 Depleted uranium anti-armor munitions from the United States are part of the latest military aid package to the Ukraine. Why has the US decided to U-turn on a previous decision to not send depleted uranium shells to the war? Australia and China have resumed high level dialogue after the gap of nearly three years. How deep is the thaw then between the two countries who do over 200 billion US dollars in annual bilateral trade? Salams this is Daily Debrief coming to you as always from the wonderful People's Dispatch studios here in New Delhi. I'm Siddharth Ani and before we go any further on the show a quick reminder to like and subscribe to People's Dispatch on YouTube. Our first story is now official that the United States will supply depleted uranium anti-tank armor for its soon to be deployed M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks in the Ukraine. The war in Europe is of course having a profound impact on the global economy. Nowhere is this more so than in the Ukraine itself. But as Praveer Prukayastha might tell us up next in this first segment, not quite in the way that the West, specifically that the US and NATO might have imagined things going when they imposed the wide-ranging sanctions that they did. Let's go across now to Praveer Prukayastha, Editor-in-Chief of NewsClick. Hi Praveer, good to have you back on Daily Debrief. We're starting off of course by talking about these specific anti-tank armor shells. What do you think prompted the decision to sort of go back on a previous statement saying they will not be provided or shipped to the battlefield in Ukraine? What is this US sort of, what sort of message are they sending out now? Well, it's difficult to think about any messaging because as you know, they have earlier itself used this kind of shells in the challenge of tanks that the UK had sent. So this is not something which they have not as NATO that they have not supplied to Ukraine. The United States had said earlier they will not send, as you said, depleted uranium armor piercing rounds for the tanks. So that seemed to have been a decision they had taken earlier. Now they have gone back on it just as they have gone back on what earlier they had said about cluster munitions. If you remember artillery shells, they had said they will not send cluster munitions. And in fact their argument was we will not send cluster munitions to anybody. We have it in our armory, but we won't use it. Henceforth was a kind of assurance that the United States had given to its people as well. It's not something only to foreign countries. But as Biden said, they have run out of shells. So they have no other option but now to give them cluster ammunition. So it's possible that one of the things is that they don't want to denude entirely all their armor piercing shells that they have in their stock, which as you know the Ukraine war has taken a huge toll on their stocks. And the amount of shells or stocks they can continue to produce or restock is limited because the capacities of the United States to face an industrial war wasn't there because they were really not looking at near what would be called near par opposition, but at countries like Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. in which the drone warfare for the time being was enough for them or if they wanted to make any military use that they had of their own armed forces, then it would be short term. It would not be a long term war against a near competitor, which is what Russia is, whether they like it or not. That's what Russia has shown. So possibility is simply that they have run out of their or they're nearing the depletion of the stocks to the extent they feel their own defense needs will then be compromised if there is any other zone of war and therefore they are saying okay, the depleted uranium shells are there. Let's give them to Ukraine because otherwise we will not be able to stop them. So that could be the simplest argument rather than thinking that this is really ratcheting up the war, which actually Russia had earlier said that if you start giving depleted uranium missiles, you're really ratcheting it up to not the nuclear level but in that direction. How do you make a distinction between depleted uranium shells and other possible nuclear escalation? But I think that was a part of it was really rhetoric on Russia's side because depleted uranium union ammunition has been used by the United States for instance in Iraq extensively and we know the consequences of that. So this is not that I don't think this will be crossing of the nuclear rubicon as you might think because depleted uranium shells are not radioactive by the way, depleted uranium shells are highly poisonous because it's very heavy metal and that stays for a long time in the environment that after its use and that's very dangerous in that so that at least the Iraqi doctors seem to have found. And it also has to be viewed together with the fact that the M1 Abrams main battle tank will also enter the scenario where these munitions will be used or the platform from which these munitions will be used as part of a bigger another billion dollar package of military aid. Well you know the basic issue of why depleted uranium shells are used is I think important to also talk about here though people have talked about how though it is not radioactive it is highly poisonous because that's the nature of the heavy metal itself. It doesn't change, it stays in your body for a long