documentary on al jazeera. >> russia's invasion of ukraine has caused thousands of deaths and destroyed entire cities. western countries have answered kyiv's plea for military aid. does this mean the conflict has become international and what are the risks of escalation to a wider war? hello and welcome to the program. the war in ukraine has reached a

scale that has not been seen in europe since world war ii. before the invasion in february 20 22, the west's main weapon against russia was sanctions but a year later many western nations are sending arms and military equipment to ukraine. while the war rages, kyiv has been winning battles on the diplomatic front. berlin has given the green light for german-made leopard two tanks to be deployed. as the agreement was reached, ukraine's focus has shifted to other weapons like aircraft. >> the key now is speed and volume, the speed of training our military. supplying tanks to ukraine. the amount of tanks support. we have to form a fist of tanks, a fist of freedom which will not allow tierney to rise again. -- allow tyranny to rise again. it is important we expand our cooperation in artillery.

we have to begin supplying aircraft to ukraine. this is our task. tom: well western nations -- folly: while western nations have criticized germany for the delay, it is a result of internal conditions. some politicians are wary of the risk of wider conflict. >> we have provided aid, financially, humanitarian aid of, also with arms deliveries. that is our obligation. we have done everything we can to prevent the conflict from escalating because that will affect the whole world. folly: russia says by supplying ukraine with arms, western countries are directly involved in the conflict. >> both european capitals and washington keep saying the delivery of various kinds of weapons systems including tanks to ukraine does not mean the involvement of these countries or the nato alliance in hostilities in ukraine.

we categorically disagree. moscow views everything the alliance and the capitals i have mentioned are doing as direct involvement. we can see it growing. folly: so where are the weapons coming from? more than 30 western nations have sent arms and military equipment since the beginning of the war. the u.s. is the largest single contributor pledging more than $25 billion. germany is next followed by the u.k.. they have promised missiles, rocket launchers, drones, battle tanks, and other armored vehicles. russia has been using iranian drones which it says were bought before the war. the u.s. has accused north korea of supplying weapons to russia, something pyongyang denies. nato is widening its call for support. on a visit to south korea, yen stoltenberg asked his hosts to change its policy on supplying weapons abroad. the u.s. has been supplying weapons from its stockpile in

israel. let's bring in our guests now for today's show. in cork we have geoffrey roberts , emeritus professor of history at the university college cork. from bath we are joined by patrick bury, a senior lecturer in security at bath university. he is also a former nato advisor. in mallorca, benjamin tallis, a senior research fellow at the alfred von oppenheim center for the future of europe based in berlin. thank you for joining us. geoffrey roberts, let me start with you. as we approach the first anniversary of the ukraine war, we have seen massive western military aid to kyiv. is the arming of ukraine by the west bringing us closer to wider international war? are western countries directly involved? geoffrey: they are certainly involved in the conflict,

supplying military aid, supplying intelligence, training ukrainian troops. there may be special forces directly involved. the ukraine war is already an international conflict and the west is deeply involved. the latest stint is another escalatory step. what worries one is not practical proposals or practical policy that has been decided. i doubt this new equipment will actually reach the battlefield in time and in quantities to make a significant difference. what does worry about it is all the talk that is surrounding the supplies. the talk that is preceding them is that the west can do what it likes in relation to ukraine. putin has no redlines. we can do whatever we want. we should not be interested --

intimidated by threats from the russian side. we should do whatever we can to make sure ukraine wins this war. what that points to his further escalation. zelenskyy is demanding long-range missiles, aircraft, may be direct western bombing. it is a worrying difference -- different development in the logic in relation to the ukraine war. folly: do you agree with jeffrey who says this could lead to wider escalation, the supplying of weapons by the west? patrick: it is an international war when two states go to war against each other, simple as that. russia invaded ukraine and it is international war. i think geoffrey is right, there are people in the west and in russia calling for harebrained approaches. whether it is the use of nuclear weapons inside ukraine or people

in the states who think you can lean into this without any consideration of your enemy essentially and go for broke. there's a whole piece of course about how did we get into this situation? which both the west and ukraine have contributed to. unfortunately so has russia and russia has exposed itself by invading and crossing into ukraine, trying to subjugate the country. exposed itself to the consequences of that action. it is the one that took the lead from the situation, being relatively stable to being an international war. folly: but do you think -- geoffrey seems to say we are heading toward a wider conflict that could involve other countries directly. patrick: i do not see that yet. the theory of war pulls us toward extremes. the practicalities of war, for example you send tanks but to

