the the plato allies distance themselves from the idea of sending its troops scipio, as the french president says, he cannot roll out european boots on ukrainian soil. moscow says the crime doesn't realize the significance of what he's saying. the russian defense minister says russian troops have liberated 3 residential areas on the done at the front in one week. adding that ukraine in turn is using it's remaining serves to prevent a lot. plus, instead of making a collective effort to de escalate us something you may have chosen the forceful response process for administer warrens that continue violence in and around god that will create additional political and military risk intervention. he said that during a meeting with the many prime minister in moscow,

the, i'm rachel, who's a live in moscow, you're watching r t international. legal chief in suttonberg says the alliance is not considering sending troops to ukraine, that comes and reaction from russia to find the president manuel microns suggestion . there could be direct involvement in the hot conflicts. oscar says such a move could lead to no good results. we are well aware of mac cross position on the needs to inflict the strategic defeat on russia and so on. we have noticed the fact that the topic of sending troops to crane was indeed discussed. we have also taken note that there was a very rich pallet of opinions on this matter. indeed, there is no consensus. okay, but it's a number of countries participating in the parents event. remain sober in their assessment of the potential risks of subtractions and the potential risks of being

directly involved in a hot conflict. well out of. busy all the leaders of all the nato member states micron is the only one who's suggested this outlined. this idea that sending nato troops to crane to fight there is not off the table to date. the book is as well. everything was discussed this evening in a very open and direct manner. there is no consensus to day to officially openly and with endorsements and troops on the ground. within terms of dynamics mean, nothing should be ruled out. we will do everything necessary to ensure that russia can not win this war book with reference for administer, search a lab, rob, explain the reasoning behind the shocking proposal as a means for the west to try and compensate for the lack of results that the ukrainians are seeing on the battlefield right now, but at any rate, a proposal like this is enough to set off alarm bells, but coming from the head of a major western state, it set the main stream media into a frenzy with headlines,

talking about potential world war 3, erupt and what about other european leaders? what are they being say? well many of them are not happy about the tone of monday's meeting. we for example, heard from slovakia as prime minister who said that piece was not even mentioned. there are several put, it was completely bull like meaning to support the war at all costs and to do everything you know, is it for the wants to continue? i was very surprised that there was not a single was about any piece plan or piece that they should to. i can confirm that the all countries that are all ready to send their own soldiers to ukraine all the say never so long case among them. they are also countries that say that this proposal should be considered all government. this piece oriented rejects, the continuation of the war, will not send weapons to ukraine and will focus on severely on projects of the apple settled. and that same realm of thought we heard from hungry for administer, who said that they are

a flat outside that his country is not going to be under any circumstances sending troops to ukraine. this anti war or a message from slovakia and hungry comes as no surprise. what are we hearing from the other european countries in support of ukraine? well, even the more pro, key of figures, like germany's chancellor, the leadership of the european commission and even the secretary general of nato himself. they're all saying that they're not going to be sending troops to ukraine and many other nato states. sort of that the very least saying that the, the block is divided on this outline, this idea really let's take a listen to what they said. there was a heated discussion about sending soldiers to you frame, and there was no absolute mutual understanding on this issue. there are different opinions, but i want to emphasize that there are absolutely no such decisions. right now, we're busy sending advanced systems from sweden to ukraine in various ways. as many other countries are doing, it's a completely different matter. there is also no such demand on the part of ukraine

. this issue is irrelevant. i want to assure you that there's no question of sending europe and nato forces inside ukraine. an issue that for greece does not exist and i believe doesn't exist for the great majority of our colleagues. and let's shift to the average citizen here. don't old what has the reaction being from the french public to them across things. but because, you know, sometimes it's usually a disconnect between the leadership, what the leadership of the country wants and what the people want. what have you seen? well, it seems that people are just as afraid as the kind of fear we've been seeing. and these mainstream media headlines, a lot of stuff has been echoing between those headlines and what people are saying specifically talking about the fears of world war 3, sending french ground troops to ukraine. chrome is crazy, completely crazy. it would obviously be war with russia. world war 3, sending troops to ukraine would make us belligerence. war against russia would be madness. this belligerent verbal escalation by a nuclear power against another major nuclear power is already an air responsible

