events in floor streaming send herrings from the u.s. conference. campaigns and more from the role of politics, all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and live scheduling information for c- span networks and radio. plus, compelling podcasts. c-span now is available on the apple store and google play. visit our website, cspan.org/cspannow. your front row seat to washington. anytime. anywhere. cancian, the internationaancian, the joining us now is retired li marine colonel mark champion who is the senior adviser for the center of international studies.

let's begin with that test vote yesterday in the senate. the vote to move to the president's international aid package which was blocked by republicans over changes to immigration policy. your reaction to this debate. >> well, i am still hopeful that the democrats or republicans will find a way to push these packages forward. there is a clear deal to be made. republicans feel very strongly about immigration reform. and funding. the democrats feel very strongly about aid to ukraine. there is a deal to be made there and i am hopeful they will continue to explore the possibilities because arguably both of them are needed. >> why? explain why this ukraine need is needed? >> it is needed to keep ukrainian forces in the field. they are of course facing an aggressive russia and without continuous flow of weapons and

supplies, they will gradually lose military capability. initially the ability to launch attacks and the ability to defend themselves. all militaries in combat the discontinuation of flow. and that ukrainians are no different. they need this flow to maintain their armies in the field. >> they say they are running out of the money. the white house this week says that the pot of money that they used to supply for weapons production is running out as well. how has the money for military assistance been used so far. what kind of weapons are we talking about? how has ukraine used them? has it been successful? >> the military support comes in a couple of forms. one form actually is u.s.

forces in eastern europe. some of the money that is considered aid to ukraine actually supports u.s. forces in eastern europe which we sent there to reassure our allies and deter putin. about what we are giving to the ukrainians comes in two forms. or three forms, really. one form is that they are purchasing weapons from u.s. defense industry. this is really a postwar kind of initiative because it is going to take two or three years to back reproduce these weapons. we are also sending the weapons out of existing inventory. people heard about the javelins for example. and the patriots. we can discuss some of those. and then there is a pot of money to replace those systems. the legislation that allows us to send equipment to ukraine does not actually require that it be replaced but because we are giving them so much and it is, you know, top-of-the-line

equipment, congress provides money to replace it. and, finally, there is services -- what i call services. there is training for ukrainians on particular units, plus we provide a lot of intelligence to them. we buy equipment from various allies. particularly old soviet equipment because they are accustomed to using it. you have these three elements of military support then there is humanitarian and economic support. >> that the biden administration has recently adjusted its sales pitch to skeptical republicans on this ukraine aid saying it not only benefits the ukrainians on the battleground, but that it benefits the u.s. because it adds to jobs -- american jobs -- and our economy here. you have talked about that recently in a piece in october. about 60% of u.s. aid already enacted would be spent in the

united states, benefiting the armed forces in u.s. defense industry. explain? >> yeah. there are two benefits. first, about 60% of what we call aid to ukraine is actually spent in the united states. first of all, if we provide a weapon to ukraine and need to replace it, that money is spent at a u.s. factory to build a new replacement system. in the same that ukraine buys from the defense industry, again, that is produced in the united states. there is also a benefit that the defense industry can modernize their facilities. they can expand their facilities. there has been a lot of concern about the ability of the united states to conduct a extended war. either against china or elsewhere in europe. and the money here has allowed us to expand our defense industry so we could meet these

demands. >> talk a little bit about the weapons being used. you touched on it. but which? the javelin and et cetera. and why you think this is crucial to ukraine's success. >> well, it is crucial because all militaries need a continuous flow of supplies, as i mentioned earlier. it is important to keep in mind ukrainian military is expanded at many times and that expansion needs to be equipped. now, there have been a couple of weapons that caught the popular imagination in the war. first, it was javelin. there were javelin songs and images. and chaplain was important. maybe not the most important antique tank weapon, but later the long-range rocket system caught the imagination. the air defense system. then more tanks.

all of those are important but none of them are what you call game-changes. there is no such thing as a game changer. they are the sum total of the weapons they have received. the training and expertise of their troops and the determination of the ukrainian people. >> well, what is the long-term benefit to the united states, and those countries that are in positions where they may be threatened in the weeks, months, years to come by other countries? >> well, there are two things here. first, with regards to russia, it is much better to have the ukrainians fight the russians with our equipment that you have the russians attacked one of our nato allies, which would bring us into the fight and have our own military involved. and taking casualties of our

own. much better to wear down the russians in ukraine helping the ukrainians. but, more broadly, the united states has relationships with countries around the world. and those relationships depend on credibility. and the united states abandons ukraine, and russia is able to take more territory or overthrow the government, and governments around the world are going to wonder whether the united states is really a reliable partner. we worry particularly about the chinese is a look at taiwan and some of their neighbors. and we want to discourage them from aggressive moves and if they think united states is not a reliable ally or that the united states might fold in a crisis or do something aggressive. >> is there a long-term risk in the that we are jeopardizing our own militaries readiness in this country by producing and supplying weapons to ukraine and other countries?

