Michael Clarke answers your questions on the war in Ukraine

A very fine afternoon, well, tonight, Mark it is one year since the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, the conflict has cost tens of thousands of lives, has reawakened fears of widespread war, perhaps even nuclear, in Europe and has created political and economic instability that has been felt around the world. Well, we've been asking

questions

all day about the war, what's happening on the ground, what will happen next, how it might all end, and over the course of this hour we're going to raise some of them, there have been many, many of them for our defense and security analyst, Professor Michael Clarke, very good evening to you, Michael, once again and before we get into those

questions

, just a quick thought, Michael, on the first anniversary of the war, which of course Putin originally thought which would be the first anniversary or so of him taking Ukraine and kyiv, absolutely yes, three days to take Ukraine, get rid of the Zielinskis, kill him, get rid of the government completely around March 8th, where they would have control of the big cities and then they would just sit in Ukraine. like a new constitutional agreement for Russia, the world changed this time a year ago, Europe certainly changed and I have always said that there is no way to hide from this, there is no turning back, this is a new security situation that we have to deal with live. be risky and there's nothing we can do to pretend we can go back to where we were, well let's look to the future and not necessarily an attractive prospect through the questions and dive right into them, so Michael, take care of this one first.

Nick. of all to give us the starting signal, could Russia attack Ukraine with new weapons systems on the first anniversary of the start of the war? Now these are the weapons systems that Putin Clancy has and wanted to test, isn't that the day Biden was in here yeah, he was talking about the hypersonic missiles that he was talking about today, the Zircon anti-ship missile uh and they have the Kinzal air-launched hypersonic missile, they won't do it, I don't believe what I think they can what they do is launch the 15th Big Air Offensive, so there have been 14 waves where they have launched over a thousand missiles and drones to attack really the infrastructure.

They could do it again in the next 24 48 hours. I guess they would. I have no information that they do, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. New weapons are not something that Putin pretends to have in abundance to scare the West by telling him that the war is getting worse and worse, but in reality he is doing the worst he can until this new offensive begins, this offensive that I believe has not really happened. started, so you're saying you don't actually have them. I mean, you know, towards the end of the Second World War with the Nazis it was Wonder Weapons, right?

Yes, that would say that the V1 and V2 exactly if they had arrived earlier, they would have made a difference in the war, but fortunately they didn't do as well as the nukes the Germans were working on. I mean what the Russians have, they have these systems that are relevant to a global war between the United States and Russia that would be used in that whole nuclear exchange or something, but we are not even remotely close to that at the time he intends that we are. We're going down that road, we're not okay, well, Brian and he asks us the follow-up question very nicely.

Brian says what can we expect then from the long-awaited Russian offensive and that some are expected to say it's building up now, yes. I mean, I don't think the offense has started yet, some people say it has and if this is the offense then it's not very good, I mean, they're not, they're not accomplishing much, um, which I think they're going to try to do. is to take the entire Donbass and that is plausible from their point of view, if the Russians do really well, I think they will take the Donbass and strengthen the land bridge from the Donbass to the Crimea and then west again to Herson. and maybe go for a kill or a second time if everything went well, if everything went really well, then they could try to push North from Zapparizia to the Nipra River to divide Ukraine into one third, two thirds into one third to the east. two-thirds of the West, that was a plausible strategic objective when we thought the Russians might be able to do something like that a year ago, but that would be the best they could hope for in this offensive, okay, we'll take it.

On board, yes, you've painted some of the possibilities there and Dan asks you, really asks you to focus, so where do you think, given their resources combined with their ambitions, that the next big Russian push will be where it logically needs to be? in the dombas? because that's what they want, that's Putin's minimum requirement, he said, only he's changed his war goals all the time, but the last set of war goals he came up with is that we have to protect the speakers from Russian and to the Donbass, etc., etc. they want to take the entire Donbass when this offensive really starts.

I suspect we'll see it in four or five areas because they'll want to try to stretch the Ukrainians by giving them something to worry about near Kiev, maybe going towards again, maybe even moving west towards living, these will be, you know, operations intended in a sense to give the Ukrainians something else to worry about, but what they really want is that area where you see the shading there at like three o'clock yeah. Think of Ukraine as kind of an oval clock there at three o'clock. period, that is the Donbass and they, if they can occupy the whole Donbassador, they draw a line in

your

conscious Kharkiv, write down if you like a person in the southwest, if they could accept that, then Putin would say: well, yes, I have protected the Russian speakers, um, that's a big question still, but I think when this offensive starts, I think we'll see it in several places because they'll want to try. divide the Ukrainian forces and that's also why let's look in the middle of that Donbass region, they're in comeback mode, yeah, that's why the fighting there has been so fierce and they've taken something away from you and they're asking you how important it is become debatable again for the Russians.

The answer is not very, I mean, that has to be the focus for the last three months by the Wardner group. This is the private military company run by Pragas and they are at war with the Kremlin, he is at war with Grazimov. and is at war with sugar, the defense minister and prigozin are trying to show that only he and the Wagner group can do something. Where is the Russian military that has been failing everywhere else in the theater? But he, the Wagner group, can recover, but they thought he would take it easy, even today, he was arguing publicly on Telegram that he said that they are maintaining an artillery deficit, that they are deliberately, that the Russian army is deliberately keeping us short of artillery so that we cannot turn back, look, it has become. a personal crusade of his to take this place, but what kind of manpower is he expending?