time and it has very adverse consequences Iraqi doctors have claimed that the places where this kind of ammunition has been used it stays in the environment for a very long time and they have seen very large numbers of birth defects as well as cancer growth in this area and it is not seen to be statistically insignificant that's the kind of reports that are there the US and UK who have used this kind of weapons continue to stonewall this they don't really talk about it except saying it's not radioactive which is true it is not so that is one part of it. The second part of it is Abraham M1 tanks you see there are no wonder weapons that the detour can give Ukraine so honestly speaking it has reached the level of positional warfare now as you know the battle lines are drawn to the extent that there is extensive fortification of the lines there are what's called the dragon's teeth defences that Russia has done three layers of barbed wire trenches then before that there is a foreground to that in front of that is all the fortifications only one part it's also the kind of weapons they have deployed over there mines which have been planted and they can actually lay mines very quickly they have machines which can actually literally lay mines in an hour or so across an empty area so given all of that none of these tanks or any of these things are going to work unless they really have large numbers of them now the United States ability to give Ukraine large number of M1 Abraham tanks itself is a question mark and they've already led their tank arm is quite what would be the stock quite a bit with the slightly older kind of tanks they have given but the main battle tank in large numbers is not something that the United States perhaps it is a fortunately is in a position to give so I think therefore this is in some sense to keep up the morale of the Ukraine on forces that we are still giving you something you have hope so there is now new wonder weapons going to come which will allow you to punch again through their defense lines and so on but it doesn't appear that these are really realistic propositions and the real question which a lot of people have raised is what is the exit part from the war and how do NATO and Russia get out of the war is a question to both sides it's not that it's a one question to one side but it has to appear to be something that both sides are willing to accept and basic thing is in the thing as the European Union leadership the United States leadership still says that Ukraine can win okay not 2023 but I think somebody has said by 2025 so are we going to see another three years of this war in which Ukraine is a net sufferer as well as those areas of Russian speaking areas which do not want to be with Ukraine anymore so I think that is something the world has to address and at the moment that does not seem to be any sign of a reverse gear so to say within the United States or the NATO and part of it is also the domestic politics of the United States where more or less the presidential cycle also decides the foreign policy limits of the United States which brings us to a major summit where we are at the moment Praveer in New Delhi the G20 heads of government will meet over the next couple of days anything on that stage we've talked about it before on debrief but just for those who might have missed that previous episode any sense there at this large meeting of world leaders that there will be any dialogue any discussion towards those exit plans that you were mentioning from this conflict you know that would mean a certain homework to be done before such a major change can take place now such a major homework for homework to be done it requires behind the scenes negotiations using other parties perhaps now none of that seems at least that we can see is visible so what we have is rhetorical positions being taken by all sides in this Russia is very clearly said peace in Ukraine is linked to expansion of NATO so if Ukraine wants to join NATO then we are all discussions are on the table they gave their positions before the war itself peace treaty means settling eastward expansion of NATO and what is going to be the borders we're ending with Russia by the Western powers including Western Europe was the question they had put on the table so that was at the time completely poof poof and with the idea that Russia will be if they attack they'll be taught such a huge lesson that this will teach them never to do this again now if defeat was the idea which the based on which they refused any discussion to Russia now it is clear that it is Russia was not such a weak power and they have financial and military strength beyond what the West or the NATO countries has estimated particularly the idea that economic sanctions will bring Russia economy to its knees and therefore the Russian government so I think that from that impasse impasse that we had we haven't really proceeded any further and we do not see any any country who can negotiate between the two without a perception that there should be a peace agreement if that understanding is not there and there is a hope that we can win if we continue on this path whichever side then there is very unlikely that anybody can then do what would be called honest interlocutor in this scenario so I think that is still to me still the impasse that we have that there is no beating ground that we can see at the moment and therefore a G20 has very little room to bring people together and