 Wegnis marked the end of the NATO summit in Vilnius, headlined of course by Ukraine's bid to join the military alliance, which came to naught. What message is the US-led grouping sending to its allies in Kiev? The Food and Agricultural Organization's Food Security Report clearly states humanity's ongoing failure to deal with global hunger. When there is enough food for all, why are people still going hungry? And in Thailand, Peta Limjaroenrat has failed in his first bid to win the support of parliament for the position of prime minister. What happens next? You're watching Daily Debrief coming to you as always from the People's Dispatch Studios here in New Delhi. I'm Siddharth Ani. And first up, we have with us Prabir Pukhaistha, who is the editor-in-chief of NewsClick, and has been covering the war in Ukraine since it broke out. We're talking of course about the NATO summit and all that happened there. It's sort of a roundup of our coverage of that summit. Let's go across to Prabir. Good to have you back on Daily Debrief. From Kiev at least among those who were keen to see Ukraine or on the side of Ukraine entering NATO formally, a sense of frustration perhaps at the end of the NATO summit in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius. Tell us in your opinion what Zelensky wanted for Ukraine or at least for his government and what he ended up getting? Well, you know, let's look at what he finally got. Now, the communique which has been released by the public seems to put the goalpost further away than what NATO had promised in 2008. Now, that obviously is not something Zelensky was looking for. He was looking for something, if not an outright membership of NATO immediately, at least something which made it possible for him to claim that Ukraine is virtually a member of NATO. That doesn't seem to have happened. And that I think for him was a disappointment, which has been very clear in the way he has expressed his opinion. So that is one. Now, why he did not get the membership of NATO? Why was that an overestimation on his part? These are different questions. And of course, the question that comes to mind is, was Ukraine always misled to be in some sense a spearpoint against Russia and to be used as expendable, or at least Ukrainians are expendable. And therefore, it was more using Ukraine to weaken Russia rather than really a formal declaration that at some point, which was not too distant in the future, Ukraine will be part of NATO. I think these are the basic issues which come to mind. And very clear that Ukraine was looking for something much more positive than they have got. And as I said, whether his estimation was correct, whether he had been given some signals that we are going to do something or it was entirely pressure tactics on his part is something that we can't really predict or talk about. From the military standpoint, at least as far as the current war is concerned, it seems also that Ukraine will anyway have, I mean, de facto Ukraine is, I mean, sorry, NATO is, is kind of putting in all the machinery, the weaponry and all kinds of other aid anyway. So doesn't remaining outside of the ambit sort of serve both purposes at this point? And why, given all of this, would Ukraine even want to join in the first place? You know, Ukraine wants to join for a very simple reason that if it is a part of NATO, then as per the NATO agreement, attack on any country is an attack on all countries. So effectively, if Ukraine is at war with Russia, then all countries are involved with Russia. That's precisely the reason that NATO did not want to have a formal statement or doesn't want Ukraine to join as long as the war with NATO continue, a war with Ukraine continues. Now, you see, if you take Russia, they have been very careful to call it a special military operations, making it clear that this is not a declaration of war. Now, it may be semantic, but it is technically it means that they haven't declared war on Ukraine. Now, if you take Zelensky into account, if he's a part of NATO, then he can say, well, they have declared war on us. And therefore, you are duty bound by the NATO agreement and its constitution clauses or whatever the agreement clauses are that you have to therefore come in support of me. Therefore, you need to be in Ukraine on the ground. And that means 31 countries in the NATO really doesn't matter. It's really about five to eight countries which matter in NATO. And of course, the most important being being in the United States. But let's not forget, there are three nuclear powers in NATO, and Russia is a nuclear power. So this is a war between three nuclear powers on one side and Russia. And effectively, what it means is a formal declaration of war by Russia and NATO about war or declaration of war against each other is in effect the World War III. And that is something which nobody, even those who would like to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian weekend Russia, see that it is dismantled, if that can be said. All these games or games are okay with them. But a declaration of war and the World War III is not because that carries with it the civilisation risk of actually extinguishing all that we today value or have. So this is something which is I would say is a rubicon that NATO countries are not willing to actually cross. And when a country is at some kind of a war or civil war, whichever you want to look at, this is something that doesn't then allow NATO to offer membership to that country. In this particular case, Ukraine being virtually the state of war with Russia on its border doesn't allow a NATO membership without the risk to NATO. And of course, the risk to the world. I think that's why they have backed off. And