the when allies agree and conditions are met, the wording could hardly be more vague. nato has put a damper on your cranes membership aspirations, 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 leadership is furious as her and know many times already know tangs now to miss south no, to find her. and yet, and in due time, all the nose turned into, yes, it's but this time it looks like no really does me know your brains. the president zalinski calls the move observed and accuses nato of allowing russia to continue its tear. i'm the called for ocean berlin, and this is the day the

we have firms of inductive green, wrote the called a member of nate. i mean, everybody here except a future boss for ukraine into nato. totally a matter of an issue of the way to go that if the war is the, then the opportunity to window opens and ukraine can join studio. i came here today, believe beginning resolves believing, and our partners believing in his strong nato not. i understand the frustration of the president to man will not in a type that does not doubts, does not to waste time and does not look the other way. also on the day south african runner cast. there's so many a wins other 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 truck again. just say look, to finish here is it finish a lot, the latest signature carrier desktop, and we can keep filing it, we can keep abusing her. let's just let it be. welcome to the show. it's good to have it with us. nato says ukraine can join the defense a lines of future dates that is a days member states or not for parents to name the alliance has 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. it 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. we reaffirmed that 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 argument. this is a strong package for ukraine, undeclared, paul, towards its membership in nato. let's move on and get the ukrainian perspective and bring it out like center share, right? he is in ukraine, and diplomat is 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 dw presidents and landscape says it's observed that nato doesn't establish a clear timeline for ukraine's membership. how do you feel about the declaration

slow? so i won't lie. 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? at least, people spoke and said that to uh, the doors open, but in reality it, everybody knew that they are because that was the way of to me to, to not to this place and not to provoke crash or how he was the best or it was the game. so what is that this policy? well, we know what the sam bully this fails after a year and a half of you praying basically doing nato's dove and deciding europe and providing security to you in the face of this uh, mass russia. since i have to 23 countries of may, so supported the grid of timeline for your grace,

the management system of your thought is will bill. it was more of them. uh and this uh, this is the final statements 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? first of all, it's about the position whole, the american leader. and so we were extremely saffel and grateful to jo by them. uh, uh, who 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 to always see. and the same tomorrow, during the um, you know, role meeting with the audio crane they to council, there will be

a wide open conversation about it and knowing the temperaments of our president the, till, bases of discussion tomorrow. there's some argue that it's not in nato's best interest to grant membership to ukraine. what one ukraine bring to the table in exchange for the alliance, potentially risking an all out war with russia? well, nobody's speaking about bringing new cream right now because of the war with this 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 are 2 y showed ukraine become a member. what would they bring in to be 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 values of maine. so well, all these things a lot. so i don'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 on the 1st so after the war pounds will be a huge effort. so we're building ukraine, of course, and no same courses. investor would invest in the cost for you that doesn't have a certain secuity umbrella, or over age and to nato's. this article is the most tangible thing to provide. so i some bro, using very disappointed. so does president, is 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 looking at the front of the 3 countries of the major who clearly stated to what they want. i think to tomorrow the meeting will be gone . so will also show the majority of the country is really, really wanting to, you know, leave for in the past this policy or is it towards you great. and to as open hands, real wireless to each other. we should be moving the head 1st to to, you know, winning this war and 2nd to tool 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 developed the story further with justin logan. he's the director of defense and foreign policy studies at the castro institute think tank. he specializes in us grand strategy and us foreign

policy. welcome to the day and 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 dan bass, or that was just on the show that there has been a considerable amount of double talk. and sort of leading ukraine along to believe that it will some day become a member, but substantively the western allies, the 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 as to the question of whether article 5 would actually deter russia to kind of go back to the point that i made previously and credibility is the 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 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 time 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 fine. 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. this 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, go 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 admit, 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 the 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 at side right now. 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 soviet 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 these principles into the 21st century. when you pray, name accession 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 once 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 it, or 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 it right. want to surface to air missile from ukraine landed in

full and we all 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. nato 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 login 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 and not the nato summit. jeremy 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 i have to cram a task. russian mess sales have davis, the 2 ukranian cities, destroying thousands of homes, killing hundreds, and forcing you repeated to ask the question, are we safe? currently, the situation with regard to your pierre defense is really not very good over 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 with target short range missiles. a dozen patriot systems would be used to intercept to medium range missiles on to top it off. our 3

would defend against the top from outside the top must be providing vast cover at all 3 according to calculations and some of the people, the highland footprint of couples on kilometers. so it can defend people, large area, the concept, but so far, the color of the 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 balance vision. but germany's nearest all i friends is pushing

its own initiative, manuel macro, and once your opinions to be more strategic. in other words, they will their own. postpone it 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 to the manufacturer just be in the germans don't argue you're going to need to the systems. now. we also have some across the seems to be we are not in such a hurry that we need to build and bridge technologies. and we can wait until what we develop in europe is ready. we and others are not convinced about that initially, but select the aftermath of yet another mess. i will strike in ukraine a remainder that as you like to beat, sits there defends needs. not every country has the luxury of time the the castor so man. yeah. is used to winning after all, she's

a world class class athlete, but this victory as sure to be special in a rolling 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 injury sex with so called differences of sexual development, but has always identified as female. she's refused to take the medication since the international world athletics federation. introduce the role in 2018. now after a long running legal battle, the european court of human rights has built in her favor, world athletics. we'll seek to appeal for addicts and more. let's bring in katrina kirk causes, she is a cultural anthropologist as and her as college in massachusetts. she's also the co author of testosterone and an authorized biography,

which that's out the facts about the hormone n correct falls perceptions and miss surrounding it. welcome to the day here you can see the cover of the book. so let's time right and what's your take away from today's core decision? i think it's 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 waycaster 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? so, 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 spend those human rights harms needed 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. speed 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. and now i'm seeing an appeal to the ruling. what did you say that as well, what we know is the world athletics 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 in 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 it was sanctioned, effectively due to her to stop strong levels. so scientifically speaking, why is this 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's

a positive relationship between testosterone level and 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 footed policies that argue volume metrically, about testosterone and athletic performance don't hold. 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 studies for now though, from all of us here at the day. thank you so much for spending parts of your day by the

rainbow branding. it's definitely trending, but not all companies are serious about their support. some companies can face harsh criticism. brands today, the brace friction, they've gone up against the criticism,

but this stood for something in the end of actually one great deal of brand loyalty from the next generation made in germany next on d, w. me the power of sounds me from being a baby to the melodies and we have an insurance brain. the secret told music as med, the, the 45 on the assassination it says to move bangladesh

a go pacing the country to the guessing pushed back in from their own families and shrugged on slicing social loans. seeking this self determined life, douglas escaped from drudgery and abuse the oldest fist on d w. the . what is the corporate world role and promoting the rice of l g b to people? it's a question that is.