the head of the campaign against anti—semitism as "openly jewish" when he was at a pro—palestinian protest, saying his presence was "antagonising" demonstrators. jewish groups have been meeting the metropolitian police commissioner today. our correspondent lucy manning explains the background to this incident. this was a video that surfaced over the last few days from one of the pro—palestinian demonstrations that have been held fairly frequently in the centre of london, and the chief executive of a campaign group, the campaign against anti—semitism, a man called gideon falter was seen with a kippah, ajewish head covering, being stopped by the police crossing the road. and in some of that video, he's told by the police, "you can't cross because you are overtlyjewish." and there is some more footage where the officer does offer to escort him to a safer place, but then also does say to him,
itself, based on self—interest rather than doing the right thing, ratherthan rather than doing the right thing, rather than following a certain set of values. they played both sides, turkey that is, played both sides. 0n played both sides, turkey that is, played both sides. on top of which, turkey is like other actors in the middle east were also nervous about antagonising president putin too much, and so whether or not turkey is likely to comply i think is fairly a loaded question because there is a lot we simply don't know about this request. what interest does turkey have? it is a little bit hard — it is a little bit hard to say with certainty what turkey is interested in, to the extent that i am aware of at least, i haven't seen a formal turkish response. of course, turkey is a nato of course, turkey is a nato member but ukraine is not so there is no real obligation on turkey, is there? this is really about whether it wants to do for its own, as you say, self—interest. that's exactly right, as you
could have done but ultimately what seeing most recently of course with turkey agreeing to for sweden and finland to join the alliance, only after first saying they will not, presumably there may be in some kind of incentivise asian. we don't know exactly what that is. there is speculation that the white house support for the f-16 the white house support for the f—16 sale might be, might have provided that incentive though officially that waiters did not confirm. the s is a diplomatic tightrope turkey is watching. what are the rest of the president in antagonising president in antagonising president putin? it president in antagonising president putin?- president in antagonising president putin? if you look at the overall— president putin? if you look at the overall bilateral _ president putin? if you look at the overall bilateral russian i the overall bilateral russian turkey relationship, over the years, putin has stacked the cards in such a way that the relationship was balanced in russia's favour. on the trade relationship, on russia's
thank you for being with us. ukraine wants turkey to stop the ship. is turkey likely to comply? the ship. is turkey likely to coml ? ~ ~ . comply? well, i think there are a lot of questions. _ comply? well, i think there are a lot of questions. first - comply? well, i think there are a lot of questions. first of - a lot of questions. first of all, if you look at the broader turkish behaviour since the russian invasion of ukraine, turkey had tried to position itself based on self—interest rather than doing the right thing, ratherthan rather than doing the right thing, rather than following a certain set of values and they played both sides. turkey, that is, played both sides. on top of which, taking the other actors in the middle east was also nervous about antagonising that we are putting too much.
incentive, although the white house officially denies there was any thing there. this house officially denies there was any thing there.- house officially denies there was any thing there. this is a delicate diplomatic _ was any thing there. this is a | delicate diplomatic tightrope. what are the risks for president erdogan and antagonising president putin? your back if you look at the overall bilateral russia—turkey relationship over the years, putin has stacked the cards in such a way that the relationship was balanced on russia's weber. fin relationship was balanced on russia's weber.— relationship was balanced on russia's weber. on the trade relationship. _ russia's weber. on the trade relationship, on _ russia's weber. on the trade relationship, on russia's- relationship, on russia's relationship, on russia's relations with different car groups, with the position in syria, on a whole host of issues. priorto syria, on a whole host of issues. prior to the invasion of ukraine, putin had set all of ukraine, putin had set all of these lovers. of course, in turkey, there was the recent protest of the us 400 system from russia, so there are things that russia could do to put pressure on turkey and syria, for example but russia
if you look at the broader turkish behaviour since the russian invasion of ukraine, turkey had tried to position itself based on that self interest further than doing the right thing, rather than following a certain set of values and they played both sides, that is, turkey played both sides. on top of which, turkey like other actors in the middle east were nervous about antagonising vladimir putin too much and so whether or not turkey is likely to comply i think is a fairly loaded question because there is a lot we simply don't know about this request. what interest is turkey have, it is a little bit hard to say with certainty whether or not turkey is interested and to the extent that i'm aware, at least, have not seen a formal turkish