say okay certain things should be done and even the grain agreement the fertilizer agreement what is called the Black Sea agreement that didn't go anywhere because US and European allies refuse to withdraw the financial sanctions for at least fertilizers and grain and though US and others keep on talking about how 53% or 54% went to developing countries the point is it went to rich developing countries and that unfortunately includes China as well so it wasn't that it went to Africa or it went to those countries even in Asia which are poor so essentially if we look at poor countries they received something like 3% of the food grains that were exported and Russian grains were actually could not be exported to those countries because ships were not available financial transaction couldn't take place to the swift account this is what the US and the European Union had promised and that they did not deliver and without that the for the poorer countries to pay for that was very difficult and therefore Russia said well we will give whatever we can free at the moment because you can't pay for it given the kind of financial problems that is there to negotiate on this and there has been no resolution to the financial issue in fact the last that we heard was that Russia should create a new ban just only for this purpose special purpose because they do not want to withdraw sanctions on any other pack so the impasses again on the grain trade also remains and as you know grains and fertilizers food grains and fertilizers are the key for a lot of the world countries which are facing hunger particularly Africa Asia not so much Latin America perhaps but certainly Asia Asia and particularly Africa so that problem still unfortunately is not has not been resolved and we don't see any movement on that side either maybe that is a possibility that could could perhaps be done in G20 because G20 was primarily looked upon as an economic gathering it wasn't supposed to look at geopolitics which is where the United Nations is supposed to play a role it's the G7 saying we are the arbiters of the world we decide the global rules the rule based international order doesn't seem to be based on any international law but all of this has detracted from the issue that the real issue of G20 is economics and unfortunately on that whether it's a World Trade Organization whether it's any other platform it's all deadlock because all those instruments assume there is a functional economic system in the world which actually is at the moment rupturing and it's rupturing because of the kind of sanctions and also the kind of various what shall we say rules that the US is unilaterally imposing and of course one part of which is the chip war which means that the basic glue holding the global trade together the World Trade Organization is no longer functional and the affluent body over there which we have discussed is no longer functional and therefore WTO has become a body which now does not resolve is not able to resolve any issue and the United States is very clear it doesn't want WTO rules anymore and I think that's where also G20 could perhaps play a role but given the fact that the United States and some of the NATO allies are coming but Russia and China is not again it doesn't look like that kind of homework which could bring some dividend it will actually take place or has taken place and it is not India's fault in this I think it's that other countries have to accept that we would like to go back to something which existed earlier and not go on this path of collision because if you go on a path of more sanctions on China on the tech wars that we see more sanctions on Russia that we see then of course it will go the Iran route that these countries will have to work out their alternatives and countries like India are aligned to all sides this is what the suggestion is we have multiple alignments we are aligned to Russia because of our military ties we are aligned to United States because of the Quad, Asian, Indian Ocean, Indo-Pacific issues and China is still our biggest trade part so multiple alignments is okay lot of countries in the world will have multiple alignments just the way the world seems to be going but ultimately the actors have to resolve these issues and we can only play any other country including India can only play a limited role provided there is a willingness to think about how this will be handled we don't see that space still is opening at the moment would be very pleasantly surprised if India can pull something out of the hat and see whether we get something which is more concrete than what the Balinese think that it was had to say right on that hopeful note however far-fetched it might be thank you for joining us on DailyDB today China and Australia are engaging in high-level dialogue in Beijing in meetings focusing on trade, people-to-people contact and of course security the dialogue began on Thursday in Beijing the Chinese capital the Australian side is led by former trade minister Craig Emerson while the senior Chinese delegate is former foreign minister Li Xiaoxing despite doing well over 200 billion US dollars in trade every year relations between China and Australia are at a low ever since the COVID-19 pandemic with disagreements ranging from trade bans to of course the AUK US sorry Alliance and Australia's backing of the US's policy of military encirclement of China Anish has been tracking the early meetings taking place in Beijing