Well, here I heard about horrendous losses. Yeah, well, they had about 10,000 Wagner mercenaries in the theater and all of them are ex-soldiers who knew what they were. They were very brutal people, but they had up to another 40,000, some said it was fifty thousand convicts that they had recruited in the prisons and they have been dying in very high numbers because they were put on the front lines. I'm referring to Prague's treatment of them and we have testimonies of him doing this. We have pizzas to film doing this. He gathers everyone into these prisons. He's done it and said it's like something out of the ordinary. filth, he didn't literally say that only God will get you out of this prison, but I can get you out today if you register, you will get good food, you will receive training and we will put you on the front line if you disobey an order or if you retreat we will shoot you immediately if you are still alive After six months you're free now that's what he said they recruited 40,000 prisoners that way but they were shot for all kinds of reasons and B, they didn't keep their end of the deal because at the end of six months a lot of them were forced them to sign again or they simply stayed there and that is why they are no longer there. recruit for the prisons because no one really wants anyone, the prisons don't want to go and on the topic of the backwards, Paul asks: could Ukraine surround itself by withdrawing and then launching a counterattack from the North and the South and maybe it would have to have a Look at the map, yes, it's not for the moment, but Paul has something there because when the Ukrainians can get their act together with the equipment they are getting from the west and their reorganization, we will see. a war of maneuver this has not been a war of maneuver so far the Russians are not very good at maneuvering they are moving in large numbers and gradually advancing um the Ukrainians have also been quite static they have been much smarter than the Russians, but they have not They've had the equipment to maneuver as they get these Western tanks up and running and that's going to take some time and it's going to be organized if they can put together two really good armored brigades, which means 100 tanks in each brigade, he says then we'll see some arrows on the map going pretty quickly and what Paul was saying is: Can Ukraine do it now?

No, they can't, could they do it in two or three months? Maybe because, okay? The Ukrainians get moving, we'll see them move fast if they can use this Western team as intended and we just don't have them on the map. There you can tell us where they are, oh Michael Tim. ask why it's a crime a torsk and slovians if you go west from bakmud so if you go that way you'll see a lot of the m behind if you put a couple spots there north and south um that's the north of slaviansk and the southern one is crematorsk and both are important because if the russians get slavians and chromatosk then they will be left with the rest of the donbass because they get the railings particularly from chromatosk, but the ukrainians have turned slavians synchromatoowski into the fortresses they are in .

There's some high ground, it's quite far away, there's a lot of water between bakmut and the slave ants because it's a very watery area there, so even if the Russians get the milk back, I think they've almost surrounded it and I think the Ukrainians. will probably have to retreat to get that relatively short distance from uh back to the Slavian comators will be difficult and the Ukrainians will make it very difficult for them so an even bigger battle will ensue if the Russians are able to get it right Alexander our The The following questionnaire asks something next: If the Russian offensive fails miserably, as you say, it is a possibility there and the Western Harvard vehicles arrive.

Would the Ukrainians have the ability to retake their territory? What difference would those particular tanks make, a big difference? Yes, so the answer is yes, they certainly will and certainly what they intend to do and, as I say, if we go back to a maneuver, if we are going to see a maneuver war now that the Ukrainians can use and The Russians are very poor in maneuvers so far, then we will see a lot of changes on that map. That map hasn't changed much in months. If you look at it, we've been putting up the same map as kite news.

And speaking of little bits around the edges, if Ukrainians can get their act together by April or May, we'll start to see that shift on the map. Yes, they can retake territory. How much territory will depend? Good good. Weaponry is crucial there, as you are. Mentioning Michael, let's now talk about weaponry and how it affects our own security in the UK and in the west. Tel Sky News' Whitehall sources say the UK is reviewing the size of its ammunition stockpile because the Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown they are too large. small, our security and defense editor Deborah Haynes reports that Western weapons in eastern Ukraine are leveling the battlefield for Ukrainian troops against Russia's much larger army, but neither side has finite stocks and A race is underway to see who can rearm the fastest in Ukraine.

On the front line near the town of Bakmut, a soldier explains how this makeshift cover protects his weapon from Russian suicide drones. She also talks about the need to preserve ammunition. However, the rate of artillery fire over the past year has been higher than at any time since the Korean War, with one Ukrainian officer telling Sky News that Russia had been firing between 60,000 and 70,000 shells a day, a level which was reduced by approximately half as supplies ran out. U.S. officials have put that peak rate at about 20,000 a day, but they also say Ukraine has fallen.

On the contrary, it fires between 5,000 and 6,000 rounds a day, so in terms of impact, Russia has lost around 9,000 military equipment, such as armored vehicles and artillery, three times more than Ukraine with its tanks, missiles and its largesse. The United Kingdom is one of the Ukrainians. The military's biggest suppliers, but how long have I been told that Britain is reviewing the size of its ammunition stockpile because the Russian invasion here has exposed how past assumptions about what it would take to fight a war were too conservative?My sources say Rishi Sunak must increase defense spending to fund a massive expansion of ammunition and weapons stores or risk not being able to continue supporting Ukraine at the level needed.

