is that still fine squid cages like this one? if you stop rather good as at illegal fishing harms the see horses i discover because they get stuck in the cages from us and they just die their business. cause we found this one in just such a cage. franklin sadler by 2030 portugal plans to expand its protections to include not only the ria formosa lagoon but one 3rd of its marine territory. you're up to date, doc film is up next. stick around for that. i'm ami annisa. thanks for joining us here at d. w. i . she's got any issues or thoughts they will grey you.

lou. march 2022. russia is waging war on ukraine. inside rush, engine, strategic, nuclear weapons being relocated model of it. this is a highly dangerous conflict because we do not know whether at some point the nuclear threshold might be crossed and if so, in what form? the irish renovation. it has, the situation is highly dramatic cottage. i don't think we are on the brink of a nuclear. whoo nacley actually. but if we continue in the years ahead, as we have done in the past on the risk of has actually heading for a nuclear confrontation will increase significantly. so i am secrecy kind of

returns a nuclear weapons is an issue we discussed with many international experts back in 2018. but even then, such discussions were not possible in russia. after putin invaded ukraine, we got in touch once again with many of the people we spoke to back them. in the 1980s, millions of people took to the streets to protest against you, nuclear weapons. an entire generation lived in fear. when the cold war came to an end, thousands of nuclear weapons will withdrawn from europe to day. the secret missile sites lie abandoned. memories of faded instead of spreading fears. if a nuclear war, atomic bomb, bruce silos for cruise missiles, became fair ground techno,

the age of the nuclear threat seemed over in 2018 new atomic weapons for europe would being tested in the united states. yet they war is more likely now than it was at the height of the cold war. and the nuclear problem has not gone away. it's, it's changed. it's become something new and different. some analysts call this the 2nd nuclear age. ah, and they bothered simoli. all experts agree that paradoxically could none of the risk of a limited deployment of nuclear weapons article that is perhaps greater in this decade that there than in the 20th century. different in check,

plato dull beyond, in this sense to france, a relic of the cold war. this was an underground bunker for launching nuclear missiles. only one of the 18 silos here has been maintained. ah sons, christenson is an internationally renowned expert on nuclear weapons. he works for the f, a s, the federation of american scientists, and the celebrated swedish piece research institute slippery been wild hello pete us carries at research into nuclear weapons at the distinguished sciences po university in paris. so this whole massive chunk of steel and concrete rapidly going out here and a exposing the missile inside. i'm getting ready, right? so one mega on going off to moscow make a ton,

is 1000000 tons of t and t explosives. if you imagine you set off that amount explosives are in one time in comparison and they rush, my mom, the destroyed one city in japan was 15 kilo time. so the power in this war hit that would have been here behind us is just really difficult to fathom here. so some installing certificate or, or seal 1983 is about the time when the last version was put in for commission. and then it sat here until 199396. a decision that has been going back then disarmament was the trend. now things have changed. if we're going to help sell their day, we noticed that all countries possessing nuclear weapons are investing

a great deal. and will do so for several years in order to modernize their ass knows y'all this in. but the question is, after does the generation, which is going to live in the shadow of nuclear weapons and we'll bear the cost clear, realize what's happening. and how does it feel about this? one of you know, that's you. the nice, the missile silos tunnels many kilometers in length were cut into the mountain to enable command staff to survive and mount a nuclear counter attack. it's a surreal experience because imagine the circumstances for which this was built, which is to withstand a 1st strike of nuclear weapons and enable a couple of people to be able to launch french, a ballistic missiles back against her. in that case, the soviet union did it. so i'm immediately reminded of course of the crazy

situation of countries holding each other hostage with nuclear weapons on alert. or, i mean, pull their foreigner to or steal food whole back of last it's going from. was that anger for me? this place symbolizes the idea that prevailed in the nuclear iraq and still prevails today of being able to survive. said yeah, i have clearly in a tunnel a place without lightly, but that was how people thought they could survive a nuclear war. but if they did manage to survive and went back outside one date of what would they find? what will be left? is he also rule his guest or close to 2000 nuclear warheads or on our to day or in the world ready to launch within just a few moments of the receiving the order from the national leadership. 2 countries

