this time that the exiled turkish journalist meets svetlana itsyana, sky, exiled leader of the opposition and bella roofs. of course i am tired and tired. physically untied, morally is too much on my shoulders, but i have to hold this weight because i am responsible for the future of our country for the people far behind the past. guardians of truth starts february 18th on d. w. i am uncomfortable spotlights on the german government in recent days. i'm the pressure at home and abroad to send it's thanks to ukraine. i'm taking its time to decide, baby and berlin will supply the leopards and the deal with other countries matching we offer. without damaging the weeks of wrangling being to nato's image and how many lives will the delays of cost. my guess this week is julianne smith,

us ambassador to the alliance. as the war goes on, will nato push you crate to negotiate with russia? we do not want to dictate the terms under which the ukrainians will come to the negotiating table. they get to decide they get to determine the conditions under which they are ready and willing to take on negotiations. so what does this episode tell us about nato? why does president bivens think the issue of weapon supplies could break hopefully alive? am despite ukraine, doing all the fighting, isn't the west, like it or not, in a state of war with russia. ah, julian smith, welcome to conflict zone. thank you for all to talk about nato unity recent days have shown considerable disunity and some bad blood among member states over the issue of sending leper tanks to key f. how damaging do you think this has been to nature's image?

these public spots in the middle of a major european land war. well, i have the good fortune of sitting inside nato headquarters each and every day. and i can assure you that from where i said what i see on a daily basis is nothing but continued unity. do we occasionally disagree on issues that bubbled to the surface as it relates either to the war in ukraine or on other nato issues? absolutely, we all come to the table with our own histories. we sit in different places. we have different geography, different perspectives, different domestic pressures. but the reality is that throughout this war over the last year, and even in recent days, we have been able to stand united, we have been able to showcase our resolve to ensure that the ukrainian forces have what they need to defend their territory. and that were to determine, to stay the course. so i am not at all worried about anything that transpired in

recent days, weeks, or months. i think the strength of this alliance is its ability to work through our differences and maintain unity despite those differences. so i, frankly, i just, i don't see damage. i see a commitment on the part of several allies to come forward and give additional and critical assistance to ukrainians. right now in real time. but what we've seen is weeks of wrangling over the issue of the tanks. a pivotal moment in this war, those weeks will almost certainly have cost lives. won't they? isn't that regrettable? well, what we see is the allies in near daily contact with ukrainian military commanders to 1st and foremost understand what their real time requirements are. we've been doing this since february 24th of last year. you know that the united states is also leading what is called the u. d. c, g,

or the contact group. this is where 50 different countries come together monthly and here directly from the ukrainians about their military requirements. we then cross reference those requirements with what allies are willing and able to give, and it's been an evolution. we didn't start talking about armored vehicles. we started talking about stingers and javelins when russian forces were racing towards keith. in the summer we talked aloud about munitions. you'll remember how urgent that requirement was. we've had periods during this war where we've actually talked about coastal defenses. well, and right now, yes, we are focused very much on armored vehicles in tanks because we have reached the conclusion in our conversations with the ukrainians that we have to ensure that they can maneuver and that they can not only defend their territory but position themselves for success,

assuming that another counter offensive is coming both on their part and possibly on the russians part. and so you're right. this has been a series of, of conversations. you heard our president talk about the heavy engagement. we've had not only with the german government but with other allies as well to see what more we can get into the hands of the ukrainians as soon as is humanly possible. so we have a pivotal moment right now for the alliance. i think the decision that was made yesterday was the right one. and you heard the urgency with which both governments are handling the situation. but chancellor sholtes and president biden talks about the need to move this equip and into the hands of the ukrainians. as soon as humanly possible, you talk about as a conversation, but because for these weapons have with the week's going by become increasingly urgent from the ukranian side. and there's been some pretty trenchant criticism of

the german position. poland, for instance, that arming ukraine in order to repel russian aggression is not some kind of decision making exercise. ukrainian blood is shed for real. this is the price of hesitation over leopard deliveries to nato members. really need reminding of how serious the stakes are in this war. well again, since i sit here inside the nato alliance each and every day, i can assure you that everyone understands the seriousness of the situation. folks understand the urgency. we understand how remarkable, the ukrainian military forces have been how effective they've been in pushing back against russian aggression. we understand the urgency of the situation because we have been here week after week for nearly a year. now ensuring that we can maintain that support for ukraine and give them not only the security assistance that we're talking about here today. but to urgently move other forms of assistance, we understand the urgent need to get them humanitarian assistance,