Rebuilding the UK military after decades of cuts is also essential. The Prime Minister spoke harshly when he received Vladimir Zelensky this month, but a Whitehall source accused Mr Sunac of having no interest in defense and security, with those accused of being at No 10 barely able to access him. , President Zielinski's visit took place late and with only a peripheral passing interest if it is not internal or economic it does not include a Second Source said that he is a financier and simply cannot understand these things a government spokesperson said that these claims are baseless and are false it was the Prime Minister who, as Chancellor, agreed In the 2020 spending review that provided the Ministry of Defense with the biggest increase in defense investment since the Cold War, the Prime Minister is clear that we will do whatever is necessary to protect our people, which is why our Armed Forces will always have the equipment and capability they need.

Of course, the UK is just one of many countries arming Ukraine and its dwindling arsenals is a common issue that needs to be addressed so troops can continue firing at Debraham Sky News kyiv. Well, my colleague Mark Austin previously asked former Prime Minister Boris Johnson which difference was greater. Western support could prevent Ukraine from underestimating what Ukrainians can do. He was expelled from the kyiv area where you are now. He was kicked out of the cocky area. They expelled him from his son. If they have the right equipment. so if they have the Deep fire long range artillery, if they have enough tanks, we should give them more tanks and yes, if they have planes to eliminate those Russian artillery positions that their Russian commander also controls, then I have no doubt. that President Zolensky's armed forces can take back their territory, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson there and his view, certainly, that Western weaponry will continue to make a difference for Ukraine and I have Professor Michael Clarke here with me, as you know, answering

your

questions about all that. and uh tanari asks this one, Michael, if this new Western weapons supplement will make a difference and how quickly it should come.

I can add? Do you know what it should be? We talked about tanks, airplanes on the list, but as the former Prime Minister, Mr. Johnson, said that too, long-range artillery, yeah, I mean, that's all, I really mean that the tanks themselves are a centerpiece, but you have to have enough armored fighting vehicles to go with them, um and armored. infantry and artillery vehicles that can move because they will all move together they are combined arms this is what the Russians can't do even if they talk about it but they don't the Ukrainians are doing it but if they can do it with our equipment they will do it as well as A NATO army would do it, which is to bring together tanks, armored vehicles, infantry artillery and air power into a big arrow on the map that moves the maneuvers.

War again, that really put it in and we put it together. It cuts pretty well anything the Russians have now. Can they do it well? We have to have the training to do it too. That is the point. Are they understanding it? But it takes time and they learn quickly, for sure, and they are learning. quickly, but they also have to reorganize, I mean fight a defensive war like they have done. Dynamic defense worked very well, that's quite different than fighting an offensive war, you have to organize differently, think differently, you really have to have a different command and control system, so are they able to do all that ?

Yeah, the danger for them is that they go a little short of being fully formed into armored brigades that can make a difference and they waste it, um and there may be a temptation to use some of this stuff on defense if the Russians start pushing them hard. in the Donbass in Zapparesia, they might find out that they are deploying parts of these things in these teams and new organizations at lower levels just to stop the Russians, it would be a shame if they had to do that and I'm sure they are trying right now , they are buying time, the Ukrainians are on the defensive now in the Donbass in the last three. or four weeks and they are buying time and they are literally like soldiers sometimes do: they are giving their lives to buy time so that people in other places are training for the offensive that they confidently believe they will be able to launch at some point in late spring. early summer sounds pretty balanced Richard has a specific question again about tanks and I guess you know one thought that maybe 10 or 15 years ago those types of tanks had had their day and Richard asks why tanks continued to play an important role in the conflict. given the degree of long range artillery and air power, can they not be eliminated?

No. I once said years ago to a British cavalry officer and asked him how are you doing with the tank pass idea and he said, oh. For God's sake, don't say we're still outpacing the horse, which in the British cavalry was true. However, no tank is a way to create mobility and firepower, so the tank carries a gun and other machines. Weapons are protected and mobile now on their own, they can be very vulnerable, particularly to air power, but if they are accompanied by things that can protect them, then it is still the best way to punch holes in any defense on the battlefield and The modern tank The Leopard 2 or the Challenger 2 or the American Abrams are still doing the basic job that the tanks of the First World War did first at Psalm in 1916 and then at Canberra in 1917: they were big tractors with big guns on their backs. sides and they were rough and they broke down but it's the same job they do but today they are part of a sophisticated combined arms operation and the tank doesn't happen at all but it is changing and the things that need to go with the tank are are changing and the roles that tanks can perform are changing, but anyone who thinks they can get by without tanks in any kind of normal traditional warfare will be rudely interrupted and what about ammunition not just for tanks but in particular? for big guns also Gary asks how much Ukraine's lack of access to abundant artillery shells will affect it.

How will that affect the outcome of the war. This is one of the crucial elements. Yes, they have used it. They inherited all this Soviet 122 millimeter caliber. Russian stuff too and they've used a lot of that as they've been acquiring more Western systems Western artillery Western systems are 155 slightly larger artillery shells that's the base that's the circumference sorry, the diameter of the base of the shell um and they're resupplying with 155 artillery um there's potentially quite a bit out there, of course, but the Americans on their behalf are scouring the world for one, two and two millimeter material that countries got from the former Soviet Union.

