of the issues that they would face along the way. i think this traces back to some of the other prove of problems we see with boeing, engineering for now, no date has been set for the astronaut trip back home regional rob reynolds, l g 0. now the largest and most complete stake of solar skeleton of a found is up for auction in new york is expected to fetch up to $6000000.00. alexandra bias has the story. this is a tax. it rooms the planet 150000000 years ago and has now become one of the best dinosaurs skeletons ever on earth. apex is the largest most complete spec us or us ever found. it was discovered entirely by chance when commercial, paleontologist jason cooper, took a birthday stroll on his colorado property in 2022. at 3.4 meters tall and more

than 6 meters long. it's 30 percent larger than previously discovered specimens. most notably, it's virtually complete. if you find half of a dinosaur that's considered a significant scientific discovery, 60 percent is incredible. you know, once you're getting to 7080 percent, that's like, you know, the whole world pays attention. this is between 79 and 85 percent fossil. its skeleton shows no sign of injury and a tax appears to have lived long life, suffering, arthritis, and dying of old age. now it will be the 1st step of source to ever go up for auction. bidding is expected to be brisk fetching between $4.00 and $6000000.00. dinosaur fossils have become desirable trophies coveted by tech entrepreneurs and hollywood stars. it's a trend that's brought dismay to the scientific community, which says it hinders research and denies the public,

the chance to appreciate these wonders. the team behind the discovery hopes, apex ultimately lands in the hands of an institution where it can reach its fullest potential and unlock other scientific mysteries. alexandra buyers, alda 0. the silver solich baldwin has a pit and a new mexico co treatment is involved treatments sort of trial prosecutors. i have yet to encourage you to separate con, new rules by hunting guns on the subdivision. do the rust cinematographer coming out of hutchins died after a gun to help bibles and mistakenly find it? that's the use for the money. but the news is here in the hospital. the bottom line is that the maybe 300 people died. one flight time, age 17 for shut down of ukraine, but a decade later have to fight for just as continues. must go,

refuses to 100 with 3 men convicted of mass magic club prosecute has believe russians, the president was directly involved. 101 east investigates the case against platinum includes in on out just sarah. hi arg steve clements. i have a question. the us wants to keep the war in ukraine going until rushes will is broken, and ukraine is secure and soften. but is that strategy working? let's get to the bottom line. the nieto comes to washington this week to figure out in part, the future of ukraine war, which is now been going on for almost 2 and a half years with no end in sight. and an epic battle of wills rush and the west r testing, which side will back down 1st the us. and if you're a, p and allies are providing ukraine with money with weapons, military training and intelligence support. on the other side, russia is insisting on a buffer zone along eastern ukraine and wants kids to a band and aspirations have membership in the nato alliance. so what does all this

mean for ukraine and its future, and how many more months or years of fighting before both sides will sit down at a negotiating table? today we're talking with n bremar president of the global political risk firm, your racial group and editor at large at time magazine. and thank you so much for joining us. listen just about one year ago. right about now got the aspen security for him. i heard then british foreign secretary, james cleverly say, russia has already lost this war with ukraine in all categories. russia has lost, i remember writing about it and being astonished by the declaration, i'd love to get your sense of things right now as nato is coming to washington. where does the russia ukraine conflicts stand? yeah, i don't think there was any point uh at which, uh that that declaration should have been made um so far. uh, and i think that the russians certainly there occupying a lot of ukrainian territory illegally. they have no right to occupy it. uh,

but uh the ukrainians don't have the capacity to remove them. so if you're just looking at ukraine itself, you would say that the russians are quote, unquote, winning, or certainly the ukrainians are losing more. if you look at the world, and you look at the fact that put in just made his trip to north korea because kim jong on and the iranian supreme leader are the only countries in the world that are willing to provide direct military assistance to the russians. and you see the hundreds of billions of russian assets that have been frozen and now increasingly functionally seized. uh, and you see the impact of a stronger expanded nato. you would certainly set the russians are losing globally . i mean, they, they are in a much worse position as a country, as a military, as an economy today. then they were on february 22nd, you know,