>> there is some risk in the near-term as inventories have been depleted and are -- will be refilled, but that will take several years. on the other hand, russia, which is one of the main challenges with which the united states is now fully engaged, we do not have to be concerned they will attack one of our nato allies while they are in ukraine. another fortunate element is that many of the weapons we need for a conflict with china in the western pacific are different from what we need in ukraine. it is mostly a ground for. whereas, in the western pacific, it would be mostly air and naval. there is some overlap, but the wrist in the opinion of the pentagon is manageable. >> colonel mark cancian, he will take your questions and comments about the fight into the ukraine.

and why u.s. military assistance. you can dial in at these numbers. republicans 202-748-8001. independent 202-748-8002. and you can also remember to text us at 202748003 or join us on facebook.com or on c-span and on x with the handle at c- span wj. hello. >> colonel, my understanding is that some years ago we enticed ukraine into giving up their nuclear arsenal whenever they had. i am of the opinion that if they had kept that nuclear power that russia would not be doing what they are doing to them today. can i have your opinion on that? >> yeah. when the soviet union fell

apart, there were nuclear weapons in ukraine. ukraine agreed to have those deactivated, and the united states paid for that. there is some thought now about, you know, whether that was a wise move on their part. there were some technical issues in that though they did have the nuclear weapons, they did not have the codes and technical information actually to use them. unfortunately, one of the lessons that i think countries are coming out of this experience with is that nuclear weapons might be the ultimate guarantee of sovereignty and there might be some incentive for countries to build their own nuclear weapons. the united states is working very hard to discourage countries from doing that but that is one reason why it is so hard for the united states to be critical as an ally. if you look at the south koreans for example or the

saudis, at they think the united states is not going to be reliable, then they will go to the ultimate guarantee of sovereignty which is to build their own nuclear weapons. >> colonel cancian, there was some notes on how their own forces were depleted in ukraine. is russia in position to attack another european country, or have they been crippled in this fight against ukraine? >> well, they are certainly not in the position to attack another european country now and it will take some time when the war ends to rebuild their military capabilities. there is a lot of debate about how long that would take. when you talk to countries in eastern europe, the baltic countries or poland, they worry that time might be very short. assured us three or four years. other people might think it would be a decade or two.

the russians appeared to be intent on rebuilding their military capabilities after the war. they stated that they want to do that and they also appeared to be as aggressive as they were before the war. so the eastern european countries are very worried about this. and they are preparing for a rapidly rearmed russia when the war ends. >> gary, in ohio. republican. hi, gary. >> good morning. so, colonel, i was wondering if any country has ever wanted a defensive war since the american revolution. it just seems like the russians will sell their natural resources and their allies will keep giving them weapons. and all we are going to do is give the ukrainians defensive weapons. i do not see how the ukrainians could ever win or last forever. >> we are not just giving the

ukrainians defensive weapons. we are giving them a wide variety including tanks, artillery. it looks like we may be giving them, you know, f-16 aircraft. both offensive and defensive. for example, you go back to the first world war and the french successfully defended their borders. the germans made inroads but were eventually pushed out. eventually, there was the iran- iraq war. and iran held on after initially attacking. iraq held on for many years after that and successfully defended its borders. it is possible to have a successful defense over a period of time. >> we will go to massachusetts. john, a independent. good morning to you. >> yes. good morning, colonel. 1975-1976. dmc, korea.

i was just wondering, the only thing that stopped us -- the only reason i am talking to you on the phone today is because when they were killed in operation paul bunyan, russia and china do not back on career. that is the only reason i am able to talk you. it was a suicide mission. we are in a dangerous situation and i just wanted your opinion. >> colonel, are we in a dangerous situation right now with iran and other threats? >> well, there is no question that there are many threats out there in the world. you know, then natural security environment around the world is very complex. the iranians are sponsoring terrorism around the world. and they had the attacks in the united states and israel. and the russians of course have

attacked ukraine. and the chinese are being very aggressive in the western pacific. south china sea for example. on the other hand, when i talked to the junior staff about this and they expressed concerns about the dangers of the world, which are very real, we said you really should have been around during the cold war. you served in korea in 1975. north korea was much more aggressive in those years. and we also had the soviet union. the soviet union had some 60,000 nuclear weapons aimed at each other. those weapons were at very high levels of readiness. the existential threat was very high. so, although the world is dangerous now, it is not as dangerous as it was during the cold war. and i think people need to keep that in perspective. >> republican collar. >> remember, colonel,ber, hi. thank you for taking my call. i am sorry.

