♪ these are the top stories. thousands of people or holding mass demonstrations for a second day in peru capital demanding the was ignition of president that is after the country had

its $31.4 trillion borrowing limit on thursday. more than one million people in france marched against planned pension reforms. president macron wants to raise the retirement age by two years to 64. dr. alec baldwin will face involuntary manslaughter charges -- actor alec baldwin will face involuntary manslaughter charges after pointing a gun on the set of a film, killing cinematographer halyna hutchins. a u.s. judge ordered boeing to court over to crashes of its 737 max jets. it comes after families of some victims rejected a $2.5 billion agreement to avoid prosecution negotiated by the firm. up next it is inside story. ♪

>> germany is under pressure to supply ukraine with battle tanks. why are tanks seen as so crucial in the war against russia? this is inside story. welcome to the program. russia's invasion of ukraine is nearing its second year, a return to conventional warfare in europe, something that would have been unimaginable 12 months ago. the supply of military aid to kee -- to kyiv has become an international battle itself.

the new defense minister and gave little away in his first meeting with his u.s. defense secretary counterpart. >> especially during these times, germany and the u.s. are standing together when acting, but also during concrete questions. maybe the tanks or multiple rocket launches. german systems are proving themselves in ukraine. >> many figures have been meeting and davos -- in davos, where the issue of german tanks for ukraine has been hotly debated on stage and the sidelines. our correspondent reports on the discussions. >> the world economic forum at davos has all the issues in the world but among the eu and nato leaders here, a lot of the discussions have been about ukraine and about weapons for ukraine. president zelenskyy addressed the world economic forum by video link.

he called for more air defense, more tanks. the focus has been very much on those tanks and very much on germany. germany has a main battle tank, but it is not just in german stocks. germany sold those tanks to many other eu and nato countries, some of them, notably poland, would like to get tanks to ukraine, but under the export regulations when germany sold them they have to get german permission. that permission has not come so far. a great deal of pressure on the german chancellor here in davos, asked specifically about the leopard two tanks. he dodged the question. he said germany provided a great deal of weaponry in the first year of this war and said it would operate in lockstep with its allies and that means very much the u.s. and other nato allies. the u.s. has not sent its main battle tank to ukraine either because it says it would be

difficult for the ukrainians to operate in the terrain that exists on the ground in ukraine. chancellor schulz also say and he wants to avoid at any cost a full all out war between nato and nato members and russia. so everything now moves, after all the discussions all this week taking place at davos, to that important meeting at the u.s. airbase in germany, where defense ministers will be meeting to decide what now to give to ukraine. >> that update from davos. let's take a closer look at the specs of the leopard 2 tank. it has been upgraded several times since it was launched in 1979. currently it is used by 13 european armies. it is valued for its maneuverability and it is later than other comparable models. the tank has recent battlefield experience in afghanistan. approval is required from berlin

before they can be reexported to a third country. that means the tanks cannot be sent to ukraine without germany's permission. let's bring in our guests. joining us live from the united kingdom, a british major general am also a former middle east adviser to the u.k. ministry of defense. from london, a senior lecturer in security at king's college london. from berlin, the founder and editor in chief of a news organization. we want to examine why there is such an intense focus on this issue of tanks. one might think tanks are part of a bygone era because in this age of long-range precision missiles you would think they were not as potent as they once

were but i presume they are still very valid on the battleground. >> very valid. >> bear in mind you are listening to a very ancient armchair general. you need to take that with a pinch of salt. having tanks on the battlefield contributes to what we call the all arms battle. it is the integration of that all arms battle that makes an attacking or defending force much more potent. the ukrainians have got some good tanks, but as we have seen, they are not that much better than the russians. we have seen how damaged the russian tanks can be with this latest antitank weaponry that ukraine has been supplied with. these modern tanks, particularly the leopard and challenger all have sophisticated protection

against most of these modern weaponry. having them on the battlefield in support of the infantry and other -- and under the support of artillery and air is a game changer. >> in what quantity would they be required to be a game changer, would you say? >> yes, in reference to the very gallant offer of 14 tanks, we have to look at much greater numbers. way back when we went to rescue kuwait, to liberate it from saddam hussein's army, we the allies had thousands of tanks then. the british had over 150 there. the offer of 14 is very

