♪♪ good afternoon and thank you for joiningg us. i'm a senior fellow peer. it is a pleasure to have you with us whether in person or on line. thank you all for coming to this event. what can the u.s. learn from europe about support frompe ukraine. the title of today's

conversation raises a few our -- eyebrows i know did mind a full-scale invasion of ukraine is now in its third year pickering and his people need help now more than ever. the united states is ukraine's largest supporter of military aid and has provided billions in humanitarian support to the government however usaid has set eyes aid package is set in congress vermont. while u.s. supports as europe has stepped up to the eu and its members together account for the largest aid in ukraine military support.umble beginnings. we remember early in the war when europe offered -- can send tanks artillery shells and f f few months many

eupe eu have stepped up in creative ways to support ukraine's defense encounteria progression includig frenchdent macron in full support of ukraine and the czech initiative spearheaded by chuck president to transfer much-needeíthe frontlines of ukraine.teach unid states about support to ukraine? we will unpack these questions today and we are pleased to be joined in person by a great group of speakers including jan havranek at the embassy of the czech republic. welcome. >> thank you. >> thank you for being her we will join the -- be joined benjamin haddad. he's joining us val from paris or i don't know where you are. a member of the national action

of france. thank you for joining us. and debra cagan a pleasure to have you today and ambassador john herbst senior director at the center for tour audience when you ask questions. i'd like to begin with you for the first question. as i said the chuck president was a hero at the security conference when he mentioned their efforts to find international markets and hold funding to ensure that ammunition can be provided to ukraine. over 10 countries have agreed to by more than 1.5 million rounds for ukraine. what is the status of this initiative and why did the

president proposes? >> he became a hero at the munich security conference is the former chief and he's definitely hero to many of us but his announcement provided a very critical moment of leadership and example of leadership at a moment when as we all know deliveries of weapons to ukraine from europe and the united states have become increasingly more and more difficult with european stocks being depleted so my country and the leadership that gathered around a system that we have been devising since day one and even before the war began and we look outside of europe to find additional sources of ammunition. since that day we've been able to get up to around 20 countries

and doubled since the recent announcement and identified currently 800,000 rounds of ammunition artillery ammunition around the globe so to say. i will not be specific about those countries and we also embarked upon a very ambitious country and we have been very fortunate. it has become a czech concerted effort by around 20 european countries canada i should say just to show leadership and to show also here in the united states that we are in this together and europe is taking its own security and its neighborhood very seriously. >> when will ukraine see the emanations arriving? >> some of them are being delivered as we speak and again we are talking about matériel so

i don't want to be too specific on any of the timelines or numbers but as i said previously we have been working on this assistance both logistically for our defense industrial networks and government networks and we are able tove do this in an expedited fashion. we are talking about weeks to a short number of months for the first delivery. >> benn president macron has taken a new leading role in this debate on russia's warte in ukraine and the discussion of the use of french troops or a possible western ukraine.le heart -- how serious are these proposals in your view on what are the reasons he's opposed to it? >> i just got back where i was last week with the speaker of parliament and it's clear to us the wars at a turning point in

2024 will be critical. today theca russian's strike and used 10 times as many ammunitions as ukrainians on the ground yet cities like an aren't constant strike and we see questions arising coming from united states with the supplemental being hung up in congress and a question for the next election. the question for us is are we ready and can we help ukraine win this war which we do not hope even without the united states. this is the question that president macron has asked and he made it very clear that this war, it tomorrow pressure were able to conquer ukraine it would be at the doorstep of the baltic states poland romania with dramatic consequences for

security. this is whyth he decided to lauh this initiative bringing together heads of state and prime ministers to paris first and foremost to see everything we can do to step up our efforts and one of the key elements of this is the core tof supportinge czech initiative that we just mentioned that anything we can do in terms of long-range missiles -- missiles ammunition trying to help states that want to do more but don't have the capabilities to replace them to see how different states in europe can help each other and then he was asked a question about whether sending troops at some point would be excluded. he said we don't exclude anything in the truth is in the last three years we have kept on telling putin our limits and to cap negotiate with ourselves when we have in front of us have russian leader who puts no such limits no such red lines on his own behavior and aggression against ukraine.