that's why Zelensky's misunderstanding of the scenario or Ukraine's misunderstanding that effectively they have become part of NATO, all that matters is a formal declaration was something which is clearly found to be unfounded. So on the lack of specificity, whether it is in terms of a timeline or how from a technocratic point of view, Ukraine might end up becoming a member. Also lack of specificity on how the war might end if, let's say, Ukraine is to join after the war. Are you surprised by any of those or any of the vagueness that sort of resulted from these meetings? I think the vagueness is inherited the scenario itself that you're going to use Ukraine to weaken Russia. And as we have been saying, it's a NATO war but conducted in Ukraine. But the fig leaf is it is not a NATO war. And NATO is only supporting Ukraine. Now, given that a formal declaration of NATO being a participant in the war is what would be the difference if actually Ukraine joined or was allowed to join the NATO. And NATO is quite aware of this. So in fact, if you see the 2008 declaration and the declaration just been released in Vilnius, the goalpost is actually further away than what it was said in 2008, much more vague in terms of the English that has been used. So I think that is an indication that, yes, they would support Ukraine. They still are saying to whatever extent we can, but that whatever extent that they can is also becoming a problem. Because virtually the United States is now on record saying that we have to give them 155 millimeter shells, which are essentially cluster ammunition. And it is forbidden under US law to give such ammunition to others. There is international treaties, of course, not that US has signed them, nor has India, nor is Russia, nor is China. But given all of this, that 155 millimeter cluster ammunition has been given because they don't have shells for 155 millimeter shells, normal shells to give. So if you take the NATO countries, they are not in a position or they were not in a position to fight an industrial scale war, which is what we've been discussing for quite some time in this show. And therefore, the bottom line is now becoming clear. So is there a possibility of now a frozen conflict, some negotiations starting? And I think the fact that a senior delegation, not officials, but very senior in foreign policy terms of the United States have gone to Russia, had a discussion with Lavrov, for example, means maybe some back channel discussions have started, how to bring the war to an end, or if not to an end to a frozen conflict. I think these are the things to watch at the moment. And therefore, this could be another reason that they don't really want to take some step which is much more seem to be seen to be much more aggressive, like offering a NATO membership to Ukraine. Thanks very much, Pabir, for rounding up our coverage of the NATO Summit that took place in Vilnius this week. As we know now, it turned out to be another one where more declarations and less decisions, but perhaps in that sense, not completely a bad thing, given the perspective that you've shared with us today. The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, as well as the World Food Program have both said, admitted that the world will fall well short of the SDG goal of zero hunger by the year 2030. At least 600 million people worldwide will if the projections of the latest FAO report on the state of food security and nutrition in the world are to hold face critical food insecurity at the end of the decade. Billions will continue to also be undernourished, that is have poor diets. And in most parts of the world, the situation today is worse than what it was before the COVID-19 pandemic. Abdul has been looking at the report and joins us now for details, key findings and also talk about a very disappointing situation. Abdul about what is I suppose as basic human need as there can be. Exactly. Well, of course, it is a very disappointing situation. If you see almost a billion population across the globe is hungry. And if you see the food insecurity data, in fact, it is much larger around 2.5 billion almost almost not exactly how but almost 40% of the world's population is food insecure. And this is happening not only in the quote unquote traditional hotbeds of the hunger, which is Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa or Asia. Yeah, it is now the food insecurity is increasing on record in quote unquote developed countries like Europe and North American countries like US and other places, which is primarily of course, as you rightly pointed out, this has nothing to do with the lack of in a food production. There is enough food production. But of course, this is a larger issue, which is related to more profit seeking out of the food basic needs of the human beings than the real problems of food production. Abdul, I was watching a couple of the I think the chief economist at both the FAO and the World Food Program briefed the media on the report. They seemed pretty clear that that one the world hasn't been able to bounce back from the shocks induced by both the pandemic as well as the Ukraine war. And secondly, that this is a complete sort of failure of the international community as it were to come together and sort of find a way out of this. See, of course, if the report very clearly says that the COVID 19 outbreak created in basically a larger higher pace of people going hungry because of the lockdown and break in the supply chain and so on and so forth. Also, because of the lack of income, that is one this is one part and the recent war in Ukraine has also contributed into it. But if you see the larger impact on it, see, they have created 120 million more people, additional