symbolic. we were first there doing ut. we hope this might pull the others in. 14 is not enough. >> i think i would be right in saying that tanks would be the most powerful direct weapon provided ukraine so far, even though at the moment the numbers fall somewhere short to what is required, certainly by ukraine. >> yes. to that we have to have the tank models that are effective against long-range artillery systems. we should not forget about those as well. what is interesting is how much they really helped to turn the tide in ukraine's favor. this clearly shows when tanks or other western military equipment is delivered to ukraine it can have an impact on the battlefield. that is why the delivery of

these tanks is so relevant. i would agree with the pv's -- the previous speaker that it would help to assist in ukraine in trying to carry out more effective offensive operations and also be able to operate more effectively in defensive positions as some kind of mobile artillery force. at the moment i think this is important and it also comes together with additional artillery ammunition and also possibly fighter jets. the whole combination of armed forces can operate in a more effective offensive manner. >> what about the russian capability? what would it mean for the russian side of things if large convoys of tanks joined a ukrainian offensive? how would it change things, do you think? >> i think it would be significant. as the general said, if enough

tanks were sent in number to the battlefield. you have to put this into context, why is this coming up now? the battle has ground out to a stalemate. it september -- in september we had this outstanding counteroffensive by ukrainians in the kharkiv region, liberating hundreds of kilometers. shortly at the end of the month they recaptured kherson as well. now the fighting has come down. russians have done the partial mobilization and brought 300,000 russian troops into the field. the front line has stabilized. the epicenter of the fighting is around bakhmut in the donbass region. that fight in bakhmut has gone on for months. a couple meters a day, if that. the two sides are now butting heads but nobody has the

advantage. if you were to bring in these offensive weapons, then that would make a huge difference if you bring them in in enough number because then you could go on the if engine and attack the russian defenses and push them back. the president duda called on the west to send 100 of these leopard 2's. poland itself has about 250. 100 leopards on the field would make all the difference. there are about 20 tons heavier than anything the russians have got.the armor on them is significant. russian does not have things like american-made javelins that ukrainians have in order to take these tanks out. they would be a real game changer. i think that is what people are looking at. they are getting frustrated at this deadlock. 100,000 people have died on both sides with no one making any

progress. the ukrainians are saying enough with the defensive weapons. give us offensive weapons so we can push the russians over. >> any big scale offensive by ukraine would need to be backed up by air and ground support. >> yes, that. and the tank gives the ground forces maneuverability, which has ground to a halt. in order to maneuver we have got to have mobile, well protected hard-hitting firepower. the only thing that can deliver that is the tank. and the leopard is perfectly performed for that one. and of course it is not going to

take long to get it into ukraine, and it is relatively easy to operate compared to some aspects certainly of abrahams and of challenger. it is the maneuverability and protection that affords this very hard-hitting kit that makes it such a potent force. >> that is the battlefield landscape. >> why do you think germany has been reluctant in committing to providing these german-made tanks? >> first of all it is important to note chancellor schulz and others in his party are very worried about the escalation, about the potential conflict between russia and nato and germany being involved in that.

germany could start by authorizing the delivery that would not necessarily involve germany itself there is a lot of concern of germany being seen as part of a so-called offensive but i think that is the wrong approach. there is i think a strong tradition in germany and what is interesting is that olaf scholz in his youth was part of this tradition and he was very much an anti-nato politician. he evolved a lot over his political career. he gave his famous speech at the start of the war in ukraine where he talked about how germany had to change its course and rearm in the face of the russians. at the same time i think there

is a strong reluctance i think he is looking at public opinion which is slowly shifting and there is increasing support for so-called freeing the leopards. deep inside i think he is reluctant to see germany because of its history during the second world war and also during the cold war. germany could be a potential theater of war that could repeat itself. it is an ingrained historical narrative that is strong in certain quarters of germany. i think the chancellor is increasingly under pressure from inside his own condition by members of the green party. >> there are contradictions because you have this german reluctance but on the other hand in february last year olaf

scholz was announcing this historical turning point for germany to ramp up its defenses, which many said was something extraordinary since they have not done that since world war ii. even today we are hearing about the new german defense minister talking up germany's need to strengthen defenses. >> the keyword is defense. we are talking about a war with russia. the tanks are offensive weapons. step back and understand the context of this. germany has this history of having fought the russians and does not want to repeat that experience. the overall goal of nato and germany in particular is not to help the ukrainians beat the russians, it is first and foremost to prevent a world war,