in western europe possess their own nuclear weapons, britain and france. in addition, france also has nuclear missiles for aircraft. both countries would decide independently with regard to their deployment. nato has $100.00 and 5th american atomic bombs at its disposal, small tactical nuclear weapons for use on a battlefield. they would be deployed 1st to defend nato's eastern border. for example, russia also has missiles of this kind. b, 52 bombers from the united states air force on exercise in the baltic. many see this is a clear message to russia. and there is other military posturing in the form of nuclear attack exercises we've seen and types of exercises that we haven't seen since the cold war were american b, 52 bombers to fly up over the north pole to their launch points for nuclear cruise missiles. and then return to their bases in the united states. those kind of strike

exercises were not down since the, i mean 98. the old cat and mouse game of the cold war is back and threaten and be threatened. as a result, many people are worried why helen called it got co founder of physicians for total responsibility and an internationally renowned peace activist feel reminded of dangerous times. well, i got to know robert mcnamara quite well, who is the sick chief fence and was in the oval office with jack kennedy during the cuban missile crisis. he said to me, helen, you don't know how close we came to within 3 minutes, quote unquote, the scene, the situation to day could well be compatible with that. officers have to decide in next in no time whether or not to follow the order to launch a nuclear strike. but how reliable are the soldiers in the missile silos?

the men in the missile silos in america, they call minute men, is i have minutes to decide their aged 18 to 26. like pavlovian dogs. yes, so no sir. press the button sir. they're each armed with a pistol. one, shoot the other if one shows signs of deviant behavior. that the deviant one much. yeah. the other one recently it's been determined that many of those men are taking ill estie, not in a missile silos, but beforehand and having wild psychological experiences, allowing it, it taking marijuana, cocaine and the like. helen cole, the coach, 2 wounds of a nuclear war, occurring by mistake. located close to google, a village in the eiffel region of western germany is a german armed forces. airbase, it said that american nuclear weapons, when nato are stationed here,

officially that is neither confirmed nor denied. hans christensen is certain that tactical nuclear weapons as the unknown ah, stationed here small nuclear weapons for deployment in europe. they're still tactical nuclear weapons. yes. or only gravity bumps delivered by fighter jet aircraft. they are the last remnant of a what used to be an enormous inventor of about 7000 or tactical nuclear weapons. but they're still here in about a 150 of them. but only that one kind of air delivered gravity bombs. and in a conflict situation, they could be dropped by fighter jet aircraft. merit is have basis in europe, but there are also 4 countries in europe that have host base arrangement, as they call. they call it a nuclear sharing arrangements. germany, the netherlands, ah, belgium, italy,

and possibly turkey. and so those countries are the ones who sort of serve a soda nuclear strike roll, where they are, aircraft would be equipped and handled over nuclear weapons in times of war. aerial photographs show silos that i believe to contain the u. s. atom bombs for german combat aircraft. these weapons is said to be small, but possess enormous explosive power. some of these weapons are very powerful. i mean, this is not just small nuclear weapons. they're more powerful than the weapons that destroyed hiroshima and nagasaki. there are and one location here at google airbase . ah, we estimate that there are $10.00 to $20.00 be $6.00 to $1.00 nuclear bombs inside shelters. here at this base right now. what does the future look like for america's nuclear weapons? toppa in the nevada desert is a test site and in the military no go area. here in new atom bomb antics flight

characteristics of being tested. it's designation the b $6112.00 it's development is expensive to cover it in its budget for 2019 alone, the pentagon requested $254000000.00. gibbons combat aircraft are also being unable to drop the bone adaption work already goes and away in 2019 p. a 200. integration refers to the tornado. p a 200, which is flown by the german air force in about a month or 2. the u. s will begin full scale production of the new b 6112 bom, ok. and we know from airforce statements that within, by the end of this year, certainly early next year. but by the near the end of this year, probably they will start training the nuclear units in europe to receive this new

web. ok. so we most likely will start seeing this weapon being shipped to europe or sometime next year. ok. so you can imagine if this crisis is still happening at the time, that will almost certainly be used by the russians, as an example of nato. increasing its nuclear threat against russia. something like that. even though they're already are tactical nuclear weapons in europe right now, of course. so that's, that's to l. just opposite the british ministry of defense, maxwell denman, works for an institute, which is critical of nato. the 1st place russian missiles would go would be the be $61.00 sites. ah, there are so many hurdles for these things. getting off the ground, you would need to load the planes with the bombs because the bombs,