protect the tanks you need jets to fly overhead to keep the russian air force away. pit bulls toward escalation, too. on the other hand -- it pulls toward escalation, too. on the other hand, look how long has taken. ukraine was asking for tanks in march of 2022 and patriot air defense. all they got were handheld javelins and antitank weapons and stingers, body armor. it has been a slow process but the problem is from a nato perspective, they have an incredible ally who is fighting for their own territory against an invading force which has broken international law. in some ways if you do not stand up for your values, what do you do? folly: let me get benjamin thoughts. there has been a lot of debate in germany on whether or not they should be involved more in the ukraine conflict. there was a lot of discussion about whether to supply these

tanks to ukraine. the chancellor was opposed. what is the biggest concern for germans? benjamin: i think the biggest concern for a lot of germans, talking about the public, is that their government is not doing enough quickly enough to support ukraine, which they see as being in germany's interest to do. that has not been the opinion of the chancellery, who have been very hesitant. the cost of their delay can be measured in ukrainian lives. these tanks have been requested since april last year when the czech republic and poland supplied battle tanks to ukraine. it is 10 months later they are being given the go-ahead. there are concerns about escalation. all the way up to nuclear escalation. but a lot of people fear that is falling into russia's nuclear blackmail trap. there are other issues at hand as well. several politicians as well as analysts questioned whether the schulz chancellery wants ukraine

to win a decisive victory. to show whether the alliance is standing up for democracy, but they recognize also the transformer station -- the transformation potential should one side have decisive victory. folly: i'm sorry to interrupt you because that is very interesting. why wouldn't the germans want and direct victory -- a decisive victory, sorry, for ukraine? benjamin: it is not the germans, it is the faction of the social democrats party in germany. it's important to say they don't want ukraine to lose either. they do not want decisive victory because that is what we would call a system transforming effect whereby the competition between democracies and autocracies intensifies. you have to stand up and be counted on two sides. that might have all sorts of

implications for germany's trade relations with china for example. we see the schulz chancellery clinging to the world of yesterday where they could do business with who they wanted, and that's not going to be a viable proposition if ukraine wins a decisive victory which is what a lot of the allies want. folly: is that why we saw a reluctance from the german government? benjamin: i think it has been one of the main reasons. there have been so many main reasons that have been -- so many reasons that have evaporated into excuses but that strikes me as one of the most plausible reasons behind the delight. folly: let me pick up on something you said earlier. putin's redlines. what do you think could tip him over the edge? what would be his redlines? geoffrey: no one knows. we don't actually want to test that, what they are. the consequences of miscalculating what his redlines would be would be catastrophic.

the main victim of that miscalculation, if we did cross putin's redlines and there would be a major escalation of the war, the victim would be ukraine. putin has acted with restraint from the russian point of view because they are winning the war and they are going to win the war. there is no need for them to challenge every move by the west. that calculation could change. that is what worries me. responding to benjamin i think another reason olaf scholz was reluctant to agree to supply tanks apart from the danger of escalation was public opinion in germany as it is in every country. they are divided. there are those in favor of doing whatever it takes to win the war against russia, to take

the necessary risk. there are others who prefer a diplomatic solution. they want a cease-fire, to see the war and and settled. responding to patrick, i wish i could share his confidence in the powers that be that they are going to control this process. all the way through the war it has been one as kilis or a step after another -- escalatory step after another. it has been slow but the direction of travel is quite clear. so what are they going to do next? folly: patrick, what is your response? are you convinced that putin is going to back away from a major escalation with the west if these weapons supplies continue to go ahead? patrick: no, i'm not convinced. it is down to his assessment of

the situation. i do think it is being as carefully calibrated as it can be. it cannot come fast enough for the ukrainians. the tanks are too slow, they are going to have to use their own reserves to hold the line. putin is going to have to decide -- there are rules of the game essentially. if i can invade another country and other people come to that country's aid conventionally, i have to accept that because that is the -- that is what goes with the territory of invading another country. look at iran after the invasion of iraq. this is what goes on. the rules of the game is you do not use nukes and when you do, if you're are going to start threatening, you have to go through the clear signals of getting your strategic nuclear forces ready. the most dangerous point of view, if ukraine starts to inflict another operational blow on russia this summer, you are

