it. >> let's check the headlines for you on al jazeera. u.s. health regulators have approved pfizer's pill to treat covid-19. studies show it reduces severe symptoms by nearly 90% after the approval of a similar pill from merck in the u.k. israel's prime minister is welcoming a plan to offer a fourth vaccine to people over 60. the world health organization's warning that vaccine inequality will only prolong the pandemic.

one million expired covid-19 vaccines have been destroyed. >> the global priority must be to support all countries to reach the 40% target as quickly as possible and the 70% target by the middle of this year. no country can boost its way out of the pandemic. and boosters cannot be seen as a ticket to go ahead with the planned celebrations without the need for other precautions. >> the united nations secure the council has agreed to a resolution to provide humanitarian aid in afghanistan. it is said the support would not be a violation of sanctions against the taliban which now governs the country. afghanistan is facing food shortages that may trigger another refugee exodus. refugees in myanmar are searching for at least 70 people missing after a landslide at a jade mine.

authorities say at least one person has died. up to date there with the headlines on al jazeera. the latest "inside story" is next. ♪ >> pressure will respond appropriately to any western aggression -- that is the response from vladimir putin as he messes his troops on the border, but will he get them? does diplomacy stand a chance? this is "inside story."

hello and welcome to the program. the fault lines between pressure and the west regarding ukraine are getting deeper, and both sides are refusing to back down. on tuesday, russia's president, vladimir putin, warned of an appropriate response unless europe and u.s. drop their posturing. the kremlin rejects accusations it plans to invade ukraine capital kiev as early as next month. it wants nato and the united states to reduce their presence in eastern europe, but europe says putin's demands are impossible to keep while washington is preparing to negotiate over security concerns. >> in the event of the continuation of the obviously aggressive stance by our western colleagues, we will take appropriate retaliatory military technical measures, reacting

firmly to unfriendly actions, and i would like to emphasize we have the right to do so. we have every right to act to ensure russia's security and sovereignty. >> we will have to see at first if there is progress diplomatically. we also want to see russia de-escalate to move forces back from ukraine, to take down the tension. it is much more appropriate to have a conversation in those circumstances than it is when an escalation is happening, not a de-escalation. >> ukraine says there is a clear timeframe for nato, while brescia's stance is to never allow it into nato. >> we are trying to conclude the peaceful settlement process to get crimea back and to get a very clear time horizon from nato, very concrete, and we want

it in 2022. >> let's bring in our guests. in moscow, a military analyst and connell nist. in berlin, the cofounder and director of the global public policy institute. in washington, d.c., a professor at national defense university and for nato operations rector of the joint chiefs of staff. welcome to the program. can we sum up this whole crisis now as nato having to roll back from eastern europe? >> i would say it is bigger than just ukraine. ukraine maybe has been the focus point of the pressure west -- the russia western standoff, but now it is more at about ukraine but about the russian border

between russia and nato, and that russia wants to have a secure situation where there are no threatening western militaries or weapons or anything, and russia should have the right to have a kind of veto on nato expansion or deployment, even in countries that are already nato members after 1997. it is more than ukraine, but ukraine, of course, is the focus point. that is a sure thing. >> the russian defense minister says u.s. private military companies are plotting provocation using unknown chemical components. how do you see that statement,

the background of the conflict. >> this is just cynical propaganda to give a pretext for an invasion. this is by far the most dangerous situation militarily we have seen in europe over the past three decades. i agree with the founder of the silverado accelerator that all sides .2 putin actually preparing to launch an invasion with a tactical endgame of establishing a public state in eastern ukraine and creating language to crimea, but a more strategic endgame, and a russian colleague alluded to that, to establish some sort of putin doctrine that no country of the former soviet union ever has the idea of trying to join nato without fearing invasion, and that seems to be the name of the game from the kremlin side.

>> one of the arguments advanced by president putin is basically it is about time to stop those activities, deploying troops to the doorstep of russia. is it exactly the way he portrays the situation, or do you think that the biggest issue in terms of russia is nato deploying tactical weapons, particularly in those areas widely seen by russia as a massive threat to national security? >> putin is operating from the precept that countries that were part of the soviet union or india the warsaw pact are not fully sovereign and that russia and the soviet union has to do it, but really, what you are seeing here is the case that inflation in pressure is 80%. 40% of russians have no savings at all. the nord stream 2 pipeline will not be approved under the best

scenario until the summer, and basically, they are looking at a long, cold, miserable winter with a lot of poor people, and i think he is basically trying to change the narrative, move to a wartime economy, hopefully without war, just to minimize vulnerability. >> is russia's biggest concern nato's deployment in the eastern part of europe, or is it russia's obsession with this constant fear that ukraine and other countries are likely to further drift away from russia's sphere of influence? >> well, russia believes that ukraine as well as belarus are part of the old great historical russia and that they should not draw in western alliances because in the end -- because in the end, they should reunite with a greater pressure proper. a piece was published this

