one and what are the risks of escalation to a wider war? this is inside, so ah. flow and welcome to the program. i'm fully by t boat. the war in ukraine has reached a scale that hasn't been seen in europe since world war 2, before the invasion in february 2020 to the west main weapon against russia was sanctions. but a year later, many western nations are sending arms and military equipment to ukraine, while the war rages, keith has been winning battle was on the diplomatic front. berlin has finally given the green light for german made leopard, 2 tanks to be deployed by just as that agreement was reached, ukraine's focus has shifted to other weapons like aircraft closure, leg beschler, gift. oh sure, sure it is. the key now is speed and volume. the speed of training our military and speed of supplying tanks to ukraine. the amount of tank support how to form of fissile tanks, vista freedom, which will not allow to needs rise again. you might be going to put the china that we have to open the supply long range missiles to ukraine, and it's important that we expand our corporation in artillery and how to start supplying across to ukraine. this is our dream with our task ethan keith or some western nations have criticize germany for the delay in sending battle tanks to ukraine. it's a result of internal political division. some politicians are wary of military involvement abroad and the risk of wider conflicts. he figured i should be under, i'll finance, we have provided aid if others, financially humanitarian and also with deliveries. that is our obligations at some time we have done everything we can to prevent conflict from escalating because that whole effect, the whole world, if it led to a wall. now russia says that by supplying ukraine with arms, western countries are directly involved in the conflict. both european capitals and washington keep saying that the delivery of various kinds of weapons systems, including turns to ukraine. absolutely does not mean we've gone from to these countries or the nato alliance in all stills is going on ukraine. we categorically disagree with that. moscow use everything but the alliance and the capitals i've mentioned are doing as direct involvement in the conflict. we can see a growing so where are the weapons coming from? more than 30 western nations have sent arms and military equipment since the beginning of the war. the u. s. is the largest single contributor pledging more than $25000000000.00. germany is next followed by the u. k. their promise missiles, rocket launchers, drones battle tanks and other armored vehicles. russia has been using iranian drones, which it phase were bought before the war. the u. s. has accused north korea supplying weapons to the russians, something young young denies. nato is also widening his call for military support for ukraine. on a visit to south korea, nato's chief n sultan berry asks his host to follow the example of germany, sweden, in norway and change its policy on supplying weapons abroad. the u. s. has been supplying weapons from its stock pile in israel. ah, well let's bring in our guests now for today's show in cork, we have jeffrey roberts, who's emeritus professor of history at the university college cork from bath, where joined by patrick fury, a senior lecturer insecurity at bath university is also a former british army officer and former nato advisor and in my your car is benjamin talus. a senior research fellow at the r fed von oppenheim center for the future of europe, which is based in berlin. a warm welcome to you all. thank you so much for joining us. geoffrey roberts, in cork, let me start with you as we approached 1st anniversary of the ukraine war we've seen massive western military aid to keep is the arming of ukraine by the wes, bringing us ever closer to a wider international war out western countries. not effectively directly involved in this conflict will certainly directly involved in the context of supplying military to supplying intelligence to train ukrainian troops. that might be special forces in both direct and complex. yeah, and your current war is already an international conflict on the west involved and the slightest step is, is another escalator quite clearly, but largely about it's not so much the actual practical proposals or practical policy has been decided. it doesn't work so much because i thought the oldest new equipment has been promised will actually reach about to build the time and in sufficient quantities to actually make a significant difference. the city situation, what does worry about is all the talk that surrounding the supplies and the told us representing them any more now is that the west can do it like simulation to get to your crime. aside. if you have a red lines, we can do what we, what we should be intimidated by any for it's coming from the russian side. we should do whatever it takes to make sure that you cry. or we just look what that points to is a escalation. what's the relax? lensky is too long. long range missiles craft. maybe direct wasn't above me. yes. so, so it's a very, very worried different, a development from the problem to get a logic of escalation. how does develope in relation to the attic theory? do you agree with jeffrey who says that we are already in an international conflicts and that this could lead to a wider escalation in fact, the supplying of weapons by the west to keep? well, if it's an international warranty stays go to war against each other and that as simple as that. so russ invaded ukraine is an international listen i do. yeah, with jeff of course. and he's right. there are people in the west just as there are in