-- it will essentially show what the russian military, the ground forces, that they are incapable really. that is a risky situation. much less so than -- if the f-16s go in to protect the ukrainian offenses, if the russian air force cannot deal with that over ukraine, that is the air force's problem. folly: what difference are the new weapons going to make? are they going to help ukraine regain territory lost? patrick: the clear thing is the ukrainians need to weather a very hard period as russia most likely between spring and summer tries to attack somewhere. and then if you look at what armored brigades are for, which is essentially what is being pledged and will come on stream, armored brigades are for finding a weak spot and punching through takeback territory. it was an armored big raid --

armored brigade that punched through kharkiv. there can be escalatory responses, but if you do not view the problem as a belligerent has invaded another subornation nation, not withstanding happened before that, this is the rules of the game. folly: before i bring benjamin back, i wanted to ask you geoffrey what you thought of the new weapons. will they change the strategic situation on the ground? geoffrey: it is hard to tell. but what we do know is this. there has been a whole series of western weapons. antitank missiles, mmm sevens,

now these heavy tanks. these weapons were all suppose d to change the war strategically in ukraine's favor but they have not worked so far. russians have destroyed thousands of ukrainian tanks and armored cars. there is reason to expect -- no reason to expect they are not going to be able to deal with this latest wave. before i came on this program i was worried about the escalation problem. listening to patrick and benjamin i'm even more worried now because that is exactly the kind of discourse that is leading us into -- the west into all-out war with russia. benjamin: interesting discussion. a couple points i would like to pick up on. there's only one escalaytory

party in this war and that is russia. ukraine's decision to join nato is different from russia's decision to impose a sphere of influence on it and that is what democratic countries have reacted to. ukraine is fighting a defensive war and by the way is winning it so i'm going to push back on the unfounded assertion that russia is somehow winning. the russian military has been humiliated in ukraine fighting a far smaller force and they have failed to achieve most objectives. they are being pushed out of territory they have taken and that is in part due to the weapons the west has provided buzz another part due to the courage, ingenuity, -- but in another part due to the courage, ingenuity, of ukrainian people, and that has inspired people around the world to say this is our fight, too. everyone who does take that as being our fight wants to provide ukrainian with what it needs to win and that is what we should do. i would push back strongly against the suggestion that these weapons don't work.

they have been consistently shown to work and the tanks will certainly make a difference in combined arms warfare, offensive maneuver warfare, as patrick described. combined with air cover they would be extremely effective and russia would stand to lose. the trouble with de-escalation is from russia's side, they have nowhere to go against nato or the west. we also have nuclear weapons. we have weapons with which we could hurt them. that is the balance of power we seen. deterrence both ways. folly: what evidence is there that russia is actually winning this war right now? geoffrey: the evidence is what is happening on the ground. particularly in the donbas. the 300,000 additional reservists they have mobilized since the successful ukrainian counteroffensive's, which have been brought to bear, but with evidence of huge casualties ukrainians are suffering on the

battlefield. why do you think ukrainians are so desperate? about these tanks? what? why do you think the ukrainians were so desperate? because the russians have destroyed all the previous tanks and armored cars and weaponry. so look -- patrick: they had 900 going into the war and they have lost about 400. they have also captured 500 russian tanks. geoffrey: patrick, patrick, patrick, that is not the case. they have lost many more than that. in terms of casualties let's talk about the casualties. russians have suffered huge casualties. my estimate would be 20,000 dead. maybe another 80,000 missing, injured, all that. 100,000 casualties. what have been the casualties of the ukrainian? at least 100,000 dead. some say 150,000.

