oh, oh, this edition of the program, we asked 3 questions. how was the conflict in ukraine likely to end? why does the west refuse to negotiate an end to the conflict? and how will the international order likely change as a result of the conflict in ukraine? ah, the new us defense strategy suggests the pre emptive launch of nuclear weapons against non nuclear threats contradicting president biden's pledges to limit the potential use of new refuse to jeopardize farm as livelihood that the message from gone the ivory coast to avoid coating

a global co production form and protest at miserly payments to farmers on germany on from all over the need for the you to hit socket. what they call unfair economic competition from americans, which could reportedly result in a trans atlantic trade with 5 pm here in the russian capital. and this is not the international with the latest world news update of very welcome see us nuclear weapons could be used in a 1st strike against non nuclear threats. according to the pentagon, the new national defense strategy, which goes against president biden's, pledges to make the world safer by restricting the use of nukes. we concluded a thorough review of a broad range of options for nuclear declaratory policy, including both for north 1st use and saw purpose policies and concluded that those

approaches would result in an unacceptable level of risk. in the light of the range of non nuclear capabilities, been developed and fielded by competitors that could inflict strategic level damage to the united states and its allies and partners. the u. s. as new defense strategy, in fact, does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against non nuclear threats. it has been tamed. a controversial 1st strike policy that biden earlier suggested wouldn't be needed at a more. so apparently the you, as president has changed his mind and pentagons new strategy in fact looks very similar to i used to be under trump administration. interesting that the publication of this new strategy was expected 6 months ago. it was postponed, and we only saw it now published exactly after weimer put in speaking at val di, discussion club earlier and thursday explicitly said no to using nuclear weapons.

this is what barbara applicant had to say which you, when you can usually, we have never said anything about the possible use of nuclear weapons by russia. and only hinton examines made by the leaders of western countries for lease for us back windlass trust was prime minister in the u. k. she told the program written is a nuclear power and it is the pm's job to use it. and she would do so. no one is not verbatim, but closer. she said, i'm ready for it and no one reacted, but a young woman is a bit out of her. my union. how can one say such things in public when you just learn the u. s. president though, question perkins words claiming that talking about nuclear weapons actually means that moscow is ready to use it. and that is an ironic claim, given that that's exactly what we keep hearing from the white house every day, nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons and was put in himself, explained that moscow had to rise up this issue fall in the west. push for that. if he has no intention, why should keep talking to my wife?

she talks about the in the use of tactical nuclear weapons. what nights us on this before your, your previous comments marie? but how does this new strategy appear? it odds with jo bodies, previous statements regarding nukes, it talks, there is actually a contradiction, a clear one. it's not just a reminder, but the u. s. u only country on earth that unprovoked used the nuclear weapons in world history, but it is also a reversal biden's 2020 campaign pledge in which he was saying that nuclear weapons should online, uniquely be ever used in retaliation or as a deterrent their opinion that was west by progressive democrats and defense hawks . here's what mr. biden had to say them with no rushes said more than one city has no plans preemptively to use nuclear weapons, was steps to receive from the west to deescalate the situation. ironically, peter,

we see the opposite and opposite stabs. according to where you asked diplomatic cable, washington is now speeding up its plans to upgrade nuclear weapons in europe with evan, and criticizing the move as an unnecessary rush. i asked for common pentagon spokesperson answered, that it is in no way linked to current events in ukraine, and it was not set up in any way. but that is not exactly true because we know the delivery was scheduled for next spring, and it is happening this december. so does look like a push for a race. let's get some reaction and inside from former pentagon senior security policy analyst, michael maloof, now michael, nice to see you as always. so what's your assessment of the biggest changes to washington's nuclear weapons that strategy unveiled in this new document? well, 1st of all, i don't believe nuclear. a 1st strike nuclear weapon is going to be used anywhere by the united states, especially against

a non nuclear state may. that's ridiculous. but also i think it's really bored psychological to bolster the europeans at this time that are due to and to try to assert more, a greater us leadership in giving them a little bit of backbone because they're weaseling, they're beginning to fall back a little bit on on given a continuous support to ukraine, but there's a whole discussion of, of the use of nuclear weapons is ridiculous. and i think it's over planned, but it also excites the, the, the, the tempo of, of trying to back ukraine and show that ukraine is, it is the main issue at even to the point of, of, of misrepresenting mr. pollutants, comments. and the on the use of nuclear weapons,