We still have because artillery shells, if they have been stored properly, are fine for 30 or 40 years if they have been stored correctly, but the Ukrainians increasingly need the NATO standard 155 artillery because that is the type of artillery weapons what do you need. They are being given and used, and by sure I mean there are millions of artillery shells around the world, but they are being used faster than they are being produced and the Americans just placed an order for their own artery, they have increased. Their normal annual order will quadruple and quadruple in the next five years because they have realized that a lot more artillery is needed than they thought even in two years and that is the question: how much is left for those nations that are donating the right thing? and our nations are falling, now we are unprotected, sure, yes, sure, and Ben Wallace the mod has set aside money for war stocks just for artillery because we have given the Ukrainians enough of what we have and we have very little ourselves themselves, so it's more important that Ukraine gets it right now for sure, but we all have to resupply and one of the arguments that we know is that Ben Wallace from We Believe.

I should say what Ben Wallace is having Downing Street is that our war stocks are so low that our forces are not credible. Our allies and our adversaries know that our forces look great on paper. They have the best team. the best troops the best training if you run out of ammunition in a week, which we would do if we were fighting for the goodness of Ukraine, then you lose, yes, and if we were fighting with the intensity of the Ukraine fighting, we would run out of ammunition in about a week, so no matter how brave you are, no matter how well trained you are, you lose, what about the high-tech stuff we hear, President Zielinski, right?

We're not far from here, asking directly about planes for fighter jets and Scott asks if they supply planes to Ukraine, do they have pilots to fly them and how long would it take to train them on these unknown planes? It's not just about the kit, it's about the experience to use it, it depends on the pilots of course, I'm referring to the Ukrainian pilots who have gained combat experience with their own MiG-29s, the RAF privately estimates that they could train them in a modern airplane and convert them into our modern IR airplane if we gave them our airplane, or the American airplanes or the Swedish ones are probably the best.

They could do it probably in a month or six weeks if it was a pilot with no combat experience, you could be talking about a couple of months or three months if it's someone you have to train to be a pilot, I mean it took us three years. training pilots and we don't train enough, you could probably do it in a year because you know that Ukrainians learn faster, they have an incentive to include the entire training program and work 18 hours a day if necessary, so yes, we could train. the Ukrainian pilots and the British committee to do that, I mean, we don't have any aircraft to give, to be honest, we would have to give the entire Air Force as it is now, we have seven, we have seven flash jet squadrons and seven, already You know, in the Gulf War in 1991, we had 19 squadrons, now we have seven, so we could give them the entire Air Force, it still wouldn't be enough, so we don't have any planes to give up really and Michael, what's up?

I mean, we're talking about personnel there and training, of course, it's not just the pilots, you know, okay, they're responsible when it's in the air, but it's about getting it in the air and keeping it able to fly. What about ground crews, the training they require and of course where would they be located if they were supplied by the UK from a NATO country? A good point because Western planes are very complex so they need a pretty complex ground crew and therefore you need yourself. You need to concentrate resources, these technical resources on one or two bases, but if you are in a war, you must have a number of bases, you must distribute your Air Force so that it is not easy to attack, so you need many. of support and support spread over a large area, we don't do that because in NATO for the last 40 years we have concentrated concentrated concentrated for efficiency, which is more efficient in peacetime in a few large bases with some real specialists, but already You know it takes a lot more than that, so giving planes to Ukraine requires giving them air support, which is a lot of things, a bit like tanks, but even more complex than just the planes.

Well, Michael, well, one of the reasons why some countries have hesitated. give Ukraine tanks and fighter jets and the rest is of course because they feel the risk of escalation, how Russia might react to that, well let's talk about it all now because it's an issue that Mark Austin previously raised with Boris Johnson , what are the consequences? Although, in his opinion, this is a failure, I think the consequences of any kind of Putin victory, of any kind, there are a couple of things, first of all, that it can continue to threaten not only Ukraine but also Georgia , Moldova, the Baltic states, Poland, anywhere in the world. vast periphery of the former Soviet Empire, don't forget this is what it's about, Ukraine never really threatened it as a potential NATO member, it wasn't about establishing NATO missiles on Ukrainian soil, none of that nonsense, this has been purely done by Putin to reinforce his weakened position at home and to try to reconstitute the old Soviet empire, Mr.

Johnson there with his analysis of Russian ambitions and Borges asks, this, Jonathan, mentioning Belarus to the north of Ukraine and a loyal Russian ally , ask. If Belarus enters the war, will others also join?European countries? In response, I mean, this is all about NATO getting involved. Yeah, I mean, no, I'm sure that's the answer. I think it is very unlikely that Belarus will enter the war at any time. Significantly, President Lukashenko in Belarus's own position is not very good in terms of domestic support for him. The war is very unpopular in Belarus and Belarusians don't really want to get involved.

Their army is extremely small. They say they have an army. out of fifty thousand no one believes that they could probably put 15,000 in the field and they are not very well trained or very well equipped, but Belarus can because it has a long border with Ukraine, its border is useful for Russia and Russia has sent Russian troops to Belarus . raise the possibility that they could cross the border again and start going towards kyiv, as it turns out there are some Belarusian troops fighting in Ukraine, there are about two battalions fighting for Ukrainian Belarusian volunteers and they are fighting on the other side, so no, I mean Belarus.

It is not a serious complication, it is a complication, but it is not a serious military threat, and if Belarus was foolish enough to enter the war, I think Lukashenko will be lucky to survive if he did, but if he did, other states Just take it on the chin, they just wouldn't react, they wouldn't invade because of that, you asked Rich's next question, which is, again, about Belarus, is it going to be the next excuse to expand Putin's efforts under the guise of a threat to Belarus from the Ukrainians, well, it's already there, yes, control, right?