this is a moment to turn the table on him to start pushing back against russia's aggression and start doing this ourselves but but this is what president macron said that he's trying to shake europeans out of complicity. at the end of the day the french have been saying for years that europe needs to take more ownership of security and defense and that we need to push for our own whatever you want to call for the ideas we need to take the security issues seriously. this is a test. we have a war of aggression or comment with direct consequences in a europe and it's time for us to step up. >> deborah you have been a long time practitioner and observer and politics come power politics. how do your characterize polics towards the war and what is the

impact of republican blockage of the next aid package to ukraine? >> thank you very much and i'm going to pick up on what jan and ben upset and i'm going to start by saying in word and never telegraphed to your enemy what you won't do. it's like giving your enemy and advantage so picking up on what my colleagues just said is totally undermines the concept of of deterrence so as much as deterrence nato has its allies have with the united states has when you convey to putin who is your enemy and not your adversary but your enemy what you won't do that gives putin a lot of leeway to take even more violence more destructive more murderous intentions and effects because he does not thank you were going to respond. so my reaction now is that i'm going to borrow a word from my

colleague john herbst of timidity that we still have a white housee that is still timid and still a little too much afraid of putin and what he can and cannot do. and because of that we have an very slow and almost too plodding in our efforts to supply ukraine. and yet the blockage of this aid is really significant but to be honest with you aircraft should have gone to ukraine a year ago long-range fighter should have gone too ukraine a year ago. we should not haveag been arguig about giving them javal and weapons three weeks into the conflict. part of the problem is one that we have created by not giving would need tot support russia. it was enough to keep them alive but not to win. the u.s. would never send its own military into conflict under

those circumstances, never. it would not happen. a couple of other dynamics here on this, if this funding aid does not go forward it will be devastating. i complement our european colleagues who i think are doing more in creating a much bigger burden than they ever have in the last 40 years in terms of burden sharing. but we need it come pentium of all of our defense ministry on this, not. just the u.s. defense ministry but it have to be a cooperative approach to this and not a competitive approach. for too long we have been ruled by competition and protectionism and we need to understand these are our allies now. we need to work together so ukraine can defeat russia and thean rest of it.

>> of course there are 75 or more years of american leadershiple in the west first world war ii and the course in the world and early my career i saw how essential strong with schiphol is when the reagan administration insisted on to sending missiles to europe despite reservations of your many european questions in response to the soviet deployment of missiles in western russia. sadly what we see today is a truly peculiar and dangerous energy between a timid administration and quiet sigh isolationist. republicans who don't understand

that putin no less than xi is coming for america's interest and thought china is a the greater danger in the long run because china unlike russia has a working economy russia is the one who's pursuing major war at the w present time. even if we are worried about china the best way to deter chinese aggression is to soundly defeat putin in ukraine. that's a prelude to talking about what's happening between the united states and key european countries. sadly the white house has found a spiritual partner in the chancellery and americans matched exceeded german timidity. the good news though is that brits in upper lip since the beginning of the invasion. hours johnson and western

statements encourage the support ukraine needed in the early months after the big invasion and they set an example which we partly an only partly it is debra said slowly and a tottering fashion followed and now to my great satisfaction we are seeing a similar but distinct effort coming from paris. debra is absolutely right that it's unbecoming for a superpower it undercuts a superpower's interest in leadership to be telling a country, nuclear powea who has identified the united states as an adversary that we are not going to do x and we are going to do y so putin can sit comfortably as he plans his next abomination on ukraine. macron is right when he says maybe we need to put french troops in ukraine. give putin something u to worry

about. john f. kennedy famously asked not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. i think paraphrasing that right now is ask not what putin can do to us but what we can do to p putin. sadly that's not the approach of this white house and that has the timid policies of the administration has given the quiet sigh isolationist there are big argument against ukraine which is we are going to stumble into it in an armageddon. >> what is the timid approach to a? >> i had a professor and graduate school as a senior adviser to lyndon johnson he'd say when you are dealing with senior officials psychology is history or destiny. we have folks on the national security team now who have been putin's -- not very well-versed in the