before they started this massive invasion of ukraine. so i mean, it's a complicated question, but thus far you know, it's the ukrainians who, who have of course, the most challenging position in the war. given the steps that we were taking by way of sanctions and whatnot. before given the isolation we thought we were creating for russia hasn't really outperformed most of our western pessimistic prescriptions or, or analysis of russian decline. it's not really, i'm look i, i take your point, steve, i think you're right that um, in the west uh, people want to see russia fail and therefore they portray russia as failing. and of course it should be almost definitional. but if your analysis neatly lines up

with what you want to see happening, you should throw your analysis in the been because it's propaganda, right? i mean that's, that's never the case. life is always more complicated. now, it is the real issue in the russian, russia, right? now is a war economy and they've lost, you know, roughly a 1000000 the able bodied man scared of the draft who have been traveling to countries like the amaris and armenia and george, and any where they can go. which of course, really hurts the russian economy long term. this is, if you look under the hood of the russian economy, this, this is a country that is not doing well, but, but the willingness of the united states and your to take economic pain to hurt the russians is minimal. it's minimal. so i mean, you've got sanctions, but those sanctions are not stopping the russians from exporting oil

and gas to most of the world a and a discount. because the west knows that if they were to try to stop the russians from exporting to india and china and, and certainly the americans and europeans have the capacity to put the secondary sanctions on to make that happen. but it would lead to a global recession, which the u. s. and the europeans don't want. if you cut off the uranium, they know who's going to fuel the nuclear reactors in the west. the americans are still buying uranium from russia. if you cut off the food in the fertilizer, then you're going to see a lot more starvation in the global south, which the americans and the europeans don't want. so the reality is, the willingness of the americans and your pins to punish the russians economically, is surprisingly limited. given the rhetoric, it's understandable, but it's limited. and in that context, the russians of course have

a much longer release on being able to continue to prosecute this war against a much smaller, much weaker ukraine. i mean, the surprise has been the ukrainians have been able to get a bunch of their land back. and fight the russians to a standstill. some of that is ukrainian, you know, sort of willing this morale, because they're fighting for their land. and the russians aren't, i mean, the russians are essentially fighting as mercenaries, right? and part of it has been the willingness of the west to continue to provide a surprising amount of money, aid and military support directly for ukraine. and, and that, of course, we've seen the, the, a greater willingness overtime of, of nato to do things that they would have considered red lines even months ago. is there a wall between us right now, both inside europe and also in the united states. frankly, that makes the sustainability of this position. so something that might plan to put

in his hands. generally speaking the far, the you are from russia, the less you care. right. i think that that's not surprising. and the longer the war goes on, the more other things like the us selection, like the war in the middle east. go to the headlines and certainly if you talk to the, by the ministration they've been spending more time in the last 8 months on the middle east, the senior most officials across the board, then they have on russia, ukraine. so i mean that, that, that, of course, also plays a role. now the europeans, it may surprise you, steve. the europeans overall are providing more money. they're spending more on ukraine then the americans are. and again, you know, that stands to reason. they have much more to lose. uh, but it is true that it took some 6 months for the americans to get that. $61000000000.00 package through it did have very strong bipartisan support from the americans on the democratic and republican side,

but no guarantees that would continue. certainly not under a trump administration of potentially not even under a, by the administration. it's also getting a lot harder for the ukrainians to continue to raise young man to be able and willing to bite and to train them to be on the front lines you credit is a much smaller population than rush. it's also a democracy, rushes and authoritarian regime. it's much easier for russia to engage in forced human trafficking and to take ethnic minorities from the middle vulgar siberia and force them to fight much easier for them to take people from prison, forced them to fight ukrainians, have a hard time doing that, and it's a much smaller country. so for many reasons, if you look over 2025, you would say probably the ukrainians are going to have a harder time maintaining the present the front lines. then the russians are going to have the russians are going to have an easier time taking more land. i think people are worried about that. and you also see with is the most recent so called

