>> russia says it will reduce activity in northern ukraine following negotiations. ukraine's president is cautiously optimistic but expressed little trust for moscow. >> we can say the signals are positive. these signals cannot silence the explosions of russian shells. we are not seeing reason to

trust the words of the country that continues fighting to destroy us. ukraine supports the talks and will continue the negotiation process to any extent required. we are counting on the results. we must have security for our country, sovereignty, and our people. russian troops must leave occupied territories. territorial integrity of ukraine must be guaranteed. >> at least nine people were killed in the destruction of a government building, 22 wounded. five people have been killed in shootings near tel aviv. a gunman on a motorcycle opened fire on pedestrian, the third attack in a week. president joe biden of the u.s. has signed into law a bill that makes lynching a federal hate crime. the entire lynching act is named after emmett till, the 14-year-old boy who was murdered in 1955 for allegedly flirting with a white woman.

haitians have rallied in the streets of the capital over the crime rate and political instability. they say kidnapping, murder, and rape is happening without consequence. they are demanding the prime minister's government do more to address the crisis. police in the u.k. plan to find at least 20 staff and the prime minister's office for parties that broke covid-19 lockdown rules. the investigation is related to 12 events where restrictions were thought to be violated. boris johnson has been criticized for taking part in at least two of those gatherings. those are the headlines. "inside story" is next.

♪ >> what compromises can be reached to stop the war in ukraine? turkey is hosting a fourth round of talks following previous failures. is a breakthrough possible this time? this is "inside story." hello and welcome to the program. the three previous meetings failed to find a breakthrough. now negotiators from russia and ukraine have held face-to-face talks in turkey to try to end five weeks of war. turkey's president says now is the time for concrete results and a cease-fire. the ukrainian delegation wants to see peace nationwide before any final agreement can be considered. ukraine is also offering to

declare its neutrality in return for security guarantees. to discuss the status of the next region of crimea over the next 15 years. but ukraine's leadership insists territorial integrity and sovereignty are not up for the discussion. >> the president of ukraine gave clear instructions. international sanctions that have been against russia and weapons that have been handed over to us. mohammed: russia says it will reduce activity around kyiv. some demands include recognizing crimea as russian and the donbass region as independent. >> as the new round of peace talks continues, serious disagreements remain between the negotiating parties here. the ukrainian side is insisting

on international security guarantees and an immediate cease-fire to resolve the urgent humanitarian problems. russia is asking ukraine to forfeit neutrality -- to be neutral, not pursuing number ship in nato. officials here say that ukraine has shown to a certain extent willingness to make compromises on these demands. another demand from russia is the n -- denazification of ukraine, but it is not clear what russia means. the most delicate issue here is the territorial integrity of ukraine. russia is asking kyiv to officially accept crimea, which was annexed by russia in 2014, as part of russia and also

forcing ukraine to recognize the separatist republics in eastern ukraine as independent states. officials say ukraine has not shown willingness to make compromises about its territorial integrity. an official says the road is quite rocky, but mostly, the success of this negotiation, these peace talks, depend on how much pressure is going to make -- retreat from its demands and the limits of the ukrainian -- mohammed: let's bring in our guests. peter zalmayev, executive director of the eurasia democracy initiative. from moscow, andrey kortunov, director general of the russian international affairs think tank.

and zachary paikin, a researcher in the eu foreign policy unit at the center for european policy studies. it has been decided to decrease military activities in kyiv and chernihiv. is this from your perspective a positive sign? peter: as a sign, it may be positive. but what is the trust that is going to be the case? the russian federation has been less than trustworthy on these issues. prior to february 24, the russian side it was -- said it was pulling troops from the border. then it turned around and hit ukraine with a massive shock and awe campaign of bombing that

never relented. the situation on the ground is dictating strategy simply because russian troops are stretched too thin. they have suffered massive casualties. 16000 and counting. 50,000 disabled soldiers, etc.. what i am concerned about is despite the signals, this is another ploy by vladimir putin to try to win time to regroup and try to hit kyiv, storm kyiv, invade a second time. from what i have heard from vladimir putin himself, he remains obsessed with the idea of controlling all of ukraine. mohammed: you have said before that a cease-fire needs to be a top priority for russia. do you believe it actually is a top priority for president putin right now? andrey kortunov -- andrey: i hope it is a priority.

i cannot say for sure. the position was that the military organization should continue to the ukrainian armed forces are ready to surrender. apparently this position has shifted. i think there are still military objectives the russian leadership would like to achieve. at least they would like to get to the administrative borders of luhansk and donetsk so they could control all the territories of these regions. together with the military formations, the two self-declared republics. i do not know if it can be achieved in the near future but i would suspect that remains one of the goals of the military operations. that was reflected in the statement of the ministry of defense, who maintained just

today that the second stage of the military operation includes establishing control, as he put it, protection of the territory of luhansk and donetsk republics. mohammed: i saw you nodding along. did you want to jump in? zachary: well indeed, just to agree that the focus of the russian military campaign is likely to be centered on the east. that is where prospects are situated for the most gains. the initial significant breakout that we saw of russian forces in the south appears to now be proceeding at a glacial pace or possibly being reversed in some cases. the situation around kyiv is at a standstill. forget about it from a strategic standpoint. from a technical standpoint it also makes sense for russia to focus firepower in the east.