There's a report going around that we're not sure is genuine, but there's no reason why it's not genuine, which is a Russian strategic position paper about Putin's desire to take over Belarus by 2030. Now, maybe that may not turn out to be genuine, but if it is not genuine it should be because that is exactly what he wants to do, I mean, he wants to recreate the ancient Russian Empire of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great and there is no debate about it, he said it on many occasions and the Ukrainian headquarters is that absolutely Ukrainian headquarters and so is Belarus, I mean Belarus.

It was the old Belarus, it was white Russia, so the idea that Putin has it in his mind to manipulate events so that in 2030 he will take over Belarus and become a new type of Russian Federation is entirely plausible. Whether the report that's circulating now is really not, I don't know, but yeah, that's pretty likely in his mind, okay, and Michael Moldova is very interesting in all of this in terms of expansion. Chris asks if there is a danger of Russia destabilizing Moldova. No, that was the problem. the richest question we move on to Chris's, it doesn't matter and we'll get the map back and show everyone where Moldova is.

Moldova is sandwiched between Romania and Ukraine, it is landlocked and Transnistria, that region is very important to me, that's right. Yes, which was the smallest one that said: you are very weak, it is very small, very weak, there it is, I mean, between Ukraine and Romania, traditionally part of Romania, it has Transnistria, which is the Nistra River that runs through it to the Black. The sea and area of ​​Transnistria include an enclave of Russian-speaking nationalists. It is actually the base of the former 14th Army, the 14th Army of the Red Army used to be in Moldova and many retired officers are there with their families etc.

So this country of three and a half million inhabitants has about half a million Transnistrians who demand or demand or ask for unity with Russia. It used to be called the best Arabia. I'm remembering my old man. -on a history level now Bess Arabia is part of Romania, however, I am referring to Moldova itself. There was a coup attempt last weekend, which went into effect on Sunday of last week, the Russian minority called a demonstration to complain about the government because it turns out that the transmission area provides all the power for the rest of Moldova simply because They are on the river and actually have a lot of Russian help.

I mean, there's a lot of Russian stuff involved and they tried to create a rally to overthrow the government, which is a very pro-Western government led by a very pro-Western prime minister and president um and it failed it was a pretty miserable rally but it was clearly inspired by Moscow was helped by Moscow they thought they would get, you know, 100,000 people in On the street they seem to have about ten thousand at most. Well, now I have to take a break. Michael, thanks for that. So far you are watching Sky News. Tonight, a special Q&A on Ukraine with Professor Michael Clarke.

We'll address the most common question everyone's been submitting in the big question: will this all end in World War III? Let's stay with us, thank you. Press preview. A first look at the covers as they arrive. Some commentators have the feeling that it is not the most respectful moment. I think there's a word for that. Fake news. I mean, it's digging into the stories with different perspectives on tomorrow's headlines. We haven't really seen the government come to the table and negotiate. There are no easy

answers

to those questions. the press preview that brings you tomorrow's news tonight on Sky News in recent years you have seen big stories, and these stories have been driven by politics, by politicians, the people in power, they must stay in home and it's my job to find out how these decisions are made.

Actions by politicians impact us all in our daily lives. This is the worst thing I've ever been through in my life. People show up here with their childish things in a black jacket and just say, "I don't want to," and that's what their first-class profit is. This is an example of the failure of the welfare state. We take it to the heart of the stories that they shape our world these are stories that affect us all billions of children now have to catch up some stories have changed our entire lives because, like the residents, the staff are infected.

Politicians make decisions all the time and it is our job to hold them accountable. I wonder if they will take this opportunity to apologize to those families, but in the end the true power will not. In reality, it is not in the hands of politicians, the real power is in the hands of the people. I'm Nick Martin, I'm the people and politics correspondent at Sky News. Thank you, foreigner, welcome back. We're answering your questions about the war in Ukraine as we approach exactly one year. Since the Russian invasion began, Professor Michael Clarke is still here with me answering those questions, so now let's address the issue and China's role.

Earlier, Mark Austin asked former Prime Minister Boris Johnson his opinion on a possible Chinese invasion. What would be the consequences? Do you think that if China actively supported Russia in this war by supplying weapons? I think it would be a historic mistake on the part of the Chinese. I was very worried seeing what Wong Yi was doing yesterday. Moscow. I think you know that would be a big mistake. Why does China want to contaminate itself by association with Putin, who has revealed himself to be this gangster and adventurer? I think it would be a big mistake on China's part, but what it shows is what it shows.

The urgency for us to give Ukrainians what they need to succeed this year. Well, Boris Johnson said that any Chinese intervention would be a historic mistake and Brian submitted a question that asks that very question: what can we expect China's next step to be? In the conflict, they seem to be giving mixed signals and Michael, this is because they are also talking about a peace plan at the same time and it is the Americans who have been saying that they have evidence that they believe China is going to hand over power . weapons Xi Jinping is due to give a speech tomorrow, uh, if not postponed, if not tomorrow, probably on Saturday and it's called a peace speech, but I suspect we'll see it or hear it tomorrow and there's a peace plan that the Chinese intend. to launch Wang Yi, who is a prominent diplomat, he is not the foreign spokesperson for the Chinese, he has been in Moscow this week and this peace plan, uh, we will see what it entails.