support for russia. what do you think of that? do you think belarus will send in troops at any stage to help the russians in this war? , ., ., , this war? there is no doubt whatsoever _ this war? there is no doubt whatsoever that _ this war? there is no doubt whatsoever that president | this war? there is no doubt i whatsoever that president putin would _ whatsoever that president putin would like — whatsoever that president putin would like belarus _ whatsoever that president putin would like belarus to _ whatsoever that president putin would like belarus to step - whatsoever that president putin would like belarus to step in i whatsoever that president putin would like belarus to step in toi would like belarus to step in to support, — would like belarus to step in to support. but— would like belarus to step in to support. but it _ would like belarus to step in to support, but it is _ would like belarus to step in to support, but it is a _ would like belarus to step in to support, but it is a very- would like belarus to step in to| support, but it is a very difficult situation — support, but it is a very difficult situation for— support, but it is a very difficult situation for president - support, but it is a very difficult i situation for president lukashenko who is— situation for president lukashenko who is in— situation for president lukashenko who is in a — situation for president lukashenko who is in a very— situation for president lukashenko who is in a very difficult _ who is in a very difficult situation, _ who is in a very difficult situation, because i who is in a very difficult situation, because thisl who is in a very difficult i situation, because this war is unpopular~ _ situation, because this war is unpopular. belarusian- situation, because this war is| unpopular. belarusian people situation, because this war is i unpopular. belarusian people are very pacifist. _ unpopular. belarusian people are very pacifist, they— unpopular. belarusian people are very pacifist, they hate _ unpopular. belarusian people are very pacifist, they hate war, i very pacifist, they hate war, because _ very pacifist, they hate war, because there _ very pacifist, they hate war, because there were - very pacifist, they hate war, because there were the i very pacifist, they hate war, - because there were the battleground of the _ because there were the battleground of the second — because there were the battleground of the second world _ because there were the battleground of the second world war. _ because there were the battleground of the second world war. the - because there were the battleground of the second world war. the war. of the second world war. the war against _ of the second world war. the war against ukraine— of the second world war. the war against ukraine is— of the second world war. the war against ukraine is very— of the second world war. the war against ukraine is very unpopularl against ukraine is very unpopular and lukashenko— against ukraine is very unpopular and lukashenko has— against ukraine is very unpopular and lukashenko has to _ against ukraine is very unpopular and lukashenko has to be - against ukraine is very unpopular and lukashenko has to be very. and lukashenko has to be very careful— and lukashenko has to be very careful about _ and lukashenko has to be very careful about unpacking - and lukashenko has to be very- careful about unpacking antagonising because _ careful about unpacking antagonising because he _ careful about unpacking antagonising because he will— careful about unpacking antagonising because he will see _ careful about unpacking antagonising because he will see protests- careful about unpacking antagonising because he will see protests again i because he will see protests again but there is no doubt— but there is no doubt the russian was using — but there is no doubt the russian was using belarus— but there is no doubt the russian was using belarus so— but there is no doubt the russian was using belarus so in— but there is no doubt the russian was using belarus so in a - but there is no doubt the russian was using belarus so in a way- but there is no doubt the russian was using belarus so in a way it i but there is no doubt the russianl was using belarus so in a way it is party— was using belarus so in a way it is party to— was using belarus so in a way it is party to the — was using belarus so in a way it is party to the war _ was using belarus so in a way it is party to the war but _ was using belarus so in a way it is party to the war but it _ was using belarus so in a way it is party to the war but it is - was using belarus so in a way it is party to the war but it is only i was using belarus so in a way it is party to the war but it is only so l party to the war but it is only so far as _ party to the war but it is only so far as lukashenko— party to the war but it is only so far as lukashenko can _ party to the war but it is only so far as lukashenko can push i party to the war but it is only so i far as lukashenko can push without reigniting _ far as lukashenko can push without reigniting popular— far as lukashenko can push without reigniting popular protests - far as lukashenko can push without reigniting popular protests and i far as lukashenko can push without reigniting popular protests and wel reigniting popular protests and we have seen— reigniting popular protests and we have seen some _ reigniting popular protests and we have seen some saboteur- reigniting popular protests and we have seen some saboteur activityl have seen some saboteur activity from _ have seen some saboteur activity
the us has placed 8500 troops on a state of heightened alert for possible deployment to eastern europe in the event that nato needs help. they include surveillance and reconnaissance trips that are expected to join the 40,000 strong nato emergency response unit. the move represents a pivot on the part of the biden administration which up to now had been restrained as far as its response to the crisis along ukraine's order was concerned, for fear of concerned, forfear of antagonising russia. concerned, for fear of antagonising russia. the concerned, forfear of antagonising russia. the biden administration has stepped up its weapons shipments to kyiv but it continues to insist that it has no plans to send us troops to ukraine to fight against russian forces and that this is all part, this 8500