peace meeting in switzerland that, you know, there were fewer countries that attended and the global south a number of core countries like india, for example, like china didn't sign on or didn't show up. um, to the eventual memorandum of agreement as the war per says, you know, ukrainians are getting more skittish about fighting it and the rest of the world is moving more towards we need a ceasefire. so of course, if you're poor, you, you understand the playing the long game is an advantage for you, which, which means that the desire of the west to make ukraine appears stronger and a bit enabled to damage russia. but at some point, move towards negotiations. i think is, is in their interest. no nato secretary general against oldenburg recently said these efforts, these recent efforts do not make nato a party to the conflict,

but they will enhance our support to ukraine, to uphold his right to self defense. so there seems to be a lot of theater around whether nato is part of the conflict, not part of the conflict, even though many e u. member states that are members of nato are providing this weapons and support . and even though ukraine is going to be a very hot topic right at the center of the nato summit here in washington, i'm just interested, particularly as we've seen new armaments going into ukraine that can be used for long term hits inside russia. how long that fiction is going to last? um, you know, it is true that there are no boots on the ground. that, you know, nato is not firing these weapons directly, but they're providing the weapons, they're allowing the ukrainians to use them on russia directly in response to russian invasion of ukraine. so, i mean, i think it's clear that it's becoming a proxy war. and it's also clear that nato is heavily and directly invested

in ukraine, being able to defend themselves and take their land back. so is it a fiction that nato is not involved? yeah, that's a fiction. having said that is the legitimate war for russia. no, i mean, when russia says how dear you attack crimea, and we're going to blame you united states for providing the attack comes that, that, you know, allow the ukrainians to hit crimea. crimea is ukrainian territory. it was, it was annex the legally by the russians. so, i mean, you know, the fact that the russians are making, you know, the for administer, sir gala rob, is making that argument, you know, just shows how much in breach of international law the, the russians continue to be. i mean, the fact is that the north koreans and the ronnie ends are 2 of the only countries in the world that actually support russia's position in the war of ukraine. china does not try to trades with russia. china is one of russia's best friends. and yet,

the chinese have consistently said that they fully respect ukrainian territorial integrity. the foreign minister has said that includes crimea. so, i mean, the fact is that the russians are fighting and illegitimate illegal war. and the fact that ukraine is not a member of nato and has no way to get into nato in the near term, makes them weaker, but, but nato is providing direct support for ukraine in much the way that the americans under bush senior, were providing report to cool, wade, when saddam hussein's iraq illegally invaded them, the big difference of course is that saddam hussein's iraq wasn't a nuclear power and was a hell of a lot militarily, week or so. it was easy to push them out and overrun them. that is not the case with who is russia. is there any equation that you're aware of that would allow nato members to, to bring in

a ukraine without defined borders or without internationally except borders in what is still kind of potentially a high conflict. so look, my my point here, steve, is that i believe that ukraine will be partitioned. i don't think the ukrainians will, will agree to that. i don't think that, you know, the international community is going to suddenly respect russian sovereignty over ukrainian land. but the reality is they're not going to get their land back. um, there's no way to do it. there isn't the well, and i that, that's sad is me. i think it's wrong, but it's reality it's analysis, right? so if you crane is going to be partitioned, how do you do the ukrainians of future, that is both stable and productive for their people for their country. and you need to give them the money to rebuild. number one, after the destruction that has occurred in the fact that russian assets that have been frozen,

that are being sees will be used for that reconstruction is wholly appropriate in my mind. you need to integrate ukraine fully into the european union, which will help them become more of a democracy which will help them become a stronger economy. which rules rule of law that and, and less corruption, that the rest of the world can do business with. and you need some form of afford guarantees for guarantees that in the sport of ukraine that russia has not occupied, that, that the west will defend the ukrainians as an hour off. and i don't know exactly what sort of ukrainian territory that will be, will that be the whole 80 percent that russia doesn't occupy right now, will it be some diminished piece? but there has to be some ability that ukrainians know that going forward. the americans and the allies really have their back in a way that in 2014 and in 2022. they certainly did not. nato

membership is the best way to eventually affect that in my view. but that can probably only occur when we have a ceasefire between russia and ukraine. that is not contingent, but nonetheless is a reality. so that that's what i'm talking about, steve. it can't just be, you know, like the, the budapest memorandum when the americans and the brits and the, the russians all set off, you give up your nuclear weapons. we'll, we'll make sure we defend you, but that there's no guarantees there they gave up their nukes. and then the russians invaded, and the west was like, oh wow. oh, well, right, i mean, that really undermines what a commitment from the united states means. i mean, not russia, because no one takes their commitment seriously, but in principle, in american commitments should mean something. and, and so to ukraine, over the last couple decades, it has not. and it's donald trump wins the presidential election in united states in november. what does that mean for ukraine in this equation?