economic assistance, and certainly assistance to cope with these attacks on critical infrastructure inside ukraine, we're moving rapidly to get them things like fuel and generators and winter gear. so we take this situation very seriously. here we meet literally every week on the war and ukraine. every ministerial every nato summit we've had over the last year has included our friends in ukraine, and they are top of mine. so i can assure you that no one takes their requirements slightly, certainly not the united states. that has provided close to $27000000000.00 worth of support and security assistance over the last year. germany in the and gave in on the enormous pressure and said it would send tanks. but what does this have to so tell us about collective decision making inside the alliance. is there going to be around every time you need more sophisticated weapons? well,

what it tells me is what i've seen since the 1st day i arrived here at the nato alliance is that consensus takes work. and we have discussions on ukraine each and every week because there are a whole range of ongoing and real time challenges and questions that we have to debate. and as i noted at the top allies bring different perspectives and those perspectives need to be heard. but also one of the strengths of this alliance is our ability to put our collective weight behind a single decision, a single initiative, a single policy. in this case, it's about supporting ukraine. there is full consensus on that. but we do debate each and every week. different aspects of what's going on inside ukraine and how we can best help them again as fast as humanly possible. so consensus is something that is a reality here inside the nato alliance. but personally, i look at consensus as one of the strongest attributes of this alliance because

when we take the decision, as we did yesterday, we came together. we saw allies moving out on a decision. it's not just about germany in the united states about other allies. the united kingdom has come forward. they're going to be donating the challenger twos. we've heard some rumblings among some of the other countries that have leopard choose about their interest in sending us those types of capabilities. so this is a collective decision to continue to move forward in our support. and that consensus, again, i see as not a liability at all, but really as an asset and it speaks to nato strength. president biden himself has alluded quite strongly to some of the considerable difficulties he's faced in keeping nato from breaking up. and how divisive the issue of weapons which weapons to send still is he said, december 21st at the white house. the idea that we would give you a crane material that is fundamentally different than is already going there. would

have a prospect of breaking up in nato and breaking up the european union and the rest of the world that's pretty apocalyptic, isn't it? so these arguments about what to give and what not to give key f a going to go on a day with the potential to cost more lives and actually destroy the alliance will tragically, this war changes each and every day. we've seen the russians pursue all sorts of forms of aggression, whether it's the conventional attacks that their forces are pursuing and undertaking against ukrainian military forces. whether it's the war crimes in human rights abuses that we've witnessed inside ukraine, or whether we're talking about the attacks on critical infrastructure. so this is not a stagnant picture inside ukraine. it has changed almost each and every week of this

conflict. and as a result, the allies frequently sit around a table and talk about how best to assist the people of ukraine. and most importantly, the military inside ukraine as they defend their tort territory against russian aggression. again, i do not consider a consensus to be a liability, it's a strength, it takes work, maintaining unity means that we have to stay in constant conversation. but that's what we do here inside the nato alliance. and i think we do it well. and we draw from nato's history, almost 75 years of history, of working through differences when they bubble to the surface. so i am fully confident that nato will stand united. i see no cracks in this alliance, whatsoever. in part because i think allies fundamentally understand what's at stake here. we know that the ukrainians are fighting to defend their territory. but every

single ally here also appreciates that they're defending the values that we all hold dear. and for that reason there's simply no alternative. we will support ukraine for as long as it takes, and i don't see that position changing one way or another unusual president thought it necessary to flag up the prospect. but both nato and the you could break a pot over this issue of which weapons to send. i think the story between nato in e. u, again is a very positive one. if you had told me of years ago that the european union would be providing legal support to the ukrainian people or assistance security assistance. i don't think i would have believed you. this has been a major turning point for the european union and an important one. and the other half of that is that in addition to changing its stance,

providing security assistance. we also have the case where these 2 bodies that exist in the same city here in brussels don't always come together. but in the case of ukraine, we have a situation where both the e. u. an nato have join forces to focus on their support for ukraine. what does that mean in practice? what that means in practice is that each time nato foreign ministers, or nato defense ministers, or even nato heads of state, meet here in brussels or in another location. we have the european union present. they are with us at the table. they're with us at the table because we see added value in messaging, not only the ukrainian people and obviously moscow as well. but in messaging, the global community about the level of unity that we are seeing. it's been quite remarkable between these 2 organizations and how they've been able to enhance their