but even they are, there have been limits to their advance. that might end up shaping the outcome of these talks. the question remains how long will talks continue and how long will this conflict continue? i don't think we should be optimistic this is going to come to a head in the next week or so. mohammed: there are these reports out there that russia may no longer demand ukraine be as they say denazified in cease-fire talks. what do you make of that? >> i think the term was deliberate leave vague and that is why it was employed. it could be used to justify full-blown regime change in kyiv but it also could be used as a means of stating the importance of protecting the donbas region and degrading the ukrainian military. that could mean many different things to many different people. my suspicion, and it will be up

to analysts and future historians to determine this, but my suspicion is that basically vladimir putin had this option of refocusing the war toward the donbas in the event it did not go as planned and kyiv did not fall so quickly. if that is the case, that he has had this as a reserve option for some time, that contradicts this thesis that putin is some sort of a madman or that he is insane. in fact, this may have been slightly better planned than originally expected, originally concluded in the aftermath of the initial invasion. mohammed: the ukrainian delegation has said they want a nationwide piece before any final agreement can be considered. do you think that is actually achievable? >> i certainly hope so. i think the ukrainian side is

willing to negotiate its neutrality status, it is willing to consider the issue of nato, the issue of crimea. it is not going to be able to sign off on russian sovereignty of crimea. but it is freezing this for the next 15 years, moving into this process of ongoing debates about the status of crimea. i think ukraine has done what could be capitulation. i think the campaign of terror proceeding across the board across all of ukraine is actually designed to soften ukraine's negotiating position. that is why i'm skeptical -- i agree with my colleagues here that this is still time to go to fully play out. keep in mind another thing. another important date is coming up. the date of soviet union victory over nazi germany. vladimir putin has been pulling troops into ukraine's theater of

action from armenia, from georgia, tajikistan, from the far east. there are reports that syrian fighters and has below -- hezbollah fighters may be coming to ukraine. it shows the desperation vladimir putin has to show some victory to his people. he has lost a lot in treasure already. some sort of visible victory will be countering his political debt. he is very concerned with his own political survival. his physical survival i would say. we may yet see more escalation and more misery before there is serious talk about a peace agreement. mohammed: in other interviews, you have said it is hard for you to comprehend mr. putin's actions when it comes to ukraine. are you any closer to understanding them?

do you think there are any international actors out there, any interlocutors who could offer mr. putin a credible offramp to the conflict at this stage? >> first of all, let me say i agree that putin and the russian leadership cannot afford to lose. they need victory. even not a complete victory, but something that can be presented domestically as a victory, this is important. in terms of engagement, i think there are not too many people in the world that influence the russian leadership. maybe china can be regarded as a broker because china had good relations with russia.

it is a major trading partner of both countries. some kind of mediation from china could be received positively in moscow. i am less confident about attempts to mediate taken by people like the turkish president erdogan because erdogan, turkey is a member to the north atlantic alliance. he has never tried to hide his sympathy for ukraine, and i don't think he can regard it as an honest broker. there might be other people. but not too many of them. mediation will not be easy.

mohammed: from your vantage point, who can be the most effective mediators going forward? zachary: i don't think there is an obvious answer. there are a number of theoretical individuals were countries out there that for one reason or another, particularly because they have good relations with russia and ukraine, could serve that role. the question is do they have the political will and capacity to do so? we talked about china having good relations with both. we talked about turkey being a member of nato but also pragmatic relations with russia, carving out regional contacts in places like syria -- compacts in places like syria. people have talked about israel. each of them has narrow interests of their own as well which makes it difficult to break out of the current geopolitical stalemate. china is a good example. on one hand, china does have its interest in maintaining good ties with russia for

geopolitical reasons and the great game that is emerging with the united states. but china is still a rising power and needs to maintain good relations with the united states and the broader western political community, economically speaking, technologically speaking, to continue that rise. china is in a different -- difficult position of pursuing its own interests, that's going to make them more cautious. because of the good relationship china and russia have, i think xi jinping is going to be quite cautious about the potentially twisting putin's arm and trying to get him to bring this war to an end. that would involve not just carrots, but also sticks, exerting political capital. i think xi jinping is not prepared to do that. that is unfortunate because this could be a moment for asia to have its moment in the sun and inaugurate the post-western world. because of various dynamics,

that makes things more complicated. i think we are headed to a more disordered world. mohammed: president zelenskyy has said he wants to make sure there are strong security guarantees in place before there is any kind of record, any kind of agreement. who would act as a guarantor and how difficult would that be? how tough would it be to find somebody who would be acceptable to both sides? various countries might play a part, but how tough would that be to make reality, and who do you think might be the leading contenders? peter: it will be very tough. to go by the track record, vladimir putin used any and every negotiation as a stepping stone to greater escalation. once again, has shown himself as not trustworthy. we also have the president of the 1993 budapest referendum. ukraine was guaranteed security

