energy saving that is so important in our country. ♪ >> hello there. this is al jazeera and these are the headlines. the u.s. secretary of state has urged his russian counterpart to let shipments leave ukrainian ports. it was the first time antony blinken had spoken since the russian invasion. >> we set all along that if we thought there was any opportunity to advance diplomacy , to end russia's aggression against ukraine, we would take it. unfortunately, we've seen no

open willingness on the part of pressure to engage meaningfully on ending the aggression. at the same time, i've said that if there are issues where it could make a difference in senior russians hearing directly from me or from colleagues, we would pursue that. >> ships and ukraine's black seaports are loaded with grain and ready to set sail. a signal is needed from turkey and the united nations before they can leave. the goal is to export 20 million tons of grain over the next four months. ukraine and russia have also accused each other of attacking a prison. killing at least 40 prisoners of war. most of them from a battalion which defended the city of mariupol before it fell to russia. a judge in the u.s. has ruled that civil lawsuits against a bolivian warlord can be held in

federal court. he's accused of war crimes and extrajudicial killings. he's been fighting to take over the country. myanmar's military has been accused of using fighter planes to fire unguided weapons on civilian areas. independent investigators say the increase air attacks targeting armed groups opposed to last year's coup. the u.n. mission to afghanistan has condemned a grenade attack at a cricket match in kabul that wounded 13 spectators. the explosion happened during a game at the capitol's international cricket stadium. there's been no claim of responsibility. those are the headlines. i will have more for you after inside story. stay with us. ♪

>> the threat of nuclear war is greater than ever. that's the warning from britain's top security advisor. he blames the breakdown of communication between the west and china. what's needed to restore security? this is inside story. ♪ welcome to the program. the west could stumble into a nuclear war with russia or china. that's the warning from britain's national security advisor who says communication channels between the west and its rivals have collapsed. russia's invasion of ukraine is the clearest example of this breakdown. diplomacy failed to prevent the war.

moscow and keefe haven't held face-to-face talk since march. the conflict is just the beginning of a broader contest for successor to the post-cold war international border. he is warning of new security risks as countries develop more advanced weapons and compete in outer space and cyberspace. the solution, better dialogue between the rest and china. >> we benefited from a series of negotiations and dialogues that improve their understanding of soviet doctrine and capabilities and vice versa. this gave both of us a higher level of confidence that we would not miscalculate our way into nuclear war. today, we don't have the same foundations with others who may threaten us in the future. particularly with china. the u.k. strongly supports president bidens proposed talks with china as an important step. trust and transparency built through dialogue should also mean that we can be more active in calling out noncompliance in misbehavior when we see it.

>> let's bring in our guests in london. a nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament analyst. the ceo of the consultancy of rasmussen global. in toulouse, a lecturer in modern paean -- in modern history. a warm welcome to each of you. in london, there's a very famous film dr. strangelove which is a parody but also a warning about the way to countries can get into an accident nuclear war. it was designed as a parody. a lot love -- a lot of what was in the film, the central tenant of foreign policy is that there are back channels. those back channels will be stable. we have the national it -- secured he to the advisor -- national security advisor. >> is no secret that we are in a

major russian crisis. that includes the ongoing conflict in ukraine. it's much wider than that. i think we have to ask ourselves , what kind of crisis do we want? a deep cold war? how it was during the latter parts of that time where we actually communicated with the adversary and worked together to try to muddle through this fight? it's true the lack of dialogue is putting us into a very precarious position. it's not just the back channel forms of communication that are necessary. we also need very resilient and smart front end channel communication. for example, between president biden and putin. if we are to stumble into some sort of a nuclear conflict, i'm not confident that the hotline that exists between washington and moscow would be able to technically stand up to the challenges that would happen in

a degraded environment in the middle of a nuclear war, for example. stephen mott gross comments yesterday were very important and it's a very important reminder that we need to make sure that we have the ability to communicate clearly and smartly to the adversary. that's how we got out of the cold war and that's how we will get out of this current crisis. >> this is not just about russia and china. but we are in a position now where perhaps we don't need that kind of communication, that big red telephone. there is drones and satellites nowadays. we have different types of tech and monitoring going on. you have other channels. are those traditional methods of thinking outdated? >> not really. i think what is not up-to-date is the way we speak. including about nuclear things.

