europe since the 2nd world war. and if that's not serious enough, russia's president putin has reminded the world of his massive nuclear arsenal by placing it on higher alert. he will seek to apply maximum force. and if nuclear is part of that also, and he feels that he which it is and he feels it's going to give them an advantage . i've no doubt that he, we should be prepared for him to use it. that's general. so richard sheriff, former deputy supreme commando with the nato alliance and my guest this week from

london. it's impossible to predict how this conflict will develop. but it's clear so far that ukrainian resistance has been more effective than expected. and the russians appeared to have suffered substantial casualties. president lensky was given a standing ovation after he spoke to the european parliament, pro bunker somewhere, new crane. but what more can and should the west do to help him? is the nato alliance, a credible deterrent? and how real is the spectre of a 3rd world war on that and much more on conflicts of a general richard sheriff. welcome to conflict. so you've called russian invasion of ukraine, a real and present threat to the nato alliance. how worried are you by putting waving his nuclear missiles under the west nose very wide indeed. persian

perkins will stop at nothing and we need to recognize the real threat. but those was carry and the threat is one of the 3rd world war. if yes, i don't have the longest about this and won't get us will stay cool and calculating . but the reality is this, if the person conquers ukraine, and although the ukrainian people and military are fighting an incredibly brave battle, and we should take inspiration of that all. but all the odds are in a stacked and perchance favor. so if there is, if he conquered ukraine, if he occupies ukraine, i think the chances are that he will have a very high chance that he will decide to have a go at establishing, for example, a land card all through lithuania is colleen and grab a bite off a chunk of the baltic states, and if there is any russian in caching whatsoever into nato territory,

that means nato, all 30 member states will be at war with russia. and his nature war with russia, that means to nuclear pod, nuclear armed adversaries are locking horns and that must increase the risk of a nuclear exchange. i want to carry on talking about the nuclear problem in a moment. but you mentioned the baltic states of a in any way adequately defended by nato. i have to say that of the moment, given the overwhelming strength of the russians have got, i would be very surprised if they are what nature has in place of the home for battle groups round about a 1000 times. now, in each, in each of the 3 baltic states and the eastern poland, i know that has been some reinforcement of those. but i think thus far it's been very much of trickle. i would also, but the nation response falls. we've heard has been dispatched to, to,

to reinforce, but that will take time. and i mean, from my, my personal perspective, from a professional military perspective, in order to adequately defend the baltic states nation needs to have several armored divisions in those states. together with all the maritime support assets necessary to fight a major war and does. and i think we're probably a long way short of that. what do you put that down to why? why are these reinforcements taking so long? what's? what's nature waiting for? from your experience as deputy supreme commander or measure nicer director, iran mega is a great, a great a lots, it's a great institution and it's been the most successful a lot. well, the scene for some 70. yes. but it has to match, but it is a consensus organization that has to move at the speed of a slight shift in the convoy and decisions take time to be made. i wish it rather was, is the whole issue of

a science of war. the science of readiness to read in the preparation and movement of significantly large numbers is the text immense amount of time, an immense amount of a district efforts. and also we have to recognize that nicer than they said, the armed forces of nature, particularly in europe, have been little done. effective reduction effectively at the form of disarmament. that has reduced armored divisions, brigades or light brigades, and cut in substantial numbers. great swathes of a sort of military capability, which we need not to put in for any further adventure. you wrote recently that russia integrates nuclear thinking into every aspect of its military doctrine. what are the implications of that? does it mean that the russian military is taught to accept more readily,

the possibility of using nuclear weapons? absolutely, absolutely. and the use of life for 1st use, in other words, it's actually licensed 1st use and not only that, but what we, what we could expect to see if the person decides to have a got a voltage states of bytes of a chunk of them all of them and nato would be gearing up to attack to recapture them, which would, in itself be a massive military undertaking. larger than anything, frankly, we've seen since d day 944. and at that point we could expect russia to threaten nicer with nuclear weapons. he's got put in got nuclear tip discount muscles and colleen grad . well within range of nature, cities like berlin, frank phillips, copenhagen stocker will be at a white city. and that would be a form of blackmail. forget to make nature is stopped in its tracks or accept the

reality of nuclear exchange. as far as you know, are there any constraints on putin's ability to launch nuclear missiles? can he do it by himself without reference to anyone else? do we do? we have any idea of how his command structure works. every, all the power for the release is in pritchens hands. i remember the words of dmitri test golf, i think one of his spokesmen saying that the decision for nuclear weapons, nuclear, nuclear attack would be made by, by mr. pigeon himself, with the fall support of the russian people. so the the politburo structure that existed in soviet times, which could have acted as a form of check and balance has gone. so effectively, he's got much more power than the old soviet leaders had eye off because he's being painted as a heavily armed, isolated and angry old man. and they don't necessarily make the best decisions or the most rational decisions do they? well, he is he so heavily on?

