when allies agree and conditions are met, the wording could hardly be more vague. nato has put a damper on your cranes, none worship aspiration, saying, and will be able to join, but not associates, and will have expedited access. but when is anyone's guess? certainly not before the war is over, ukraine's leadership is furious and as her and know many times already know, tangs no, to miss south notified or and yet, and in due time, all the knows turned into yes it's, but this time it looks like no really does me know, you frames the president zalinski calls the move observed and accuses nato of allowing russia to continue its tear. on the call for ocean berlin, and this is the day the

with the firms of dr. crain will become a member of nato. i mean, everybody here who needs stuff at a future boss for ukraine into nato, totally a matter of an issue of the way to go that if the war ends. the then the opportunity to window opens and ukraine came, joined studio. i came here today. you believe beginning resolves believing, and al ponders believing in a strong and they tell you they're not all i understand the frustration of president will not go in and they tell you that does not doubt, does not twice time and does not look the other way. also on the day a south african runner cast, there's so many a windows of the european court of human rights judges rule that to stop strong limits imposed on female athletes are discriminatory, but it's not clear whether she'll be allowed to take to the track again,

just say look to finish it or is it finish a lot the signature carrier stuff where we can keep filing it, we can keep abusing her. there's just let it be. welcome to the shell. it's good to have it with us. nato says ukraine can join the defense a lines of future dates. that is, a date number of states are not prepared to name a line. so set out a series of conditions open to a lot of interpretation when allies agree and when conditions are met, says the joint declaration. it's a lot less than ukraine wants the country finding ford survival in the face of russian aggressors, once a clear path to membership. that seems obvious to president zalinski europe security and depends on ukraine security. but that has not convinced his friends to make them allies yet. here's the nato secretary general. but we do have firms that's ukraine will become

a member of nato. and agreed to remove the requirements for the membership function time. this will change your crane some membership pos from a 2 step process to one step process. we also made clear that we will issue an invitation for ukraine to join. they don't when all of us agree on the conditions are met. this is a strong package for ukraine on the cleared paul towards its membership in nate, don't let's move on and get the premium perspective and bring it out like center share by he's in ukraine and diplomat and served as a master to austria until 2021 today he's the ambassador for strategic communications at the ministry for foreign affairs, mr. sure. right, welcome to d, w. president zalinski says it's observed that the nato doesn't establish a clear timeline for ukraine's membership. how do you feel about the declaration slow? so i won't fly, it's a kind of disappointment,

quite frankly, considering that so nature's policy towards you. praying, let's be honest to was why history one big lie or was the last to do the keys and police people spoke and said that to uh, the doors to open, but in reality it, everybody knew that they are because that was the way off to me to, to not to escalate them, not to pro crash or how was the best or it was became so what is that this policy? well, we know what the sam bueley says failed after a year and a half of you praying basically doing nato's jovan deciding europe and providing security to you in the face of this uh, mass russia. since i have to $23.00 countries or made so supported the grid of timeline for your grace a made the excess and the vsoft is will bill. it was more of them. uh and this, uh,

this is the final statement of the song. so why do you think the company k is so vague? what is nato afraid of? and who within nato is afraid is, 1st of all, it's about the position whole, the american leader. and so we were extremely saffel and grateful to jo by them of so was providing the supports and all the necessary, you know, uh uh, to basically taking the right position on, on how to be player nations. but in this particular point, it sounds a little bit like continuation over absolutely failed obama policy and the st. tomorrow during the um, you know, role meeting will the credit and they to the council. they will do is wide open conversation about it and knowing the temperaments of our president, the,

till bases of discussion tomorrow. and then some argue that it's not in nato's best interest to grant membership to ukraine. one ukraine bring to the table in exchange for the alliance, potentially risking an all out war with russia. but nobody's speaking about bringing you cream right now because of the war with russell. we're speaking about so opening a door and opening and finding some something more tangible and clear that all these, you know monstrous from the bass. that turns out to be shallow and empty. why said the member, though, sorry to interrupt you there. excuse me. why showing ukraine become a member? what would they bring in to the alliance aside from the, from this army in europe, aside from the population, this absolutely adamant really believes in nature, aside from uh, you know, proving that. so we are, uh, we're protecting,