in return for turning over its significant nuclear arsenal to russia. look where it has gotten us. ukraine voluntarily disarmed itself and now it is in a very vulnerable position, to say the least. the lenski -- zelenskyy has said this should be a guarantee stronger than the collective security article of nato, article five. currently what is being considered is that the countries that would be characters -- guarantors would be the current makeup of the security council at the u.n., including obviously the prominent five. this is unprecedented, a different security architecture, but it speaks volumes about the vulnerability ukraine finds itself in and the untrustworthiness of russia. ukraine has to have very strong

guarantees and in that respect, talk about demilitarization of ukraine is a nonstarter. ukraine needs to have more defensive capability for this arrangement to work. mohammed: would it be acceptable in the long term if president zelenskyy were to remain in power for vladimir putin? would the ultimate aim be to see regime change and to have president zelenskyy replaced in ukraine? andrey kortunov well -- andrey: well i don't know what kind of personal relationship they have. i might be skeptical about any kind of personal affinity between the two men, but in my opinion, zelenskyy is the only legitimate leader in ukraine. ukraine would probably replace him with someone else, but he or

she will not be accepted by the ukrainian population. what is the alternative? i personally do not see any. i think gradually we will seem more and more readiness to negotiate with volodymyr zelenskyy. we don't know what will happen at the next presidential elections in ukraine. zelenskyy has emerged as an international icon. he is known all over the world. he is respected and even admired in many countries. so how can you get rid of him? why should you do that? my take is that russia will have to deal with latimer zelenskyy if russia wants to -- with vladimir zelenskyy if russia wants to end this conflict. mohammed: from your point

of view, has vladimir putin accepted he's going to have to deal with zelenskyy, or does he want to replace zelenskyy? zachary: it increasingly looks like it is the case that he is prepared to tolerate zelenskyy remaining in power, but i think this has less to do with the dynamic between putin and zelenskyy themselves. putin needs to be able to have some sort of victory he can sell at home to preserve his political life. i think this has more to do with putin. it is to do with russia itself. russia has viewed its identity as being a great power. if you cannot set the terms vis-a-vis ukraine, you are not able to set the terms vis-a-vis nato, the united states, or the collective west. this is almost one could say an existential question for russia because it has to do with what does it mean to be russian? since the russian imperial

polity began conducting itself, it has sought respect from the west as an equal. these are very difficult questions that remain unresolved and that russia is having a difficult time wrestling with, just like the british empire, the french empire, and others had difficulty adjusting to their novel circumstances as well. as for the notion of security guarantees that are being discussed for ukraine, it is deeply unfortunate that we have to have a war in order to come to a situation where we are discussing a reasonable, albeit difficult solution for how to revise the security architecture for how it relates to ukraine and other countries that want guaranteed status. it was clear to any honest observer that mindless nato expansion had outlived its usefulness as a fundamental pillar of the post world war european security order simply because it had been rejected by russia and if you do not have

the bi-in of the continent's most powerful country -- i take the notion that these proposals are being discussed as a positive indication that may be in the future there will be opportunity for creative diplomacy and future crisis. mohammed: in the past we have discussed how important it is for ukrainians ukraine be able to join nato at some point. so if ukraine now says it is going to adopt a neutral status in exchange for security guarantees, if that is acceptable to zelenskyy, how does he sell that to the public? is that something they would be willing to accept? peter: that is a very good question. there is much appetite in the ukrainian public for nato membership. this is where politicians have

to make choices that are at odds with the will of the population. the previous speaker said something about nato's mindless expansion. that is a serious topic, a separate discussion. i would just say that for vladimir putin, the expansion issue has been a red herring. what we are seeing in ukraine is nothing -- very little to do with nato expansion. nato was not coming to ukraine, probably not enough -- probably enough for vladimir putin to finish out his life. what we are seeing is a 19th century style landgrab that putin has been perpetrating against ukraine. i think volodymyr zelenskyy -- he's going to have to make a tough choice. he said he's going to submit this to referendum and it's going to be up to him and his team to explain to the

ukrainians the compromises and sacrifices. mohammed: thanks to all of our guests. and thank you for watching. you can see the program any time by visiting our website, al jazeera.com. for further discussion, go to our facebook page. you can also join the conversation on twitter. for the whole team here, goodbye for now.

omomomomom

- hey, i'm valerie june. coming up onreel south... [soft vocal harmony] america's complicated history is brought to life in photographs. one southern photographer captured seminal moments. - [burk] the are e contacsheets. th is mart lutheking'srabody n captured seminal moments. anbeing fln to lanta toe buri. the are thfolks ouide the lorine mol, where was killed. to reckon with deep-sted prejudices. - [burk] you start out, perhaps with the mind, and an idea. and th all thafilters out througthe eyart.