to prevent a direct conflict with nato and russia. no one wants to go there. that is one of the reasons why we have been pouring in defensive weapons to make sure that ukraine does not lose this war, which is not the same as making sure it wins this war. we reached a point where everyone is getting frustrated and hundred of thousands are dying. there is now a push to abandon that and to give ukraine some offensive weapons to change the balance. the reason why germany in particular is so nervous because it is unpredictable how the kremlin will react. so far putin indicated he has not got a problem with nato supplying defensive weapons insomuch that russia still has the advantage in terms of artillery and he can grind the ukrainians down. offensive weapons that turn the tide of the war to ukraine's

vintage, -- advantage, nuclear weapons could appear. jen stoltenberg from nato says our top priority is to avoid world war iii, our second priority is to help ukraine defend itself. it is doing an amazing job, something no one was expecting. >> do you concur with that? there is the our -- is the other recommend that defeat for ukraine could lead to world war iii. >> yes it could. it is incredibly difficult to predict which way it is going to fall, whether the supply of these tanks, which are in the main name offensive, but usually useful in any form of defensive posture, is going to affect that balance. i am finding it difficult to

predict that. >> we talked about the u.s. and germany themselves have said if the u.s. sends in tanks, we will. why do you think the u.s. is reticent? >> the same fears. >> no one wants to start a third world war with russia because it becomes extremely unpredictable and scary with the nuclear exchange between the major powers. the americans too have also followed this policy of supplying largely defensive weapons. the peer pressure amongst europeans, and you some -- you ahve some countries like the polish and baltic states that are very anti-russian and pro-ukraine, want to see these heavy weapons put in. others are sitting on the fence. people like hungary are friends with putin. schulz it getting pressure from

eu members to send these tanks. germany has the largest fence sector in europe, so everyone has got german weapons and you cannot export them to ukraine without german permission. olaf scholz said this week that if the americans send their tanks, then germany would follow suit. then the americans have said that they are reluctant to send their tanks because they are not suitable in the terrain. we are talking about huge flat agricultural land. this is the perfect terrain for tanks. there is so little cover. it sounds a bit like an excuse. they sent 3 tanks -- sent 14 tanks, which is adjuster. everyone is pulling their

punches. i think tomorrow what we will see is schulz will cave to the pressure but there will be a token gesture that will be sent from poland in order to take the pressure off, to do something more to help the ukrainians. not going far enough, not sending a battalion of 100 tanks that would make a big difference on the battlefield because of the fear of provoking russians to go to the next level, putting one million people into the field and overrunning ukraine and then start taking ammo dumps in poland and extreme reactions. >> coming back to this point about potential russian defeat, especially in light of what the former russian president has said, that the defeat of a nuclear power in a conventional war may trigger a nuclear war. >> they have been talking about

nuclear war for several months. even before the start of the war putin was talking about this risk, if there was an attempt on crimea by the ukrainians. we have to take that into consideration but it should not be a self deterrent. i think we have to be cautious but i think it would be highly unlikely that russia starts a major nuclear exchange with the west. there is the possibility they could use technical nuclear weapons, but what will they really achieve? i think americans have made it clear that if there is the use of technical nuclear weapons in ukraine, the americans and nato will intervene. there would be a very high-risk to the regime of president putin. i think often many of these statements are empty threats, but they have to be taken seriously. as noted, the question of

escalation is in everyone's mind. there is caution but at the same time we now have to consider that there is a turning point because russia is ready to mobilize a very high number of soldiers. it is engaging its entire economic and for structure and industrial infrastructure towards the war effort, the production of tanks and other kinds of military equipment that could be potentially useful very much to russia on the battlefield. >> we are running out of time. sending all these munitions to ukraine, it crosses my mind that it is not just depleting countries of their own defense capability, but makes the world a more dangerous place in that sense too. >> i don't think so. what really is important is the speed of decision because there is no doubt that to change the whole tempo of this conflict and

to get it resolved, we need to support the ukrainians with tanks. the americans can send those in smaller numbers because of the distances and also the training is more difficult. the british have already planned to send a squadron and the real answer is for the leopards to be supplied by the various countries who have got them because they are there on the borders ready to go and they are much easier to operate. >> we will watch how this pans out in the coming days thank you to all of our guests. and thank you too for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting al jazeera.com. for further discussion, go to our facebook page.

and you can also join the conversation on twitter. for the whole team here, goodbye .

ówówóoc■j?qñ/ñ/ñ/ñ/ñ/ñ/ñóóówów úç [captions made post

television] ♪ ♪