♪ >> l's get to at the top stories. the prime ministers of poland, slovenia and the czech republic are in kyiv to show solidarity is russian shelling continues to hit the capital. they are the first leaders to visit ukraine since russia's invasion began. ukraine's leader says their visit sends a strong message to russia. >> they are not concerned about themselves. they are concerned about us. they are here to support us and this is a necessary friendly step. i'm sure with these types of

friends, with our neighbors, our partners, we will be able to win. >> the polish prime minister said what's happening in ukraine is a european issue that needs a collective response. >> the european union has to give very quickly candidate status and more than this to invite ukraine to the european union. and all the defensive weapons, to defend your homes. we will try to organize, orchestrate all over the world. we will never leave you alone. we will be with you, because we know you are fighting not only for your homes, for your freedom, for your security, but also for ours. >> the mayor of kyiv has warned that ukraine's s facing what he called a difficult and d dangers month. the 35 hour curfew has been imposed after russian strikes on the residential buildings and metro station's which killed

five people. ukraine says 20 9000 people were evacuated through humanitarian corridors on tuesday. most of them left in 2000 cars. aid supplies are still not reaching the city. accord and moscow has find a journalist $280 for her televised protest on sunday evening. she ran on to the set of tape television holding up sign reading "stop the war." earlier she released a statement saying she was ashamed for promoting what she called kremlin propaganda. the government called her actions a form of who glenn is him. pa form of hooliganism. >> two people and thoughtful conversation. >> all about trying to get a superior reputation. >> un interrupted. where we find the most profound

similarities is not actually in our closest rul living relatives but in distant connections. >> part one of -- >> you can't be beating each other up. >> studio b unscripted on al jazeera. >> should nato impose a no-fly zone over ukraine? president volodymyr zelensky repeated his call but the military alliance says blocking airspace would escalate the w ar. who's right? this is "inside story." ♪ hello and welcome to the program. russia's invasion of ukraine is intensifying with air attacks on civilian areas.

artillery shells destroyed several buildings around the capital kyiv. at least two bodies were pulled from the rubble of this apartment. russian araids on sunday killed 35 people at a military facility near the border with poland, the largest attack since the invasion began to homes and hospitals in mariupol have also been hit. russia denies targeting civilians areas. ukraine's president says the attack show why nato needs to impose a no-fly zone to protect civilians. >> now i repeat again, if we do not close our skies, it is only a matter of time before russian missiles fall on the territory of nato. >> members of parliament of nato member estonia on the first to demand the no-fly zone. some or all aircraft will be banned from flying over certain regions. any pilots risk being shot down.

no-fly zones have to be enforced by military means. nato could end up engaging directly making them direct purchase fans and the ukraine war. nato and the u.s. previous impose no-fly zones such as iraq and bosnia and the 1990's as well as liby'as civil war in 2011. >> let's go ahead and bring our guests from kyiv, a member of the ukrainian parliament and deputy head of the parliamentary majority. from brussels, a senior fellow at the -- foundation in poland, also a former nato official. and from perth in australia, and associate professor of national security and strategic studies. a warm welcome to all and thanks for joining us on "inside stor " ." let me start with you today. you and i spoke two weeks ago

on this program. at that time you were calling for a no-fly zone. what does it mean to you today that despite repeated calls from president zelensky and so many others in ukraine, officials in nato have continued to refuse to impose a no-fly zone? >> listen, i will tell you what no-fly zone means for ukrainians, innocent citizens. it means thousands of thousands of innocent ukrainians, women, children, elder people, will be saved. you know the crimes that russian occupation troops are not committing in many cities. but the situation in mariupol is the worst. today the deputy mayor reported that 20,000 civilians were killed in mairuropl.

do you imagine the scale of these crimes of russian troops in ukraine? they hit them heavily from the air, they had a aviation, they had it with -- tornadoes and stuff like that. they send missiles to a peaceful city of ukraine. 20,000 innocent ukrainians killed in only one city. and this is all happened -- has all happened because west and nato countries are not ready, because they fear, i don't know what they fear. don't they fear thousands of people being killed? but, because they still fear to implement a no-fly zone in ukraine, the crimes against humanity's, the murders of thousands of civilians are going on, on a daily basis. now i'm in ukraine. in kyiv. and i should tell you that it is horrible.