act. and manual ma chrome explain vote, but it's the children's lives he's talking about so carelessly. it's a question of peace over in our country. now, in terms of the actual idea of sending troops to ukraine, although there might not be consensus among european leaders, there certainly is a consensus among the general population across the west. but that consensus is absolutely against sending troops to ukraine. we've got statistics from polls here, sending us troops to ukraine, and people who strongly support that. that's the only 6 percent of the population. well, strongly opposes 41 percent in terms of europe sending uh, troops to ukraine. support for that in germany is 13 percent. i mean, the highest we have here is in sweden, 33 percent, which is still extremely low when you take the population as a whole. so there's no doubt that there's very little supports in the west or among the general population for starting a potential world war 3. moscow says,

statements like this from the french president raised questions about his adequacy, as a leader in comments to r. t rushes foreign ministry spokesman said paris that should remember its own historical opposition to naziism, a beautiful white and what's 1st just weeks ago, french president, my crown and his representatives, denied paris having any official role in recruiting volunteers or mercenaries. quite a few of whom were on ukrainian territory. and despite the facts presented by the russian side, in particular, by our investor in paris, the palace denied it in every possible way. then the french president says he is considering sending his military to ukraine is one of the options. the question arises as to the adequacy of people who mix of statements. but it seems to me that the problem is much deeper than that. it is that people who are running things in the e u in france now do not know. and in the context of parents do not appreciate their

history. i want to remind mr. mack chrome, that there are other pages in francis history that would be worth paris turning to now and realizing in the 21st century for example, the emergence and growth of anti fascist organizations. an enter french resistance to naziism during the 2nd world war. and the joining the citizens and all of civil society in france and the fight against naziism, against the 3rd reich, when it was not an official trans in france. this is what needs to be done now, to counteract the rise of naziism in ukraine. and we understand very well that enough facts have been provided to make even those who didn't want to believe it to now believe it. so who side is background on? what is this is ridiculous to attempt that hype to make a spectacular statement to gather more hits, or is it just disrespect for his own heroes, the heroes of france, who get their lives in the fight against naziism? this? yeah, this book and then chief editor of finish and the let's he says the narrative is a sign of an escalating war of words,

which is the west reaction to rushes success on the battlefield. what i see that the war of the woods is escalating as fast as the russian troops are liberating the dumas region. the panic is growing amongst the western supporters. they see that the great in front lines are collapsing and advance each very follow for i see that the seas and has to be the bluff. beats orchestrated very much from the frame size. we have seen the whole day. so one leader of to run out or convincing their own population that no, no, no, we are not sending our voice there. and of course that would be a madness. that would be a k is. so they are panicking out from their own actions. what us being disgusting differently in france is basically another question, but looks like that the marker on has to take his own off the steps,

trying to make the discussion, maybe distort the attention alt, from the real games, what the russian troops are doing and to create the west is panicking, as they cannot do anything to prevent russia will need superior already in the battlefield. they are trying to escalate the war war on the works. russian troops are strengthening a battlefield positions on the internet front and after the successful capture of the, of the of co city, they have liberated 3 more residential areas in one week. total personal losses on the print inside have far exceeded 400000. according to the russian defense minister that she was doing this besides, during the russian special military operation, the ukrainian armed forces have lost a total of more than $444000.00 service amendment. after the failure of their counter offensive. the ukrainian military command is trying to stabilize the

situation and prevented the collapse of the front at the expense of its remaining reserves. well, the russian defense minister was talking about the recent games made by russian troops down and of d, f k, in particular. and he said, in general, russian troops had been gaining more control of the don't ex region. he talks about the size of the controller and said since the beginning of 20 to its full. so just this year, the russian troops have been able to take an extra 327 square kilometers of territory. just to put you into context. what that means that is larger than the size of an e. you state that is the space to malta. he also talked about of ukraine in dead saying that soldiers, they were laughing at losing more than $800.00 individuals on a daily basis on average. and therefore, as you heard and not quite, russia was estimating the total loss of ukrainian sold. this is some 444000 individuals since the source of the conflict back in february

