>> this is al jazeera. let's get a roundup of the top stories. officials in the ukrainian city of mariupol say there are survivors after a russian airstrike hit a theater or hundreds of civilians were sheltering. they say a bomb shelter underneath the theater was not destroyed. the exact number of casualties is not yet known. russia has denied targeting the building. at least one person has been killed in the ukrainian capital after part of a missile which was shot down hit an apartment block. moscow has kept up its

bombardment of ukraine's cities even as talks between the two sides progress. the united nations says dozens of health care facilities have been attacked, in violation of international humanitarian law. u.s. president biden will speak with chinese counterpart xi jinping on friday. it will be their first known discussion in months. it comes days after the u.s. suggested china has expressed some openness to providing russia with military assistance. >> i will be speaking with president xi tomorrow. he remembers every damn thing i have said. all kidding aside, we talk about the idea, he does not believe democracy will be sustained any to any first century. >> the u.k. will deploy its missile defense system to poland as nato moves to secure its eastern flank. the defense minister announced the deployment during a vision t -- a visit to warsaw.

they will send an anti-air missile system along with 100 personnel. let missile system is being delivered after a request from poland and will remain under the control of british forces. in other news, large crowds have gathered outside argentina's senate building as senators debate a controversial finance bill. they have five days to decide whether to refinance the country's $45 billion debt to the international monetary fund. if not, they risk defaulting on the loan. those are the headlines. inside story is next. >> are china and the u.s. sleepwalking their way to war? in the struggle over ukraine, here's the test for president biden. >> what prudent is trying to do is rewrite the security architecture. >> he's the president of the united states, he has to walk and chew gum at the same time. >> that is the bottom line. >> should ukraine declared its neutrality as a way to stop the war?

with fighting into a fourth week, the kremlin is considering a compromise to stop attacks. will ukrainians surrender to the pressure from moscow? this is inside story. ♪ hello and welcome to the program. i am mohammed jamjoom:. it has been three weeks since russia lost its invasion of ukraine. ukraine cities are being bombarded from land, sea and air. as the destruction worsens, the warring sides are discussing a cease-fire both sides are warning of significant france but one possibility is ukraine declaring its neutrality like sweden or austria. and the ukrainians renouncing their ambitions to join nato as well as promising not to host foreign military bases or weapons. in exchange, ukraine will get

protection from allies such as the u.s., britain and turkey. so far, ukraine's leaders have rejected russia's proposals. ukraine is now in a direct state of war with russia. as a result, the model can only be ukrainian and only on legally verified security guarantees. >> the problems which are fundamental for russia for neutrality, ukraine's demilitarization. we're ready to discuss any talks. our country is best to organize and hold these talks, understanding that every possibility is to save people. but what we see time and again is that the kyiv regime, which was assigned by western masters, is indifferent to the fate of the ukrainian people. mohammed: we will bring in our guests in a moment. first, list look at the timeline of tensions between russia and ukraine. ukraine was part of the soviet union until its collapse in

1991. since gaining independence, ukrainians have suffered political upheaval at home and tension with russia. in 1994, ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in exchange from a commitment from russia to respect its independence and sovereignty. moscow has since been concerned with keeping ukraine from joining the military nato alliance. mass protests eight years ago toppled the president after he refused to sign a trade deal with european union as he sought closer ties with roscoe -- moscow. russia than annexed the crimean peninsula and backed a separatist rebellion in eastern ukraine. let's go ahead and bring in our guests. joining us from outside kyiv in ukraine, peter zalmayev, executive director of the eurasia initiative, a nonprofit which promotes democracy and rule of law in former comest countries. from russia's capital moscow, pavel felgenhauer, defense and military analyst.