the planes in the bombs on together. these would need to take off, then. this is all presuming that russian missiles are coming and then once they're flying, you would need to refuel them in an and then you would need to fly them into russian ass space. plot past russian, ballistic missile defense before dropping free for bombs. compare that to firing a missile. there's huge risks with these things, and they realistically would never get off the ground. and even if they were successful in taking off with nuclear weapons, experts fear that when refueling in the, at the latest, they would be an easy target. so why should the german air force need nuclear weapons? it does highest of the ions. i didn't miss line under miss and convent this mean like that. on the one hand, we need to make an appropriate conventional contribution to lend weight to our voice asked sissy, but we must also be prepared to, to shoulder the burden on and it is a burden. the of of,

of nuclear weapon is being station on our soil are from dodge and if necessary, being deployed by german pilots ha, enshrined, ist by iris. bowden far advanced the decisive element with all these issues in this is an understanding of the nuclear strategic correlations. english cried of and tried on, and only in this way is it possible to have an influence isn't within the alliance of these of either, no atomic bombs, no saying things. only if germany, too, is prepared to use nuclear weapons, will german governments be allowed to participate in nato planning and decision making with regard to the deployment of nuclear weapons that also applies to modernization. military leaders claim that the new bombs are necessary because the current weapons are outdated. it is a kind of maintenance they say. as far as we can figure out,

the increased actual accuracy is about 3 times better than, than it is with the existing weapons. now what that means is that not only can you strike targets or facilities much more effectively, but you can also choose lower explosive yields settings for an attack that to day requires a much higher yield setting. so that's more useable, it's less radioactive fallout. so it's concerned that we're making nuclear weapons more usable damage is this makes it a weapon, which of course, can meet a totally different military requirements from it's pete assessing on what the russians realize is us and a saying ok, the west is doing that. so we'll respond off, but we need new systems, better systems, one that would be a new arms race, a new cold. oh. so what goals did donald trump pursued during his presidency? he often emphasized the america's nuclear supremacy.

as part of our defense, we must modernize and rebuild our nuclear arsenal. o, fully never having g is it? but make in it so strong and so powerful that it will deter any acts of aggression by any other nation or any one else. president trump also reserved the right to launch a preemptive strike against countries in possession of nuclear weapons. and that is not all well, united states is in the early face of a complete overhaul of it's a nuclear arsenal. and we're talking about everything we're talking about. all delivery systems, all warheads on nuclear infrastructure of the factories, a nuclear command control system. so it's a huge under taking. it is one of the biggest armament projects of all time. the

congressional budget office compiled the costs in the report. the bottom line, $1.00 trillion dollars, roughly up trillion euro's bachelor's in 2017. so the projects could get a lot more expensive. by the modernization involves nuclear attack submarines with inter continental nissans as well as silos and command centers. the land based nuclear missiles, nuclear bombs and cruise missiles. but why is america spending so much money located in california is one of america's leading nuclear research laboratories. here. nuclear weapons are serviced and strategies devised. the head strategist is brad roberts, who as deputy assistant secretary of defense in the obama administration,

was also responsible for nuclear weapons. so the alternative to modernization is unilateral disarmament. we have postponed any decision because they're costly and politically very divisive. we've postponed any decision about the modernization of our nuclear forces for decades. the newest us nuclear weapon in the arsenal went in in 1991. there is no weapon that was designed, intended to have a shelf life of more than 20 or 25 years. a clear commitment to the continued existence of nuclear forces. yet just over a decade ago, quite different sans were being heard from washington. i state clearly and with conviction, america's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. when people

read the prox beach, most people read only one or the other section of it. the one they like and some people preferred the one that talked about the potential elimination of nuclear weapons. others prefer the portion to talk about while we worked for that to happen . we have to modernize on nuclear weapons. so in a way, people came away from the prox, b, b, 2 very different conceptions of what the priority was. make no mistake, as long as these weapons exist, the united states will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary and guarantee that defense to our allies, including the czech republic, experts at the lawrence livermore national laboratory, not only develop and service nuclear weapons they also simulates possible wilson eyes. the fear here is of a new kind of nuclear war. so is war again,

thinkable. it was not thinkable in the 1960 seventy's and eighty's when the one nuclear war became the problem of arm. again, the problem of the end of human history. and it's possible that today we have one or 2 or 3 actors who believe that a nuclear war can be one because it can be kept limited because we will back down when they employ nuclear weapons on a limited basis. and if they believe it can be kept limited and can be one than it can be fought. but every new strategy also requires new weapons. according to experts mighty warheads, with the explosive yield of 40 hiroshima bombs, and not suitable for a limited nuclear war. in part, the answer is yes,