we are going through a nightmare. many cities, many cities of ukraine are going to a nightmare on a daily basis. we hear missiles from our windows on a daily basis. this is the thing that you can't get use to. this is a nightmare we live in. a no-fly zone will definitely help to stall these crimes of russian troops that they can meet and keep -- they commit and keep committing in ukraine. this is what no-fly zone means, and we believe, we say, we belief that no-fly zone should be .implemented . otherwise the world will not be a safe place to live anymore. if one crazy dictator called putin consent his troops to another country, a sovereign, peaceful, democratic country, to start to kill civilians, then

the world is not a safe place anymore. and that is why citizens all over the world and politicians should actually start acting, well, not actively. > >> you heard what helena had to say about what is going on throughout ukraine. we know nato's position which is that if they were to try to implement a no-fly zone, they believe that can spark a wider conflict. let me ask you, how much risk is there from your perspective that attempting to implement a no-fly zone over ukraine would spark this far more dangerous conflict? >> yes. first of all, my heart goes out to helena and all ukrainians. it is a tragic, a barbaric attack they are experiencing and it is just, you know, russia has put itself beyond the pale. i'm a former nato officials so i can speak, i'm speaking in a private capacity. if it was up to me, first of all i would not put the no-fly zone

concept off the table. i would consider it more carefully, perhaps in terms of maybe a partial no-fly zone. concerning certain areas. mariupol is the most urgent example. tonight, first of all, there is nothing in international law whi ch kind of made this -- illegal ukraine has a right to self-defense, it has the right to ask other countries to help. and also, you know, even russian hypocrisy of the regime, kremlin is they have not given -- the, the result, the right to protect. doctrine and --enshrined in u.n. documents. the problem is that right now there is no consensus in nato. you have to ask these

questions particular in washington but also in major european capitals. for instance my country, poland, has offered, generous offer for free over -- planes. there were a number of countries, in european countries who said, no, that is a bad idea even though no one was asking them to provide anything. this is the reality. having said all this, it is true, one has to be quite sort of directed -- direct about this. i no-fly zone would mean war with russia. a simple of that -- as that. it is not about sending a few planes here and there but it is about neutralizing the potential that russia is using. the cap -- which is close to the polish border -- the attack close to the polish borders took place from the russian territory. it would mean mutual lysing -- mutualizing and perhaps

attacking russian planes. mayebe even russia. this is very, very serious stuff because we are talking about potential for world war iii. and i can understand the reasoning provided by a lot of leaders in nato countries. there's consensus you cannot have a no-fly zone done by a few countries, but at the same time, the moral case of doing more than is being done today is going every hour, not even every day, every hour. >> you must've heard robert talk about the fact that if this isolates -- if this escalates you can have world war iii on your hands. is there a chance that nato could reverse its decision, tha t they could to establish a no-fly zone? what would need to happen in order for that to occur? >> we need to talk about practicalities. even if nato would

hypothetically decide to introduce the no-fly zone now, it will face certain limitations. it would be limited by the range of its aircraft, which will have to operate from nato air fields because of the -- if they try to deploy their assets inside ukraine, they will be designated as targets by the russian military. so, in order to, not to create more escalation and certainly create this threshold beyond which the conventional pace of the war can become and non- conventional phase of the war, one way or another it has to engage in some sort of consultation and dialogue, as hypocritical as it may sound with moscow, about introducing as the previous speaker just mentioned, perhaps a partial no-fly zone. for example, in the first instance in western parts of ukraine, where it is manageable from a logistical perspective, and where there is still limited