and from germany's capital berlin, andreas umland, analyst at the stockholm center for eastern european studies, part of the swedish institute for international affairs. thank you all for joining us. we appreciate your time. peter, let me start with you. with all that you are seeing and experiencing on the ground there in ukraine, when you hear that these negotiations are going on, that russia wants to see ukraine declare its neutrality, do you think that that is something that is actually feasible right now? peter: well, so far going by the track record of the way that russians have communicated their intentions, i would not hold my breath. in the weeks running up to russia's invasion on february 20 for, we -- february 254, we heard reassurances -- then days before the invasion,

pressure said they were withdrawn troops. -- russia said they were withdrawn troops. then we were in a full war situation with russia, having unleashed its terror against all of ukraine's territory pretty much. what i am seeing right now is i suspect may be a spokes -- a smokescreen for russia's real intention, and that is to regroup, to try to restore the morale of its fighting troops, because it is reported to be very low. and to try to storm kyiv a second time. it's simply not feasible for me to imagine vladimir putin withdrawing his troops, and then complaint -- declaring victory. there is a sunk cost fallacy,

whereas having expended this much blood and treasure, vladimir putin with think that tantamount to his political or even physical death. so i am skeptical, even though i do believe some sort of a compromise, diplomatically, must be found in order for this to stop. mohammed: andreas, it's being reported that ukraine and russia are making progress on some type of potential cease-fire. do you think that this is achievable? andreas: it will depend on the assessment of the so-called correlation of forces in moscow. how moscow will assess the continuing costs and risks of this confrontation with ukraine and also the associated costs and risks for its economy because of sanctions. that is very difficult to say how this assessment goes, but it also clearly depends on western measures, on the degree of

sanctions, the degree of military support, for ukraine. but i would not exclude that at some point, maybe not now, we will come to this point, and then the exact neutrality could come to the fore. the problem with ukraine is not so much russia, actually, but is rather the west, in that ukraine has, sincve 2008 -- since 2008, an official member perspective from nato, but has not received a membership action plan. it has entered a few additional programs of nato, but of substance, nothing has happened. and that will probably continue. and under the impression of this sad story, zelenskyy has recently indicated that he may

actually be ready to negotiate this issue about neutrality and about not any longer entering nato. but then i think nato will try to get some other neutral aid agreement from the west that really goes beyond the budapest memorandum of 1994. real security assurances and guarantees. that go beyond the pact from 1994. mohammed: one russia demands that ukraine declare neutrality, what exactly does that mean? what does that mean for president putin? what would he like to see? pavel: well, the kremlin has explained that russia is not so much -- ukraine is already right

now a neutral country, officially. but russia wants ironclad guarantees that ukraine will never become a nato member, or maybe more importantly that ukraine has no weapons of any sorts that can appear on ukrainian territory that could potentially threaten russia. because as the russian president said, it doesn't matter, they could have some american missiles or something, these american presumed missiles that right now are not really in existence, but may be in several years or something. it's a very important point for president putin personally. and for the kremlin, it is seen they could be deployed in ukraine and hit targets in the moscow area very swiftly without

russian leadership becoming airborne or hide in a bunker. so that is what russia wants. it wants ukraine to be under russian control and security. it matters that russia would have a decisive voice there. also very important for russia is the old ukrainian government can eyes that crimea is part of russia, recognize the independence of these small statements in the donbass. in russia wants to see ukraine as a decentralized buffer state between itself and europe. a buffer state that eventually may become, maybe not all that big parts of it, will be in the process of gradual reunification with russia. mohammed: peter, the last time i spoke with you on this program you were in a suit and tie. we were talking about potential

diplomatic moves. things were very different for you and for so many other ukrainians. i'm speaking to you today, you are wearing camouflage. i have heard you in various interviews talking about wanting to take up the fight. from your perspective, if president zelensky were to cede to these demands, if ukraine were to declare itself neutral, how would you and how would so many other ukrainians take that? peter: that is the million ruble question, if you will. the neutrality idea in itself is not necessarily a negative one for ukraine. there is the much maligned term finland-ization. one of the most prosperous and least corrupt nations on the planet. now as you mentioned there is the matter of austria being discussed, sweden. all of them are good and well. the question is once you demilitarized ukraine, that is