cooperation as it relates to the ongoing war and ukraine. so the piece actually is a remarkable story of enhanced cooperation and one that i think we can build on in the future. ambassador, why the lack of detail from the alliance about its strategic objectives? the aim seem pretty vague. so far? you said it yourself will do what it takes will stay the course. rush mustn't win. ukraine mustn't lose you. cry must be able to defend itself. do you have in your mind a vision of what this war should aim to accomplish for ukraine? beyond those well beyond those generalized and vague comments. well, 1st of all, to step back, i think the strategic objectives inside the nato alliance are crystal clear. we have made it very clear in public statements declarations, summit communiques press releases and all the right. all the rest that we're focus

number one on reinforcing nato's eastern flank and making sure that our nato allies have their security needs address. number 2, that we will maintain our individual support for the people of ukraine and the ukrainian military forces. number 3, probably hollow, continue to apply pressure on moscow. terms of your question about the outcome or where this war is headed or what strategic direction we're aiming for. let's not forget that this is a war that ukrainians are fighting against russian aggression. the ukrainian government presidents, a lansky, and the people around him need to determine for themselves where they're going, what their plans are, what their strategy is. we're here to support nato's not directly engaged. this is not a conflict between nato and russia. this is

a war stemming from moscow from president putin against ukraine. and ukraine will ultimately have to make its own sovereign decisions about how it wants to defend its territory and push russia out and end this war. but the most important player in all of this is obviously president putin, he's the one that started the war on february 24th last year. he's the guy who can end the war, and we will do everything we can to alter his strategic calculus to try and encourage him to move in a different direction and take russian forces out of ukraine. but the question you are, you will not. you said you are in the hands. you so you're not of the you great. you're not participants in the war, but you're not bystanders. either. you train, you supply you poor and vast sums of money to keep the country afloat. you give intelligence your advice on war plans, you do everything except pull the trigger yourselves. isn't the distinction between

fighter and supplier getting pretty academic certainly seems to be as far as moscow is concerned. the nato alliance has been very clear nato allies. this alliance is not providing direct lethal support. a nato does not have any presence on the ground. nato troops are not on the ground inside ukraine. but individual allies have come to ukraine's aid as it defends its territory against russian aggression. i do think it's an important distinction. russia tries very hard to put out a different counter narrative that is false. it tries often to state that nato is directly engage and the alliances not. we are assisting the ukrainian military to defend its territory. full stop is nato running scared of russia. i ask because by acknowledging continually moscow's nuclear threats and then effect tiptoeing around

putin, haven't nato already given into nuclear blackmail. i think what nato has made clear is that we find this russian nuclear saber rattling to be very worrisome. we've called them out individual countries like my own, the united states. you've heard from the biden administration on this question. we've message to the russians very clearly that there would be catastrophic consequences. should they turn to use their nuclear arsenal. there's a lot of bluster out there right now. we don't see evidence that russia is preparing to use its nuclear arsenal in any way, shape, or form. but again, nato allies have been very clear that russia would face severe consequences should they choose to do so. and both of us, smith, former nato commander richard sheriff, said yesterday that people need to recognize that in a very real sense,

a state of war now exists between the west and russia. do you accept that? i except that russia has aggressively started a war inside ukraine. that's the reality. that's what we're talking about. i don't think we are here to talk about the russian narrative. as i noted earlier, that russia is somehow engaged in a direct conflict with the nato alliance. that's preposterous, and obviously not true. this is between 2 nations. this is between russia and ukraine. it's about one country violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another. it's about the principles of the un charter and it's about the global community. not just the wes, this is interest about nato allies. this isn't just about north american and european allies supporting ukraine. what's interesting when we convene the contact

group is that we have many other countries around the table from far away corners around the globe, supporting ukraine. and it's right to self defense, and they're doing that because they fundamentally understand that russia is violating the core tenants of the un charter. and we've also seen in votes at the united nations. we've had over a $140.00 countries come forward and condemn russia as attempted, and a legal annexation of ukrainian territory. that type of global support says to me that the global community is united in supporting ukraine in this moment, and shares a deep appreciation for not only what's at stake, but what type of principles russia is violating with this ongoing war in ukraine. so you don't accept sure. as to view the, there is a, in a real sense,

a state of war existing between the west. this is a man who was deputy supreme allied commander, europe from 27 to 2014. and his view is to prevent this escalating. you have to prepare for the worst case scenario and prepared to inflict real pain on russia if it should attack a western country. but he says, no sign, those preparations are being made by me because you agree with that. it's an interesting question about planning, because that's a lot of what goes on here inside the nato alliance. i would note that in the months and weeks leading up to february 24th last year, the nato allies were preparing for all contingencies. nato allies were obviously willing to sit down in the nato russia council. we met with the russians here at nato headquarters for, for long hours on january 12. the idea there was try to try to encourage the russians to pick a different path to urge them to take the diplomatic off ram they did not. but