i disagree with the previous speaker. it's not the lack of dialogue. it's not for the lack of having tried to engage. especially with vladimir putin. president macron, nato itself, the u.s. of ministration have all tried to reach out to the russian president. it's a lack of interest on this side to truthfully and meaningfully engage with the west and try to minimize the risks of conflict and incident. what we have to focus on on the outside is really what kind of language we want to speak. nuclear, the fact that vladimir putin used the nuclear adjective and flag very early on in his war of aggression against ukraine. you don't really get a response from the western nuclear powers. it was a confirmation that the west has lost a bit of nuclear.

we need to relearn the grammar before getting meaningful dialogue. >> he makes a very interesting point about learning grammar and language and history. the cuban missile crisis, everybody knows that the russians put missiles into grube which freaked out america. when everybody forgets is the only reason those missiles were in cuba is because the americans put missiles in turkey which was in russia's backyard effectively. there's always been a disconnect between, when it comes to the language in framing of all of this, when it comes to russia and china, that they are always the bad guys. has that been unhelpful? >> if we move beyond the bad guys, that's not relevant anymore. there's nothing to discuss at the moment so far as those classifications.

that's when the redlines, when the direct form line was put between washington and moscow to prevent anything like this happening again. that's really what created the cold war 6 -- architecture in terms of deterrence and so forth. very dangerous that led to agreements about limitations on arms and so forth. i'm afraid that now, we have another crisis similar to that one. the lines are blurred. the rest of the communications behind the lines. at the same time, the red lines very good. very gradual buildup of military assistance to ukraine.

the range of missiles and so forth. three or four months ago, that would be unthinkable. russia hasn't really responded to this. we are pushing toward this line. the russians will eventually say, enough is enough. that's what is dangerous the most. is not lack of communications. i think i agree that there are actually very dangerous times we are living in. >> that's russia and china. that's the u.s. and west. there's a big red telephone and we need to probably use it a bit more than we are using it. there isn't a big red telephone to north korea, pakistan, india, israel. those guys have nuclear weapons. neither of them have signed a nonproliferation treaty. what is the danger of those

states, though smaller states with nuclear weapons? >> sure. let me make two points. i think the main comment i was trying to make is that we need resilient crisis communication channels so that if this conflict in ukraine spirals into a wider nato russia conflict, that we have the ability for our leaders, on the nuclear brink or pass the nuclear brink, to avert complete calamity. my second point is that a part of deterrence is being able to communicate effectively to your adversary. if you don't have any communication channels open and you are simply relying on rhetorical posturing in public and in the media, that's a really dangerous place to be in. it offers very little private off ramps to be able to de-escalate the situation. when it comes to your comment just now about, there's already a red telephone but we don't have them with the other states.

this is why i'm nervous. that bilateral channel between washington and moscow, there isn't one between washington and beijing at the leader level that is created in the same way. there are very limited military to military channels between these three great powers. moreover, there's no way for any of the leaders of any of these countries, these three countries and the wider nine countries in the world with nuclear weapons, to be able to communicate multilaterally. there's no way right now for president biden, president putin, presidency to get on the phone at once. especially in a degraded environment in the middle of a nuclear conflict. we need something like that. in terms of the smaller nuclear powers that are rising, of course it's very dangerous and they all affect the international security environment in different ways. right now, north korea is expanding its nuclear arsenal.