successful nuclear diplomacy of the united states starting in the early 50's once it was clear russia had the bomb and who were not intimidated during the crises in the last late 50's and 61 and during the cuban missile crisis. he never had in the past senior american officials say we can do x or we can do y. we have heard it a dozen times in the last few years. a veryin luck. we have moments when we have had strong statements coming fromem the president that sadly we do have where is the just the opposite. >> are they intimidated by nuclear weapons? >> yester mets up it for months now we have heard including the recent visit of security adviser sullivan telling ukraine please, please stop hitting targets in russia and i was

thinking to myself at the time and it's something that article 50 one at the u.n. charter. under article 50 one of the u.n. charter if you want to look at the u.n. as being legitimate in this ukraine has a perfect right of hitting targets in russia that can deploy the means of war and that means energy sites and that means weapons depots and that means their craft and the like. that's perfectly legitimate under articl' 50 one. so to tell ukraine to stop doing that is especially in light of what russia has tried to do to destroy ukraine's entire energy infrastructure. so let me just hop into the details of what john was just saying. there is this extreme paranoia that russia is t going to deploy and a standard missile with a nuclear n warhead. it's it tactical nuclear weapon. two nato allies have been living

across the standard for quite some time poland and lithuania because of kaliningrad and it's really ironic to me and i will paraphrase some of my nato allies colleagues who said it's really ironic that we are less afraid of the russian tactical nuclear weapons than those who delivered across the atlantic. that shouldd not be the case and we should not be afraid of the tactical nuclear weapon that may cause infinitely more harm to the russian troops on the ground than it ever would to the ukrainians. >> thank you debra. ben president macron made a statement welcomed by many but also with some controversy notably from berlin. how should paris be coordinating its messaging with its european partners and do you think macron's forward-looking approach might have an opposite

effect by showcasing more divergence than unity that everyone needs now? >> he was consulted in consultation and discussion and he said there's no consensus about the troops but no reason to exclude it. i think if you look at the moment some in the support for the last two years unity among allies in the united states has been critical but it's also important that some countries push others and go where others didn't want to go. i remember when lithuanian leaders went to visit president zelensky and kia when it was extraordinarily risky and dangerous and many others followed and sent tanks

long-range missiles planes and so forth. the truth is when you look at the last few weeks initially it was said in the press especially the french press it was said that france is isolated but it's not th' case but these two countries like poland the baltic states the czech republic that have applauded the firmness it's coming out of paris. these are countries by the way that we should have listened to for years that have felt abandoned by paris when they were warning us about the threat coming up a vladimir putin's regime. that's something macron said in a speech. we should have more time listening to you. the truth is how much time have we over the last two years? u if we had given ukrainians what

they needed to reconquer the territory to defend themselves with long-range missiles and planes, think about the point how useful they would have been in leading the counteroffensive a few months ago. instead of worrying once again the escalation when the truth is he chose aggression ukraine feels the need to push back and as for germany i don't want to push the narrative of disagreement amongon europeans. i think we also have to appreciate the fact that germany is doing a lot when you book at the massive weapons and an absolute numbers it is number one in europe. i. do hope the chairman will gie the -- that they ukrainians desperately need to strike the occupied territories in ukraine

and the ammunition and so forth. it will go a long way in helping ukraine on the ground. in the. >> personally i'm thinking i appreciate president macron's comments. we need more european leadership and american leadership. it's one of the lessons learned in our discussion here. no country can do this alone and it has been painful to watch a lack of leadership over the course of the past few years in europe and but i think over and over again we have proven our ability to come together to

coordinate ourselves and continue to support the much-needed support to ukraine and one more note on macron's comments and john has said it and debra as well for deterrence work we need ambiguity. we need strategic ambiguity.ic we need strength, we need a whole of government approach. should not only be up to the government but it should be up to industry as well and i think they have shown that they can deliver and that they understand the critical importance of operating in a safe and secureen environment. i think we are now going through a new phase of renewing our deterrence. >> talking about deterrence deborah what doet you make of te european proposal?