use of russia's offensive airpower. and that may create a degree of sort of division of responsibilities over ukraine. as horrible as it may sound because we are in the middle of a human catastrophe, and the disaster-- a sovereign country being attacked by a much larger country and a more formidable military power. but, if we're not talking about really escalating the confrontation, and not -- scaling the conflict beyond ukrainian territory it can be john perry but has to be done through some sort of consultation, communication and that may not be possible to right this moment because as far as i understand oral communications between russia and nato has been terminated for good. >> i know you want to jump in. i want to ask you about a point that robert and alexi ri

aised. and there have been calls for a limited no-fly zone perhaps in the west of the country. is that something that would be acceptable to ukrainians? >> well, first, i would like to ask alexi to stop putin's -- [inaudible] thousands of civilians killed. you should realize that a new should not, you should not use putin's narrative, because putin 's narrative kills real people in ukraine and you have no, obligation . you should not commit the crimes in the media. second thing, no. the partial no-fly zone is not working. what are you talking about? this is like, what? safe people in one region and putin and russian occupation, army in all other regions?

is that what you suggest? can you imagine? do you even imagine what you are talking about? again, let me remind you that 20,000 civilians, meaning women, children, elder people, other civilians were killed only in one city in mariupol. people are stuck there with no food, no water, no medication. people are dying because they cannot get treatment. people with diseases, with cancers, with diabetics, they can't get treatment and they are dying. children, imagine that. children on the european continent are dying because of dehydration. they don't have water to drink. do you imagine that? do you imagine going to such a things? and then we see experts and you

know like politicians talking about no-fly zone is not -- something that we should discuss now. let's think about it later on? when another dose of ukrainians will be killed. one million ukrainians will become refugees. is that what you are talking about, really? >> helena, may i ask you, if nato continues to refuse to else would ukraine like to see -- if they continue to refuse that? >> nato is the biggest disappointment of this year. nato is a total disappointment. it is an organization which cannot protect anyone, which cannot protect even its own countries. we should realize that. we should not move at nato.

we should actually communicate and request to help for certain countries which realize that putin and urussia is a threat. putin and russia is a threat for the whole world, for global security. if the majority of european countries, and they are strategic documents which already said, it is all ready set for years that russia is a threat to global security. it is a threat for european security. nowawadays we see it all. we see that they kill people in ukraine. we see that russians, like, we have thousands of witnesses like that of russian soldiers are going into residential buildings, dragging people from their apartment and shot them d ead in their yards. this is what we are going through. can you imagine this experience?

can you imagine how many more years after we finish this war, after we win this war, how many more years we will, like -- our people so they can recover from the stress? can you imagine that? we'll still discuss when and who should impose no-fly zone? i think it is time for select countries, an alliance to take this responsibility. this is not -- it is a shame. >> i'm ossorry to interrupt. alexi , you talks about the feasibility perhaps of a limited fly zone. i want to ask you about how difficult it would be to achievea expansive no-fly zone throughout the whole of ukraine. >> well, coming back to the point that i raised earlier, first of all, it would be

difficult logistically. just this year operational arrangement of nato aircraft would require a different, a different sort of proposition. deploying seaborne assets in the black sea would be impossible given that -- operational activities of the russians, the russians effectively control the entire black sea maritime theater. trying to neutralize russian defensive -- in russia will automatically be triggered by moscow as a declaration of war on russia and, and -- on the fact that nato has three nuclear states. that might bring the escalation of the conventional conflict to a nuclear phase. again, no one knows whether putin will press the button or not press the button but certainly the decision-makers in brussels, the decision-makers and pentagon would not be -- at

risk of entertaining the option what will he not press the button? because everyone who knows the -- of difference training tends to operate from the worst-case scenario upwards rather from optimistic scenario downwards. so, given the current state of complete mistrust, given the current state of countries not listening to one another and russia and the west being on worst terms. the current situation is much worse than the darkest years of the cold war confrontation. i think nato is simply risk avoiding. by doing that i sermon completely agree with helena. it is doing industrial damage to its reputation. it's actually undermining its credibly as the world believes to be the most powerful defensive alliance. when it doesn't have the political will to challenge

russia over ukraine after years of sidelining with ukraine, after years of providing military assistance to ukraine, after years of giving promises to kyiv about eventual membership in its defensive structure, with e.u. providing similar sort of promises with eventual membership in the e.u. now it seems to be falling apart simply because the russians decided to undertake dramatic action which is unwarranted aggression against a sovereign nation. it really, i mean, it really, first of all undermines european confidence in their own strategic affairs, it undermines confidence in the united states as the security guards on one hand and on the other hand, it provides generals in moscow with additional confidence in exercising -- because they can see that nato is too scared to challenge them. >> sorry to interrupt you.