several hundred thousand more have been wounded. ukrainian casualties, three or four times higher than russian. patrick: i just -- certainly from my understanding, the casualty rate, the russians are probably over 30,000 dead and a multiple of that, times three or four wounded. ukraine unfortunately is still quite high, we don't get the full picture because it is operational security. but the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in the united states and recently reckons ukraine is at 100,000 casualties all in including their wounded, not dead, ok? geoffrey: ursula bandar lyon when she was -- ursula von der leyen said there have been 100,000 ukrainian officers killed in the war. patrick: she had to retract her statements. geoffrey: as far as i know that

has never been retracted. folly: ok gentlemen. let's try to move the conversation and discussion forward. benjamin, ukraine is now demanding more warfare as we heard president zelenskyy say. looking at germany specifically, can germany cope with the pressures of demand without sacrificing its own defenses? benjamin: yes, and a number of experts have made this case. i have talked about this for a long time. a client -- one of the leading german experts on security has made the argument that what would be supplied to ukraine would only be used to defend against russia anyway. tying russia down and diminishing its forces in ukraine is a perfectly good use for these weapons. supplying them does the job in a more effective way. it supports democracy, it

supports ukraine, and degrades russia's military capabilities which would be the only thing they would be used for anyways. they can be spared and more should be spared immediately. let me very quickly pushed back on what i think is misinformation that is being supplied by certain other contributors to this show about casualties. geoffrey: hang on, i'm not letting him get away with that. you cannot accuse anybody. that is completely -- you cannot do that. folly: gentlemen, please. geoffrey: you cannot do that. folly: gentlemen, please. let's try and continue this discussion in a civil manner. geoffrey: if you disagree or you have alternative information, but do not accuse me of misinformation. that is completely wrong. >> showing all the discipline of a russian mobilized unit. i suggest you get the figures

right and stop spreading anti-ukrainian propaganda. folly: sorry, -- geoffrey: can i please come back ? i want to clarify something. i am not pro-russian. i am pro ukrainian. what i think about this war is the longer it goes on, the worse it is going to be for ukraine. the more people get their way in terms of western strategy, the greater the price ukraine has to pay. western military strategy is destroying ukrainians which is why i want the war to stop as soon as possible. i want peace negotiations. i want a settlement that can actually safeguard ukraine's future sovereignty and independence. the way things are going -- folly: gentlemen, we just have a few minutes left. i want to get your thoughts on where we think this is headed as we enter the second year of this conflict.

it is going to be a year in february. patrick, what ways do you see the conflict going as the west continues to arm kyiv? credit conclude in the coming year are we going to grind this into 2024 and the other countries involved as feared? patrick: i don't think you're going to see any countries involved with boots on the ground. no other countries. that is a different level altogether. i think it is going to try to be contained. we can expect maybe two major russian counteroffensive's between now and the summer. we will see how they go. ukraine is going to have to weather that storm. i think ukraine will be preparing when the ground is harder, their attacks to try to take back their land. no one is ready to negotiate. if the ukrainians wanted -- the people wanted peace, they could say that. they could go for it. they think the costs are worth bearing at the moment. you have to respect that.

i think maybe at the end of the summer we will see, there may be a window of opportunity for negotiated settlement but it could well drag on. it is an absolute tragedy, a human tragedy first and foremost. it is not of ukraine's making. folly: benjamin, what ways could the conflict go? benjamin: it is important to listen to ukrainians on that. i agree with what patrick just said. ukrainians do not want a negotiated solution because they don't have a trustworthy negotiating partner. that is a position that has been confirmed by washington. we have to ask why they don't want to exist with their territory occupied by the russian regime. because we have seen massacres, we have seen the brutal aggression the russians have put on the people living in the occupied territories of ukraine. it is understandable when 85% to 90% of ukrainians say what they continue to be victory is russia completely out of their territory. not 21st of february borders, but 1991 borders.

that is what we should be pushing for, otherwise we set a dangerous precedent. we increase the likelihood of nuclear proliferation and undermine democracy. folly: where is this conflict headed? geoffrey: i think it is probably heading in the direction patrick outlined. just a moment ago. i think that is the most realistic example. i would like to finish with this point. the war has lasted so long only because of western support for ukraine. without that, the war would have come to an end months ago. hundreds of thousands of people's lives would have been saved. ukraine would be in a stronger position in terms of a peace settlement then it is at the present time. it is up to ukrainian people and their government to do what they want but western citizens, their governments also have choices to make here. my argument is there needs to be a choice in favor of a return to

diplomacy and effort at achieving a cease-fire and some kind of peace negotiation. folly: we have run out of time. thank you for a great discussion. and thank you for watching. you can always watch this program any time by visiting our website at al jazeera.com. for further discussion, go to our facebook page. you can join the conversation on twitter. from me and the whole team in doha, thanks for watching. goodbye for now.

#