will it be enough to turn the tide in ukraine's favor and will it be enough to build a reliable defense readiness on the continent? >> i was hoping you were going to ask me that because i have some answers here. i want to say this other than countries like the czechs and the ones who had to live in the neighborhood with russia, much closer, there was a position of going into a slack mode here in the united states and europe among the defense ministry and everyone else about this cold war dividend. there were countries who up until a year and a half or two years ago who were on the list to be up next for the rapid reaction force everything was on paper to when it came time to have to deploy those forces they didn't exist. i won't call up names of my office but those were the deploy

wouldn't put together more than 10 people with equipment which is but that's not how nato should have ever operated. it's not have the eu should operate. on the upside what russia has done and i always used to say no threshold is so low that putin won't trip over it in cause the opposite of what he wants. what russia has done this wake up the world and in particular the european and the north american part of the world to understand that your way of sitting back and thinking everything was going to be okay with not okay. hasn't been okay for a long time and you have to do something about it. i would argue that the leadership of the czechs of the leadership of france such as the dutch the danes in the others who have been looking at this for a long time in the baltics, poland is that yes this is a threat and it's a threat that's

on your doorstep and you have to do something about it. i have not seen in decades the people being able to work together cooperatively to rebuild the defense industry, to rebuild outputs. think france just announced a new upgrade for production as well which was very impressive. the germans are upping the numbers that they produce not just ukraine but for the safety and security of all of europe. >> russia has woken people up and said this is really dangerous world and we have to do something about it. avwhat's happening here in the defense industry and our neighbor to the north who have been a little slow on this is a recognition that there is a threat. it's not going away any have to do something about it. that to me is extremely positive.

for ukraine this production level is going to be driven by watching the modern battle space for the war in ukraine is different than anything we have seen before. you are now seeing changes in that battle spacee every three months. not every five years. when you change your defense industry the modern battlefield is so different. he used to be a lesson that budget and saying five years now could be what you are planning a developer was going to be in one years time. so the lessons that are being taken from that battle space in ukraine and the savings taxpayers not only in that space that your fillington billions of dollars and euros because now they know they be building this

can in this helicopter makes no sense now because the modern battle space will no longer have that. >> ambassador to want to comment on the european proposal to get ready for a possible threat from russia? >> i think this is a strong step in the right direction. the fact it's not just the eastern europeans but most of europe understands that putin is coming to europe's vital interest. first you have to recognize the problem before you can deal with it. i think we have seen clear steps in meetingey this challenge. are youral pet your pet step to visit in light of the problems with the american aid package id the course the boulder things we are seeing from paris right now also. but it is cherlin europe and in the united states there has been

some talk but not nearly enough action to begin to ramp up arms production. the domestic defense industry to deal with a the challenges of russia and ukraine but the possibility of direct confrontation between the left and russia alongside china on the other. this is something that have to happen but as far as i can tell certainly the administration has not traded this is a high priority not the way they treated the green transition at this is endangering our security. that's what i have to say on this. i've been critical of the administration but i have to acknowledge they have put together the right pieces of an overall policy in the threat in ukraine and the position has beenen adequate as we watch the

isolationist republican party and the point is we need to be stronger. >> i want to encourage our virtual audience and iua see soe questions that have already arrived that please send your questions. we will have time at the end of this conversation to address all the questions. ben an official in france has some time in washington d.c.. how should european policymakers be approaching and what messages about your support to ukraine could be more productive and what should change? >> i think we should say we are all in this together. i was struck when i was in d.c. in january with european colleagues making the case to the american congress that everything europe is doing in

ukraine isgr not always crossing the atlantic. if you look at the ranking it's not perfect but it's one of the tools we have to quantify with aids. you add military economic financial humanitarian the truth is european countries taken together are above the united states. i'm not saying this to be critical because when it comes to. critical military equipment comes from the unite states that europeans are worth their weight. we have debates for a long time about burden sharing in european defense spending and once again i think it's important to communicate that not only are europeans sending ukraine sped up dramatically sent defense spending in last two years. germany 2% and $100 billion in twogr iranians -- ukrainians military equipment. a lot of it may be frustrating for us but the changes over the