summer, and i know not only putin, but many of the russian elite believe this is so, but there are also some very concrete security concerns, and by putin personally because it is no idea from the time of the missile crisis of the 1980's when american missiles were deployed and when-based cruise missiles were deployed in europe that the west, the united states are planning a decapitating first blow to destroy the russian political military leadership so that the russian military can be well organized for a reply attack, and that is what putin is talking about. he is talking about himself. he is the main target, and that

is what the russian general staff is telling the kremlin, that putin is the main target, the americans want to kill putin, and he believes this is so, and that is why his reaction is very emotional. it is not just a smokescreen. he is really afraid he will be targeted and killed in a sudden american attack. >> another argument advanced by russia is basically the expansion of nato eastward is almost irrelevant because the political work before now is completely different than before the end of the cold war. >> i don't understand that argument. the expansion is not irrelevant at all. if anything, it is a more resting concern for the kremlin than ever, as we have just heard. those countries who have had the luck of joining nato enjoy article five guarantees. they can feel that they are

protected by nato alliance. the problem and the main target is these in between states that are not part of nato or any western institution now that pressure or that president putin considers part of russian sphere of influence. and i do not think it is a smokescreen, these security concerns in the kremlin are very real, that whatever the kremlin perceives to be a security threat is a security threat. you don't need to be a hyper constructivist to see that, and they at the very least, if not realizing these pen russian empire dreams, at least they want bumper states that they do factor control because the kremlin is indeed afraid for its security and also regime survival. imagine if belarus and ukraine,

georgia, all these countries turn into some sort of democracy -- that would also be threatening from the vantage point of a corrupt regime in the kremlin. >> the russians have been saying at least as far as putin is concerned, there is always this post-soviet mindset, which is 1997, we were taught -- the russians were taught to join the partnership for peace, and then they were told troops would remain stationed as per 1997, but that was suddenly collapsed, and then nato started to move forward. this is a massive security threat for the russians, which we don't want to see replicated any time soon, and this explains

their zero-tolerance as far as ukraine is concerned. >> yeah, this is all hogwash. the regime threat that putin is concerned about is a color revolution, and the reason is he has not delivered anything for his people. nato expansion happened -- the vocal assurances were made during the time of gorbachev to the soviet union. the arrangement changed, and when nato expanded, it did not expand with a focus on russia. polish troops were not armed to go to the border by nato. they were going to afghanistan. the united states withdrew every single tank from europe in 2014, and they remained withdrew until putin were -- putin invaded crimea and annexed it. what we got here as there is not a legitimate nato threat -- there were not even war plans until a year after their accession. this is hogwash.

what you have is a guy here who has a vulnerable domestic position because he has delivered nothing for his people other than this idea of a return to the great wars of the soviet union. a few days ago, the russian hockey team played in the old soviet union jerseys against finland. they lost, so i guess it took them back to 1940. all this stuff about nato expansion is just hogwash. traditionally, when a country joins nato, their defense spending decreases. they actually spend less money on that, and i can tell you i have never seen any contemplation of offensive action only updating plans from the cold war. finally, we got to bear in mind, russia occupies a big part of crimea or a big part of ukraine. they completely annexed crimea. this is not as if there is just something coming from the west. there is a seven-year war going on, and the fact that putin has

been unable to deal with a corrupt, inefficient country in seven years, that undermines his image as a strongman, too, so now is a good time for him to try to rattle some cages. >> why do you think the russian leadership, putin in particular, is insisting on the security guarantees to be met before any de-escalation on the border with ukraine? >> i would say it is a bigger picture than just ukraine. russia right now is very adamant that there be no accession to the european union, and russia will do what it takes no matter what to prevent that, but the picture that is bigger, russia is demanding security guarantees, the entirety of the eastern flank of nato, and

russia is demanding that right now very adamantly. right now, the situation has come to the forefront. it is very complicated. basically, the russian military had plans enacted more than 10 years ago to build up the russian military for the possibility of a big war in europe in the 1920's, so now according to plan, russia is more or less ready, though the kind of date of war was about 24, 25, but anyway, now we are ready. that is what putin and his generals said yesterday at this big meeting in moscow. right now, russia has an advantage with hyperspeed missiles, and russia would like to use that advantage to get political concessions. >> how do you explain the fact that the russians still -- or at

least the top priority for them now is a ban on ukraine entering nato? we know that from 2014, nato has never shown any genuine appetite to have ukraine on board. >> what they have said, i think from the kremlin's vantage point, is exactly confirmation of their concerns and fears. i agree about russia violating international law and its commitment under the budapest memorandum to ukraine. that is all crystal-clear, but to say all these guarantees about not expanding nato, they were given to the soviet union, and the soviet union ceased to exist, so they were no longer valid, and it was totally fine to expand nato because it was not at all directed at russia. from the kremlin vantage point, that is exactly proof of the

duplicitous nature of the u.s. and its nato allies, and they are very concerned about expanding nato, but they are even concerned about the kremlin. -- about ukraine. one thing the kremlin has learned over the past few years is a ukraine that is not part of nato but still is able to purchase advanced weapons from nato such as these drones they purchased from russia, is maybe even more unpredictable, and they simply do not trust president zelensky upon this in ukraine. they think he is out there to retake their territory. they want to preempt that. i'm not at all justifying this, but i think we do in the west need to understand the rationale of the kremlin for doing this, and i think it goes beyond just diverting from the very dire economic and socioeconomic situation at home.