isolated in rational, angry old mom. i'm getting older and you're absolutely right. which is why we have to be which is why we have to sit up and take notice and really be careful. i'm really in sure. i mean, i want out of all this is effective deterrents i cannot stress more strongly the need for, for later to get itself up to mobilize, to be prepared, ultimately to fight a war of national survival. and that means armed forces on a scale we have not seen since the, the most 10 days of the cold war with really significant forces capable and able to operate. i'm not going to be real moment. it's going to be reconstitution of forces . it's going to mean i'm gonna have implications on also saucers, in a way which we haven't seen for generations. the editor, one of the russian newspapers, nova, guys, yet dmitri more out of said pigeon was spinning a nuclear button around his finger. like some expensive car key chain does put in

strike you or someone who thinks. not only that he might wage a war, a nuclear war against the west, but that he could actually, when it do you see circumstances under which he could win. i think he thinks exactly that the circumstances in which he could win are circumstances in which deterrence has failed completely. so i come back to my argument about the importance of deterrents to preserve peace. such pieces exist where the piece for ukraine. but if we want to preserve peace and they so that means every european nation member state of the nation of nature, needs to put it shows the we'll dig deep and build up capability and get that capability to the, to the eastern flanks of as quickly as possible, i don't get a sense of the agency that's needed. i think on the whole it seems to be much very much life. as usual. less some token reinforcement. we've got to change that

mindset fundamentally. how far do you think putins nuclear threats reflect his frustrations with the performance so far? his forces in ukraine does he have justification for feeling frustrated. what they, what they've done or more what they haven't done in the 1st week or patient has no justification for thinking anything other than total object, shame and horror. what he, what he's perpetrated on the world. but he's made heavy weather, don't they? but there's no question they've made very heavy weather and it's about indicates to me as the pos is a minus. yeah. plus of course is that it's delaying the ultimate, i heard. right. not but i, i fair. it's saying what might be the inevitable in you correct and put the minus is, but he will be frustrated. he will be angry, he'll be angry, or he will lash charge. he's already using a mass artillery indiscriminately into in ukrainian cities like hawkins and very

likely kia as well. at some stage. he will, he will, he will seek to apply maximum full. so there's nuclear as part of that also. and he feels that he which it is, and he feels it's going to give him an advantage. i've no doubt that he, we should be prepared for him to use it. there are at the moment and confirmed ukrainian reports who speak of thousands of russian cavalry casualties. do you think that's true? to think they've taken heavy losses? i suspect they probably have, but at this stage it's very difficult to validate. the fog of war covers everything . the chances are that they probably have, i mean, any form of the sort of fighting that well, where that is it, but it's happening in ukraine are, is fighting on a scale lot since it's seen in europe since the 2nd level, the clash of great armies of tanks and armored infantry battles and gums i as

well as all the arrow tracks as well. and that is going to be expensive in terms of council, just particularly when it gets into run those fighting in built up areas. fighting in cities is very casualty intensive. that's why it's all construct most isn't it. fighting in the city also does that like fight, day like war anyway? that's why we serve a soldiers in order to try and deter and prevent war. but if it comes to it, fighting and build up areas is bloody hard working hard work, expensive and casualties and very, very slow. and it get, the chances are that it'll pop push in done as, as he goes through those cities. whatever happens in the 1st few days of this invasion, russia presumably will take the major cities eventually. how hard will it be for them to hold them? well, i think that's a wider question on how hard will it be? i mean, the answer is that he will ultimate to take the major cities. how hard would it be to hold them very hard indeed,

as it will be very hard to hold whatever ukraine box of ukraine pushing occupies less perhaps the the extreme eastern separatist areas of done that can happen? can i say that because i'm in no charge that if and when the time comes ukrainians will fight will continue to fight the flame of resistance, but very brightly. it will be supported by the west and by nature i have no dogs, and in fact preparations should be being made. now to put in place the necessary resistance support for resistance, it'll be a very, very expensive business. he will the need in order to hold the centers of ukraine and the why do you cry? he's going to need really significant numbers of soldiers. i saw around cooperation estimate around about 6 to 700000 while he hasn't got that. so i sense that's going to result in a long drawn, i bloody insurgence. if a put in a form of, of the like of which i think,