he's never threatened the use of nuclear weapons, especially in ukraine or anywhere else. the only mentioned the possibility to protect the homeland the, the, the federation itself, if there was basically an attack by nato, certainly not by ukraine, but it's a, this, this is, but it's perpetuating this myth that we're going to be using nuclear weapons and that we're going to be at and it's meant to keep everybody in line and to and to stay focused on a constraining ah russia altogether. and, but it's app as, or if people knew what the effects of a nuclear device be, even a tactical nuclear device, not all of europe would be threatened off, including russia because of the fallout from the ation. the just the blithe talking discussion of this, the nonchalant discussion of, of the use of such a device is just irresponsible here. been say,

interesting how that the wording in the pentagon's new strategy is not explicitly clear when it comes to the no 1st use policy. so what's your interpretation? are they perhaps, you know, what did they wanted to leave it on? big u. s. and open to interpretation? well, i think the whole idea is to bring an ambiguity at to, to bring on uncertainty to keep the, the world on edge. it basically characterizes the in the where i'm just really surprised that biden would allow such a language to be approved because it shows irresponsibility. it shows the united states being does it for 2 months or so, if anything. and what we should be doing is cutting back on nuclear weapons and, and working up means to to, to limit them if not, eliminate them because both sides already have to too many. and there's just no

need for all of these nuclear weapons. and then to upgrade, i think, was more designed to, for psychological effect for the europeans. so that they feel that they are protected in from the united with the united states being right there behind them. but clearly the, you know, the europeans are, are in a much greater uncertain period right now, given what they're also expect. expecting here, come this winter with supply shortages of oil and gas, critical oil and gas and, and also the impact. it's devastating impact. it's going to have on their own economies. and now you talk about the trade war, that, that's precisely what's occurring because united states is really doing this, all of this, to control europe and, and makes your end to make europe subservient again,

to the united states. and that's what's occurring, how we remember how president bind and had one's promised to cut down on nukes. and that potential, you said, do you think, can the white house really have much sway over what the pentagon wants to do? what would maybe biden i was being fully honest when he said that i knew my opinion, but he just doesn't have the power powers the b. well, he is the president of the states. he makes the ultimate call. so if he hasn't completely lost his mind, hopefully he will be able to control the impulses by the pentagon. it looks like the pentagon is getting out beyond that skis without having this thing thoroughly vetted. and i think that the members of congress, sort of challenge that report and get member and get the, the hierarchy of from the god the testify on what did they really mean by this as you point out ambiguity because it leaves that uncertainty. and that in turn can

cause greater attention to the world. the pentagon is also declared china pacing challenge saying that beijing, the main, the main strategic competitor for the coming decades. what's your take on that statement and to what extent is trying to really a threat to the us? well, china is that has the 2nd largest economy in the world. it is basically from the pentagon's perspective, the, the ultimate quote, threat and quote. and in the, in the, in the years to come, because it has ramped up its military development programs. and it has greater numbers of ships than the united states does right now. and i think that between now and 2050 it is projected by the mil assessment office at the pentagon that it's going to be china, that the u. s. is going to have to deal with as the competitive world power. but the chinese are taking a different tat, which is more like construction and in under developed countries of the world that

by itself is a challenge to you as a dominance in the world. so we're going to see this as a prolong conflict competitively, at least for years to come. and finally, i'd like to ask you, well, what place to have in the pentagon's new strategy and how do you think we can expect russia to react and to respond? well, i think at the pentagon regards, russia, even though as more nukes as, as less of a threat than china will be in terms of our influence in the world. dominance. and, and i think that the of the russia will basically be a secondary concern than, than china will be. that's where the focus is go either ultimately, law may, thanks to speak in just a day from the pentagon, cynthia security policy analyst, my company, thank you. thank you. ah,

we will not jeopardize our people's well 1st, the message from africa top to cocoa produce is gone and ivory. cosa? boycotting a cocoa sustainability meeting in brussels. after accusing western companies of blocking opportunities to improve farmers incomes. r t correspondent, caribella tot labrenz's more. this is not the 1st time that god and ivory coast have gone to the low body to be mind a better treatment for they are farmers whose go around, who hustle, every way to make sure that they produce what is expected by western multinational who rely on the crop to make the chocolate, if a bitter sweet story, it's sweet. if you are a western multinational and profiting from the value chain of making chocolate, it is very bitter. if you are a farmer in any of the fed countries that have gone and ivory coast, because there you have no predictability. back in 2019,

the 2 countries put so much price out on the group and the market that they finally relented to an idea of living income differential. this was to help regulate the price of cocoa, at least from the farmers point of view. the agreement was that the, a ton of cocoa would cost $400.00. now that is not how low called traders. so it local traders look at it as a differ racial which was negative to both countries and they insisted on buying that time. the time that was supposed to be $400.00 at $260.00, now dead makes $114.00 disappear in the market, and it only shows up the value chain and never goes down to the farmers. now the farmers themselves, they only receive about 6 percent of the fed, $100.00 and wall of $1000000000.00 in the street. that if the chocolate industry now it's been fed that be with the multinational,