I don't think it involves anything very surprising, but, um, Brian. The Chinese algorithmic signals are exactly correct and it is interesting that Wang Yi when he was in Moscow did not use the phrase that Xujinping had used, he did not say that it is a partnership without limits, that was this phrase that was collected. He said that the Sino-Russian partnership is Limitless that you would have Limitless came a year ago, didn't it go well? Yeah, that was right before this started and Wagy didn't repeat it and that was an interesting omission, so he talked about a very strong partnership.

I mean there's a strong relationship between China and Russia because they're both revisionist powers, they both want to change. the rules of the international system for different reasons, they are the two great revisionist powers in the world which gives them a combination because we have talked about this before, but they are not equal powers, you know, Russia is in danger of becoming a client of China if accept some substantial help. Russia is moving toward the position of being like North Korea, like a bigger problem, but a version of North Korea. I mean just an indication. I mean, Russia is now selling its oil to China because it has to, it can't sell it to the Western world, it's selling it for forty dollars. a barrel that's about half the global price that's the way it is, it's on its knees in front of China right now because it needs it and China's trade with Russia is about three percent of its total trade.

I mean, most of China's trade is with Europe and North America, you know, its trade with Russia is small, so Xi Jinping really likes Putin and Xi Jinping, you know, he sees a compromise and he sees the need. to maintain a front against the United States against the Western world, but this is war. not doing China any good and the prospect of Russia becoming some sort of big version of North Korea really worries China, so what do they do if the Chinese are passing judgment on what Russia can achieve. Let's ask the next question, because that sums up Well, it's John's, he says.

How likely is it that an ad vagina would get directly involved in the conflict and what support would they provide? Well, first of all, weapons and weapons, that's what the Russians want. I mean the Chinese, we have huge reserves of ammunition. We were talking about artillery shells, but they also have precision weapons. Precision missiles that the Russians are running out of. If the Chinese were willing to open their arsenal to the Russians, then the Russians would not lose; that is the point that the Chinese could stop. let the Russians lose it, but the price for China will be very high because the Americans have made it very clear to China and you know that if you do this we could supply you with many more weapons than you would prefer us not to, but secondly, there will be secondary sanctions;

In other words, we will sanction your companies. The Chinese are very afraid of American sanctions. They have seen Western sanctions and couldn't believe how powerful they have turned out to be. We were surprised by how powerful it was. They have been and are really scared of the United States imposing sanctions on Chinese companies around the world, but it is also becoming very geopolitical, as well as another of the Chinese trials over whether to hand over weapons and ammunition. His ambitions towards Taiwan. We are seeing what is needed for the Russian effort in Ukraine, which is not even half as good as the Taiwanese, and some American generals say they could try it, the Chinese could try it in the next two years, they need a lot. of weapons for that they could do it, but they have 100, 100 miles of water to cross, not only not just a couple of rivers, but if the Chinese try to solve their Taiwan problem by force, I'm pretty sure it won't be that way .

An invasion that begins suddenly one day would almost certainly be some sort of series of political initiatives that effectively create a blockade of Taiwan that becomes increasingly stricter and that would put the onus on the West, you know, when do you react? When do you really start trying to break this block? So you would start with a trade issue and then you would intercept ships in the open sea or in an area that the Chinese claim is their territory and it won't be, but they would claim it, so it would be kind of a tight noose to see how far they could take it before the West responded so it would not build on the blue attack.

I'm pretty sure, but it would be a military attack. answer that becomes increasingly serious, uh, which would pose dilemmas for the West. Just underlines the point you made earlier, you just touched on it. Michael Klein asks what the impact would be of China sending weapons to Russia. I mean, he pulled out all the stops. On the flip side of my next stance, you think you know that if China did everything it could to support Russia, everything would end up in Russia's favor. Well, they could prevent the Russians from losing on the battlefield, so they could mean that the Russians could prevail.

Since the Russians are ready to throw anynumber in terms of people who prepared for any series of casualties, if they had unlimited precision missiles and unlimited artillery, then most likely they could conquer the air like they wanted to conquer and then the Russians would have been left with the small problem of a guerrilla war for the next 50 years in the country of 44 million inhabitants. This is the point you made before: if you conquer a country that doesn't welcome you like they thought a year ago, well, it's all very well winning some battles, but then you try to control that exactly and your options are to live guerrilla warfare. and hope to keep it at levels you can live with. or repress the country to the point of creating a complete reign of terror and again.

A reign of terror in a country of 44 million inhabitants at the gates of Europe, surrounded by friendly countries other than Russia and Belarus, will be very difficult to achieve. I always wanted to ask that, although Michael, I mean, there's quite a bit of territory that the Russians have taken and control and you know, we've seen them trying to transform cities like Mariupo, is there any guerrilla activity going on right now? Well, do we have? any evidence of that, but behind the so-called enemy love for the gorilla gorilla oh yes, yes, there is some yes, a partisan war that unfolded in person, um, when the Russians cursed and before they retreated, there was quite a bit, There was a lot of people taken away during the night.

There is a lot of terror and those attacks stopped for a while, but they have been resurfacing again, not now in curses because that is again in the hands of Ukraine, but in Melita. there are many reports under russian control right now there are many reports of partisan activity but so far not enough that the russians have a big problem but ross vardia is there this is their national defense force there are 400 000 numbers of ross vardia , the vardia rods, you know, internal troops, they are bigger than the army, huh, The army was only 280,000. Directly responsible to Putin himself, only he is the 400,000 commander and they have Ross Vardia there, who is the Gestapo of the place and they have them there in very high numbers and they are like me.