russia, you know, calling for. well, you know, really quite harebrained approaches, you know, and whether it's the use of nuclear weapons inside ukraine, or whether it's the people, especially in the states who think that you can really lean into this without any consideration of your enemy, essentially. and just go for broke. there's a whole piece here, of course about how did we get to get into this situation, which both the west and ukraine have contributed to. but so unfortunately, has russia and russia now exposed itself by invading and crossing into ukraine and trying to subjugate the country exposed itself to, to the consequences of that action. and so it's the one that sort of took the lead from that, from the, from the situation being relatively stable to being into an international law. a looking because jeffrey seems to say that we are heading towards a wider conflict. yes, international between ukraine and russia. but we are heading into a wide conflict. he says that could involve perhaps out of countries directly. i don't see that yes. and the theory of who opposes towards extremes. on the practical practicalities of war, for example, you sent tanks, but then to protect the tanks, you need to fly overhead to keep the russian air force way it pulls to escalation to i think on the other hand, actually the people in charge rather than some of those pushing narratives have been very, very cautious. look how long it's taken. you know, ukraine was asking for time back in march 2022, asking for patriot air defense. back in march 2022 old i got was handheld jonathan's an anti tank guns, and stay stinger is etc and body armor. so it's been a slow process. but i think the problem is really here from a nato perspective. they have to, they've got a very credible ally who's fighting for the wrong territory against an invading force, which is broken international. so in some ways, if you standards 0 values here, what do you do? interesting, let me get benjamin's thoughts on this. has been a lot of debate with in germany, of course, benjamin about whether they should be involved more in the ukraine conflicts. there was a lot of discussion about whether or not to supply these leopard 2 tanks to, to ukraine, which the chancellor was opposed to. what is the biggest concern for germans today in regards to this conflict? well, actually, i think the biggest concern for a lot of germans for talking about the public is that the government is not doing enough, not doing enough quickly enough to support ukraine, which they see as clearly being in germany's interest to do. now. that's not necessarily been the position of the sharp johnson who have been very reluctant and hesitant, and the, the cost of that delaying can be measured in ukrainian lives. these tanks have been requested since april last year when the check republican poland 1st applied main battle tanks to, to ukraine. and it's 10 months later that they've actually been given the go ahead . there's the rock and there are concerns about escalation and all the way up to nuclear escalation, but a lot of people fail, so that's just falling into rushes nuclear blackmail trap. there's other other issues at hand as well though, which several politicians here as well as analysts have questioned whether the sharps chancel ray actually wants ukraine to win the decisive victory. now many allies think that's really to show that actually with the alliance defending democracy and standing up for what's, what's right in the world. but they recognize also the transformation potential of this conflict. should one side have a decisive victory. and why wouldn't, why wouldn't been german? i'm sorry to interrupt you, because that's very interesting what you say they, why wouldn't the germans want a direct victory for a decisive victory? sorry for ukraine, yet it's not the germans. it's very clearly the shells, chancery and a function of the s p date democratic party here in germany rather because, and it's important to say they don't want you to lose either. that's not the position, but they don't want to decisive victory. why? because that actually potentially has what we would call a system transforming in fact, whereby the competition between democracies and autocracies, intensifies and you really have to stand up and be counted and choose sides. and that might have all sorts of implications for germany's trade relations with china . for example, and we see the shells 3 clinging to the world of yesterday, where they could do business, who they wanted. they could outsource their energy to russia, their security to the u. s. and trade to china. and that's not going to be a viable proposition if you crane wins a decisive victory, which is what a lot of the allies about why we saw reluctance from the german government to supply these weapons. do you think it's been one of the main reasons behind it? yes, there have been so many reasons given that if evaporated into excuses over the course of the war. but that to me, strikes me as the most plausible reason behind the. like. ok, jeffrey, let me come back to you and pick up on something you said earlier, you talked about putting red lines. what do you think a tipping over the edge? what would be his red lines? what, what no one knows what the red lines are. and we don't actually want to test out what they are, because the consequences of miscalculating what have what is read like. and they will be absolutely cast properly cause the main victim of that miscalculation. if we did cross red lines and there was a major escalation to will make it, that miscalculation will be you crying. i think teaching is active with