do not really care about african farmers. and they just there for the profits, and that is why the re meg on improving the conditions of that l i v. that is the living in the differential. but if you of the spokes person of again, a cold call regulatory body that mister fifi wow, he did not minister was when he spoke about the tendency of wisdom companies to leave a legacy of poor african even though they take from them. clearly someone is ensuring that the farmer continues to stay poor, how to expect someone who is poor all the time to sustain an industry that is always making profit. clearly, there is something that is not right and it's not the 1st time that we're going to talk about it. there is the need for us to find different means of making a point for everyone to know that something's wrong. there's a classic story of how west and colonialism, particularly capitalism,

has left its mark on the african continent. they take the refined, they sell back to the continent at much, much inflated prices and to the world at large. and they mean a legacy of poverty and scourge across africa. the german and french leaders have reportedly teamed up to oppose us legislation, aimed at pressuring call industries in europe to leading economies. but the move could lead to what was being called a trans atlantic trade war. as arthur contribute to rachel monson explains. we're hearing now about what this meeting in paris this week between german chancellor, all schultz and french president. imagine that whole was really about despite their various disagreements, they're both now looking at how the counter unfriendly measures coming from washington. the u. s. is already hammering the european union with natural gas prices and really benefiting from the fact that the block has much more dependence

on this price. the american energy 2 to 4 times the u. s. domestic market price, according to president mac whole. now that's because europe cut itself off of the much cheaper russian fuel. but now sholtes and macros are reportedly also both worried that washington is tilting the playing field to the detriment of european exports to america. specifically to bind in ministration inflation reduction act, which gives energy and tax breaks to companies that invest on american soil, which is an open invitation basically for companies to bail out of europe at the time when the continents energy supplies basically hinges on european worry to sweaters. and taking 2nd showers your how the european reaction to that is being reported in the western process. the message from the parents lunch is if the us doesn't scale back then the you will have to strike back. similar incentives. games for companies will be needed to avoid unfair competition or losing investments that

move would risk plunging transatlantic relations into a new trade war by new protection measures also incentivize the purchase of american electric vehicles with batteries made in america to the detriment of those made in europe with the french and german car industry being hugely important to both of their economies. mackerel was quick to speak out about the need for the taught to economic powers in europe to wake up and implement something similar. and just let them know what we want to do with the bus season. the aide is to have a, by european acts like the we must keep them for your pain produces and for our solutions, the europeans are still to lie. is one of the things that i discuss with jim and chunks, learn all of shows in the front and germany have to come together because we will do open the knee for europe to counter america. protectionism with its own isn't the only point of contention. berlin is also doubling down on its relationship with china at

a time when the u. s. has beijing in its cross hairs and really wants the you to follow along with its plans and interests like it did with russia. the u. s. commerce department published guidelines this month to curb access for china to us micro chips and the by the administration expects allies to just sign on. that's according to western press reports, but berlin is just green lit, the purchase of a stake in a hamburg and tear port by a chinese state on shipping giant and is set also to visit president. she's in praying in november. so the question now is whether parents and berlin will actually do something about why she has ever increasing dominance over their own economies and over the u economy. or, well, they just ultimately fall in line with washington marching orders. they you has expressed outrage at tit for tat sanctions from a ron that's off the to ron,

accused of provoking violence and acts of terrorism made widespread domestic protests in the country. oh, brussels came to sanctions. are nothing more than a politically motivated measure. the european union rejects the sanctions as they appear to be purely politically motivated. when you take the you sanctions, they are adopted on clear legal grounds based on the evidence of human rights violations in iran. a wrong has onto the number of european individuals on media outlets to a black place, issuing visa bands and seething property. that's off to the e u. place sanctions on a number of iranian officials on security. 4th is alleging their role in the recent death of masa, a mean a young woman who died shortly after being taken into custody by the countries morality, police, which sponsor, protests, country wide law to discuss it, but now joins lie. so i desire the professor of political communication at the university of to ron many, thanks for joining us on the program. it's very nice to see this friday now. i'd

like to ask you how justified to wrong latest restrictions on the e u alleging brussels, the support for terrorist groups and inciting violence in a wrong. you know, we had a terrorist attack just a couple of days ago in the city or she does 15 people killed the organizations that support these cells based in europe. we have a number of european countries engaging in colored revolution tactics in iran, financing groups, and individuals that use violence achieve, political pulls, a horse number of media outlets that show people how to make our practice and aging violence an age which is that, against european law is that each other,

