a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. i would request that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to recognize a very painful milestone. this week marks the third anniversary of russia's full-scale invasion of ukraine. over the past three years the

world has witnessed the incredible bravery and resolve of the ukranian people as they have stood up to russia's unspeakable brutality and destruction. we have seen and indeed the united states should take great pride in having led an impressive coalition of nations coming together to support ukraine in this fight to preserve its democracy. at the same time an alarming convergence of authoritarian states -- russia, china, belarus, and north korea -- have banded together to enable russia's illegal war of choice. as we mark this milestone, we are faced with another frightening set of developments. president trump has set his sights on negotiations with

vladimir putin to end the war. but before reaching negotiating table, mr. trump has appeared so eager to reach a deal that he has been willing to acquiesce demands for essentially nothing in return. even worse he deliberately excluded ukraine and europe from the discussion. and we've seen this playbook before. most recently in afghanistan. in 2020, president trump, eager to achieve a quick deal, negotiated directly with the taliban and excluded the afghan government from the negotiating table. he capitulated to taliban demands, including the release of over 5,000 taliban fighters, and blindly agreed to a one-year withdrawal timeline even as evidence mounted that the

taliban was not holding up the meager demands in the agreement. i fear president trump has not learned any new negotiating skills in the five years since. the tenets of his approach to ukraine and europe appear to be the same. exclude and criticize american allies, capitulate to our enemies, and withdraw support without any assurance of success. earlier this month munich was the scene of another capitulation when vice president vance and defense secretary hegseth kicked off trump's giveaway campaign to president putin. the historical irony is unmistakable. since munich is a place that has inauspiciously become a shorthand for the appeasement of tyrants. in 1932 british prime minister

neville chamberlain left his meeting with adolf hitler in munich and after surrendering czechoslovakia in exchange for a peace pledge, when he returned to england, chamberlain waved about a piece of paper with hitler's l promise and declared peace in our time. in reality it was the beginning of a capitulation that would lead inexorably to the greatest war in history. hopefully this administration's rush to appease vladimir putin will not lead to the carnage like that of world war ii. but it well may cost ukraine its sovereignty and independence while also undermining the international order. the the very same order that america and her allies created from the ashes of world war ii.

let's review the bidding so far. to begin, defense secretary hegseth's speech in brussels at the ukraine defense contact group set a shameful tone for the american delegation in europe. the ukraine defense contract group or udcg was created by the united states under the biden administration. p has organized and led the international efforts to support ukraine which has enabled the ukrainians to significantly repel the russian invasion and continue the fight to protect their homeland. the united states has led this effort throughout the war. i regret that secretary hegseth's first appearance marked the retreat of america's role as leader of the udcg. in his remarks, he said, quote, we must start by recognizing that returning to ukraine's 2014

borders is an unrealistic objective. he further stated, quote, the united states does not believe that nato membership for ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. in essence, secretary hegseth conceded away our most important leverage against russia. his statement, echoed by president trump and vice president vance, have already badly weakened and undermined our negotiating position by gifting the russians with unilateral concessions, all without any apparent consultation with the ukraine or nato allies. against the shortsightedness of president trump and hegseth and vance's statements are alarming. nato has been the bulwark against russian aggression in europe since 1949. the alliance has more than

doubled its membership since its founding. central to the enlargement is nato's open door policy enshrined in article 10 of the north atlantic treaty which aff affirms a core nato tenet that any european nation that demonstrates a willingness to contribute to our collective security and the values and obligations of nato alliance may seek membership. vladimir putin does not get to dictate who may or may not become a member of the nato alliance just as his predecessors could not stop the membership prospects of poland, hungary or germany. to preemptively select membership to nato only benefits vladimir putin. finally, secretary hegseth declared that europe and nato are no longer priorities of the trump administration. in his words, quote, we're here

today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the united states from being primarily focused on the security of europe. further, quote, the united states faces consequential threats to our homeland. we must and we are focussing on security of our own borders. i agree that the security of america's homeland is our number-one national security mission, but i reject secretary hegseth's myopic that it is so fragile and strained that it must shift its focus to the border of the security mission. moreover, border protection is a civilian law enforcement mission. deploying large numbers of military forces to support the