i'm sizing and bleeding for the wellness of maine, so well, all these things. so last so i didn't know it will be right, is pretty good. why would you hope to get as a member that you weren't not already getting now for so after the war pounds will be a huge effort. so we're building ukraine, of course, and no same courses. investor uh would invest in the cost for you that doesn't have a certain secuity umbrella or over it. and the nature of this article is the most tangible thing to provide. so some bro is using very disappointed sodas, presidents the landscape, what's the way for work now? the most important thing is, of course the, to those,

the nato and your brain. i'm moving at the front of the 3 countries of the major who clearly states it was a lot, i think, to tomorrow the meeting will be gone. so will also show the only majority of the country is really, really wanting to, you know, leave for him to pass this policy or is it towards you? great. i'm to as open, i'm real wireless to each other. we used to be moving the head 1st to to, you know, the winning this war and set down to, to making your up a more secure and safe space as you're creating diplomat, alexander sarah, thank you so much for your time. thank you. and we can develop the story further with justin logan. he is the director of defense and foreign policy studies at the castro institute thing time. he specializes in us grants strategy and us foreign policy. welcome to the day,

let's start writing no clear path to nato membership. for ukraine, at this point in your opinion, should key received an invitation to join the alliance. you know, i think that the decision itself not to extend a meaningful pathway to membership for ukraine, was correct. i actually agree with the president's a lensky and a, a master that was just on the show that there has been a considerable amount of double talk and, and sort of leading ukraine along to believe that it will some day become a member, but substantively the western allies, united states, germany and france have revealed that they don't believe they have an interest in ukraine worth fighting russia over. and given that the article 5 commitment is joe biden, has recently put it is a so called sacred commitment to treating an attack on one member of nato as an attack on all we shouldn't extend or security guarantee to a country we've just revealed. we don't believe we have an interest in finding over . well, let's talk about when ukraine becomes a member,

because at this point it seems to be a matter of when not, if do you think that would the term rush off from future aggressions as well? i'm not sure that it is a matter of, of when and not if at this point. i mean, it's hard to predicts 20 years down the road, but i think for the policy relevant future, it's terribly unlikely that ukraine will become a member of the alliance. and as to the question of whether article 5 would actually determine russia to kind of go back to the point that i made previously. and credibility is a sort of which he thing, right? it's difficult to quantify. it's difficult to make a commitment, credible. and given that in the very recent past and the present, in fact, we've reviewed that, we don't believe we have an interest in finding russia and ukraine. president biden calls such a prospect. world war 3. there's reason to fear that the russian president or any russian leader would say, look, the americans have said that this would be world war 3 in,

under no circumstances. are they going to fight for ukraine? so why would we credit an article 5 commitment to ukraine? and then i think there's a risk that we're that to happen. um you have other very vulnerable countries like the baltic states, for example. wondering hey, wait a minute, which kind of article 5 guarantee do we have? do we have the kind that france and germany had a, you know, france had during the cold war and germany had starting and west germany had started in the fifty's. or do we have some other ukraine type, article 5 guarantee that means something completely different. so what you're implying is that nato was never stand up to russia, or nato wouldn't just never stand up to russia in ukraine under article 5. it is, it's a ukraine question. right there, if we granted an article 5 security guarantee to ukraine and russia were to attack it, we would have really 2 choices, right? react as though article 5 is a sacred commitment and as president biden has said,

you know, the united states will defend every inch of nato territory if you'll forgive the imperial measurement. and so that would lead to the prospect of a direct nato. russia shooting more with the potential for nuclear escalation. where are we to stand by the commitment? if we were to renee on the commitment and say, well, we'll just send some material and money and things, but we're not actually going to fight for ukraine. then you have many other nato members saying what the americans fight for us with the germans fight for us. and i think that is the uncomfortable underlying reality that we face in this sort of, strange discussion about admitting nato admitting, excuse me, ukraine to nato. so what do you think is a high and vague promises of not now, but later if in your opinion, there is no real interest of ever including ukraine in the alliance? that's a very good question and i don't have

a good answer to it because i use an article that i published last week and said, you know, the honorable thing to do would be if you have no intention of doing something plainly, that we're not going to do this so that ukraine won't have the possibility of engaging and wishful thinking or hearing what it wants to hear, but they continue to sort of bangle this prospect out there. and i don't know why they're doing it. um, you know, i, i think it is. i understand quite clearly why the ukrainian leadership is frustrated and it's just my hope that they will kind of read between the lines and understand that this is conceived of in some western capitals as the kind of polite way to say no. when in fact i think it's actually quite dangerous and disingenuous, it is very dangerous and you can see that there is a lot of disappointment on the ukrainian side. right now, i'm, i want to get back to something that, that you said before that it's not, you know,