but in europe they will be the owners of channels j. a been advocating violence in another country, the actually get their financial assistance in country. so we have a number of state responses of terrorism in europe. and it's time for these individuals and organizations to answer for the criminal acts. and i think that even in government, this thing that you know, it's interesting that was made the 1st me for a sanction iran and then accusing the wrong of playing politics separately. the us says, stated reviving the 2015 a radionuclide deal wasn't its immediate focus, giving priority to supporting iranian protest. instead, do you see this is a cause of concern for the countries leadership. and he's actually appropriate to choose between these 2 issues. you know,

maybe in the previous administration, the wrong on the administration going back to the agreement was something they did, but the ac administration, not depending economic policy or fine policy and the us returning to the agreement if the us one student and welcome to do that, they don't want to return the from to do that. the economy is justified insulation like china increasing and it's up to the us. they want to follow some stuff. nation wide nation of beating the agreement, what they want to change. it's up to you. there is a possibility that iran might lose, that is domestic policy regarding women's rights in order to strike a beneficial nuclear dealing and come protest is as well you know,

i think you need to divide the purchases into 2. you have a category of people that been quite upset when the young lady passed away and they understand that i don't know anybody in iran that was not upset. so that is one candidate people, the 2nd category of people that people who are paid by outside the power to engage in violence have been i use my unit. i mean, it's not just patients and you don't, you don't, they don't like any of the government needs to be back order. i can do that sessions and that's by desperate at all. you can come to test on and drive around for 2 or 3 hours and he knows demonstrations. you know, the limited, but when the engage in while and certainly can, can for this office the government after the act, you know,

you look at the police have in the united states, if you don't order you get shot by the police and many examples of that type of police behavior, you don't generally doesn't carry with him and it comes to managing demonstration. that's why you have these shots and demonstrate there's not sure that that happens . and overall, i think demonstrations are going to go away because a lot of people that they don't want to the hearing and you don't affairs and they know what the us government is. thanks for joining the programs day. it's really good to get your insight into the not to so it is already professor of political communication of the university of tuan. thank you very much . thank you. looking at as new government is to focus on securing the west african

country, which has been ravaged, find your hardest violence. how early this month? president abraham tre already seized power from lieutenant colonel paul henry, sunday. yoga geneva, who later fled to tow the country's new prime minister as the the nation remains on a war 1st thing and called on locals to contribute to stabilization. we spoke to some people on the streets of bikini foster's capital to gauge their opinion. oh, we expect the government will be terrorism. we're going to trust them. there is a need for you to stay with the president who knows the battle ground. he says he's going to fight until he's lost, right. i don't trust him and we're going to, there's a whole we need to why you know gratian to look for on the meadow. let me know about him if you can attend, and we love the powerful prime minister from revealing this miserable situation. not a decision to look for the bible because a long time france was our partner, many of the way like france didn't. how you like our care,

my way. i believe that this is probably minutes. it will come back. terrorism to be there is no freedom if we have terrorists controlling what content to take to the priority of it. government, we prime minister hulu. they were clear because the security situation was bought by organize at the beginning of the year. it's really cool. and because how would it believe that maybe it was fairly err on $50000.00, going to to would be the group in the army. hillary, we will odyssey what got before we go some news just in for you, the russian defense minister has just reported to vladimir putin that a partial mobilization is now officially over. that's off to a total of 300000 people will mobilize with around $80000.00 of them sent to was owns military reservists were 1st called up in september after 2 to said it was necessary to reach campaign goes in ukraine. many thanks for joining us here. and

i'll see international, we're back to the top of now with the very latest news updates to see that ah, so abortion was illegal in the united states until the case of roe vs wade. i had an abortion. i am a mother today because i had an abortion in 2012 and that abortion saved my life. and we are here to fight for women's right guy. the constitution actually is no life and we weren't children are persons, they should be afforded the right to life is every other person they shouldn't be murdered, just because mom thinks that can be murdered over trimming a role versus way. well, it's a tremendous victory. it's historic victory. our role must be very clear,

the health in life of women of this nation. now at risk a to fill out the scene, becomes the advocate and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground. ah,

ah. hello and welcome across stock were all things considered? i'm peter lavelle. on this addition of the program, we asked 3 questions. how is the conflict in ukraine likely to end? why does the west refuse to negotiate an end to the conflict? and how will be international order likely change as a result of the conflict in ukraine? ah, i cross sucking the conflict in ukraine. i'm joined by my guess. got rid or in del mar, he's a former intelligence officer and united nations weapons inspector and tampa. we have larry johnson, he is a managing partner for a burg associates and a former c. i a analyst and us state department counterterrorism official. and in philadelphia we crossed at erin, good. he is a political scientist historian and author of american exception empire and the deeps.