two terms of the macron presidency francis doubled its defense spending. of course poland the baltic states and so forth are considerably increasing their defense readiness. i think we should do more. we just discussed building an industrial military base. i think it's critical for europeans to put much more resources into defense both at the national level but also at the european level. if you add all the 27 military budgets in europe the second is united states and does that translate into actual capabilities, expeditionary needs? of course not because there are so many peer kermit's and decide ton develop at the european level. think we need to coordinate this much more. during covid's we considered we are facing an existential crisis and had a huge fund at the

european level borrowing 800 million euros to invest in technologies. a lot of us considered the war in ukraine is an extent -- existential issue for europe so the prime minister used onion would go a long ways but i think communicating to the united states that the europeans are with them and we are pulling our weight on this is important. that would be i think my main argument. >> and make sure whatever europe ispe doing crosses the ocean in the u.s.. what will it take for congress toto pass?

>> this is a difficult issue sadly and right now speaker johnson in the house has authority to put a bill on the floor and i think you would like to do it but he does not want to lose his job and there's a small group of republicans in the house naïve about russia's intentionsss who want to kill eight to ukraine and they are threatening to move -- removed jobs in the way they removed speaker mccarthy in the fall. the reason i think look ate ths stage packages done because there's another way to put the bill on the floor through a discharge position which includes a majority of representatives. most demo cretz are prepared to it and enough republicans will make this ad reality so i think we will see this happen. it will enable him to put on the floor without him being kicked

out. he asked to make the hard decision to risk beingng tossed out by the party or will see a dischargee position but i think we are talking two months for this to happen. >> what will happen if. >> i was in ukraine two weeks ago in three weeks before that and i heard from senior officials there are expectations even without this aid package to hold their lines for the next several months as persistent they have aid coming in now thanks to the president but we are talking about american aid for severalth months. >> debra? >> i think between this czech initiative in what the u.s. is supplyingha in terms of cluster

munitions there should be enougt ammunition to get us to the fall for ukraine. once that happens though we are going to need more resources and more enforcement. now, the united states there are industries in the united states that are puffing up production working cooperatively with other industries in europe whose governments are much more shall we say relaxed about having those companies go to work on the ground in ukraine which the united states of them is not supportive of here. and that will help pick up the slack while their production levels here germany and other places with ammunition can pick up the slack.nd having said that it will not allow for more shipments for weapons to be launched because you cannot just pull those out

of stocks. it does have to come from someplace and then you have to replace them with the army or the air force or whoeverce they are being pulled from the nasa funding would do. and that becomes more problematic in thehe fall. i think there's enough there now and there were enough contracts signed and what europe is doing in terms of stepping up will get us to the fall for ukraine. once we hit the fall the lack of that funding will begin to show. i think that is a really difficultin situation. but i do commend my european colleagues were stepping up on this and i want to make one other point that's very interesting.in we are looking at that modern battle space and all these modern things. the irony is some of this equipment is very effective because it's older technology and its less susceptible to russian jamming.

there's a little irony here. they can actually do damage where some of the most modern technologies are more susceptible to russian countermeasures and so in some ways they are moving fast into this modern battle space and it another way you are looking at things that are working better on the ground because they are less susceptible to russian countermeasures. >> are we ready to step up if usaid is diminished or stopped? i saw last week the french, the polish andh, german verb basicay said we are ready to do our part but are they ready to step up in case the u.s. aid will stop? >> i don't think we'll have a choice. if usaid is blocked there are

two alternatives. either we say well you can't go on without the united states and the push ukraine to a negotiation as a de facto defeat because ifif you look at russia right now rushes to one student takeover ukraine not only its territory but its political and democratic future and that will have dramatic consequences on the security of europerr tomorr. he'll have russia threatening states and poland and the credibility of the european union is the alliance and set a precedent to the rest of the world or we find the resources in the political will to take matters into herer own hands toe able to continue to help ukraine to defend itself with this war. at the end of the day we are defending our security interests