Let's say that in certain areas they have created a dark night of the Gestapo in some of these cities, okay, let's talk now about the risk of contagion of a World War that develops from this and today we hear from the Ukrainian Prime Minister if We assume that Ukraine could lose this war, it will be an extremely powerful signal to Russia and any aggressor that it is possible to do this in the civilized world and will potentially cause many wars and possibly World War III. Yes, we had from Ukraine. Prime Minister, possibly World War III. Let's put our next question on that to Professor Michael Clarke, an anonymous contributor who asks: In a war where neither side seems to be genuinely seeking peace, is there any mechanism to prevent this from becoming truly global? uh what are your thoughts?

Yes, uh, there are. I mean, the chances of a Third World War are very, very remote, because world wars are created and have been created twice in the 20th century, when great empires have global interests and pursue those interests. all over the world and so they collide everywhere and that's what became the first world war, the second world war and the second world war was actually a series of four or five different wars that merged into what we collectively call the World War II, um, you can. To create a scenario in which that actually happens, there are many novels in station bookstores that have World War III titles and I have read many of them.

It is the connections between conflicts that are never convincing. with them they can give you a summary of a conflict in the Middle East, a conflict in southern Africa or a conflict in Europe, they are never linked in the way they were linked in the 20th century, now the mechanisms that you know, me I mean Mark Malik. Brown today uh great UN uh uh retired official um I was saying it's sad that the UN can't do more and that's true, but the fact is that the mechanisms to stop its escalation in a sense is the balance of power, it's the big one. countries that know that this war has to be fought somehow but it also has to be contained somehow and it's not in their best interest to let it go anywhere else and certainly, you know, Latin America, Africa, Central Asia, they don't want it. something to do with it, the outcome of the war is terribly important for the world, but there is a determination that this is nothing more than the conflict in Europe between an autocratic state and the liberal democracies want to help it, but could get something done? provoked, let's ask our next question through a scenario that Joe presents to us, is it there?

The participation of the United States and the United Kingdom in the conflict is bringing us closer to a World War, how much more help can we provide before Putin take as a direct attack? about Russia and this has been the case since the beginning of this conflict, this calculation is carried out in Western capitals, yes, well, you know, if we send this or that weapon to Ukraine, how will Russia interpret it? It seems like we're going beyond that point, but if it goes further and we talk about, for example, even ground support teams, something like that, not necessarily combat forces, there's a danger that we end up with NATO and Russia coming into contact, that is the big red line that both parties recognize. right now and the Russians are behaving despite what they say and telling scary stories every day to try to scare us into putting pressure on the Ukrainians to stop it, but they, the Russians, recognize the red line and we We recognize the red line.

I'm not sure why we're all working so hard on this because it seems pretty simple: we can give the Ukrainians all the weapons they need to prevail on the battlefield because they're just trying to take back their territory, all they do with any system . on the defensive because they are trying to take back their territory and all we have to do is tell the Ukrainians that they have to promise us that they will not use these long-range missiles to attack Russian territory directly and the Ukrainians will do it. If we make that promise, we can believe it 100 for one obvious reason: if Ukraine starts attacking Russia directly, then they would lose the support of the West and lose the war.

The most suicidal thing the Ukrainians could do would be to take our long-range weapons and use them to attack Russia. Okay, that makes them lose the war, so I'm completely relaxed about the fact that they won't. Well, I'm going to ask the next two questions together because you. We've responded to Mike asking if it's inevitable that this will turn into a full-scale war involving NATO. You think not, but Martin asks what a conventional war between Russia and NATO would be like and how safe the UK would be. We've talked. about these programs we've talked about before about a nuclear contact, we can touch on that a little bit later in this session, but a conventional war, I mean, could happen and you know what form it would take, I mean, presumably as you describe the tactics of the NATO that we are trying to teach the Ukrainians if NATO itself was employing them, yes, NATO would win, yes, and NATO on paper, NATO is immensely stronger than Russia, immensely stronger in terms of numbers, Mano of Works, Air Forces, everything now, NATO has been emptied over the years, I mean.

There has been a kind of structural disarmament throughout Western Europe since the end of the Cold War, so defense policies have become cheaper and cheaper and we have not kept pace, but in the last 10 years NATO since the 2016 Summit. The Wales Summit, if you remember, not the 2014 Wales Summit, there was a sort of clarion call then and NATO has made great efforts. NATO countries made great efforts, not so much ours, but other countries have made great efforts to catch up with what they had. If they had lost, if they had played a war game in Trivenham at our staff school and said okay, there's the Russian team, there's the NATO team, what's going on and, all things being equal, Russia wouldn't have any possibility. conventionally well let's talk unconventionally and of course we are thinking about nuclear weapons and the possible use of nuclear weapons casts a shadow over this entire conflict almost since it began in a speech this morning.

President Putin said that mass deliveries of hypersonic weapons missiles that we were discussing earlier will be manufactured for the Russian Navy as it enters a new state of battle readiness. As before, we will pay greater attention to strengthening the Nuclear Triad. This year, the first launchers of the Samat missile system with a new heavy missile enter combat. Duty, we will continue serial production of air-launched Kinzal hypersonic systems and begin mass deliveries of sea-launched Zircon hypersonic missiles. President Putin is talking about his hypersonic missiles as previously discussed with Professor Michael Clark and Stu asks Michael: do you see the possibility of a decisive victory for Ukraine where Russia accepts defeat without the use of nuclear weapons as a last resort and This has always been the concern, isn't it that if you defeat Russia on the battlefield, then they won't take it lying? down and they will use something tactical and nuclear that is possible portable access.

