ramon because of the snow you closer to school close. i don't know who she's with defense ministry says the miss. all that fell in poland, killing 2 people. it was fired by a ukrainian s $300.00 at defense system process. warsaw makes an apparent you turn on the crisis. switches from suggesting russia was to blame, show admitting that the miss out probably came from ukraine. well, joe biden has reportedly confirmed miss. i was in fact ukrainian, while kids had initially called for nato to weigh in with military force also in the program, some african countries accused western countries are trying to extort trillions of

dollars through loans to the continent, to pay for global emissions that africa is least responsible for africa has an opportunity to be a leader and due to their own economist without following that they took up with you live from our studio here in the russian campus. so you're watching the international peter scott's here with all the latest this wednesday afternoon. thanks for joining us. versus defense ministry. it says it has identified wreckage found in easton, poland as elements of a guided missile from an es 300, a defense system used by key f. m o. d. after analyzing photos of the incidents, stressed it all allegations of russian missiles falling in poland, where it attempts to escalate the situation. the overnights incidents came after russian forces launched a high precision strikes on ukraine's military control system on tuesday,

along with its energy facilities. moscow stress that the strikes were solely carried out on targets in ukrainian territory and no closer than 35 kilometers from the polish border. meanwhile, president biden repulsively informed g 7 on nato partners that the pulled and blast was likely caused by ukrainian defense missile. the police presence, you turns to say, he had no evidence that the fuller miss. i was fired by the russian military and acknowledges the high probability that ukrainian at defense systems where the calls most likely it was a russian made asked 300 missile at the moment. we have no evidence that it was a missile fired by the russian side. much indicates that it was an air defense missile, which unfortunately fell on the territory of poland. poland could have immediately told the truth about the missile incident. then every one would have immediately understood that russia had nothing to do with it. let's go live now to our theme, don courts,

who's joining me in the studio. thanks for joining us. don. what do you make of this apparent changes done by poland or peter? this 180 degree turn. first of all, it appears to indicate that war saw cares a lot more about blaming russia and risk and to risk sparking a global conflict. then it actually is willing to find out the truth of what actually killed 2 of its citizens on this border area with ukraine. i mean, because let's not forget, poland initially began to point the finger at russia by saying that these missiles that fell on polish territory were russian made missiles. and then basically this is pretty much what dave rice told us, hysteria and the media and with western politicians that we saw come right after. that was only moments after they made that statement that they said they were going to have a, an emergency meeting and discuss the details and decide where to go from there. and it's also interesting to note that this you turn now, poland saying that it likely wasn't a russian missile attack. this comes just moments after the white house released

its own statement saying that again, this likely was not an attack from russia. and what's interesting is that now we see washington and warsaw basically telling the same line that russia is saying because the russian defense ministry long, pretty much right after this started going around the media. they started saying that this was not a russian missile attack. the rockets or the missiles rather that we could see in the photos that came out of that region were actually surface to air missiles from f, 300 ukrainian soviet made missile system. so it couldn't actually possibly have been a russian military russian missile attack on that territory. but instead of waiting for this information to emerge, we immediately saw ukraine point the finger of russia ukraine. foreign ministry minister said that russia was spreading conspiracy theories about what's now mainly

accepted to be the correct no story of what happened here that russia is spreading . conspiracy theories that it was the results of ukrainian air defense systems. we also saw the lensky quickly say that people needed to take action against russia for this and the baltic states followed suit. let's take a listen to what they said. beat did i give them hitting nato territory with miss isles? this is a russian missile attack on collective security. this is a really significant escalation. action is needed to humanize russian missiles hidden the territory of the ne, to members a very dangerous escalation by the kremlin. lots fay expresses full solidarity with our ally, poland, and will support any action deems appropriated by poland. russia will bear full responsibility for all the consequences. latest news from poland is most concerning . we are consulting closely with poland and other allies is stony as ready to defend every inch of nato territory. we are in full solidarity with our close ally,