well, donald trump wants to end the war in ukraine, and that means he will tell the landscape you've got to accept the present territorial line, or i'm not going to give you any more support. so the ceasefire start negotiations, no more fighting. and in the russians he will say the same thing. you've got to accept the ceasefire, no movement of the territory or, or there's going to be much tougher sanctions against you, real sanctions on the central bank or take them out of swift or financial transactions. the oil export we talked about before. robert o'brien who was of course, trump's national security advisor has been recently opining on that publicly. but trump and, and team have been saying this privately for months now. now the difference is that the ukrainians are going to be deeply uncomfortable with that reality as well. many

europeans, while putting is much more likely to say, great, yeah, i can, i am willing to have that conversation. so it does essentially give them the, the, where the russians have gotten into more legitimacy than any other american president, democrat or republican would accept, you know, roughly, i mean, i don't want to misstate you. but you know, actually what you just define, trump is doing. seems to approximate what you think will happen in the end anyway. i mean, it's sort of in my, getting that wrong, you're getting it wrong because i think what trump will do will not be coordinated with america's allies. a trump is a unilateral list, he doesn't like a strong europe. he certainly doesn't want to work closely with the you. he liked rex it. he, when he speaks with my chronics, like when are you going to do a for exit, right? so 5 and his approach has been very much a multi lateral approach that makes nato stronger because it coordinates with all

nato allies. nato allies are not convinced that trump wants nato to exist, and he would make those decisions on ukraine by himself. with out the alignment, in fact, with opposition from the poles from the vaults and the rest. so i worry that even if the outcome visa these ukraine looks similar. the reality is that the ukraine war isn't just about ukraine. if it was, we wouldn't spend any time on it. it's much more about the west, the transatlantic relationship, nato and russia. and in this regard, a, trump is much more of a threat to the persistence of that relationship of that reality. then a 2nd bite in terms let me ask you quickly about russia's frozen central bank assets. the majority of which i understand are in belgium. there's been discussion over there of, you know, taking the growth in gains as opposed to the principal of those and using them to support ukraine. others want to take wholesale,

rush and assets and deploy them are to create and there's a big split in the kind of global financial sector. i would say, you know, we have some former secretaries of treasury and us like larry summers were willing to basically take those russian assets. you have others like his former boss, secretary, bob reuben, who thinks that opens up a pandora's box and really creat another. debo de stabilization and essentially the commons of the global financial architecture. i'd love to get your take on that. well that's, it's already happened. we saw the g 7 meet thing in the past weeks. there is an agreement um to basically collateralized the russian assets and give a loan of some $50000000000.00 to ukraine that will be paid off with the interest of those assets that will be guaranteed not paid back to the russians. the principal, for at least 30 years, when you're, when you're freezing the principal of someone's assets for 30 years,

and you're using the interest, you're seizing the assets. so there isn't actually, i mean, this is a, it's a nice, you know, sort of a hand waving kind of legal fix onto the disagreement that you spoke of. the reality is that there is greater concern slash urgency from the europeans and the americans. that what happens if you don't have long term support for ukraine? this is one way to get around that. but even if trump says, i'm not going to provide more support, you're going to see long term support that is paid out on the back of the russian assets that have been frozen, slash sees. and yes, that is a precedent. it's a precedent that could week in the euro over time. it's a precedent that could lead the russians to seize european assets and other assets in russia that here to for, they have not taken those steps. and it also could lead other countries around the world to say, well, if you just sees rushes assets in contravention to international law, why wouldn't you seize mind going forward?