we do need some new weapons. some of the targets we might want to hid in this kind of environment can be destroyed with small nuclear weapons that would minimize damage to other things. what we call collateral damage. we could significantly reduce small nuclear weapons. we've had that before. here, east of frankfurt, us nuclear shells for german tank. how it says we're one stored small, tactical weapons for the german armed forces. these former offices were involved with the nuclear weapons on a daily basis. the commander of the german units, guarding them back then was bet beckman again kind, dodge, no german was allowed english. that was strictly forbidden. we didn't exactly know what was happening in there because it was all kept really secret of, of got your job, i guess was to be ready if on the soviet army would come across the hill. right. no,

it was about nuclear battle in europe. does hamby owns, although we told our soldiers time and again that germany is always the target and i was on. in other words, a conflict will always mean the destruction of germany. and the better we do our job, and the more will be able to defend ourselves in this way too far. and that makes the chance of us never having to use these weapons even greater yet. and indeed, in the final analysis, it worked puzzles, it was deterrence personified, and every so jet understood that including the conscripts and we had lots of those in your lives when we explained it like that they understood member is indirectly at home in the ninety's. there was still 120 of these nuclear weapons depos located throughout germany. the nuclear shells stored in the silos with designed to stop soviet tank armies. the problem was that they had a range of only 20 to 30 kilometers. so they would always have exploded in germany,

designation of a small atomic bomb escape saga nucleus, eager through gaps. well, there were even nuclear anti aircraft, ms. eileen and even nuclear mines in zion. and there were the craziest things in the cold war days to come on those today. when you think back, you can only say that the world in those days was mad because it would all have meant total self destruction. so there were even mines on the in the gym, and borderline and, and nuclear mines. i got a grant to hercules. air defense system was also nuclear. aquila so filled up as his t m nuclear. nuclear shells fired from silos like this and exploding over soviet tank units would have destroyed the whole of west germany. nuclear defense on that scale would have meant the end for germany. at some time or other, the military also realize this they

have largely moved away from tactical nuclear weapons. and the reason they moved the ways because the military didn't need them to solve their military objectives, they could use advanced conventional weapons for this instead. so now we are hearing recommendations that the u. s. needs to inter, reintroduce tactical, or tactical like nuclear weapons ah, with low yield during the cold war, this was east germany. for my missile offices in the ged hours, national people's army have set up a museum in their old barracks on display of the predecessors of the russian iskander missiles. which as station close to colleen in grad on nato's east and border. this was the transport, a nuclear warheads, even for experts, some details of the missile technology in new york. there was this also had to be heated, up was open to o'clock. today, the situation is even worse,

because the escandone looks like an ordinary truck or no more, almost the warheads had to be heated up. the missiles were perfectly camouflaged as trucks, dried entrusted technology from the cold war. russia still places its faith in small nuclear weapons. it's, it's very much a difference in tactics. the, the point is that the russian military relies more on tactical nuclear weapons because they are conventional forces are considered far less capable. and so russia has an conventional inferiority if you will. and so they use new tactical nuclear weapons to compensate for that. so we see in the russian navy a large use of a tactical nuclear weapons for anti ship cruise missiles, torpedoes, depth charges you name it on the u. s. military has completely faced out those types of weapons. it doesn't need them anymore because it has been

a conventional forces in 2018. it seemed as if russia was placing its faith in nuclear weapons simply as it economic weakness. so is a limited nuclear war in europe conceivable. once again, we have many, many statements from russian military and political leaders that they're prepared to employ nuclear weapons on a limited basis. and a war against nato is war between russia and nato. likely, i don't think so. is a completely out of the question, i wish that it were, but it's not. so how likely the risk of limit the nuclear war as today is very difficult to calibrate. but relative to the peaceful period we lived in on the 19 nineties and the decade afterwards. the tire, if we're talking, the russians different kind of concern there. because with the russians,

they might take some nuclear reaction against a major nato based, for example, to demonstrate their capability or an e. m. p attack to turn off the electronics unless in germany or poland or wherever . in many cases there, we would need to respond in kind in some way that would be meaningful. limited number of weapons limited targets set may be e m p, back over the kremlin to disconnect the computer systems and in the kremlin, those kinds of things would be what we would be potentially thinking about. so yes, if the russians decided to go in to the baltics, there is a very real chance that nuclear weapons could be used in the late seventy's moscow, stationed s s 20 nuclear missiles in eastern europe. these medium range missiles could only threaten western europe. politicians feared that in the event of an attack on western europe,