iran is becoming closer and closer to a threshold state because of a lack of agreement between the u.s. and iran on restoring the 2015 nuclear deal. these are very worrying develops. in addition to the war in ukraine, they are going to factor in very heavily over the course of the next month as the international community convenes in new york to discuss that 52-year-old nuclear nonproliferation treaty which is really that cornerstone international treaty that governs the world in terms of studying the standards and creating the pathways to global disarmament and keep an eye cap on proliferation at the same time. >> the nuclear nonproliferation treaty has failed in many ways because india has nuclear weapons. pakistan has them. israel has them. north korea has them. there's no real communication between india and pakistan right now. that's probably the closest flashpoint that we have.

do you think there needs to be stronger in pt or does it need to be more policed? >> frankly, the success is that the failure has been contained to a handful of countries. this is the key here to this discussion today. a lot of nonnuclear countries are watching the war in ukraine to see how and whether the west will be sufficiently supporting ukraine to the extent where the ukrainians can prevent in the battlefield and in negotiations. if we were to fail to do so, i think a lot of countries who are currently not nuclear weapon countries would consider what is considered the old smit guarantee which is nuclear weapons. what we do here in ukraine could

have some very important reflections on how it is holding or not. that's why i am connecting it to the geopolitical reality of today. >> would you agree with that? >> >> well, i think the point, the ultimate guarantee is nuclear weapons. he ended up in prison and so forth. south korea knows it very well. russia is also so bold in ukraine because it knows that nato or the united states is not prepared to risk a nuclear war with ukraine. so we are living in the age where nuclear weapons are

essentially the ultimate guarantee which gives you superpower status. the question of how to prevent it from spreading further is an important one. india and pakistan, if they can, they will work through it. that's how the world works unfortunately. nuclear weapons give u.s. -- an advantage in terms of putting pressure on this. the key point about regional powers. nuclear weapons are regional threat. the russian threat is a global threat. a handful of the nuclear powers haven't struck anywhere else in the world. that's not the case with the

others. yeah. we are living in a world where ultimate security is nuclear weapons. there's no turning back, i'm afraid. >> the ultimate guarantee of security is nuclear weapons. we seem to be agreed on that. it's a doctrine certainly. you mentioned iran. i want to talk about it. iran has got very close to being a threshold state as it has been described. it hasn't said it has a nuclear weapons program. has admitted to having a nuclear program. the jcpoa effectively froze all those tensions and brought around back into the world. that tree was ripped up by president donald trump in the u.s. is finding it difficult to renegotiate that treaty. this is a failure of the west, of america. certainly no one trusts that

america will stick to its deal. that's the iranian way of thinking right now. why should we trust the u.s. if they are just going to rip up a deal? why not get nuclear weapons? >> well, there's a growing chorus of voices in tehran that feel that the only way for them to have the right leverage to be able to negotiate a sustained deal that they can trust with washington and with other world powers is to increase their status from having a very rich nuclear program to one of a nuclear threshold state. perhaps even getting a nuclear weapon. unfortunately, that would be extremely risky for the entire global security architecture because it would probably incite some sort of a military conflict in the region, particularly with israel. we really do need to get washington and tehran to agree to the roadmap that was already largely decided in march of this year. both sides are dragging their feet on it.

washington has to make up for the fact that it was indeed the u.s. aggregation of the deal under president trump that cause this trust deficit in the first place. iran continue to comply with the deal for an entire year before gradually reducing its implementation. of course, we also now had president biden coming into office and dragging his feet for a number of months. now as we are getting closer and closer to the u.s. midterm elections, it seems there isn't the political willpower in the white house to get the jcpoa restoration over the finish line. i really call on president biden. in october, before he came into the white house, he wrote a very compelling op-ed that said there's a smarter way to be tough on iran. that made a clear argument for why it is so important to get the jcpoa back in place so that we are in a position to be able to thinksmart about the other issues that we have within iran. for example, expanding ballistic

missile programs. >> we want to bring another up -- in our other guest as well. you heard what he's been talking about. we need to bring iran back to the negotiating table. america seems to be dragging its feet. what is the incentive for the west to try to force the americans back to the negotiating table? is there any pressure anybody can put on the? >> i think it's upon the americans to avoid this. you have to read the recent u.s. israel joint declaration which is actually very clearly where the u.s. is giving to the state of israel, clear guarantees that it will not allow a nuclear iran from happening. i think that's the clearest signal today that the u.s. is committed not to have a nuclear weapon state in the region.