poland. so it's definitely startling when tensions around the world and specifically in this region are so high and we're hearing from ukrainian politicians from baltic officials, that they're essentially ready to martyr themselves in some sort of 3rd world war over this. now i don't know how, how is this being covered in the western media? i know i like many of the people woke up some pretty startling headlines this morning, is pretty mildly right. i mean, there were, there were, there was definitely no shortage of headlines about this. they basically jumped on this initial comment from the polish authorities that this was a russian made missile and took it to a whole different that took it in a whole different direction saying that russia was likely responsible for all this . and there was no shortage of hysteria. and these headlines either we saw, you know, the kind of term saying that this was a shocking act from russia. that this could be the precursor to a larger global conflict. one headline even said that russia bombed poland,

which obviously was not the case now. now we know that and in western television, there was no shortage of this kind of sensationalism. either. let's take a look. nato. he shouldn't be restrained, at least in its language, in its message to russia. we're the us need to adjust its force posture there. and there is actually a lot that nato could do. and this is, in fact exactly the kind of scenario that journalists like myself, have been posing to nato. what exactly does it mean that you will defend every inch of the alliance territory? so that's going to be put to the test. now, what would that mean? now, for this conflict, and whether it now spills toward, elicits a reaction from nato. and finally, don't what do you think the reaction will be from nate? so in lights of this new information there was talk in the media of even invoke in article 5 at one point, how these things are going to react now. well, actually we have some really fresh information statements made from the by the head of nato just minutes ago, actually,

nato said that there is no indication that this missile impact was an attack from russia. like we heard from the russian defense ministry as well as from washington, and now poland. it said that preliminary information says that this was the result of a ukrainian surface to air missile, and that there were no plans for russia to attack nato's. these are statements that we just recently heard minutes ago from nato. and like you said earlier on, there was a lot of talk in the western media as well as western politicians, talking about nato potentially using article 4 of its charter article 5 over this. and just to give our viewers information as to what the latter of those article says, article 5 says that an armed attack against one member states shall be considered an an attack against all. so basically, you know, declaring war against anyone who attacks nato, but now that more information has come out, that is basically, basically, you know, showing that ukraine is most likely responsible for all this is going to be

definitely interesting to see how brutal the reaction from nato is going to be on ukraine as if, as, as it impersonal what it would have been if moscow was actually on. certainly very interesting thought that don, thanks for walking us through the latest of elements on that missile incidents important. thank you very much. let's go live now to john cavalier, senior editor for issue insides on political unless good afternoon. c a. john, thanks for joining us. for 1st question. do you think the poland should have waited until there was more definitive evidence of who? precisely 5, that missile before announcing that it was russian made and then the fall out from that. yeah. best case would have been. everyone waits until they can remedy a determine or limit opinion see as to even the original what it was asked. it was because you are still i apologize,

the background noise that big on it. yeah. it is. yeah. coin a know the question john to see if we can push through it all significant. do you think this incidence is in the conflicts in ukraine? you think only the defense system on support, or will it be? it is not a job. i mean, it's indicative of a badge and only every one. all the nato here is the russian federation. you crate. that there is a guess why everyone, you know, i need to and more was there any facts to support it? and this has been going on for, you know, certainly since the 24th of february and it's on it's on everybody. you know,

there, everyone is, is so sensitive to anything happening. and because of the response times a given the 24 hour media cycle, government officials, pundents military people, they all feel that they need to respond immediately. and it doesn't really matter how factual, what they say may be, they just need to respond to show that their concerns, et cetera. and what happened in, in poland, of the president biting was probably the most circumspect of when he was, you know, saying what they didn't know on. and it was, you know, instructive that the meeting that took place this morning amongst some of the g. 20 folks present air to one of turkey. a wasn't there when he was asked why he wasn't there. he said he only goes to important meetings and this one was an important odd,

you know, so and, and he was waiting to see he was being cautious too. and he basically said, you know, the russian government has said that if we didn't do it and he was going to wait to see them proven rob, well, yeah, yeah, we, i sized by, by that, so reasonable response from, bye, from biden. the now you know, he, he, he has a history of, of being real, quite circumspect and then, you know, blowing a whole right through it when he'll respond with just something. and he paused his staff a lot of angina, but in this case, you know, he had his, his, his card, you know, the staff in. and they had talked about staff and prepared it. he stayed, you know, on script. even though media wanted to really take him off that, but some, you know, he's, he basically said, you know, we, we don't know and, and we need to find out and,