us would not fire that inter continental missiles. that is why military leaders cold for similar, medium range weapons, the europe pushing twos and cruise missiles. but since these weapons were extremely accurate, moscow felt threatened and fed and nato 1st strike millions of people demonstrated against the medium range weapons stationed in europe. but things to dazzle, right? in reykjavik, in 1986 reagan and hope chelsea signed the i n f treaty which covered the withdrawal and dismantling of all land based medium range systems. as, as twenties, pershing, tucson, and cruise missiles, with scraps with

cruise missiles were also stationed here in germany, in the 100 region. in the late eighty's, their withdrawal and destruction was a sensation. ah, ah, it was the 1st class agreement that simply eradicated an entire class of missiles. ah, what was also important was that he had it a very strong verification regime with on site inspections, both at the sites, but all launch sites. but also, you know, factories and what have you. so, so it was a really important new way of doing arms control. many saw that sort of later as a 1st step toward elimination of nuclear weapons globally, ah, once a year, this form, a secret cruise missile site is now the scene of a techno festival. laser shows above sights of nuclear, tara,

over 30 years later, the type of weapons that's were withdrawn from here are again, a bone of contention. in october 2018, donald trump accused the russians of violating the i n f treaty. russia has violated the agreement. they've been violating it for many years, and i don't know why president obama didn't negotiate or allowed that we're not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement. i go out into weapons and we're not allowed to wear the ones that have stayed in the agreement. and we've honored the agreement, but russia has not unfortunately ordered the agreement, so we're gonna terminate gravely. we're going to pull out the ion of the world was stunned by the announcement that the us was pulling out of the agreement, especially as it is not known for sure, just where the new russian medium range weapons ought to be stationed. for a long time, it was unclear with moscow's new medium range weapons was stationed in the european

parts of russia at all. at the time, russia also regarded the nato missile defense systems, in romania and poland. as a breach of the i n f agreements by the united states. officially, nato's missile defense system is directed against iranian missiles. the strategy is for them to be shot down by ships in the mediterranean. the headquarters of nato's allied air command is located in ramstein in germany, in 2018 on the orders, the president trump, the pentagon, presented a new strategy for us nuclear weapons. the nuclear posture review, as it's known, is a thick book, which also covers new types of weapon. it calls for new medium range, cruise missiles, nuclear missiles, with a flexible payload for america's nuclear submarines, presumably for the arctic ocean. since they are c based such weapons on not bands,

bobby i n f treaty on medium range nuclear missiles. nevertheless, they are political dynamite. this power feed it is that the perfidious element of this concept, of course, is that since you s submarines and us warheads are involved. my discussion with nato is avoided when the so in the years ahead of these things will simply be stationed without washington asking its allies, knowing full well that a discussion within nato on this issue would be highly controversial. would oil self controlled ask a few about trumps attacks on nato res dance? many experts were worried would the american nuclear shield still per america's new president joe biden has given his backing to nato's european partners . in contrast to previous practice so far, his new nuclear doctrine has not been publicized. yes,

the the trauma mr. asian also produced m a low yield warhead for the triton submarine. it was a modification of an existing war, him, but he was explicitly developed and deployed. ok, as a signal to russia to deter russia's use of non strategic nuclear weapons early in a conflict. so very applicable to this particular kind of scenario. we're talking about right now. um, but the by ministration, i think, does not plan to withdraw that it gets out there, it's deployed. ah, i don't think it's going to cancel it. a visit by a nato delegation to a french nuclear submarine. would closer nuclear corporation between the european states be a possible substitute for american nuclear weapons? and is the idea of a european nuclear weapon feasible. thus,

will i am slow flora? this would be a loophole dog normal, because when germany, on the believe con, talked to find the non proliferation treaty in 1969 as organize, it added. and nobody lived. in this note, at dodge from germany, made it clear that it was committed to the treaty bub unconditional. this did not rule out the possibility, at least that of a european union developing capabilities in the field of nuclear weapons nuclear often. and because either effectively, germany could thus become a nuclear power. if france as a nuclear power, we're also involved previous survey showed that 7 out of every 10 germans were against their country having nuclear weapons. but that could change russia's escandone missiles could also be provided with nuclear warheads,