again, we are starting to run out of time. robert, looks like you wanted to jump in. i also want to ask you about the fact that the parliament of estonia has become the first to demanded no-fly zone of a nato member state. do you think there is going to be more pressure from nato member states to try to impose a no-fly zone? >> yes. i mean, you know, by the way, i now part company with alexi, his last remarks was basically rebuking -- sorry. you know, we are much more united. the important thing is this. first of all, again, i tried to explain what the problem is. but my, you know, my sympathy is with helena, because i believe we cannot just watch this, you know, 20,000 people being killed is enough to, to

demand to do more. i think the public opinion in our countries will grow much harder with every hour. the second point i would make. and this is where alexi you are totally wrong, trying to portray. i mean, nato the reasonable consensus for various reasons but you know, the russian armed forces are inept, ineffective and frankly a bunch of cowards because they are unable to combat -- conduct a proper military operation. they cannot do it in syria, they could not do it in chechnya and they are repeating this in ukraine. in my view, the actual ability if a political decision was made, by nato, and would have to be by nato. sorry, i'm not the one taking decisions but if i were, my calculation about the ability of natot to impose it is much more

optimistic because of the complete, shambolic corrupt way we are talking about not just war crimes but pol-- but pillagg that russian soldiers are engaging and they are not able to fight oblique with the ukrainians. in other words if nato decided to go, yes, with the risk of war de facto, i'm pretty sure that it would be able to overcome the russian military force. [no audio] in capitals, but at the same time, we need to have respect the fact that, you know there is , you know, nato countries are democratic countries. they all looked at the situation -- for the security of the people that they represent. one cannot neglect this. in other words we are where we

are today, and if russia continues this barbaric war, who knows? the public opinion may actually change the views of the people who make those decisions. at the moment, the effort has to be on helping ukraine with defensive, with military assistance, and that is happening as we speak. and that is the most important thing that we can do right now. the other things -- >> alexi, we have a minute left. it looked like you might want to respond. i will give you a chance right now. >> look, i mean, it all comes down to the point, ok, if nato will agree on using military force, who is going to do it? clearly, it's not going to be estonia who would be the first to vote for it. it's going to be established military powers. we also need to remember, just give me a second, please. we also need to remember that you need to give full credit to the ukrainian military. in the context of the ukraine's

defensive posture, ukraine right now deployed one of the most effective military forces in some is this is superior to some of the military's of a number of nato member countries. if russia is so bad in its -- why don't generals in brussels make a quick decision and destroy the force that, according to you, is performance so -- is performing so badly. we need to understand the realities on the ground and we also need to understand the complexities of the situation. when we're discussing war, it is important that the war is discussed by people who actually understand the business of war. not people who are making empty promises and who are not going to end up fighting. who are not going to go to the front line to actually confront that force.

so, before you subleasing, -- simply say about making promises about destroying the force, assess it and then make your decision. clearly this is where nato has been stuck with that assessment. >> we have run out of time. we will have to leave the conversation. thanks to all of our guest. -- guests. thank you, too, for watching. you can see the program by visiting our website. al jazeera.com. go to facebook.com/inside story. aj insights toward. bye for now. ♪

ñ■?áaa)aaaa

- hey, i'm valerieune. ming up on reel south . - ngrid] ty payments are gh to li like i and gladly p the [valerie] what does it cost to run away? - i left germany in 1960. wh was i? almo 20. e woman the hou d to do the coing three meala day anclean up t dishes terwards and gethe kid bed and re it a story. when i came here it wasn't to disconnt from people. that w almost like a se produc - [valer] de in anrkansas rest a resilient woman carves a life that's all her own.