the strike because from the point of view, from russia, you know that when the war and they are going to win. so there's no need for them to counter escalate every every, every move on to west. but that calculation could change and that that's what worries me. i responded to benjamin. yeah, i got a reason that shots was reluctant to, to, to take this step of agree to supply every tanks and danger. escalation was the public opinion in germany, as it is in every country for, for what, what is the budget on your credit? yes, there are those who are in favor of escalation and doing whatever it takes to, to win the war against russia and to take the necessary risk. but there are others who want to perform a diplomatic solutions the want to see. so i want to see will end and i will settle . i'm afraid you're responding to patrick said i just, i wish i could share his confidence in the house that they're going to control this process. because all the way through the war, it's just been one escalate 3 step ok. it's been slow and gradual, but nevertheless it took the direction of travel. it is quite is quite, quite clear what they're going to do next. right. let us, i think mr. just the last, this is patrick. what is a respond to that? and patrick, are you convinced that putin is going to back away from, from a major escalation with the west, if these, these weapons supplies continue to go ahead? no, i'm not convinced. and you know, it's, it's time to his, his assessment, the situation i do think is being as carefully calibrated as a candy and certainly can come fast enough for the ukrainians is too slow. even the tanks to slow, they're going to have to use their own reserves to hold the line while these new times come on stream. but ultimately, you know, i think it's going to have to decide, you know, that there's the rules of the game here, essentially, which is if i conventionally invade another country and other people come to the countries a convention to help get to turf. i have to accept that because that's the, that goes with the territory of invading another country. yeah. we saw that in, in the middle east, you know, looking to run off the invasion of iraq, for example. you know, this is just what goes on that is that the rules of the game is, you don't use nukes. yeah. i'm, when you do, if you're going to start threatening them, you have to go through the clear signals of getting your strategic. you're going to force is ready, and i think the most actually dangerous point of view would have, if you grant starts to inflict a number of another, say, a double operational blow on russia this summer. then your interest here is where it would essentially show what the russian military to ground forces as incapable really, you know, and then that's quite, quite, quite a risky situation, much less so than if, if that, if those, if the f sixteens go in, you know, a squadron of sixteens go in to protect ukrainian events as one of the russian air force count, deal with over ukraine. that's the ocean. air force is what the friends on these on the right thing we're going to make. you think patrick, these new weapons, are they going to help the crane? we gain some attack, some of the territory loss. that's the clear thing here knows ukrainians need to weather very hard period probably as you, as russia most likely you know, between the spring and summer tries to attack somewhere. yeah. they're going to have to whether that, and then, you know, if you look at what armor brigades are for, which is essentially what's being pledged, and we'll call them come on stream. but it will take time. remember gates for finding a weak spot in punching through to take back territory. and it was an arman brigade to push through ram our kids in august september. that's what it's for. there's a few places they can attack in east, in right, in the center engine or into crimea, all of which, yes can carry escalate 3 responses of course. but it's essentially if you don't view the problem is like a belligerent here is invaded another sovereign nation. notwithstanding all the things that happen before that, but once that happens, you know, and then then, you know, this is, this is the rules. the game right? before i bring in benjamin back jeffrey, i just wanted to ask you what you thought of you know, these new weapons that have been supplied. do you think they'll make a big difference on the ground? will they change a strategic situation on the ground? it's hard to tell them, but what we do know is this is that there's been a whole series of western one to weapons. and, you know, starting with a strong try mas, triple and says sevens. and now he's having tags. and all these, the success of why to one of the weapons was supposed to change the direction of or strategic like you crazy. but i haven't worked so far. the russians have destroyed thousands, thousands of ukrainian times are normally calls. and these, the very reason to expect they're not going to be able to deal with the slightest way before time on this program i was was where it was just very fun. i was worried about the escalation from listening to patrick listening to patrick benjamin on even worked out because that's exactly the kind of the schools this actually leading us into a teacher and a lot with russia. let's allow benjamin to respond. benjamin thanks very much. indeed. yet that's an interesting discussion, a couple of points i'd really like to, to pick up on one, there is only one escalade, 3 party in this war, and there's only one party to blame for this war, which is russia, ukraine's desire to join a voluntary spare of integration, nato, and there