the extension of neutrality, then what sort of security guarantees could you rely on in having the precedent of 1994 when the budapest agreement was signed, as you also mentioned in the lead up to this conversation. and russia clearly did not feel the hold into it. since -- feel beholden to it. since 2014, it has been one long period of aggression to ukraine. the second element is whether vladimir putin -- of whether volodymyr zelenskyy has the mandate to promise vladimir putin anything such as signing off on the russian sovereignty over crimea and eastern ukraine. putin knows this and it is what he is trying to box ukraine into a corner, knowing that the street may force zelenskyy out

of power, especially now that ukraine in its fourth week has expended so much blood and treasure fighting off the world's second-largest army, to sign off on something like this is very easy for zelenskyy. so, once again, ukraine understands they will have to be some sort of a formula worked out. i think it has already come pretty close to acknowledging that nato will be pretty much a no go zone, meaning it is ready to part with our adjoining nato. in the absence of nato there has to be some sort of ironclad security guarantee by several parties, turkey and u.s. have been mentioned, to where ukraine would feel confident it can do that. mohammed: pavel, we all know how difficult it is when a cease-fire is declared in certain situations, to ensure that the situation on the ground can be stabilized. that is very different. i want to ask you, if a

cease-fire is declared, if these negotiations get to the point where there is some kind of a truce, could the situation on the ground be stabilized? pavel: at present i do not believe that is possible. ukrainians and russians intermixed, troops i mean, in different parts. in ukraine there are five russian offensive happening, and there is no straightforward frontline. and kind of maintaining a cease-fire there is virtually impossible. a cease-fire would only mean an immediate withdrawal of russian troops or ukrainians surrendering. it would be followed almost immediately with measures to decouple the army fighting people from both sides, and that is right now the problem. because, let's say ukraine is

manning antebellum, russia would withdraw to positions the 24th of february this year, which most likely russia will not take. any kind of russia keeping peace, that would mean there is going to be more fighting. right now i do not really see a cease-fire or an agreement emerging. both sides are talking, because everyone wants peace. no one wants to be the bad villain who says no peace, i am sorry. but the positions of the two sides right are almost incompatible. i am afraid there is going to be continued bloodshed for the time being. it is going to be decided for the time being not by diplomats but by soldiers fighting with arms in the field. mohammed: andreas, i want to take a step back and see if you can walk our viewers through just how big a geopolitical

shift is happening, especially in europe right now as a result of russia's invasion of ukraine. andreas: i think it is a fundamental shift that goes far beyond the european region. russia is going to be a very different actor afterwards. i think the view is going to change -- of the eu is going to change, nato is going to change. the biggest change i see is to the international regime for the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. the most scandalous aspect of this entire conflict perhaps is that it's kind of enforced by the presence of nuclear weapons on the russian side and the absence of nuclear weapons on the ukrainian side. and the scandal here is that russia does not only have nuclear weapons, it is

explicitly allowed to have nuclear weapons by the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. and ukraine not only does not have nuclear weapons, it is also explicitly for been to have nuclear weapons. and the most grotesque aspect of this of course is that ukraine was for a short period of time in the early 1990's with the largest nuclear weapons state of the world. it had more nuclear ammunition and warheads than china, france, and great britain together. they could not control most of these weapons, but anyway, it had a huge arsenal back then. gave it away, give it to russia. and 20 years later with the annexation of crimea, it was punished for this. and this is going to make actors and politicians and experts, diplomats around the world, not only in europe or in asia, but

around the world, think twice about their security, about the validity of international law, about how they can protect themselves, and how they may also be able to snatch territory that they want to get from a neighboring country. mohammed: peter, despite the repeating pleas dfrom president zelensky, nato has continued to refuse imposing a no-fly zone over ukraine. do you think that at some point that might change, that the pressure would build so substantially from possibly even within nato member states, that there could be a shift in that stance? peter: many of us are tempted to speculate on that, and one has to be careful not to be coming across as a warmonger, because we all understand the implications of the no-fly zone. we all understand a global concern, that that would lead to