i think i'm gonna saw him under the soviet attack. it's gotta be a hell of a lot. was for the russians and it was sort of service general sheriff when you what passes through your mind when you see the beleaguered ukrainian resistance that some of them have been pushing back, rushing on vehicles with their hands cowering in bunkers, lining up to get a rifle that they've never used in their life and not knowing whether they'll live out the day and they want the kind of help that the west won't give them. they want closure of ukraine's ass base to russian aircraft. how does that make you feel? ah, desperate on the one hand, every, every emotion in me and says we should be coming to help in a direct and aggressive and of form. providing our support. particularly when you see the, the shots of the aquatic enrollment convoy bottled up and effectively packaged

ready for destruction and not being hit by any form of ukrainian attack. but on the other hand, we have to think clearly we have to understand that any form in posing any form of no fly zone over ukraine is an act of war. it will involve nature, aircraft shooting, done, rush, macro. it will require nature aircraft to attack and destroy russia, defense installations and radars on the ground. it will be an act of war, and it will mean that nature is at war with russia. the say want for this is if you are, if you are going to go for that sort of approach and impose a no fly zone, you have to be prepared to fight a war of national survival. you have to have ensured that the eastern flank of ne, so is absolutely solid and properly defended and you have to be prepared for the

sort of false levels required to fight on the ground and in the in ukraine. and i'm afraid to say that at the moment is simply out of the question, general chef. so, so the west saying it stands with ukraine. doesn't really represent the truth. it's an uncomfortable thought, isn't it? that if nato had given ukraine what it was demanding for years, that's a negative nato membership. they probably wouldn't be in this position now, would they? well, again, the same a similar argument applies to nature. membership of ukraine recalls nation promised . you're actually right, nature promise, membership of ukraine, nation to ukraine, backup progress summit in 2000 at some stage. however, one of the facts of life is you don't make a promise if you can't keep it. you know, over promise, over promise and under deliver is a fundamental mistake. that is the mistake, but nature has made because if, if you crane was a member of nature,

nature would have had to have deployed sufficient defensive forces in ukraine to deter any russian attack. this was needed and they so force stationed permanently ukraine. think back to the nature of force at west germany, in the cold war, a force of 2 to 300000 soldiers together with all the equipment and paraphernalia of war was nature. randy got to do that back in 2008, 910. i don't think there was a political chance in hell of that happening. so again, we come back to the point about if nato was to accept ukraine into the alarms, nature would need to be prepared, would have needed to have been prepared to defend it, to the teeth with really significant armed forces. and that i, for, to say was never going to happen. you say that it, but in recent years, mister putin hasn't made much of a secret of his expansion. james is designed to compensate as he calls it for the

collapse of the soviet union, marching into georgia, for instance in 2008 crimea 6 years later was a pretty powerful statement of his direction of travel and only got was a slap on the wrist a few invitations withdrawn a few sanctions. the punishment didn't fit the crime, did it? if it had, do you think he could have been dissuaded from the parties on now? i've no dodgy could have been yes. and if you read the forward to my, my book i talk about was ga rob rhineland and was, was, was, was crying out today one moment. and i post the question, what will be our payment limits? there are real parallels with the 1900 thirty's. and if you think back, for example, in the british context of 2010, a significant reduction of the size of the armed forces, particularly the regular army, the dismantling of the army on with division, we had 4 years later, you got crime them. and at the time, i,

well remember the british politicians, when or shortly after i actually tried to 60 british politicians when, when, when challenged on whether there was a threat for russia saying, i do not know anybody who thinks like that, that was a degree of complacency and the failure to really look at, put in listen to what the patient was saying and think through the implications you by the story that the west lost him at some point along the way. when he came to pod that was even talk of russia joining nato at some point. wasn't there even a as a friendly, fuzzy period between east and west, the west screw that up there are 2 sides for every story i opposite. right. at one stage, i think 99 when he came to par, he said he wouldn't rule are joining russia, russia joining nature. i don't necessarily buy the stories of a west lawston. i think i can remember. well, tony blair, in good faith making,

saying that she thought, but when he came to power was a man with whom we could do business. now i think what you see is a man who has increasingly become corrupted by par, absolutely corrupted by par. and who has decided that the return of the politics of on blood to europe suits his intention. you've basically been describing for the last few minutes, an alliance, the nato alliance. that isn't fit for purpose. when you, when you look at the huge resources available to nato countries and the relatively meagre pot to the russia can access. how is it that moscow seems to be calling the shots? i off because you're off the defense experts have said they took, would it been hard put to win a war with russia? and now where, according to you, at least on a path that could take us to a war. how is that