and slowly you saw some of the other nato members that were here, begin to, to, to take that on russia scene for richie shewn act, the prime minister of the u. k. he said is much during his press conference before he departed a. so, um, i think the in one of the only disappointment was that for mr. live raw, you know, departed. i, i understand why he chose to depart, but i'm always a big believer in that some of the g 20 supposed to be by dialogue and not just dialogue with whom you agree with. it's supposed to be dialogue loom you don't agree with. so you can try to get some things done and the u. s. in the russian federation have a lot of issues. the g. 20 members do nato guys and the fact that they had the foreign minister of the russian federation here. i think that they, you know,

was sort of political malpractice not to was not to engage on you just on all these issues. it's been the same, goes with the president biden and, and, and be asked the conference and prime minister of saudi arabia on there. the staffs were trying to see who was going to walk. weiss was going counterclockwise around the room, so they, they would meet one another john coverage. i'm certainly glad that we did persevere with that line. we got through the chaos and we could definitely understand what you had to say. thank you very much, feel insights today on that incidence. thus, john kimberly, justine, editor for issue insights. i'm fiscal analysts. thank you again. thanks for your patience. well, the overnight situation has also made waves over indonesia, where turkey is president has stressed the ongoing g 20 meeting. the blaming russia for the explosions without evidence would be a provocation, is out. he's mary. if a national with him on the story picking up the press conference here in bali just a while ago, the president of turkey a, another nater said said that quotation,

the reason general impression among the leader is here and of quotation that russia has nothing to do with the attack, adding that the countries are now considering the version of a technical mistake that could have been behind the incident. old mother. there's a general impression that this miss hall is not russia made. i do not think we should insist that this massage was launched by ross shaw. this would be a crawl cation that is the gun also sad that turkey or he's now working hard. oh, continue in working hard to try to bring malls going here together for negotiations . threats saying that he believes that this conflict could and should be resolved, proved peaceful afterwards and fruit dialogue. and certainly groundless accusations, did not help these efforts. and we also added that these planning to talk to russia . president, why did more put not to hear back from the d? 20 was a big question, at least here is j. 20. whether it's members,

torn apart by unprecedented divisions with the over how to approach russia, ukraine conflict will at all be able to come to a consensus over the final declaration. and now we hear that the document has been adopted. we heard earlier from russia's foreign minister instead of a law grove that some western countries wanted the document to be politicized, and include condemnation of russia's special military operation in the ukraine, but certainly russia and also china, india, brazil, saudi arabian, indonesia, at least refused to accept such wording, and now that the final edition of the final declaration says that most all did d 20 countries condemn military actions in ukraine, but quotation, there are other opinions about this situation. date, 20 final declaration. also note that the use of threat of use of nuclear reference is unacceptable that the ukrainian conflicts were sent out existing problems of the

global economy. and also stress the importance of the grain deal, simple black sea grain initiative record earlier by turkey. and the un allowing the export of rain from earlier and walk ukrainian ports to poor as the countries on. and all d 20 members are in favor of extension, if not prolonged. it is supposed to be expired, ain't just couple days. on the sidelines of the g 20 summit, we managed to speak to the russian minister of finance about the grain and energy crises, both of which have come up for discussion in bali. he also spoke of quotes, russia's isolation since despite efforts from others, moscow participated in all the talks there legislative symptoms. yes, indeed. many issues were discussed at the summit that directly relate to the russian federation, such as the energy crisis, grain, health issues. we also actively participated in discussions and digitalization. you're asking about continuing the grain deal, which to that many g 20 countries proposed to continue the deal. because we all see

the situation with hunger and the number of african countries. and so the flow of grain food to these countries was a major topic of discussion. the russian delegation drew attention to the grain deal and the source of communication with colleagues says, i love rob. speaking of the summit of leaders said that russia is for the continuation of the deal, only for grain that is supplied under the black sea agreements to go precisely to countries which urgently need grain but not to western countries and countries with a european economy. as is happening now, therefore, we spoke in favor of continuing the tail under the control of grain dispatch points . so grain would go to countries that really need it. we also talked about the need to control the volume of energy supplies and prices about the various restrictions that western countries impose. and that these restrictions hit them since they lead to price increases and such increases in the, the growth of the economy and the well being of people living in these countries. therefore, we are in favor of removing all barriers to the export of energy resources.