in the united states interest to see ukraine included in nato. but nato was created to deter, so read expansionism, stopped the revival of national as militarism in europe. through a strong north american presence and to encourage 0 pain, political integration. now let's pull all of these principles into the 21st century when you're creating an expression not fit right into this mission of us. the needle was founded at a time when you claimed was part of the soviet union. if you had told policy makers and 1949 or 1950, we're going to keep this thing rolling until the ukraine is a member of the date of said you were out of your mind. us policy in europe historically has been counter hedge, a monic, united states interest is to prevent one country from dominating europe. so world war, one, world war 2, the cold war. these were all scenarios in which there was a prospect that germany twice and the soviet union ones could have dominated the

european continent. even if russia were to conquer all of ukraine, if it took all of ukraine without a shot, having been fired, it's g. d. p would have gone up by 10 percent, making it roughly the size of italy's. and it would have had a 2nd major port on the black sea that does not put russia in a position to dominate europe, or even really to threaten germany or poland, given the terrible military performance the russians have had in the 1st 17 months of the war, so my view as an american is that our interest in ukraine is limited. it's particularly limited as contrasted with ukraine's interest in ukraine, which is almost unlimited. and that's where you heard ukrainians last spring. for example, calling for the us to enter the war via a no fly zone, the us politely decline and a number of things where the ukrainians have actually tried to escalate and bring the united states the right one, a surface to air missile from ukraine landed in full when we on the seconds left,

but i do want to ask you if a national interest really reigns supreme, what is the, what's the point in being in an alliance as well. neither was founded at a point when it was very plausible that the soviets could have come in and taken the industrial heartland of europe for itself. so i think there was a very plausible argument that we needed to prevent the soviet union from dominating europe. it's just that russia can't dominant this. russia can't dominate europe today. right. just the logan director of defense and foreign policy studies at the cato institute. many thanks. thank you. a issue of air defense is also high on the edge on the nato summit. germany wants to lead the way with a plan to protect against air attacks. the european sky shield initiative as it's called, aim to purchase air defense systems jointly to reduce costs. but the plan has proven devices from key to crime,

a task russian mess sales have davis, the 2 ukranian cities destroying thousands of homes, killing hundreds and forcing your opinions to ask the question. are we safe currently the situation with regard to european, near the sense is really not very good of the past few years. this has not been a priority. no, it is on jim and he wants to lead the way. with the, with the european sky shield initiative, we're bringing together european states to join key increase protection against ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones. this is what it could look like. 6 irish p surface to air rocket systems would target short range missiles. a dozen patriot systems would be used to intercept medium range missiles. to top it off,

our 3 would defend against attacks from outside the top must be providing vast cover at all 3 according to calculations and some other people's, the highland footprint of couple sauce and kilometers. so it can defend people, large area, the contrast, but so far the angle, colorado thing, the, the 4000000000 euro is really american bill shield is controversial. it's not clear whether it can work with nate's was existing network, 30 or defense, seems to be rather divided opinions, enrolling and brussels on whether i wrote could be integrated into nature's architecture. still more than a 1000 european countries, i've signed up to about lens vision. bought jam and he's new york,

all i friends is pushing its own initiative, the manuel macro. and once you refuse to be more strategic, in other words, they their own opponent to be, why do we still have to buy american so often? because the american so much most standardized and we are, and they massively subsidize today, a manufacturer just be in the germans though, argue you're gonna need to the systems know since the alpha, so across the seems to be we are not in such a hurry that we need to build them bridge technologies, and we can wait until what we develop in europe is ready. we and others are not convinced about that initially, but sort the aftermath of yet another mess. i will strike in ukraine a remainder that as you it up to beat sits there defends needs. not every country has the luxury of time the cast or somebody. yeah. is used to winning after all, she's