while we were doing that, while nato allies were meeting with the russians here at nato headquarters simultaneously, we were planning for all contingencies. what does that mean? that means that nato allies were preparing for the worst case scenario. we knew that one option was that a war could break out because of that allies were preparing plans. they were looking at the basic tenets of deterrence and defense. they were preparing to move thousands of troops into eastern europe. and they were beginning to think about ways that they could support the ukrainian military. all of that. i'm l, into place seamlessly on the morning of february 24th. so that when i got the call at 3 in the morning that day we knew what we needed to do on february 24th. nato was ready for that moment. similar time i just, we prepared for all, i'm sorry, let me finish. we prepared for all contingencies. we are looking at all

possibilities. nato allies are ensuring that they can defend every inch of nato territory. and we take that job very seriously. and we rolled out a series of decisions last summer that made radical changes to nato force posture. similarly, our port for ukraine, as i said at the top continues. so what i see here, an alliance that is always assessing the security environment and preparing for many different contingencies. you say that, but last week the british defense secretary ben wallace let slip the breton, the 2nd, the overall largest spend the in nato, is now unable to field a single war fighting division of just 10000 troops. this is almost a year into the ukraine war. then you find that a pretty shattering revelation in view of the assurances you've just given me. well, we want to ensure that all of the allies have forces in place at the ready. and

we've taken a series of decisions both last year and we'll be rolling out additional decisions at the vilnius summit this summer. to ensure that nato has forces at increased readiness at a heightened state of readiness. and that we have a bigger pool of forces from which we can draw. the key to that, as you well know, is resourcing. and so one of the things that we'll be talking about the summit at the summit this summer, is what to do with the nato's. well, it's called the defense investment pledge, dip sometimes for short. and that's the pledge where nato allies came together and said that they would each spend 2 percent of g d, p on their national defense. many allies have made progress, some have some further distance to go. and so we'll be talking about what comes after the defense investment pledge, which in theory expires next year, how do you think this war is going to end? do you accept that the prospect of gram military victory is pretty unlikely?

i think what we're focused on right now is ensuring that we put the ukrainians in the best position possible for the situation when potential negotiations could occur. we don't know when that will happen. i think many of us anticipate at some point ukrainians and russians will find the need to return to the negotiating table . and when that happens, we want to be sure that ukraine is standing in the strongest possible position. so that's our focus. i can't make any predictions about the outcome of this war. none of us can, none of us know what pollutant is thinking and when and whether he is going to pull his troops out. i will say we expect ukraine to prevail and we are doing everything we possibly can to ensure that that is the case will may. so push ukraine into negotiations, even if it isn't ready. that is a decision for ukraine. we do not want to dictate the terms under which the

ukrainians will come to the negotiating table. they get to decide they get to determine the conditions under which they're ready and willing to take on negotiations. and we'll leave that in their hands. that is for them to decide it's their own sovereign decision. ambassador jordan smith, thanks very much for being on conferences. thank you. ah ah, with

to the point. strong opinions, clear positions, international perspectives breaking with a long standing taboo. germany has authorized delivery, leverage battle tanks to a conflict zone. does that mean berlin is ready to lead militarily or does it

remain on my guard to find out on to the point to the point in 30 minutes on d. w here, a past week of matches as the 1st half of the buddhist leaders even draws to a close. cologne holds its ground against by en wow. chalka and head to berlin, suffer heavy losses. mooney on berlin, on the other hand, continues to thor, kick off the minutes on w. o. the only way i can be up top is to create my own empire, discover stories

with just a click away. the journey, the destination right. find out based documentary is a be full subscribe. now i can name tree leo, nor do davinci. mysterious masterpiece is perhaps the greatest leonardo masterpiece and the collection of the louvre. and no, it is not them. on the lease, it is the virgin of the rocks. was there another symbolic meeting to this beautiful painting that perhaps we just don't understand? search for answers. start to february 10th on the w. ah ah

ah ah ah, this is dw news coming to you live from berlin. israel retaliate to rocket fire from gaza, proud air strikes, hit militant targets, amid rising tensions following and is really rate only occupied westbank. that left 9 debt. also coming up, russia unleashes another deadly barrage of.