this is not just a diversion tactic. this is going after some very real goals for the kremlin. >> the whole narrative is widely seen as saber rattling just for the sake of political compromise . from an american and european perspective, how do you see the compromise, if it ever happens? >> it is really tough. nato operates by consensus, so i cannot imagine a situation in which with a when a, lot b a, estonia, and poland all agree there should be nato deployments in their territory. that's not going to happen. the intermediate nuclear range forces, pressure's movement of screwdriver missiles into europe, there probably will be some sort of reaction to that. there is a possibility for compromise there, but it will not be a compromise that allows pressure to keep its

intermediate nuclear missiles in place. the fact is the u.s. stopped producing those missiles 30 years ago, so it would take us a long time to match that. the hypersonic missiles that were mentioned earlier, those are things that once the capabilities match can for a blue be negotiated away. the bigger issue i think comes down to ukraine, and i think really, what might be a framework for a settlement is certainly not a publicly released thing that we saw, but there might be some sort of agreement for written is asian of relations with areas of ukraine that are occupied. finally, the alliance cannot give any indication it will not expand later on, but i can assure you, you know, we never thought ukraine would be ready for nato membership. i don't think i will live long enough to see it meet the criteria for that, but what

putin is doing is forcing countries that are not aligned like finland and sweden into cooperation with nato, so you are kind of seeing a self-fulfilling prophecy. paranoia really is its own reward. >> this whole thing about the need for nato to stop expanding eastward is widely seen by people as anxiety from russians about the wind of change, and this is exactly the existential threat for putin. he does not want to see the winds of change for democracy in the area. quickly no, of course, the kremlin argues that russia does have -- >> no, of course, the kremlin argues that russia does have democracy while western democracies have many deficiencies, but that is simply propaganda -- propagandic

stuff. the main issue is geopolitical and demographic. it is not only putin, it is a large portion of the russian ruling elite, ministers and russian diplomat's, even 20 years ago saying don't worry, the russian population is contracting, but we are going to add up half of ukraine, half of kazakhstan where the -- where there are 30 million slavic people who joined russia, and everything is going to be just fine, don't worry. that has been very much in the minds of the russian, not only the kremlin, but the entirety of the russian elite or a big portion of it, that the west will ruin the idea of gathering all the russian speakers in one kind of empire, so that should be opposed with all

possibilities, with all means because that is the future of pressure that the west wants to take away. >> does it also raise a question about the need for nato itself to reinvent itself because the world is changing and we need to understand ultimately that with russia, there is absolutely no way you can just go ahead towards a confrontation because it will not benefit anyone? >> i think you are right. it is a very tragic situation, most of all for ukraine, with no good outcomes. i think very immediately, we need to think how can we prevent this invasion from happening and two things need to happen. on the one hand, the u.s. and the kremlin wants to, the european partners, they need to engage in negotiations with russia, and second of all, there needs to be very credible

deterrence in place on the part of the u.s. and european partners that moscow will indeed pay a high price if it moved toward invading ukraine. it needs to be clear this will not be just an easy invasion for the kremlin, they will pay a high public price for this. of course, in the situation with skyhigh energy prices, this has not been an easy situation for europe, but we do need everything on the table in terms of deterrent. >> you talk about nato as if it were a united stance, a united voice, but many europeans are saying we cannot indefinitely rely on the americans because we have seen the former administration doing business with the russians. is there something putin can use

to his advantage for his own leverage? >> i think he is trying to. putin already has in place a lot of the situation the united states feared during the reagan administration. he has a natural gas pipeline directly to europe, which the reagan administration fought tooth and nail. he also has intermediate nuclear weapons present in europe with the screwdriver missiles that can move back and forth. these were considered nightmare scenarios of the 1980's, and the threat was that they would cleave europe and the united states and allow putin to defeat europe in detail, which is, you know, kind of what he is doing. the problem is, you know, the military capacity -- nato cannot muster 100 battalions to match the 100 battalions that putin has massed on ukraine, so i don't think the west is looking

at carrying this militarily. to reconstitute something like purging is going to take 15 years. we shutdown those assemblies -- those assembly lines. there really is in balance, and i think that leaves the west to look to the political and economic solutions. >> we are running out of time. let's hope diplomacy will finally prevail. i appreciate your insight. thank you. and thank you, too, for watching. you can see the program at any time visiting our website and our facebook page. you can also join the conversation on twitter. for me and the entire team here in doha, goodbye for now. ♪

■■■■■■■■ú9,x,x=÷=÷,>,ñ

- hey, i'm valerie june. comin' up on "reel south." - [woman] it became this placthat was a safe haven for black falies to bui a comnity - [verie] th histori african-erican town is engfed by iusy. - oman] you've g 14 industal facilies and tremendous potential for incidents and releases every day - [verie] anone man refuses to leave his home and his ancestral community. - [stacey] my relatives are direct descendants of the people who foded mosslle. fr slas. [valerie discer "mosslle" up nt on reel south.