the european union is totally different than russia's attempt to impose its fare of influence on it. and that's precisely what democratic countries have reacted to. ukraine is fighting a defensive war. and by the way, it's winning it. so i'm really going to push back very strongly against jeffrey's unfounded session that russia is somehow winning this conflict. the russian military has been humiliated in ukraine fighting a far smaller. ready force they've actually failed to achieve most of their objectives that being pushed out of the territory they have taken. and that's part in part due to the weapons the west is provided. but in other part, due to the bravery, courage, ingenuity, and scale of the ukrainian army and the resilience of its people. and that's precisely also what's inspired people around the west to say this is off by 2. and the check prime minister, for example, pantheon are actually very specifically wrote that in an article and everyone who does take that is being offered to exactly wants to provide you with what it needs to win. and that's exactly what we should do. i would push back also strongly against the suggestion that these weapons don't work. they've been consistently shown to work, and the tanks will certainly make a difference in doing combined arms with offensive maneuver wolfe, patrick riley described in ukraine, combined with a cover, they would be extremely effective. and again, russia would stand to lose the trouble with the escalation theory is from russia side, they have no way to go with this against nature or the west. we also have nuclear weapons. we also have weapons with which we could hurt them. so that's actually the balance of, of power that we see that deterrence both way. all right, jeffrey, your response to that and what evidence is there that is actually winning this war? now the evidence is what's happening on the grounds, particularly in the dumbass. the evidence of the free number and additional reserve site mo, glass. since these are you current successfully, you currently encounter fences in which i'm being brought to bear, but the evidence of the shoot casualties ukrainians are a suffering and i'm what you think you're going to. so a about these types what, what, what, what, why, why do you think we friends a desperate to get me because the russians destroy all the previous times and all the cause? what, from what i did this, this stuff. so i don't know is that that they have 900 going into the into the. busy and then they have lost about $400.00. yeah. but they've also captured $500.00 times pack patrick, patrick, patrick, that is not the case, right? that's not because they've lost many, many, many more than that and he tons of casualties yet. let's talk about these things. the russia to suffer to test is my estimate. they might have $20000.00 that might might be enough. 80000 in missy engine. oh, that. so a 100000 countries, a lot of in the country is all the ukraine's at least one 100000. and some people say i've been 50000 that my truck has several under fossil law. i've been wounded, so you credit casualties 3 or 4 times. ok and russian. so that's a bunch when you listen as well. and this is what that is. i don't, certainly from my understanding is you know, that the casualty rate, the russians are probably over 30000 dead and then it multiple times 3 or 4 wounded . and ukraine unfortunately is still quite high. we don't get the full picture because obviously it's operational security. but the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in united states at reason he reckons that the ukrainians are about a 100000 casualties. all in included are really not that. ok. obviously you have to see if i'm land in her pocket and when she was speaking she said that there were a 100000 ukrainian offices killed in. well, that's what, that's what she has about. yes. yeah, no, no, dot com. i saw no that comment is never been retracted, never been rejected. okay, them, it was retracted. all right, gentlemen, let's try and move the conversation and discussion forward, benjamin i want to come to you because ukraine is now demanding more warfare. as we heard president lensky a say, just looking at gemini, specifically, can germany cope with the pressures of demand without sacrificing its own defenses? yes, and as the number of experts have made this case, i've talked about this for a long time, also christian mailing claudia, my or 2 of the leading german experts on security of my this case, which stands for almost all the western allies actually is that what would be supplied to ukraine, would only be used to defend against russia anyway. so actually tying russia down and diminishing its forces in ukraine is a perfectly good use for these, these weapons. so that supplying them actually does the job in a more effective way. it supports democracy, it supports ukraine, and it actually degrades russia's military capabilities, which would be the only thing that be used for anyways. so they can certainly be sped and more should be sped immediately. just let me very quickly push back on what i think is really messed information that's being supplied by certain other contributors to the show about casualties. i know you can use a gentleman, please let. let's try and continue this discussion in a civil manner. if you want to disagree with my information, it went down wrong or your judgment might not want to do not. you know, excuse me, of misinformation, different misinformation. that's completely wrong. word is out today, everyone sharing all the discipline of a russian mobilized unit. i suggest you get the figures right and also don't spread and