border patrol is a gross misallocation of forces and raises numerous legal issues. the administration's shameful claims have been a shock to ukraine, nato, europe, and a democratic world at large. they have provided great comfort to putin and autocrats everywhere, which is a shame. in addition to secretary hegseth's speech, vice president vance took the stage in munich and further eroded our status in the world. he castigated european allies for his perceived grievances with their domestic politics and alleged movements away from, quote, democratic guidance while at the same time remaining silent on the dictators in russia and belarus who have a free, have never had a free or fair election in the course of

their tenure. president trump gave his tip of the hat to autocracy last week when he attempted to revise history by alleging that ukraine, not russia, started the war, and that president zelenskyy was a dictator in this situation. these categorically false statements are either a product of deliberate deceit or historical delusion. president trump even directed the acting u.s. ambassador to the united nations to vote against the u.n. resolution condemning russia's war against ukraine. the u.s., instead, voted en bloc with russia, iran, north korea and other authoritarian nations, which is a stunning reversal of decades of american foreign policy. this toxic revisionist history has now pervaded his political

nominees as well. throughout the week, his political appointees have contorted themselves in order to avoid acknowledging a fact that russia was responsible for starting the war in ukraine. this is something straight out of north korea, where facts, quote-unquote, are the sole purview of the dear leader. we must also note the deafening silence from many of my republican colleagues. many republicans claimed for years to be unapologetic supporters of ukraine, who are outraged by the perception that president biden was not sending enough u.s. support to ukraine. but now they appear to be standing by silently as facts are erased, as the pipeline to ukraine peters to a halt, at trump administration disbands federal task forces to establish the assets of russian oligarchs

and guard against federal election interference and d disinformation campaigns. silence is complicit. we cannot allow this to continue. if we're going down the path of negotiations with russia, we must act to strengthen our hand in these negotiations. and ironically, russia is in a very weak negotiating position. let us briefly review putin's situation. over the course of three years, ukraine has inflicted a staggering cost on russia. putin has lost 200,000 soldiers and many hundreds of thousands more wounded. he has lost hundreds of billions of dollars in military equipment and weapons. indeed, russia's weapons and logistical stocks are perilously diminished. the closest ally in the war, iran, is weaker than it's been in decades due to israeli and

u.s. actions. north korean soldiers, sent to reinforce flagging russian forces, are suffering severe casualty rates. russia has been ousted from syria, and it's wagner mercenaries in africa are struggling to reorganize. the russian economy is afloat but stagnant. any shrewd negotiator should recognize that russia is on the ropes. now is not the time to appease putin. of this is the time to exert maximum pressure to bring him to the negotiation table, hat in hand. there are three things we must do now -- first, we must continue to pressure russia economically. this means strengthening existing sanctions, identifying secondary sanctions, and bolstering sanctions enforcement and anti-evasion efforts. at the top of the efforts to

control the evasion of the sanctions, we should be working with allies to combat the illicit oil trade, including efforts to go on the offensive against the so-called ghostly of aging tankers russia employed to facilitate the export of oil and other sanctioned goods. second, we must work with our european partners to impound and leverage russia's frozen assets. finally, we must ensure, in both word and deed, that ukraine has our support and commitment to working with them to establish a just and lasting peace. however, instead of taking action to strengthen the negotiating hand on any of these fronts, the administration has shifted focus to the signing of a deal to exploit ukraine's natural resources. much remains to be seen about the shape of this agreement, but

we do know it will take years, if not decades, to see substantial returns. a large number of ukraine's rare earth deposits are actually located in ukrainian territory that is currently contested or occupied by russia. i'm not sure how one is to square this agreement with secretary hegseth's comments about the forfeiture of ukraine's sovereign territory. furth furthermore, the deal includes no security guarantees from the united states, which the ukrainians had rightly, i believe, insisted upon. security guarantees are essential to assure ukraine that the united states is not simply interested in an enrichment scheme, but is committed to the pursuit of a just and lasting peace. indeed, a just and lasting peace must be the final outcome.

that is in united states' national security imperative, one that has, at least until recently, enjoyed robust and vocal bipartisan support. we support ukraine because we know that the war on ukraine is not just a regional war. it is the most visible demonstration of the larger existential threat russia poses to our national security. we support ukraine to ensure that vladimir putin cannot achieve his goals, which are counter to our own national interests. we must be clear-eyed about this. if putin succeeds in ukraine, it will be the first piece in his long-stated promise to re-create the soviet empire. if that happens, if we fail to learn from history and to see brutal and craven authoritarians for what they are, and the threat they represent, we may again