2022. that is very different to what we heard from ukraine this week. president uh, zalinski saying that the law says was 31000 individuals. i'm but it's not as rusher that saying that there's a huge disparity here is actually the figures are a lot higher. we heard from the washington post back in 2023 saying it had sources within the us government that was already pushing the law offices of recording and soldiers as around a 170000. so you can see that there was a huge difference to what you queen is pushing out it towards probably is the reality on the ground. oh, we also heard that this was the 1st time the russian troops, i'm unable to take out. the american outcomes told that now it's too long list of military equipment that russian soldiers have been able to obliterate on the front lines in the bag, in an administrator. and i'm as some what i need it to the fact that the numbers

are incredibly low. so to 1000 compared to what the defense ministry is saying, here is 400000. what all the topics did he report on? he also talks about the threats coming from potential nuclear missiles. we heard reported in the u. k. just in the last few days that the us could be putting the missiles back on u. k. territory. once again, if it does so, that will be the 1st time in 15 years, as they have been us myself on you, kate territory. and the defense minister also talks about the of the threats that are being faced at the moment. because you are just you just as of now the actions of washington, which is building up its nuclear potential on the territory of european countries. and deploying advanced means of delivering nuclear charges are provoking radiation, chemical and biological threats. in addition, the united states has formed

a network of biological labord tories to study the properties of pathogens and the particular region that can be transmitted to humans and cause pen democrats out of $330.00 such facilities around 40 are located inside ukraine. he also talked about the issues in the south pacific saying that need to have increased its exercises in the region, and also its presence in the region the and said the as a result rusher is having to do what it needs to do to protect it. the eastern board is especially for, for those that washington continues to use, the rising 10 sions on the korean peninsula, and in the area of taiwan island as a pretext to expand the presence of its military forces in the western pacific ocean. this year, the scope of joint exercises between the united states and this allies is expected to increase due to the military potential of nato member countries or persons to as

well as a result of that there will be increased equipment put down into the eastern old. so they will be more training of preservice in the east and rush will also be carrying out international missions with several countries, including a loud vietnam and india. the escalating situation in the middle east lead the discussion between the russian foreign minister and the many prime minister in moscow on tuesday. second law problem expressed a conviction that the many who the selling of commercial vessels in the red sea was largely a consequence of the israeli palestinian conflict. written, you know, we do not condone to showing the merchant ships, but we also cannot justify the aggressive actions that the united states and the u . k. are taken against that service or of the republic of human and the bed protects, without any international mandate in the form of a un security council resolution that did not allow it to be formed. mid assessed.

i grade level over the course of the last 3 months, has issues maintenance highlight of his position, but more problems with highlighting bosco's position on this matter that instead of the united states, along with the united kingdom are currently defiant international law. as opposed to an extensive right versus really nothing new point of moscow that the united states have being nice to have some means to justify an intervention. so that intervention cannot be military intervention more so it can include the bombing of the stage or the southern states as well as the people, particularly the man that has been in the comes from a contract for the better part of a decade, which is really highlight some of the kinetic german crises over that period as well for ministers, that grade level and that the money problem is the kind of discuss the number of possible outcomes. i didn't get many satisfied with things like no for this law. this is what be uh, you know, many tried me to say i have to say who i'm and i thought for us,

we suppose the palestinian people. they have the right to have their own independent states with the capital in east jerusalem. and we will work in this direction to mitigate the consequences of the humanitarian disaster that we're now witnessing happening, that there are a double standards applied to this situation. then we in the m and taking a class stance in regard to the palestinian issue. and we shared the russian approach to that issue because this has been a supplement that hasn't been issued over the course of not just the last 2 months, but over the past 2 years or even longer, back to the united states are connected to the west. hasn't been involved in some sort of double standard where a double standard suggested that i took leave me by standing at any given time, is by without the theme do force of international law or to your why security council carry out strikes or even wage war against the states, but more formulas, the russian position on the model is involved as a samsung washer. historically acted as a mediator, despite the impressions from the united states and we cannot contain them trying to