maybe i'm not a safe is i had been in your country or countries. now, the fact, but china is an authoritarian system that doesn't have a convertible currency and that russia rates international law all the time. doesn't necessarily make you feel more comfortable. that's suddenly putting your assets in those countries, but certainly, you know, this is the kind of thing that could make you think the crypto could see a spike. uh, you know, things like a single pour in parents the other smaller safe havens. but they just, it isn't the large alternative to the dog or in the euro in are in a rule of law and democratic space. just ask you finally about the nato, somebody in washington in. and i'm interested in how you see this playing out politically. inside the united states. there's nato become a greater politically divisive item in american politics, orders the white house somehow win by having this summit in washington during a presidential election race. i think the fact that the americans got the money in

the arms to ukraine, the front lines are pretty stable, makes this a little bit less urgent than the middle east war is right now. i think that the non yahoo, the is really prime ministers trip to the united states to speak to congress on july 24th will have more impact on the race than the nato summit. i think then you know, some of this more important long term and structurally, but you are asking me specifically about the elections. also keep in mind, nato is not only larger now with 2 new countries in the nordics that have joined, but also nato countries are spending a lot more in defense. a big piece of that is because of the russian invasion. but some of that is because of american pressure, and if trump becomes president, you know, one of the things he can say is, yeah, nato was stronger now because of me, he can take credit. so it's not clear to me that a 2nd trump term will be saying nato is no good. they're not spending any money of trouble wants to take credit for some of nato's successes. he can't, i will end up there. thank you so much founder and president the razor group in

bremmer. really appreciate you. joining us today. i was gonna see see, so what's the bottom line? the warren ukraine is about much more than a russian invasion or ukraine's interest in tying itself into europe and nato. ukraine is now the battle ground of a classic proxy conflict between the united states and russia. yes, other allies are involved with this is fundamentally about the spheres of influence of the us and russia. and we've seen this play out over and over again in the past . sure. the soviet union, last massive territory and global prestige when it's empire finally collapsed in exhaustion after decades of competition with the west. but the end game is rarely a clear victory for one side or the other. everybody says they want peace, but nobody wants to surrender. so they keep going. neither side is likely to get all at once. this conflict ends with negotiation, with both sides, keeping something and both sides losing something. that's what neither side will

admit. yes. and that's the bottom line, the for the latest news, as it breaks the process, you are in the bring up a lot with details. coverage. elizabeth facilities are 400 of 1000. more people are at risk of contracting, painful and dangerous infection from the hearts of the story goes, is it come to me, is in ruins. israel hospital gifted and destroyed industrial that employees tens of thousands of people. the pod came in to be, is israel at no cost to go to peace? i think that the new thing you have on these governments with this is 5 digit. you say getting russell, a thought provoking nonsense that you made weapons of being used in guns? no. guns should be used in an offensive way. that's our facing realities you're

running. mean, what does he bring to the table? hard from being president, joe, could we do it or something we can uptake the effective use of the present as not the need for the fact that he had the story on talk to how does era and didn't services can be the difference between life and death but here in gaza, the lives of paramedics are also endangered. the son is one of those who was detained. he says his rescue team was this actuating the injured from the hospitals and they were stopped around the lenses we intercepted despite coordination with the palestinian with present. they stripped us of our clothes, treated us members, terrific way of the war was supposed to proving deadly for those attempting to save flies. one of the medical workers to lose their lives was had to shut out with a direct hit of i'm in an emergency. he was killed during a strike on the clinic in the cities. the house ministry described him as

a solid model of successive and determination. but the high chips in prison. some like so they have done and said they would continue working to see how this wheels, unless it's raining from, by thank in this business. uptake this voltage by the city bank growth partner of bung the dash before to use the

these business uptake. these mixes try the city rooftop, know bundle dash football to use the the hello, i'm sammy. say them. this is the news out live from the coming up in the next 60 minutes of gaza. cities largest neighborhood should jaya less than ruins, as it's by the strikes, leave tens of thousands homeless is right. the media reports progress in negotiations in dod towards the cease fire agreement between israel and the time of 70. to commemorate.