ultimately, decisions about the size and shape and funding armed forces are made by our political leadership. not by not by the specialists. you have to carry a lot, a lot is quite right of democracy, but it is the, and i civil power, the military and the, the fundamental reason is that our political leadership, our electrons, have not been particularly in europe, especially in europe. because i think it's different in america or canada to the pen boss, have not been pad to invest adequately in defense. they have preferred to invest in social security and education and other standing. because that's what gets them elected. defense has never been an electrical issue in this up until then i've

thrown last last decade to decade, 3 decades. you've talked of the west needing to adapt now to a new reality. you said the world that we knew before, february 24th in which the rights of sovereign states to live in peace with guaranteed by a respect for international law without armed force. that's gone forever. how is the west supposed to behave in this bleak new world that you envisage? while it's going to get real? it's got fast, way to, to the imperative is deterrence. it's going 1st of all to muster, the mobilize the capability to prevent any further incursions by, by putting into, into any caution into the nation. but it's got to think long term. it's got to recognize that we are in here in, for the long haul. they're all going to be any quick fixes that is not going to be any comfort it not. this is going to need. and the very best case, a significant they towed to terrorists falls all away from poland to remain. yeah.

it'll dwarf the night before the requirement of that nature face during the cold war for a significant force in west germany. this is a much, much longer commitment on a much bigger commitment. if we will ask, has the will for that. well, we'll have to see where getting a lot of the president, the previous president didn't have much, will like nato at all and it will probably collapsed. right. this is, this is the 100, this is a $1000000.00 question. whether, whether, whether you're actually right on the trunk, but who showed trump just demonstrated contempt for nature and contempt for his places, allies, and in a sense case eat up to our potential adversaries. and when he comes back and if he wins the election in 2024, nate has been big trouble in it. while by that stage will know which way, which the, the, the cookie has crumbled but, but the bottom line with trump is that he breaks that fundamental trust that

whatever president occupied the why science that was total certainty, that america would come to the aid of nature. a member of attract truck trump, right? i think on the biden where in a better place, i hope we are on the president biden. but again, i would like to see significant numbers of real war fighting capability being shipped across the atlantic. not. i see no signs of that at the moment, and we do need to see that, for example, in general in the cold war. but the americans routinely redeployed army divisions from, from america to john, a west germany. as part of reinforcement exercises the re for direction sizes just to demonstrate that they could, that need to start doing that again. not likely. airborne troops is not enough. you, as i said, painted this bleak picture, but haven't the incredibly brave selfless ukrainian fighters are battling against overwhelming odds? haven't they shown us a vision of

a much better future that could be, hadn't they given nato some inspiration are? unquestionably, they are inspiring and beyond belief and to see you at the fact the way the ukrainians of have fought is extraordinary. but, but let's not kid ourselves. brave men and women without you turn weapons and molotov cocktails are not going to stop god's tank on this. look at what look at the count, the convoy that we've all been looking for, satellite pictures all. where is the destruction of that? why has that know, why have the ukraine is not been able to attack that worries me is the barrels is not capable to capable enough to do it. and all they are unable to maneuver the necessary ahmed formations to do it. but that is a force, an enemy force which has been packaged for destruction, and advantage cannot be taken or appears not to be taken. so that's what really was

the general sir richard sheriff, thank you very much for being on complex. so thank you. thank you. ah ah ah, with

the war in ukraine, many se they'll resist for as long as possible. hundreds of thousands are fully in the binding. what does it feel like to leave everything behind how our neighboring nations coping with the wave of refugees? and how do russians actually view hooton's war? focus on europe. in w to the point. strong opinions were positions,

international perspectives. all meant us uncertainty in ukraine as people wait to see how brutal the 2nd stage of russia on slow down by country might be bloody, may poke to this effect. if we're trying to wipe you crate off the map. can the destruction already devastating, get worse to the point with 90 minutes on d. w. i'm the green. do you feel worried about the planet we to i'm neil, host of the on the grievance. and to me, it's clear we need to change the solutions or out the join me for a deep dive into the green transformation. for me to do with

ah, they've had no patience for the for decades. the people of iraq our country is devastated and there's no end to how did it come to the in? tina witnesses revealed unprecedented story. they were the u. s. they knew what the consequence of these sanctions are, and they blight the world about it behaved exactly like said government and the poison spread. bear with life. the great documentary series destruction of a nation starts march 4th on d w. ah,

this is d, w. news live for the, for the 1st time since it invaded ukraine, russia has seized a major city. the mayor of hassan confirms that the black sea port is in the hands of inviting troops. president blood of miss lensky says russia will pay for what it has done. also on the paragraph, ukraine and russia hold a 2nd round of talks and agree on humanitarian corridors for civilians caught up in the fight.