removing all barriers that prevent us from exporting our energy resources to other countries. and to day, there are many barriers. this homes, the world economy, and the g 20 itself is always considered the issue with the world economy and its dynamics. all this was stressed by the russian delegation and i think that the western countries heard this image here microscope sooner should the la guthrie marquise on behalf of our entire delegation. i can say we do not feel any isolation here. yes. in the speeches of an individual western countries during the event of the g 20, there was a certain tone in terms of restrictions and course rush at the end. it's special operation, etc. but no issue was discussed without russia on key issues. since our country is a significant part of the world economy and not a single issue can be resolved without us versus could europe? mid the ongoing comp, $27.00 climate change conference. there's more bad news for africa with the world economic forum saying that the continent needs to pay $2.00 trillion dollars to

meet his obligations to cut down on emissions as the despite the di, economic state of many african countries, which are deep in debt to western economies over the african continent produces less than 4 percent of global emissions, which pales in comparison to the 19 percent produced by the u. s. and 13 by the u. the demands hotspot. process among eco archivists with some cop $27.00 guest saying that all the solutions must be found for the continent. can we be came from the damages so far caused by extraction? before we even sit down to see that we need to further extract with benefiting in this for me to not africa. so if africa is to develop, let africa sit down, look for solutions that are african and decide this had the solutions we are going to take africa ms to go they away. africa has an opportunity to be a leader and build their own economies without following. and they still capaluto as pathways because if we sell competing with, if total polluters,

their systems are very well developed, we might not bid them, but we can bid them by going green. we can bid them by being in your book where me, us ortiz crab. let's outlay, explains how the west impacts on south africa. economy is putting the countries energy independence risk an 8500000000 dollar pledge made at last the as called 26 climate change conference in glasgow is finally coming to life rich nations of the west, who through their own industrial development, created the climate crisis. and now giving out glows to south africa to get it off of coal. it's called the just energy transition plan is a deal between south africa and 5 other governments. the united states, the united kingdom, the european union, germany and france. but what's in it for south africa? we are using the transition to produce so in debt, in circumstances where we're not even using the transition to creating the best of

renewables. we just want to depend one on a western money they did. they did, the equipment is going to come from china and we're just going to be of assistance of the debt and the image. so i'm sick, i'm, you know, i'm still skeptical about the strategy game. so the benefit, the long term benefit percent of 97 percent of the $8500000000.00 will be loaned while 3 percent will be grant. francis in germany have already kicked off the process by depositing $300000000.00 euros each to the south african treasury. this will be a 20 year loan, 5 years included of grace period. and they will be at an interest of 3.6 percent for france. and 3 percent for germany, but south africa says more grants and less loans would work better. while south africa welcomes low interest or concession loans,

a substantial portion of this funding needs to be in the form of grants. the move towards lower carbon emissions is imperative as the toll will begin to weigh heavily on south africa's economy. then the list of interest rates rising is the one the, the issue of south africa had been taken. the loans in foreign countries see is only going to exacerbate the problem because the currency, the south african brent will continue to we cannot use all in all major currencies . but europe is essentially a fossil fuel addict and cannot currently survive without them. when russia reduce this natural gas applied to europe, leaders of italy, france, and especially germany, came rushing to africa thinking the same fossil fuels they used to buy from russia . europe wants to turn african to its gas station. we don't have to follow the footsteps of the rich world that actually caused climate change in the 1st place. and they are also so seen those schools em in cold from south africa and

m guess from the rest of the group, the continent. that's the focus that i think we need to be looking at and see what does it mean depths of this loan. so this touch western nations, apparently taking a huge gamble on the south africa, being a successful model for how developing countries can transition from high to low cupboard. while south africa is itself taking a huge gamble on the west, then green agenda. and some commentators say it is being done at the peril of risking energy independence and sovereign god, i will as i can pull out of tea. and jonathan, in the news, germany has nationalized a former local subsidiary of russian energy giant gas from which is renamed to securing energy for europe. back in april. now says he seeks for ways to maintain energy security amid the looming winter in order to secure the gas supply in