i cannot remember, colonel, your name. >> mark cancian. >> i think this is a problem. i heard you mention about people's borders. i think the united states knows that ukraine can. i think we would like to have some knowledge of knowing there is checks and balances. and i think the president has not made the case why their borders is more important than our southern borders. it is allowing 12,000 people to come through in one day. that is a very difficult pill to swallow. >> yeah. kelly, let's take your point. colonel? >> republicans are very worried about the southern border. and many republicans were also supportive of aid to ukraine. but democrats, particularly

pushing aid to ukraine. and the borders in eastern europe. that is why i am hopeful there will be a deal between the two. the u.s. southern border and aid to ukraine. >> henry. alabama. democratic caller. >> your turn, henry. we are listening to you. question or comment? >> yes. i believe that, if -- we should take four b-52s, love them, take some l-16s, do away with our read for fields, and take away the facilities where they are trying to build a bomb.

it will cure a lot of ills, especially in the middle east. >> all right, colonel. switching our attentions to the middle east tensions. >> yes. i think the administration is very worried about iran. it has made it clear that it will attack uranian surrogates, and in fact we have done that in iraq and syria. i would not be surprised if we took some shots at the koozies in yemen. and that is another iranian surrogate. we have been careful not to attack iran itself because, you know, that would possibly lead to a very large conflict in the middle east, and i do not think there is an interest in doing that, and there is also concerns

they might strike at the u.s. homeland. i think attacks against surrogates -- you are seeing now and will see more of that in the future -- tremendous influx is to attack the iranian homeland and possibly start a huge war. >> we are with retired marine colonel mark cancian. he spent more than seven years of the floor structure defense division ended things such as working on the defense departments were strategy ended things such as were development and nonproliferation activities and department of energy. he spent over three decades in the u.s. marine corps, active in infantry, artillery, civil affairs officer, and oversee tours in vietnam, and operation desert storm, twice. he has an mba and harvard business school. he is with us here this morning until the top of the hour to

answer your battlefield questions and budget questions as well. douglas. ohio. independent. good morning to you. >> hi. my question is, if you are worried about defense overseas and everything well right now the biggest threat this country has is insight. we have an ex-president who wants to be a dictator and there ain't no way we should support this man at all. we are working on defense and if he is going to try to take it over, it is crazy. i mean, he is wanting this country to be in chaos so he can go in and be a oligarch. that is crazy. 82 years ago today, the japanese attacked pearl harbor. and we thought criminals then would try to destroy democracy. and now have got it. you know? we just get me that a man like that would try to destroy democracy and we are worried about building up the defense. >> all right. colonel? >> well, i will put aside the question about what president trump might be like in a second

term. i think they might have another session on that. there are a lot of questions about what foreign policy would look like in a trump second term. of course, trump has talked a lot about america first. and he seems to be very reluctant about using u.s. forces overseas on the other hand in his first term. he argued quite strongly for a strong military and built up the military. he increased the military budget. a lot of uncertainty about the national security policy on the second trump administration what look like. many of the allies are very concerned because the rhetoric has been really all over the place. maybe as the campaigns play out, we will understand a little bit re

>> here is a viewer on x asking this. are we getting bang for our buck? we have seen on competitive markets in the united states and price gouging as a result. defense spending is pretty much uncompetitive and even bidding is rigged. americans are griping. >> i am not going to -- well, it is not true that the bidding is rigged for defense contracts. we have of course very large companies but they compete against each other. and, now, it is true that any industry, you know, that has essentially one customer is not going to be efficient. on the other hand, when you look around the world, what weapons do countries want to buy? they want to buy american weapons because they are proven on the battlefield. they are very effective. when we look at the conflicts that the united has been in, the united states has worked

very well. you know, for conventional conflicts, we have swept other militaries up. so even though the defense industry may not be a model of efficiency, it produces very effective weapons. >> we will take more of your phone calls here. we have got over 10 minutes left here. before the house gavels and for their legislative session today. so continue to call us with your battleground and budget questions and comments. back to x. here is another one from our viewer. please give a assessment of what europe could look like if ukraine falls to putin's russia. >> welcome of the eastern europeans are terrified of that possible future.

the polls of course have a long history of conflict with russia in suffering of the hands of russia. and as a result, they are arming themselves to the teeth. they are buying many weapons from the united states and other countries in order to strengthen their military in case there is threat on the eastern borders. baltic countries, very concerned and very concerned. they are nato members, but they have small populations and as a result relatively small militaries, even though they spend proportionately to a half percent of the gdp on the military. unlike most other nato countries and the united states. and as you move sort of further west, you know, concerns is off because russia is relatively further away. but i would also add because these eastern countries are members of nato, if the russians were to attack one of them, you know, the united states would be dragged into that fight and i think we want to avoid that.