ukrainian propaganda which is what's being done. and i think it's, it's not an independent i think i could i please come back at least i would like to buy something. i want to clarify. i'm not pro russian, i'm pro ukrainian. well i think about this war is the longer it the worst, it's going to be all you cry. the lot of people are christian and unfortunate patrick as well. get a why in terms of western strategy, the great to the price that you crunch, kinda pie, it's western poet strategy military spring, but it is actually no end up destroying your credit, right. which is why i want to want to stop as soon as possible. i want to see saw a piece that go should i want to settlement the can actually psycho, you know, you christ future. all right. i depends, but why i think we're talking about and i really don't want to get your thoughts on where we think this is headed as we enter the 2nd year. now this company is going to be a year in february. patrick, let me come to you. what ways do you see this conflicts going as the west continues on, keith? you know, could it conclude in the coming year or are we going to grind it? see this in to 2024 and see other countries directly involved? i see it. i don't think you're going to see any countries directly involved with boots on the ground. no, no, no countries, not for that. that's a different level all together. so i think it's going to try to be contained. i think we can expect obviously one major maybe to major russian candor offenses between now and the summer. we'll see how they go and new credit is going to have to weather that storm. and i also think that you train will be pair preparing when the grands harder for their attacks to try and take back their lunch and move it. there's another no one's ready to negotiate. and you know, if the, if the ukrainians wanted to, the people want to piece that they can say that they can go for it. but i think the costs are worth firing at the moment. so you've got to respect that and, and yes, so i think that maybe at the end of the summer that we will see you there might be a space, a window of opportunity for some sort of a settlement. but it can well drive on it. it is a tragedy. it's an absolute tragedies, a human tragedy. first and foremost, ok. but it's not of ukraine's make a benjamin talis. you what ways could the conflict go? yeah, i think it's very important to listen to you craniums on that. i agree with patrick just just said ukrainians don't want and it goes yet it solution at the moment because they don't have a trustworthy negotiating partner. and that's also a position that's been confirmed by washington and numerous times. but also we have to ask why they don't want to exist with the territory occupied by the russian regime. because we've seen the massacres, we've seen the brutal oppression that the russians have put on the people living in the occupied territories of ukraine. so it's very understandable when 85 to 90 percent of ukrainian say what they consider to be victory is russia completely out of that territory. so not 21st of february board is but 1991 borders. and that's precisely what we should be pushing for as well. otherwise, we sent a very dangerous precedent. we increased the likelihood of proliferation undermined democracy. jeffrey, you've got the last word. where is this conflict headed? i think is toby had he in the direction that some to patrick outlined just just a moment just a mom regarding that's probably the most terms are realistic about our friendship with this point is that towards last little so long only because of western support for you crime, without that support the war would have come to an end monster go thousands of people's life site. ukraine will be in a much stronger position in terms of ne p settlement. danny danny is at the present time. yes, that is up to ukrainian people in their government to whatever they want. but western citizens, their governments also have choices to my career. and my argument is, is that it needs to be a choice in favor of return to diplomacy and an effort i achieve in a c spot or some kind of patient examine. we'll have to make it there because we've run out of time. thank you so much for a great discussion. geoffrey roberts, benjamin talus and patrick barry, thank you very much and thank you to for watching. you can always watch this program again. any time by visiting our website, al jazeera dot com for further discussion, go to our facebook page at facebook dot com, forward slash jane side story. and of course, you can join the conversation on twitter handle, is that a j inside story for me falling back to boy halting hearing. doha, thanks watching life. and ah ah, and i hope frances is set to visit the democratic republic of congo and south to dawn in a trip that is meant to heal the wounds that is still bleeding. will the pontiff visit started chapter of peace and reconciliation ending the internal conflicts of these 2 nations. pope in africa on al jazeera, debating the issues of the day, the 5 largest polluters that the world are in india, jump into the street. they made their money on coal, they made their money on field, convincing those folks. no, we need to go. green is very, very difficult, giving all of voice. we chose to lead because we wanted to escape warren violence. when you humanize this narrative, you allow people to really understand the reality and break down misconceptions. the st. on al jazeera, i care about healthy us engaging with the rest of the world. we're really it didn't take you into a play, you might not visit otherwise and feel as if you were there. ah ah, hello, i made room for the good.