germany, the federal government is transferring ailing gas company, securing energy for europe into federal ownership. the reason for this is securing energy for europe's over and deafness in the commercial balance sheet and the resulting threat of insolvency which would jeopardize the security of supplying germany. the german government announced plans to nationalize a former subsidiary and germany of russia state own gas from which it seized earlier this year. the company called gas prom germania has been renamed to securing energy for europe or se f e. so where did berlin get the bio cash from? from brussels to the tune of over 225000000 euros worth of aid. and now polen plans to do the same with gas problems, euro, coal, gas assets, inside the country. they're just the latest of

a wave of nationalization that have hit european energy companies. already this year, france nationalized gas and electricity. supplier electricity did a false or death, which also sells gas by the way. and berlin did the same with uniform. the countries talk gas importer in order to prevent the countries energy system from collapsing. it says we're being told that the nationalization are necessary to save these companies because russia left them high and dry. but it was just back in september that you commission president ursula vander line, and now the decision to confiscate a 3rd of european oil gas and coal companies. quote, excessive profits as a so called solidarity contribution to help europe in household struggling with energy prices were not exactly sure how that's paying or translating into any kind of really for them that hasn't been detailed. it's hard to imagine that investor

confidence in european energy companies wouldn't have been spoofed by that kind of move, even more than the u. sanction of it, of its own energy supply from russia as a part of a deliberate ideological and virtue signalling strategy. are you really serious? we need mine own russian oil and gas before you will have your supp. it started on netflix bond. so in my opinion, it's time debt after the americans and the british. also, we decide on of for temporary ban on russian oil and gas as long as this aggression and case continuing. nonetheless, russia repeated virtually non stop that it was willing to continue energy supplies to europe even after gas problems. nord stream gas pipeline system into europe was mysteriously blown up. russia is ready to staunch on supplies. the boat is in the european union's court. if they want it, they can just open the top. and that's it. if such decisions are made by all

european colleagues with regard to gast, supplies for their consumers, all necessary procedures will be carried out to ensure the supplies. so now the narrative being peddled by germany is that it has to nationalize energy companies including gas prompts, assets, because russia cut off europe's energy supply. in reality, it's the e u that cut itself off and then was so oblivious to the damage that it had done that figure that it could treat them like cash cows on top of that to fund the damage that their own sanctions had done to european households ability to pay for the inflation and energy price heights caused by their own policies. and now just like someone who breaks an expensive vase in a store, brussels is having to pay aid to germany, to buy the gas from subsidiary that it broke. yet another resounding success for european economic policy. and finally, an arts designed to help the us targets companies involve in serious reconstruction

is crippling is economic recovery without the least is according to a video published on twitter by the former us special envoy to damascus, who's one of the architects of anti serious sanctions. the caesar act really lowers the bar for us. we don't have to prove, for example, that a company that's going in to do a reconstruction project in the. ready basket region is dealing directly with the assad rushing. we just have to have the evidence that proves that a company or an individual is investing in that sector. well, you are an expert to recent visit to the waterfall country cold on western. 8 arab countries to lift those sanctions, claiming the prolonging suffering and hinder any prospects of the country rebuilding after the war. the statement followed the 12 day trip during which the special roughly circulated evidence of the devastating effects the sanctions are having across the country. i want to do, hon said the 90 percent of syrians live below the poverty line with limited access

to food, water, and shelter. impulse is also unable to access essential medical supplies and its national bank hub block payment systems. and interview with r t u n reporter shed her experiences and explains why she feels the sanctions have to go. sanctions imposed violations in violate international legal standards. they attack human drives of people in theory enormously and the continue to the fact that even longer. so the information from interlock tests, which i was able to collect here, you can really the month straight that the influx was already huge. but unfortunately it became even highest starting from 2019 and caesar acts has been adopted. and today the impact over the economy and over all or yes or functioning, i would say critical or use is so enormous that i.