a direct confrontation with a nuclear power. so having said that, i would say that following the logic of this escalation, and once again serious questions about the rationality of vladimir putin, why spend two years in a bunker hiding from covid, and apparently now hiding from his own officials, possibly afraid of an assassination attempt. one may wonder if he's still with us in this realm, this world, rather than a world of his own invention. and so, this is a very dangerous moment. obviously no one wants to escalate any further, but at the same time there is an understanding on the part of nato and the u.s. debt i fight for ukraine something larger than a fight just for ukraine's sovereignty. it is a fight for the western credibility and legitimacy. having said that, what's the next best option? the next best option is for nato to enable ukrainians to try and

enforce their own semblance of a no-fly zone, with air defense systems, with antitank missiles, and , yes, with fighter jets. something that poland and the u.s. have come very close to deciding on. there is a snafu now. i think zelenskyy's speech to congress now was a very serious contribution, seeing that now joe biden is under pressure from the opposition and members of his own party to deliver on that promise to ukrainians. mohammed: pavel, if russia were to meditate kyiv, what exactly does that mean -- were to take kyiv, what exactly does that mean? does that mean there is automatic regime change, do negotiations continue? what happens if that were to occur? pavel: i do not think russia has right now the capacity to actually successfully take kyiv. it is a very big city, and russian forces that are there to the north of the city are just

simply not big enough. but russia can bombard kyiv, which they did not do up to now, but they are making a kind of siege and bombardment. which would make life very miserable and very dangerous in kyiv. again, i'm not sure that that is right now going to happen. immediately it seems the russian main military thrust is going to be to do to swiftly capture mariupol. maybe put more pressure. russia right now running low on reserves. so actually moving more forces north of keefe, i'm -- north o kyiv. i mean, if they have them there, they cannot give them there. there are enormous logistical problems there.

i do not think kyiv is on the cards right now. of course things may change if political decisions are made in russia. bombardment is possible and effective, a swift offensive to take. i mean, it's bigger, and it will take, i don't know, months, a year maybe, to go through it turn it into a pile of total rubble. i don't think russia is ready for that. i don't think it has the capacity. mohammed: andreas, from your vantage point, is there any acceptable offramp to the conflict that can be offered to president putin right now? andreas: i don't think that it actually depends that much on what is offered. because my impression from the russian propaganda machine is t hey can basically provide this offramp for putin in almost any

way. if there is any concession that ukraine can make, symbolic or not, that could potentially be already enough for putin to withdraw. if he wants to withdraw. that is the crucial question. as i said, for that, the costs and risks of this entire operation will have to raise. the west is the only actor that can raise these costs by imposing more severe sanctions, by delivering heavier weapons. i agree with peter, that maybe ukraine does not even need a no-fly zone imposed by nato. what it just needs is the right material, the right weapons. perhaps also volunteers, veterans, war veterans or army veterans from perhaps not only

nato countries that would come to the international legion of ukraine that already exists and would then operate and provide logistic support for, let's say, antiaircraft weapons. mohammed: we only have about a minute left. i want to ask you very quickly, are you hearing from fellow ukrainians any sense of hope that the negotiations that are going on right now might actually yield some kind of meaningful cease-fire or end to the conflict? peter: i don't think ukrainians now that i talk with are putting any of their hopes in the diplomatic process. they are putting their hopes in the resolve that the ukrainians have shown to fight for their country, and to fight against the enemy. this is as black-and-white as conflicts go, and the national mobilization we have seen and the rise of the national spirit is unlike anything ukraine has known since world war ii.

mohammed: we have run out of time so we have to leave the conversation there. thank you so much to all of our guests. and thank you for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website, aljazeera.com, and for further discussion go to our facebook page. you can also join the conversation on twitter, @ ajinsidestory. for me and the whole team here, bye for now. ♪ tñ■aañ■ñ■ñ%çwçwçwçwçwçwçwçwçwçw■ ç