sure russia's claims regarding the elation of the treaty when it was still the. active we many times reached out to our u.s. colleagues saying that the new loan which. the romanian because soon in poland are a direct violation of the american media than a shorter range missile treaty the. us that mag 41 launches could not be used to launch tomahawk type missiles sea based missiles was the now and there is no way the u.s. can just defy the condition of. its actions because it has become clear that that can be done so there is a question now what will be deployed in romania and poland anti-missile systems or

offensive missile weapons capable of reaching targets very long distance like to turn to your turn. that these tests took place only 16 days after. the process which the us started to itself. will do from the n f treaty it is clear that they were not improvisation averse nobly improvising that was another link in the chain of long planned actions and tests that goes to show again that the concerns which we are a. political had enough grounds to be credible we need the us has been long working on developing and they have to reach a brand new types of weapons for many times turned the attention of our partners to that fact but instead of correcting. this and returning to compliance

america started the propaganda campaign claiming that. it has been russia that violates the treaty it is clear to everyone today that the only goal of these actions or stew the cover up for the. development and design the works are going to say it is to create such weapons that leaves no room for any doubts regarding the real motives of the united states. there are no barriers for it to see. the pressure lip loring formally and you can buy and sell as in every many regions of the world u.s. officials of all the all say that deploying such weapons may take place. first in the asia pacific but that has to do with our interest because that is a region which is very close to the russian borders. as you know we never wanted it we do not want it and we will never be seeking an arms race

which might be so damaging to the economy and like to remind you that russia terms of the military expenditure comes only 7th in the world. after the united states china. saudi arabia and you from the u.k. france and japan the book and i mean really. we are developing there are a lot weapons weapon systems and that was provoked. by the unilateral withdrawal from the united states particularly with from the treaty in 2003. we had to be and it was our obligation to work hard to ensure the security of our people of our country that's what we are doing today and that's what we will be doing in the future the same time giving the existing

context. the ministry of defense and the foreign ministry as well as other relevant agencies and ministers to analyze the current threat level created by their 4 mentioned actions of the united. states of america so that we could. david every necessary use as part of the symmetrical response we are ready for you call and constructive dialogue to restore trust and confidence and reinforce global security. ok those are the words there are plenty of putin speaking a few minutes ago he was speaking about the fact that america had tested a cruise missile recently that previously had been banned under the now defunct i.n.f. treaty he said there's great concern in russia over what's happened he says that the country's open to dialogue to try and restore the treaty but would analyze now the new security threat to russia well earlier russia and china did call for global

action to prevent a new arms race following the collapse of that treaty moscow and beijing called a u.n. security council meeting after the u.s. had tested that cruise missile rival powers also blamed each other again for the ongoing escalation. that's because of the u.s. ambitions we are one step away from an arms race that cannot be controlled or regulated in any way the united states will not remain a party to a treaty that is deliberately violated by russia as if this depended only on us we would not reach this dangerous situation the united states is taking the necessary steps to address the threat posed by intermediate range missile forces being deployed in ever larger numbers by russia and china but what about you are you going to avoid responsibility for what is happening to future generations forgive you for this russia's present actions are in line with a pattern of aggression that represents a clear threat to international peace and security the russian federation is the

sole responsibility for the reason demise of the media. and we do not understand that by your responses to the americans you are returning the historical situation when missiles targeted european cities from different sites. was a heated debate at the united nations security council now the united states has recently withdrawn from the i.n.f. treaty the intermediate range nuclear forces agreement and not only has the usa withdrawn from the treaty but the usa recently tested a missile that would have been a violation of that treaty had it still been in effect many are viewing this as an escalation of a potential new arms race between russia and the united states now when the representative of the united states spoke to the security council they accused russia of being responsible for the agreements demise this is the us representative here today because the russian federation preferred

a world in which the united states continued to fulfill its i.n.f. treaty obligations while the russian federation did not we've heard a narrative today that the united states had itself been in violation of the i.n.f. treaty because of our recent flight test which used the m k 41 launcher that was also found in our ages to shore missile defense. system this is categorically false now russia emphasized that its concerns about the m k 41 launcher have been proven to be indeed correct and that this launcher could easily be tested in transformed into the tomahawk missiles that were recently tested by the united states and those missiles do indeed violate the treaty now russia which had been accused of having violated the i.n.f. treaty had repeatedly requested that inspectors come to russia and see if indeed these allegations from u.s. leaders were true however the united nations and the united states ignored their requests to defend themselves against these allegations of violating the i.n.f.