ensure that this conflict does not spill over. and our years do so, good luck with the foreign minister. we know there's there. if we haven't been only warrant that continued violence in and around together strip, will create additional political and military risk in the region. but instead of making a collective effort to de escalate the us, somebody u k. have chosen a forceful response. so here level is less than one, issued a statement suggesting that the united states or the collective, less physical interested when a go shooting. and that statement, he said that according to these dynamics, and the development in somebody's dynamics, side of the general sense of the west has to be strictly negative, which is getting worse or truly suggest die. so the less the interested in the go shading and that discourse potentially slow role often, you know what works before it was sent over to the us central commands. technology chief has admitted that the pentagon is using artificial intelligence in the conflict in the middle east. this month's a technology help to identify and selected targets during strikes, revealing,

growing military use of these software systems. the official said a, i has also helped spot rocket launchers in yemen and surface vessels in the red sea . us the military previously acknowledged using computer algorithms for intelligence purposes. although this month, human rights ex person academics from more than 60 countries, signed a call to action, endorsing the responsible use of military a. i the all right, well for more on this is cross now to human and labor rights lawyer, dental valeca and former. and while you professor michael acton, well, thank you both for joining us to talk about this and then i'll start with you. washington seems to a place to solve at the forefront of technological warfare by using a, a in combat in the middle east. how do you see this implementation affecting future conflicts? well, it really worries me for a number of reasons. first of all, you know, self driving cars are not even

a reality yet in the united states because they continue to have accidents, right? they're not fully approved. so 1st of all of the reliability of them is questionable when i say we about reliability. i mean avoiding civilian casualties, but also it further removes humans from the psychological cost of murdering other people. and i think there should be a cost for that. i think you'd detours people to some extent in their choices to bomb other people. when you have to you know, actually deal with the consequences of it because you're the one that shot the. busy bomb or the bullet, you know, so i don't see anything good coming out of this and frankly, it troubles me that we're using all of our advance technology for whether or not for peaceful, peaceful pursuits. michael, what are your thoughts on that? as far as morality and consequences, do you see any way that the use of

a targeting could be considered moral in any way? could there be any benefits to using these systems as opposed to a human being making these decisions? well, the argument that hey i would increase accuracy or otherwise make a of the execution of war. more precise is be lied by the fact that in this conflict, in particular, the use of a, i has, has accelerated, the, the bombing campaign on, on the gaza strip. in fact, it's not only us technology, it's also a, it's really technology called uh, the gospel, cynically. and disgustingly enough is being used to target residences and homes and to bomb them at a quicker rate then they would have otherwise been able to in fact that a x,

but naturally quicker rate. and this is caused the indiscriminate killing of now over 30000 people over half of them, women and children. so there is no argument to be made that a i will be used or can be used for purposes of precision and targeting of, of their various a bombing targets. mm hm. but what michael simple human rights activists have brought up the issue. the is able to weigh any actions, potential collateral damage. do you think that a though it is not likely to take them to consideration that it will increase civilian casualties overall? and i think so because of the speed at which a i is able to locate targets and that's been stated directly by officials in the id f o. they said that effectively this was not being used simply to

uh, for precision targeting. in fact, they made it clear that it allows them to bomb targets, that much faster rate. and they said that it's effectively an assassination factory . and that accuracy is not the is not the, is not the key here. and so ai is, is used to more quickly target various bombing targets, but not in all surgically. in any sense. then, military equipment that is much less reliant on software is often subject to damage or malfunction. how prudent do you think it is to create more advanced and self sufficient equipment that may not be completely reliable? i don't think it should be done. i mean, you know, there's. busy kinds of moral questions when we talk about artificial intelligence in general. but when you're talking about it in terms of weaponry,