not only the architecture of europe but also the basic every day well-being of our own citizens. if russia tomorrow takes over ukraine and will control two-thirds and a half of grain exports inin the world and will course continue put pressure on energy prices. the basic cost of living and energy of our citizens will be affected. once again either we step up bul choices especially whenis it cos to finding resources. this is why we are talking earlier about a fund or a debate that i and a few colleagues are trying to push about the confiscation of russian assets but in any case we will have defined the will to be able to continue without the united states. >> how about the czech

perspective? >> look i'll say it all over again we are in this together and as a european who part of the largerho concerted effort he on capitol hill to make a case for ukraine and make a case for europe because we are doing this together. so far we have only spoken about the war in ukraine and the trans-atlantic cooperation and not what's happening in a wider global contest with china watching another country's north korea iran and russia in this war. we are talking about the over perception that the united states and europe another democratic countries and that's what we have to bear in mind. europe will have to continue their support and i think we are ready to do that. my country is spending 2% on gdp and understand it's no longer

about the debate at nato and at other meetings. it will go beyond that threshold. but we have to be mindful that we are part of the long-term conversation not similar not on similar to the cold war but that will be much more complex given the myriad of actors present in state and nonstate and i cannot stress this enough private-sector playing a primary role in safeguarding our values and interests. >> you mentioned the nato summit in july and best of her and i want to ask you there is unity in discussions about ukraine as itlu relates to the nato.

what will happen with the nato ukrainepp relationship and how s policy being formulated among nato? >> sadly i have very low expectations for the upcoming summit the 75th anniversary summit. again we see timidity in washington that doesn't want to take a clear step forward ukraine eventual membership in nato. we put together a proposal in october that were short of extending the invitation of ukraine to join the alliance and begin negotiations with the membership at the nato summit. we talked about inviting them to a special membership talk but even that was a bridge too far for the white house. they talk about alliance andey unity in the talk about it at

the summit which had a modest result but they define that unity in terms of needing to move forward. it's basically the u.s. and germany that setting the pace which is a slow doddering pace predicted administration is unwilling to move forward in a stronger fashion at the summit they could use the summit for temple to announce major new aid package weapons that they have thus far been reluctant. here too are not confident we will see that. i have low expectations but let me make one more point. we should welcome ukraine into nato. not just because that will anchor the secure stability across europe which as long as ukraine is not in nato they are

target of russia but nato to ukraine has arguably one of the most effective militaries in the world not just because they put off this massive -- and ever can talk about this with much more expertise with drones to define the future of warfare. we should be applauding the success that their drones are producing and ukraine and nato will bolster nato's defense capacity by a wide margin but that's more -- one more reason we should be looking at this. >> secretaries blinken said ukraine will be a member of nato. >> i think that's a loaded t question. myon inclination is ukraine shod

be a member of nato. nato defensive alliance and you want military and nato to be effective not just just the 2% that is what you do how you go added. there are countries who have 4% in 60% of what they are doing i on personnel costs. so i think ukraine has met that need and i think there is i think ukraine has done more to defend nato's borders and sovereignty than any other country in recent memory and i think that's important to say. politically i think you then go to congress and to go to other countries who have to ratify this and that might become problematic but i think if you do not telegraph that the washington summit to russia that ukraine has an opportunity to

join nato than putin will take that and run with it and do whatever he can to crush any hopes of that ever occurring. and what if ukraine does become a member? >> you will be upset but putin has been upset for many decades of his his life and your credit changes personally by making that statement one way or the other. he will give more nuclear threats to my thoughts are low than than some please try to fire one of your standard missiles and see what happens to your troops. senate thank you different thank you ambassador and ben i have some questions from the audience so please i want to honor them. ben. defense armsi minister said cut missiles must be looked at.