treaty russia asked for dialogue around the issue and this dialogue was ignored here's some of what we heard from the russian representative. in accusing russia the united states and the countries that grunt alone with its are ignoring facts and common sense we proposed a closed door meeting to look at time misao of this and give full information to convince them that we did not violate the treaty but they refused we cannot understand the arguments from us but we do want to save the treaty china was also subject to us allegations that the security council united states accused china of boosting its military arsenal as well china responded that it was not correct for the united states to withdraw from the treating and blaming china for their decision was not honest or correct either this is the chinese representative addressing the security council with the i.n.f. treaty is of great importance to not only the u.s. and russia but it's

a global peace and security it is an accent to which use china as an excuse for leaving the treaty china rejects the baseless accusations from the u.s. now the i.m.f. treaty was signed in 1987 it was a key moment in the deescalation and ultimate end of the cold war between the united states and. the soviet union and the recent decision of the united states to withdraw from that treaty as many concerned about the potential for a new nuclear arms race now many hoped that meeting could be the opening of dialogue toward restoring some kind of treaty regarding intermediate range nuclear forces missiles and such and wherever while a lot of accusations were exchanged no real consensus seems to have existed among the countries represented at the un security council in the wood investigative journalist david into if the us is forcing rival into an alms race. the u.s. was preparing to do this. that the fact that they launched this tomahawk missile

from a mark 41 launcher proves what russia had been complaining about when the us put these agents missile systems near the russian border russian western border and said oh these are to guard against iranian missiles which of course don't even exist there are no russian intermediate range missiles based around the united states and there aren't any chinese intermediate range missiles based around the united states the united states however wants to return to a situation like pre 987 when the u.s. said pershing missiles highly accurate 300300 kilogram ton were head missiles all over europe aimed at russia and the danger of these missiles is that they can strike their targets within minutes so it forces countries like russia or china to put their i.c.b.m.'s on hair trigger response this is very very

dangerous time now and it's a going to lead to an enormous arms race. through german camps never mind can rescue bagatelle pricing and money in the mediterranean a snub a bravery your board from france says paris of hypocrisy given its treatment of migrants i'm referencing. we do not need authorities deciding about who is a hero and who is illegal at the same time your polices stealing blankets from people that you're forced to live in the streets while you read protests and criminal ice people that are standing up for rights of migrants and asylum seekers while in 2017 peer claims boat was seized by italian authorities in the port of lampedusa with rescued migrants on board she was charged with assisting illegal immigration and could then face up to 20 years in jail the paris mayor's office though has reacted to her criticisms of the french authorities inviting her to you to the city to see how migrants are actually treated there. we are waiting for you

in paris to show you the different ways we are ensuring a dignified reception for migrants despite the tensions that exist on the subject with the state you'll fight is ours while the french capital is at odds with the federal government over migrants france is also wrangling over the issue with fellow bloc members shoulda been ski picks up the story. paris has consistently lobbied for better or 2nd sentence for migrants while the city was actually the 1st to open a temporary reception center which some 13000 migrants said to have passed through and it's invested 40000 u.s. in a restaurant to feed my kids if the price mess says they would have done more but for the french government i do not understand why the government is allowing indignity and kiryas on the capital's doorstep between 700 and the 1200 migrants are sleeping rough in the streets in makeshift camps under bridges on roadsides where

they're forced to live in inhumane conditions and does she have a point that the french state has repeatedly cleared migrant camps in paris but when one is dismantled sure enough another suing replaces it michael's government has also been criticized for a controversial asylum and immigration bill in a bid to limit new arrivals that law double to 90 days the time in which illegal immigrants could be detained it shortened deploying school asylum applications and made illegal crossing the borders as an offense with a jail time of up to a year but is hans really in a position to sought out the problem itself it's been trying with germany to find consensus across the entire 8 you for a solution to the crisis on that level brussels is slamming italy and eastern european. trees for shouting lead towards some migrants it's very people critical

where the mayor of paris is doing i don't know what went into the mind. of mine because you see of course they're not welcome you can go from here and you can see the people sleeping in the street it's a tough. people critical with respect to interview because it is getting most of the minds and friends and take them in in such large numbers so they blame the turn for not opening their bulldozer to the fans don't do that either so it's completely political the thousands of the in the mater and maybe because exactly because of the so-called humanitarian probably see which gives them the illusion that they would be rescued and they won't be i mean the world all be from my quince in no time be at the way that they treated the activists not happy at the way the government to helping the local governments not being happy with the federal government and those federal governments not happy with brussels brussels it seems is not happy either it's one that huge circle going around and around but it's

actually not getting any challenge even ski on paris we want across the atlantic the trump ministrations i'm sorry facing sticks the way he treats undocumented children at the border with mexico will have a look at the latest controversial plan that you start. you know world big partisan booty lot and conspiracy it's time to wake up to dig deeper to hit the stories that mainstream media refuses to tell more than ever we need to be smarter we need to stop slamming the door on the bad and shouting past each other it's time for critical thinking it's time to fight for the