we go over to him now for an update Anish how is the mood on the beginning day of this dialogue that is now resuming between two countries is there hope that things will get a little bit easier at least in terms of how deals are done or deals are structured or negotiations take place yes so then so when we look at the relations that Australia and China have had like common tensions that they have had over the past couple of years there's something that needs to be mentioned one of the issues that obviously team up during the stock Morrison government and you know kind of tend to yield under the current Albanese government is primarily the fact that Australia has taken a significant share towards a very cruel US foreign policy framework in the interbath of it and it has essentially tried to become the lever of several of US foreign policy objectives in the region as well and that has been a bigger point of conflict between the two countries especially during the COVID-19 pandemic we saw a Australian government at the Scott Morrison at times making statements about this whole COVID origin theory that was without any basis and any kind of substantial evidence to begin with but nevertheless the fabricates that same mind that Trump had given and pretty much that created a bigger conflict between these two countries but one of the things that Australians had not thought about and especially it's government and it's really closest the fact that China is the biggest victim partner that cannot be completely overlooked it still needs the Chinese economy, the market to sell a large number of its goods and it pretty much depends on them for a big share of their international trade and so something of that sort cannot be replaced by any other country matter of no civil or ideological stapling they might have these are very real facts and that is something that the Australian government cannot really overlook despite the surface of government taking the stand that pretty much antagonizes the Chinese government so the mode right now is pretty much quite tense, it's not bad but it still is nevertheless because you have seen recently, especially the parts of the fourth Australia pretty much dropping into issues of contention that it has no stakes in especially the South China Sea with joint military drills with Philippines or for that matter in the Pacific region where it has been trying to strike security deals with smaller Pacific Island nations and that has also been a matter and very often such deals were made you know antagonizing China so pretty much it has played this role of trying to antagonize China and that has really come to that side and it really wants to make sure that the damage isn't too big for it to not be able to reverse it in the near future Right Anish, Australia and China are of course two of the major economies involved in the Indo-Pacific region which is also sort of a strategic or military potential flashpoint in the US's involvement in the region can never really be undermined how does AUK US and Quad and all of that come into focus when they talk of security at conferences or dialogues like these When we have to wait and see what the impact will be on the Indo-Pacific region because it is, we have to remember that both countries have very different aims and objectives when it comes to how they want to deal with the Indo-Pacific region and obviously their neighborhood, both of their neighborhood to begin with In the case of Australia, we have seen recently it taking a very proactive measure to sign, you know, defense agreements or security agreements with this neighboring Pacificatic nations and that has really shaped China, not because it is trying to form flows of bonds with its neighborhood but the problem is that most of these agreements very often come after significant as much rhetoric against China and very clearly is aimed at China and very, and pretty much, you know, comes with an objective to prevent these island nations from actually having a similar kind of deal with China itself so that has been a big problem We've seen that kind of play out recently with the Vanuatu political crisis right now with the new prime minister talking about withdrawing from the security pact with Australia and already we are seeing a last part of the Australian media that media are talking about how this is because of China influence when there is no talk right now at the release from the Vanuatu government to actually make any kind of security deals with China but they do not want the Australian coups to stay in their planet and that is something that is going to play out for a very long time and I really doubt and most people really doubt whether this kind of talks which are going to be just mostly about bilateral relations will actually deal with anything on these matters and that is that would require a significant different kind of diplomacy and bilateral talks that is not something that we see at the horizon for these two countries right now. Right, thanks very much for that update Anish. That's a wrap on this episode of the Daily debrief as always we invite you to head to our website peoplesispatch.org for more details on these stories and all of the other work we do. Don't also forget to share this video with your friends if you like what you saw and follow us on the social media platform of your choice. We'll be back with another episode same time, same place tomorrow. Until then thank you for watching. Goodbye.