people who went hungry because of the war and the COVID. But even if you exclude that the report indicates the data of hungry people is quite large. The report very clearly says if you just look at the projections by 2030, the SDG goals of zero hunger will not be achieved. There will be 600 million people hungry in 2030 if the current pace of whatever policies governments are taking continues. If things don't get worse, that is exactly that is additional part of it. But even if we reduce the number of people who basically became hungry due to the war and COVID, there will be more than 480 million people hungry would have been hungry by 2030 if the current policy levels continue. So, of course, they contributed extra people, the war and COVID and other conflicts do create additional people who go hungry. But they are not the real reasons behind it. It is there are the reasons are much more structural. Though again, the report says there are drivers, which basically increase more people, number of people going hungry, which are of course conflict, climate related extremities. And then there are other supply chains and price rise and so on and so forth. But all of these basically are the problems which can easily be tackled if there is a will. And that will is the primary reason behind the rising number of people going hungry. What sort of political will Abdul would want the perpetuation of this kind of situation? If you see the report says that there has been a there has been tremendous achievement. If you see in Latin American countries in particular, in addressing hunger there, and a large number of people in China, for example, came out of the absolute poverty because of the state taking initiatives to address the structural issues and pinpoint the problems and address it. In the countries, if you see, for example, Europe and North American countries, as the report indicated, and we have talked about it how food insecurity is increasing, there is no reason. You can say that there are people in, there are countries in Africa, South Saharan Africa, where production is not up to the level, up to the mark. There are identifiable reasons for people going hungry. But there is no reason for people going hungry in countries like India, in fact. Leave about Europe and North America, even in countries like India, there is no reason for millions of people going hungry or being food insecure. It is primarily the governments in those countries and the larger global capitalism, which basically seeks profit maximization through food production. And that's why what happens that even if there is enough food, they are stored or used for some other purposes than really distributing it and letting it available for the larger people who are really producing it. So there is an artificial food scarcity which is created. And this is the thing which basically had to be addressed if we really want to achieve the zero hunger goal. And as of now, I think we are only seeing, for example, in India, really farmers movements kind of addressing these issues and bringing in ideas of climate change and those kind of impacts as well. The governments are not ready to listen. All right. Thanks very much for that update, Abdul. And with that, we'll move on to our final story of the day, which is from Thailand, where there has been a bit of a no go in the leader of the move forward party, Peter Lim Ja Roonrath, his bid to win support of parliament for the office of Prime Minister. He was, of course, meant to get at least 50% of the vote in the country's bicameral legislature in order to become Prime Minister and then form the government. He was thwarted by a host of no shows. And according to at least Reuters reports and others, around 200 abstentions as Thailand's political conservative political establishment weighs up the threat to its power, its existence, perhaps in some way, if the reformist ends up heading the new government. Anish joins us by video conference. He covers the region for people's dispatch and has the latest. Yes, so what we're looking at is quite a significant development, because obviously, as you pointed out, that there were close to 200 abstentions and about 182 no votes. But what is significant is that about 13 of the senators now for those of our audience who do not know the Senate in Thailand right now is pretty much entirely constituted of about 250 members of them are military appointed individuals. And they pretty much, you know, represent the military, the former military student that once wrote Thailand. So these people are pretty much not like there was even some people did not expect even a single vote at this point, because there were certain developments recently that actually also made it far more difficult for Peter to actually make himself more well attracted to the military junta and get people within the establishment. So but 30 intervotes from there. Nevertheless, he was eventually 41 votes short of majority. And this is going to be like this is definitely going to set a lot of things back because and part of the reason why things happened the way it did was primarily because of recent cases against both Peter and the move forward party. Peter is currently being alleged of being not qualified to serve as a member of the parliament, mostly because of this shared stocks that he held in a media company at the time of filing his nomination. Now according to Thai law, you're not supposed to have any shares or you're not supposed to be part of the ownership of any media company. As well you find candidacy and this is something that has been used against him. Obviously, there are things that are not very clear about that the case itself is quite dicey. We did not we