it's very concerning to me. it's just a road that i don't think civilization should go down. and frankly, when we're talking about using it in the middle east, it raises the whole question. why is the us in the middle east to begin with? and i'm just very troubled by this. and i think it needs to be a post michael on like military officers and humans. a, i cannot be held accountable for its mistakes. is that one of the big concerns here as well? did, who do see potentially bearing responsibility if a system malfunctions or mis calculates? in warfare. yeah, that's, that becomes an alibi. this technological error becomes an alibi for any particular military to undertake campaigns, bombing campaigns like this in the gaza strip. and i think that's a very unfortunate way of off uh, you know,

more or less not off putting to the technology or the otherwise the responsible behavior, some so called of, of militants. so here we have a situation in which you the effectively offloaded, the responsibility to a i, and then nobody really becomes responsible if a i makes mistakes. but to make it clear that these are not really mistakes in the case of how this is being used in the, in the gaza strip. the id f has made it perfectly clear that they are not concerned about the fact that they weigh it and they look at uh, an apartment complex, knowingly that holds, you know, may have x amount of children and they decide that it's worth the cost. and they allow it to happen. so behind all this say i, you always have human agents. and i worked in a i for 5 years. and i know that human agent programming has a huge impact on how

a i operates. and i also know that that behind every a i system is a human being or a set of human beings that are undertaken tax. and they have focused the a i to deliver certain types of behavior. and the a i doesn't think on its own, per se, it acts on a program basis and it can take, it can take out take, it can take actions to which have been effectively prescribed. and that's what's happening now. and then if a guy is already being used for military purposes, how do you see it potentially being incorporated into other aspects of life from the, you know, the social sphere to potentially politics? well, we see it being used now all the time. we see journalists now being replaced slowly of by a i, which can write whole storage, right?

i think we're going to see a lot of people out of work because of a i. and again, right now there is, you know, self driving cars have not been approved but i think ultimately that probably is coming. which could put truckers, you know, out of business and, and drivers out of business. you know, i hate to sound like a need or what i but i, i don't see much good coming out of this unless it's highly, highly regulated, which of course, the us tends to oppose any, any type of regulation on industry. so i see a huge social consequence. not much of it. very good. yeah. as far as regulating a i, what rule down do you potentially see the global community playing in in a i war for more affair regulation? do you think that that's an opportunity for global unity? could we say agreements of equivalent to nuclear deals perhaps or or do you think

that's a pipe dream? i think it's possible but you know, how do you inspect that? how do you enforce that? we have a hard enough time enforcing the laws we have, we have an i c j decision telling israel to stop killing people and guides and they won't do that. so i don't see realistically much possibility for that. so i think states have to do that internally and, and again i, i don't see a lot of states doing michael, despite all the warnings it seems like a guy is, is definitely here. and definitely here to say, oh, what advice would you give the general public when it comes to dealing with the spread of a i as well, you know, 11 issue only here. i disagree a bit with dan and that is the, the question of regulation. i don't think regulation will do that. solve the

problem. on fact, it will probably help create monopolies as it has in the past. so i think that but what we need is competition. and because it really does matter who's doing the programming, whoever does the programming that really that mentality that we'll do is incorporated into a i directly. and so we need a competitive field of a i producers. and the way i would advise users of a i is to realize who's doing, who's behind this particular a i project and what is their agenda? because these agendas are driven deep into the neural networks of the technology itself, and they become ideological, they become propagandistic, they're able to convey certain types of world views and particular perspectives. we see this with these a chat box, depending on who's, who's behind them. they're either well, or they're,

they're doing some sort of ideological screening and targeting and so forth. so we need to have broad competition in a, i know monopolies. and of course a i in the hands of the state is always a recipe for a potential to atalla, terry, and is them, there's no question about it that hey, i could execute and complete. it's atalla, terry, and circle. and because they could control so much behavior and even thought, and that is very much a real, a real problem and we need to be against the states use of a i in all cases. all right, we're gonna leave it there for now, but i'm sure this is a topic we'll be discussing for years and years to come from or and while you professor michael worked and wald and human and labor rights lawyer, dan, come all, i thank you both for joining us, all right, and that's going to do it for me for now, but do stay with us. my colleague peter scott, will be in next in about half an hour with a look at your headlines. bye. i.