a world class class athletes, but this victory as sure to be special. enrolling on tuesday, the european court of human rights found that the south african runner had been discriminated against when she was ordered to take medication to lower her, to stop strong levels in order to be allowed to compete as a one, a 3 time world champion and double olympic champion over 800 meters, was born interest sex with so called differences of sexual development, but has always identified a female. she's refused to take the medication since the international world athletics for duration. introduce the role in 2018. now, after a long running legal battle, the european court of human rights has full in her favor. world athletics will seek to appeal for addicts and more let's bring in katrina. kirk causes. she is a cultural anthropologist at m. hurst, college and massachusetts. she's also the co author of to stop the throne and an authorized biography which sets out the facts about the hormone

n correct falls perceptions and ms surrounding it. welcome to the day here you can see the cover of the book, the left side, right in. what's your take away from today's court decision? i understand gets a tremendous decision. i think it surprised many who works on these cases, including casters multiple cases over the last couple of years. and i think it sends original ending message right now that the lens through which we've talked about and debated these policies, which is primarily been a scientific one, has been to the disadvantage of considering human rights violations. and so what this decision does is put human rights violations front and center and say that the prior cases haven't given due consideration to these violations. that goes all the way back to the earliest case at the court of arbitration for sport. and it argues

essentially that caster has not been given proper remedies through all of her challenges. so it's really an incredibly important and wonderful decision that's come out today. this ruling applies only to the way costs are so many. it was treated in switzerland and it won't allow her to return to competition automatically. she might still miss the 2024 olympic game. so is this when anything but symbolic, as you know, i could see why one might suggest that, but i think it's much more than symbolic. and i think it's actually going to have a long term impact not simply regarding these regulations, but the connection between sports and human rights more generally. so part of what's happened in these debates is that they have been focused on the science and we've not paid due diligence to the harms. and it sends a message, i think, to other sports governing bodies that those human rights harms need to be considered. and in fact, i would argue that world athletics is not at the forefront,

but it's actually falling far behind these kinds of considerations such that you know, the i o. c very recently redid their regulations and did them exclusively through human rights framework. steve is also going through a similar process. so world athletics at this point actually lives out of step 4 repeatedly, not considering or even acknowledging human rights violations with their regulations out of step you say. and today they came out saying that their rules are necessary, reasonable and proportionate means of protecting fair competition in the female category. also announcing and appealed to the ruling, what did you say of that? as well? what we know is the world that's lennox for decades now. i would argue close to southern has been targeting particular athletes to get them out of sport. so in a way, this is a very old story that has been debated and adjudicated over and over. there has

been times when there has been no regulations. there have been times where there has been regulations, but the world is changing on our understanding, i think of sex complexity, gender complexity is also shifting, which is what makes world athletics. i think look out of step with, you know, part of the conversations that are happening currently around that complexity. we only have about a minute left, but i do want to get into the scientific nitty gritty because so many of us sanctioned effectively due to her to stop throwing levels. so scientifically speaking, why is the so problematic? well, i think here's the deal. these rely on a particular connection or causal connection between testosterone level and athletic performance. and when you look more broadly at the evidence, that body of evidence is fixed. sometimes there was a positive relationship between testosterone level in athletic performance.

sometimes it's neutral and sometimes it's negative, which means that actually the higher the testosterone, the worse you do. so it's not at all a clear relationship and that's what makes these flat for this policy that argue volume metrically, about testosterone and athletic performance don't hold things. katrina causes from amorous college in massachusetts. thank you so much for breaking this very complex topic down for us. thank you us. and that's our time, but make sure to stay informed. stay engaged and stay in touch. so you can find this on twitter, either our team apps, the w news, or you can follow me as nicole's buddies for now though, from all of us here at the day. thank you so much for spending parts of your day. by the

way, we are looking for the ncc meant industry by do you think that following content should be read lead ending on nation coming on? you're not the last page. you have to pay for your own music to be in your own culture. and we spend one value on how was, what is the we forward convince on encourage our people go beacon based on white. i

mix people for me, the 77 percent next on d, w. and as we are in the military is be modernized, japanese young, aren't interested in the service the recruit, the d w, the little guy. this is the 77 percent. the platform for advocacy issues and share id,

the, you know, or the senate will be a north of great detachment. then top of applicants population is really fast. the young people clearly have the solution. the future is 77 percent every weekend on dw, the hello and welcome to the 77 percent show for africa's youth. i am your host at d, micah junior. on this edition, we're looking at ways to protect the know cold music industry. sure. the government regulates foreign music to help promote the local entertainments industry in kind of for example.