middle for the truth the time is now for watching closely watching the hawks. with lawmakers manufacture consent to public wealth. when the ruling class does not protect themselves. the famous merry go round lifts only the one percent. we can all middle of the room sick. i mean the real news is. hello again you with r.t. now a 9th round of peace talks between the u.s. and the taliban is underway in catarrh at the moment but

a new study has raised concern that any pace in afghanistan could be undermined by cia backed militias operating in the country the report by brown university's watson institute argues that if a deal is brokered and washington withdraws its troops the militias could start causing trouble. militias that operate outside the control of the central states and the chain of command of its armed forces will undermine the process of state formation and the prospects for a sustainable peace. well the cia has not confirmed backing militias in the region all the links have been alleged throughout the almost 2 decades america has been fighting in afghanistan don't cotton reports peace talks with the taliban could be making some serious headway washington is certainly optimistic about them conversations are going well the truth will be in the reality of what really happens other going to we can reduce violence will create a space where we can withdraw not only american support but nato forces that are

there as well reducing violence would be great in a country that's seen 19 years of continuous war according to the reports there are 4 key negotiating points at the moment 1st the taliban must guarantee that it will not allow foreign armed groups to use afghanistan as a base for their terrorist attacks an obvious reference to al qaeda which brought the u.s. and its allies to the country in the 1st place in return the u.s. and nato troops must pull out from afghanistan then there's the questions of a permanent cease fire an internal political dialogue and then there's a couple of elephants in the room like for example the future of cia armed and trained afghan militias a new report by a u.s. based brown university's watson institute argues in fact no real peace could be possible unless their future is addressed. throughout the militias reportedly have

committed serious human rights abuses including numerous extra judicial killings of civilians cia sponsorship ensures that their operations are clouded in secrecy our concern is if such units and militias continue to operate from of understanding in afghanistan it's going to. cause their white men to continue and i think that these militias are uncontrollable the most infamous of these groups is the so-called coast protection force from summary executions to torture you name the human rights abuses they've probably been accused of it and they're not exactly shy about who they hang around with we are better trained than the afghan national army the helicopters and drones belong to the us but we regularly received requests to support them. the cia doesn't admitting they train these militias of course but they have quite the track record during the soviet afghan war they financed

a group of islamic fighters called the mujahideen to fight the afghan government then backed by the u.s.s.r. and guess who came out of the mujahideen the same taliban that continues to be a thorn in the side of the us to this day one of the conditions of u.s. withdrawal is that the cia also will. stop all activities and leave the country newsgroups. or go return to the good cool or taken under the control rather central government in kabul then this peace process is a complete sham and it will carry about as much we as a bunch of lines went because these groups will still be operating this year you will still have a presence in the country therefore the us will still object to. afghanistan when training more militant groups to fight the ones that turned on you last time lands you in trouble once again it might be time to take a hint donald quarter r.t. . human rights groups are raising the alarm over the trump of ministrations plans

to keep undocumented children in detention indefinitely the detention of children can lead to trauma susanto feelings and exposure to dangerously natick with medical can no mounds of time and attention say for children and prolonged detention is particularly harmful or currently under the $997.00 floors agreement detained migrant children have to be released after 20 days as do any accompanying parents but the new policy is likely to remove that limit i mean security yagis that this will help to stop the exploitation of children. new rules protect children by reducing incentives for adults including human smugglers to exploit minors in the dangerous journey to our border using them to beat the system and be released into the united states no child should be upon in a scheme to manipulate our immigration system which is why the new rule eliminates the incentive to exploit children as a free ticket or as one gentleman in what i'm all told me

a passport from migration to united states so far this year some 600000 people have been detained in u.s. borders since 2807 children have died in immigration custody human rights lawyer dan coverlets says the new policy is likely to make the situation worse. it does 3 things actually what's being proposed it would as you say allow children to be held indefinitely right now there are limits are how long a child can be our intention the 2nd they meet does as well lou all state regulations on these types of the attention centers and that there are only does is it will deny access to independent observers who want to go to see and make sure that the conditions that hold children and their families are programmed so if they're held indefinitely we know children are going to be abused and treated terribly these immigrants are already and uniquely terrible

circumstances and this is only going to make it worse the u.s. is eeriness really as a coercive measure to try to get your migrants from coming into the country basically that the u.s. is saying. if you come to this country with children you're going to be treated very badly in your children are going to be treated badly so dot com. ok let's go back to our breaking news this hour because the russian president vladimir putin has ordered an analysis of the threat posed by the latest american cruise missile test that assesses just a couple of weeks after the u.s. pulled out of the i.n.f. treaty that was a cold war era treaty that had been existence for something like 3 decades so let's get some reaction to that mag and speak to independent journalist martin summers who joins us. martin good afternoon thanks for coming on nothing unexpected i