can you say something about possible plans to fund production of new missiles both for ukraine and four. >> we announced 3 billion-dollar military aid production for ukraine which was part of presence let's be signing thees security agreement at the national assembly for a couple of weeks ago. the defense minister has been quite concerned with our defense industry being able to step up and ramp up its speed and its production and capability. of course we need resources so that our long-term disability in terms of orders to be able to do this but in the last two weeks he saying he would not shy away from i would say a requisition

and taking over and putting military priorities of versatile unit orders to some of these companies. we have had some successes like a company that manufactures but ken and which have been effective on the ground in ukraine which more than doubled and almost tripled its production fee but other companies have not always been so successful. that's a big priority getting them there because of course not only forig ukraine but also for us. we need to replace it and that's something we are looking at an ammunition plant to identify where some of our interests are real. >> another question for anyone who's brave enough to answer. what can we do to move forwardwh

and used frozen russian assets for defense? >> i ns a fair amount of time wh the single most effective individual in the world on this issue. he has pushed the debate forward making the case under the legal doctrine of countermeasures that all that russia owes ukraine a great deal of money for the damage it has inflicted in the war from russia and therefore it is legal and it is smart politics to use this version -- frozen russian assets which are moreoz than 300 billion worth we ukraine and maybe not all that ukraine but a small portion to could go to other countries which have been hurt by russia especially the global south.

his ideas were considered way outside the mainstream a year ago. right now this is largely the position of the u.s. and the canadian government and the british government. france germany and japan in the g7 plays an important role here, remain skeptical. i believe they are hiding behind a legal argument but their real concern is russia will respond by going after the assets in russia. even though my understanding is the great french hydrocarbon company is written off its investment in russia but but ths an issue but i think more progress will be made at the g7 coming up in june but i think there are still lots of work to be done before this can be achieved. one last point the europeans like to point out that most of these assets arere in fact under

their control in belgium but it's also a substantial part of it even though it's under your pain control our dollars which gives united states assay and that's back maybe important tactically and other countries which is the right position meaning using those assets for ukraine's defense and reconstruction. >> ben the use of the frozen assets? >> first european countries have agreed on the first step in taking over the windfall profits generated by the assets along the lines of three and $5 billion a year which is a good start but it's ato far cry from close to 200 billion located in belgium in my sense is that it's not so much about

potential countermeasures in russia because as john just said that the risk to single currency area in the eurozone if we were to do this because the truth is evenif if countries like united states or canada have signaled support or interest in doing this they have not passed legislation to that effect. even though there are more resourcesed in europe a coordinated g7 decision would go a long way in protecting the country is more exposed and that's critical. i say this as someone who introduced a resolution in the french -- so i'm very much in support of this but i think if the u.s. canada japan switzerland as well were to move

forward with the treaties i think we would be aligned and the trans-atlantic and the g7 level which would make it much more secure to move forward with this because it is still an unprecedented step. there are legitimate concerns i think it should s be done in a robust and cautiously but once again i'm a supporter of moving forward. senate thank you pin and the question that i found provocative but important. even though this war is in its third year it's not intractable and does it amount to escalating the border? >> no, i per this question asked about 15 different times in 15 different ways. why should we pour more weapons

because it's just going to upset russia more and it will never end etc. so if you view it couple of this historical facts here. for people who are pushing for an end to this war and the peace agreement i want to remind them in the last 100 years there has never been a single peace agreement that has succeeded without u.s. boots on the ground. the berlin crisis the dmz in, vietnam post 74 the sinai. the list goes on and even with a couple hundred u.s. g troops. so my question to people who are advising the white house my question to people who talk about the peace agreement is do you want u.s. boots on the ground because i have to be honest with you u.n. peacekeeping forces from south africa and pakistan are not going to holdpi russia back from taking more territory inn europ. to me this is a kind of point because there's never going to be enough fors ne putin.

it's never going to be 20% of ukraine and just stop. who's going to stop them from taking more than that and remember the last solution to the west collapsed on including the united states in 2008 in georgia where they were going oh yeah let them all be rations. there was nothing more that i've ever seen in my life or the rations change their uniforms out of the airborne division to something else and put on a blue hat. what i say to that is no. the war have have to be one because there's no way to stop it unless you want to put u.s. boots on the ground and i think people forget historically that's what would have to athens and this in a way other than ukraine retaking all of the territory that russia is illegally occupying. senate thank you very much. thank you for being here and ben

a dad thank you for sharing your views and the boldness from the present of france u. kron. run. it was difficult to answer but we provided some good answers on how the u.s. should learn. fight timidity and use boldness and the messages are clear a robust response is crucial not just for ukraine's future but for deterring future progressions everywhere is in the world but thank you very much. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]