have we can go get into the details later. But basically, there are attempts right now, which is going forward. That is a trying to disqualify beta, but also trying to maybe do another dissolution of a party, which has happened quite frequently in Thai politics. So at this point in time, this is like one thing that we need to very well notice the very solid support that the new coalition has, you know, said it kept itself, like the house is quite in order, despite disagreements, past disagreements on the whole host of issues, especially the Thai and the move forward party, both of whom had significant differences on the whole host of issues, ranging from speaker appointment to the less images still out. And in all of these cases, they sort of seem to have ironed out differences and are right now close to a unified block in the house at the very least against the conservative and the pro military and the pro junta groups within the parliament and also obviously the junta that still exists in many ways, even if it's not there on paper. Okay, a couple of things maybe one and correct me if I'm wrong, but more significant would be than his disqualification because he can still be Prime Minister if he's not part of parliament, if I'm not wrong by Thai law. But but the dissolution of the party seems to be the more serious sort of threat at this point. But with 41 votes short, Anish, do you think that there is a possibility of some kind of ironing out of differences, perhaps based on those laws that you're talking about, where, you know, essentially defaming the monarchy is, you know, maybe a cornerstone, it's criminally and also a cornerstone in the conservative political establishment in Thailand and for something that perhaps those sections want to hold on to. So so do you think that in the short term, some kind of compromise will be worked out and the democratically elected government will be allowed to sort of take shape? Well, it's very difficult to say because from what we saw like a very lengthy session of parliament, it began the morning and pretty much just finished a couple of minutes ago, not even barely an hour ago. And what we saw until then was basically in senators, the junta senators and the conservative bloc, who are now the minority as a minority in the House of Representatives, all of them pretty much hanging on to the let's image stay laws. And pretty much making that the, you know, the focal point of their attacks and targets against Peter. And very well, I mean, like this is also considering the fact that not just Peter, but the move of a party is pretty much the only party in the parliament right now, which has a campaign promise of reforming the law. They are making that a big issue. Obviously, this is, you know, diverting attention away from other major issues that especially of allegations of corruption in the previous government under private channels, who by the way is retiring for everybody who's interested. And there's also the fact that like we also need to point out the fact that a lot of them actually talked about how like no other party has an issue with the law. It's only these people. So we should not let them and they want to basically the narratives that they want to allow defaming and attacking the monarchy. Now the thing is that this might mean that they are the conservative bloc is trying to probably reach out to certain constituents within the new coalition. And that can be like probably at one point, like the bitter rivals like with that might be accepted to them. But as we see right now, the coalition is a united bloc at this point. It's housing order. And they are they're not they're very well likely to put Peter's name as the prime minister's nominee next week on the night in the 20th, when there will be a second and third if possible, third round of votes for the prime minister. And in this, there is no likelihood of another prime minister or candidate as of now from the bloc. So this is quite good. There is going to be a definitely a big impasse. We might see protests happening. We might see massive rallies, like the whole thing going back to Bangkok might be stuck over by protest. In the coming days, if the impasse continues, the business community, like even the ruling establishment, the ones that are supporting the ruling establishment, especially the capitalists are quite concerned about the instability at this point. And even they are quite, because it's been two months since the election results are declared and yet there is no new government forthcoming who can actually take decisive steps on a whole host of issues. So these factors are going to definitely affect the decision. The fact that like nobody expected more than a handful of Senate votes is now come to 13 shows that there might be some senators who might think that it is more practical to allow this government to come to power and then, you know, do whatever nature in the because senators obviously to be a very big part of law for at least another year. And so this we need to see how things follow because the next week, one week would be quite a decisive in this situation right now. All right, thanks very much for that update, Anish. And I'm sure we'll have more from you on Thailand as in when the next vote takes place. And with that, we bring to a close this episode of daily debrief. As always, thank you very much for watching. Please do like, share and subscribe and all of that. Also, don't forget to follow us on the social media platform of your choice. If you haven't done so already, details on these stories and all of the other work we do also available on our website peoplesdispatch.org. We'll be back with another episode tomorrow. Until then, stay safe. Goodbye.