I don't think it's very, I think it's barely possible, that's what I would say there are many other scenarios, one is that Putin is removed before this war ends and that doesn't mean that he will be replaced by someone more peaceful because people Everyone around him thinks like him, but at least it would be someone different and, again, I have no problem talking about what the outcome would be. "It could be and it could be this, if Ukraine were successful, let's assume they could expel Russia from all the territories they have conquered since February and that is completely plausible, if they can get their act together this year, let's pause, um, and we would all do ".

Everyone would say that it was a good result because then Putin's adventure will have failed, they could possibly expel Russia from the territories they took in 2014 in the dombas and that leaves the issue of Crimea and what is done with Crimea, it is very simple, you say this It is a really difficult issue, you hand it over to an international tribunal to examine and decide in court. The city for 40 years can't think of anything, it doesn't matter because it gets him off the front lines and the rest of us get on with our lives. Meanwhile, that's what you do with international affairs.

I mean, it's the same with Northern Cyprus, which is not resolved, so it goes to the international discussion and everyone gets on with their lives so that no one has to give anything, so the Ukrainians keep claiming it, the Russians keep on. saying that it is inherently Russia for historical reasons, which is not true in international law, but they have a historical argument and you argue, argue, argue with a court that meets once a month for 20 years, the producers report that everyone they ignore it, but you I had a 20 year break from worrying about it and by then, who knows, the situation may be different, but I mean, isn't the danger in that scenario?

The 20 year break is when everyone rearms and then a new population grows and you have fresh troops to put into another battle? The fact is that if this war ends, so to speak, victoriously for the Ukrainians, if they recover their territory, everyone except Ukraine, placed on the Platform, would still have to live with the idea. that they will be a heavily armed state because they face a Russia that, under the current leadership and current thinking in Russia, not only Putin considers Ukraine a non-state and a place that must be conquered, and by that I mean that the Ukrainians say this.

They themselves say that we will be the Israel of Europe we will be the heavily armed state with a constant fear or a constant danger of being eliminated by a neighbor now the difference with Israel in the case of Ukraine would not have a Palestinian problem and B are not surrounded by States hostile, they are all potentially hostile states, they are surrounded by friends besides Belarus and Russia itself, but in one respect, yes, the Israel of Europe is not unrealistic, I mean, the Ukrainians have a future of strong armaments and constant vigilance, okay, that's a point that could be reached, but let's end this session with a question that asks how we could get there.

It's Chris's question: I'm not sure we can get it. there in time, so I will read it beyond the battlefield what diplomacy will take place directly between the major Powers. I mean, you know we don't know anything in terms of talks, we've known you know Turkey. People who involved Roman Abramovich were involved in the past. Is there any contact? There are back channels between the major powers between the United States, Russia and China, yes you can bet there are, yes they are running all the time, I mean II might not, but I could name a couple of British individuals who are involved.

I could name individuals in the Gulf who were involved and sometimes work nervously on secondary issues. I mean, there have been some prisoner exchanges that suddenly Suddenly, one day it seems that yes, exchange, there is no preparation, everything has been worked out in general terms by the international committee of the Red Cross, a lot of things are happening, eh, things are happening for refugees, but people are looking for areas where they can have an agreement between the two parties that suits them both in the prisoner exchange is one of the areas where it may be the case, so Yes, many people throughout Europe and in the rest of the world are also trying to stimulate their contacts everywhere and many of the Russians are also doing this to say: can we talk about this? can we talk about diplomacy remaining private until such time as it can, so to speak, come to light as part of a larger framework, but to many people, I promise? you're looking for any links they can find because some links are better than no links and the point is that building those relationships, even if you're not originally talking about ultimate peace, yes, they're important, those are relationships the fact that you are. talk even if it's about something as they call it mundane, it's important of course like prisoner exchange, although it's about the technicalities, you have the contact, yes, and in the business it's called track two diplomacy and sometimes , it's the foreign affairs office they're talking about. track one and a half diplomacy track one is official diplomacy that is all written down and available to the press afterwards and so on track two diplomacy is things that happen that you just don't talk to anyone else about and track Diplomacy Two builds the atmosphere that can then become track one, so there is a lot of track two diplomacy going on.

Do you think it will bear fruit? I mean, are you confident? We're talking about another year now in terms of the conflict. Do you think anything diplomatic could happen before that? Yes, it can bear fruit and it is happening across China as well. Remember not only Russia and Europe. Yes, it may bear fruit, but not until the war takes a different turn and the offensives that are currently on. about to happen they will develop themselves, create some kind of new situation on the ground and then depending on what that situation is, there may be some kind of diplomacy possible.

I'll tell you what might be possible assuming the Russians can surround kyiv, they will take it, but they say they could. if we surround it and threaten Kiev and assume that the Ukrainians are capable of threatening Crimea with their new offensive, then both sides could say: okay, let's talk because there would be a kind of symmetry there that could provide the basis at least for a halt the fire, but I have to say before the diplomatic framework is possible, unfortunately there is a lot to do, but Michael says Everett is being fantastic in providing his expertise there.

Thank you very much for sharing so much with us, Professor Michael Clark, who comes next. much more on the first anniversary of the attack on