apart from israel. this is not mentioned. i think there's clarity here. whether the administration has been dragging its feet, i will not comment. clearly it has its interests in finding a diplomatic solution. i think that you is also trying to do so. >> alexander into lose. the eu, these traditional negotiating bodies, these institutions were formulated post-cold war to try to freeze the tensions. they have worked. we are looking at a different landscape now. there's not a cold war anymore. are we moving towards the cold war again do you think? >> you can't step in the same river twice. whatever we are moving towards will be very different. that was very intense

ideologically. capitalism and communism so forth. that is likely to be repeated. there's much more centers of powers in the world. china, russia, europe, the american protection. india and iran are other powers. it will not be a cold war. it will be more dispersed power structures in the world of politics. ideologically, there is something different in terms of great power nationalism. this is going back to the first world war. several great powers trying to bother each other. nuclear weapons is the key. if the americans come to around now, they need more oil on the market and iran is the only

obvious place where all that extra oil will come, if they come to it now, i don't see what they can do. iranians will lose patience with it. the consequences will be very great in israel and saudi arabia. it's already very dangerous and tough. it's all very well to make a declaration with israel that they would go to war. is that possible in terms of americans experience in iraq and so forth? >> sorry. we are running out of time. i want to come to everybody else. there's another way of dealing with this. the americans have actually done this to great effect in pakistan. by supporting pakistan, by giving it money, by supporting its military. it's creating other problems in pakistan but it has kept the nuclear weapons in their silos.

in spain, do you think that's a good strategy? >> i'm not sure, given pakistan's track recording. nuclear technology to other countries including north korea. i think pakistan was more policy where the u.s. had no other choice but to basically embrace pakistan nuclear status and try to contain the issue and make sure that the right protocols were in place to avoid a miscalculation and regional conflict again with india. i don't think there's a clear model here to follow. i think we have to think about it in itself. i do think that rand has a much interest in the west to find a diplomatic solution. there's also an energy and supply dimension to it. it isn't going to help with

whatever the biden administration is trying to do on the diplomatic front. >> very quickly. we are stumbling in the dark. we need a new strategy but we don't know what that strategy is. is there anything that you think leads us out of this darkness? is there a new strategy? >> absolutely. dialogue on risk reduction and making sure that we deal with the fact that we have nuclear weapons. if you want to have nuclear weapons are you have them, you have to live with the responsibility and consequences of them and x-linked others how you will deal with the related challenges. so it's extremely important that all of the leaders of these key countries come together and are able to make sure that the correct scaffolding is in place so that we mitigate crises and war. i think the most important thing to do is to really have a deep

reflection on how deterrence and arms control not only have always complement it one another but that that they've always had to come permit one another to get us through really difficult times like the cold war. we don't want to get into another deep cold war with russia. we want to try to mitigate the risks and learn from the past mistakes that we've made so that we can ensure the safety and survivability of the entire world. that's what is at stake. really global peace and security. nuclear weapons have the ability to annihilate the entire existence of this planet. >> i want to thank all of our guests. i want to think he was watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website. for further discussion, go to our facebook page. you can join the conversation on twitter. for the whole team here, goodbye for now.

■é■í■■■■■ñcñcñcñc

[crowd clapping] crowd: nina, nina! nina, nina! nina, nina! nina! eric campbell: nina baginskaya is a 74-year-old great-grandmother who's become the icon of a revolution. maria pugachjova: i've never been scared since the 9th of