suppose from what vladimir putin said but just to reiterate he wants an analysis of the threat posed by america now it's starting to test these cruise missiles what sort of response could russia. implemented you think to this. well i mean in a sense the russian nuclear forces have already been modernized with long distance missiles which can strike anywhere will so these short range missiles all provocative because they can you know they get that they create a trigger situation where a nuclear war could be triggered by some you know by mistake although most and i think the fact that these missiles have been tested just after the the americans were drawn from the line of treaty shows that they always intended to withdraw from the line of treaty and they've been developing these missiles secretly despite the treaty and that of course is worrying because it just shows how unreliable they are as partners your presentation did pick up on that point he said oh he cased the

americans every once in a propaganda campaign suggest it was russia that had violated this i.n.f. treaty when in fact it was american economics case to put out of it itself. yes and of course you've got to remember the the geography is not as asymmetric so you know short range missiles based in europe in remain europe poland can strike the heartland of russia very very quickly whereas of course if the the russians were to put similar missiles into cuba you can imagine the reaction that you get in washington if that took place and that the the asymmetry means that you know the you can't really compare the the tactics that each side might use in a potential confrontation but really i think the russian russians have got the right attitude which is of any use of nuclear weapons will lead to an all out response immediately we're not playing games of having picking off a you know a target here it's our get there and i think that ultimately the americans are

wasting their money unless they really want to blow the world or what where does europe fit into this because presumably we know that they saw range missiles will be placed in europe and then europe itself becomes a russian target doesn't it it does and i think we're. the put the put short range missiles in remain you're in poland because they've got you know historically until russian attitudes but i think if you go further into western europe as in germany and other places we go back to the 1980 s. in britain as well people were not very happy about being turned into a target because of course the possibility is that a nuclear war could be fought in europe which wouldn't necessarily touch the united states at least in the minds of the dr strange limbs who theorize about these things. and i think i'm afraid the the americans are still of in the opinion that they can use nuclear weapons as a tactical maneuver whereas in actual fact a russian doctrine which of course has no 1st use as its as its underlying

principle of course nato has never accepted that but again destabilized things why won't they just say we won't use them 1st but that's one of the best solutions always being that they will use them. and of course we nearly had a nuclear war in 1903 that was only stopped by because the the russian service picked personnel realized that it was a false alarm but we nearly blosser was that then and this this all recklessness is you know it's historically ingrained russia says look it's still open to talks about renewing this i.n.f. treaty do you think they could get the europeans on side perhaps to put pressure on america to do that because as we just discussed it's europe is now in the firing line well i think the reason why they're chosen to to to locate stuff so far in eastern europe is because of the history and of course if that's closer to the russian heartland as well in the 1980s the reports increase in pushing missiles into the west german as it then was an intern britain of course they didn't deploy

them in france because france at that stage wasn't part of the nato infrastructure is the gold at the moment in 1960. i think there will be definitely questions in in the population in western europe that they don't really want to have an arms race with russia or it's not in their interests it's it's basically. crazy. and talking of interests people might still wonder why is it in america's interest to sort of prevent this. well and what part of the answer is that they want to use these short range missiles against other targets than russia and the deals that they did with russia and the soviet union was back in the eighty's meant that they didn't supposedly not developing them at all but of course they know they want to use them as written china for example. they want full spectrum dominance they've made it pretty clear they want full spectrum dominance of everything from space right down to the you know that they're not going to allow independent countries and independent policies which is absolutely bonkers in the world we live in i think

the russians should just because they've got the nuclear forces they need to defend themselves if they see if the other side starts a nuclear war everybody will die and there's no point getting in involved in silly arguments with a man who you know what these short range missiles just provoked at places ok martin look good to talk you're going to have to leave it there that was independent journalist that martin something thank you thank you and thank you for watching today would have more on the story and the series usual here in r.t. in just over half an. you know to go home i live where is it you don't focus the muslim people everybody

on our media and most eagles of this bozo not only made the i think not just one of the whole time he left might want. to. leave because it gives me my 1st big call couple to get to see him and we said. someplace he most people almost call me i most came in nobody goes from believe me national security was he was put to you in colombia so i called. that i'd pull. out of the compass he was. going to someone i'm going to help people not you're not one source who's he live and they don't you won't believe i got a list with your vehicle. and also knows all the discipline little someone knows little but if you see all of them i call them you know because i have usually not a political muscle monosyllables up.