armed with non nuclear warheads. since the invasion, many missiles of this type have probably been launched at targets in ukraine. so what does putin hope to achieve with his nuclear threats? i think it's more generic and rhetoric at this stage, but um, but of course if it came to a potential use of this then, and then it's quite clear to me at least that they would start with some tactical nuclear weapons shoes. you can imagine that or maybe one of 3 things, one is they would set off an underground nuclear test as a signal they would be picked up by a seismic monitors around the world. there be no, no doubt that they had done this, and there would be a signal that we have entered a new face. another example is that they would set off a nuclear warhead over an open ocean open waters. so you can imagine

one over the black sea or one over the north sea or the baltic sea, depending on they wanted to do it. and again, that would be a signal of course, but it would be decided not to destroy any st, not to kill anyone, but still be a very visible and dramatic signal is condo, missiles, all in so stationed in the russian enclave of calin grat on the baltic. they could hit not only the baltic states, but also poland, and eastern germany. putin was probably alluding to these weapons when he made his nuclear threats. so how should the many threats from moscow be taken? you know, does, is utterly, that's another question. because when someone turns to saber rattling in a war of aggression, it's a very bad science ever, and it's not ukraine. the threats a level data left us. because even with strategic weapons that will be totally

senseless. as if waging war unassisted, people with conventional weapons were not poly enough losers. know the threats a level that nato, as a warnings us don't intervene because we can escalate, i've clicked on your chron love escalate. these all silos for russian nuclear warheads in congress. they have been built over the last few years before then there were no nuclear warheads stored here. ah, 0 me, others are tactical. nuclear weapons are not kept with the various units. so i would be more worried if these were brought out of central storage sites and supplied to jewel capable units, as they're known, which can engage on a convention and also a nuclear level. none of it would be a matter of concern if these weapons were transferred and even made ready was express. i'm talking about fighter aircraft and discount missiles give. i think we'd know if tactical nuclear weapons were taken out of the storage sites. are

gordon many general c nuclear weapons. as political weapons, they become dangerous when military conflicts escalate. then it is politicians who take the decisions and you can imagine the crisis evolving significantly. i'm supposed united states and nato did decide to go in or in ukraine. and you would then have a direct confrontation between nato and russian forces on that kind of conference a she could still over too much larger array, russian natal confrontation and he's out of that kind of larger conference a she, i would imagine that a potential use of tactical nuclear weapons is, is a possibility that the are and nuclear are often mid fog light. they would be nuclear weapons with a comparatively low payload, albert nuclear wet eyes. nonetheless, sy interviewed agnew, one or 2,

might possibly be launched against you christ and all the haps. if russia felt that nato was starting to get heavily involved in your brain that they could be used to strike a blow at nature are getting in out or for him. or as a demonstration, russia could detonate one or 2. tactical law heads fires over an uninhabited air, yet what might the baltic or the black sea missed von b? it bice b. as via the de asked see, ordered him swanson. we are in reaction to the war in ukraine. nato is strengthening its forces and has increased the number of patrol flights on its eastern flank. rush, man, nato military aircraft will come closer to one another more and more often. on occasion, russia has also violated nato and space. this too is potentially dangerous,

but i get really the present confrontation between russia and the west because of the war in ukraine. nuclear weapons will again play a greater role. and in the immediate future, i fear i have this role will not to diminish, even though it was only in january that the nuclear power is affirmed, that a nuclear war should never be waged because it could never be won. this assertion would now already appear to be obsolete surveillance gone back. shine gets with obsolete as i'm staying a decade, the cold was shown. i think the more nuclear weapons does not have the desired effect. in, in the final analysis, it merely heightens insecurity on both sides, like in europe, nuclear weapons. so on the agenda, once again, putin openly threatened to use them. how will international politics react?

we are experiencing the end of an era of peace. ah to the point, strong opinions, clear positions, international perspectives, liberty. it is the big american trauma as a foundation of the american dream. and it's a beacon that shines around the world with that american brand of liberty is on the threads. find out more on to the point to the point with on

d. w. i think is the end of the pandemic in site. we show what it could look like a return in the normal and we visit those who are finding it difficult. he sees his successes or you know, weekly coping 19 special eat 90 minutes on d w o t. please listen carefully. don't know how those 2 things you miss today. ah, feel the magic discover the world

around you. subscribe to d w documentary on youtube. with oh, this is dw news, and these are our top stories. russia says it has withdrawn its forces from ukraine's snake island in the black sea. the retreat comes after a series of ukrainian attacks carried out in part with.