the best way to avoid that is first arming those countries and helping them help arm themselves, and then to arm the ukrainians to keep the russians further away. >> gary. long beach. republican. your question or comment? >> where do i start? i am 75 years old. when i was a kid in high school and whatnot, our government -- colonel, i respect your rank and your service, but i was told we have to stop communism. we lost 50,000 guys in vietnam. after that time, korea, vietnam, afghanistan, iraq, and god knows where else. i am tired of war, sir. i am so tired of war. earlier, you mentioned we only spent -- the states only spend a third of the funding for the war. where is it going to stop? now, i understand the ukrainians have lost other young men.

either wounded or bed. one does this thing stop? when are we going to stop the reporting of war every where? thank you, sir. >> and, colonel, you heard that from republican lawmakers and our viewers. what is the endgame? >> the question about the endgame is a great question because putin, zelenskyy, they need to articulate a theory of victory. how is he going to win this work? before the ukrainian counteroffensive began last june, the theory was they would regain territory bite by bite. they were east of cardiff. they had another successful attack where they had driven the russians to -- off the west bank of the river. and the thinking was in the counteroffensive, they might not drive the russians out completely but they might take

another chunk of territory, maybe even pushing off the sea. unfortunately, the russians dug in and the ukrainians were not able to get to the russian defensive zone. now, both sides are sort of licking their wounds and rebuilding. and it is important for zelenskyy to articulate how he wants to win this war. does he want to try a strategy that is very difficult against a larger opponent? i suspect he will want to launch another offensive in the spring. and people will want to know, how is that going to be more successful. i think that is a fair question and the ukrainians need to answer it. >> stephen, in new york. independent. >> thank you for taking my call. can you hear me, colonel?

>> yeah. i can hear your. >> i am following up on the earlier caller's question about iran in the middle east. while it is somewhat outlandish to think we should attack iran directly, he asked why wouldn't we drop a bomb or drop bombs to stop their nuclear capabilities in addition to their supplying military aid. and my question is a follow-up to your earlier comment as well. that the world was much more dangerous, you believe, during the cold war with russia. my question is, what if iran gets the nuclear bomb, which they are very close to getting and have pursued. do you think the world will be as dangerous as it is now if they get the nuclear capability as it was during the cold war as you expressed? and how can we stop that? that is what worries me. >> this is a very real concern and it has been a concern of the united states for, you know, probably two decades. the problem about bombing iran

to eliminate their nuclear capability as it is very hard to do that. two reasons. it is underground and very hard to get at. it is very spread out. so as a result, it is not a question of sending and one flight of b-52s. you have to launch an entire air campaign over iran which means beating down their air defenses and means killing hundreds or maybe even thousands of ukrainians. could,, so it is not an easy thing to do. you could of course setback their nuclear program. but it comes at very high cost. and admissions have not been willing to do that. it would be very dangerous if they got nuclear weapons. the united states, i think, has been very successful in deterring weapons by adversaries. the north koreans, for example.

we did not want them to get nuclear weapons. but we have been able to deter them so far. it is important to keep in mind even if the iranians do get a nuclear weapon, it is very bad news for israel and many of the gulf states. i think we would obably help them with air and missile defenses. but their ability to strike ed states would not be very great. >> has one from our viewer in a text. colonel, why can't we send air support to ukraine? the war keeps dragging on. >> both sides true redlines at the beginning of this war. putin drew to redlines. one was no nato troops in ukraine. and the other was no invasion of the russian homeland. and we have respected that. in return, we put down our own redline which was no russian

strikes on nato territory. they have respected that. sending u.s. forces into ukraine to fight the russians directly would be a major escalation, and this is one of those situations where you might actually have russian temptations to use nuclear weapons. yeah. it would be a major escalation. and you could just send a squadron or two. know. you would need to send tens of thousands of u.s. aircraft into at least eastern europe and maybe even ukraine. it would be a major air campaign and a major commitment in the united states. and i think most of the callers i am hearing here are very reluctant to put u.s. forces at risk. >> we will go down to oklahoma. jd, republican. >> yeah. i was wanting to ask the colonel that if we are replacing the aircraft like the tankers and old bombers that are 50 or 60 years old.

a significant pace to keep our forces active. and secure. >> yeah. a readiness question. colonel? >> you asked about tankers and bombers. there are programs replace the tankers and bombers which are very old. they probably average i am going to say 40 years. we have the >> the kc 46 to replace them that is slow, and had a lot of problems but there is a program to do that. the bombers are the same there is a b 21 program that is just starting to take their first flight a month or two ago. the joke and air forces over

the last has been born yet. the b-52 force, 1962. they'll be flying into the 2040s as an extremely successful aircraft, what you see is a mixture of b-52 would be 21s, they are coming online slowly and they're trying to keep the old aircraft flying. >> any supply issues, we see that with other industries in recent years. what about military? >> the military has the same problems with supply chains of the civilian economy. many of the supply chains are restricted to the united states and allies, they are not