ben cardin. chris stewart. later, seth jones from the center for strategic and international studies shares his research on u.s. defense capabilities. >> "washington journal" starts now. pres. biden: united states sharing -- standing shoulder to shoulder would do all we can to support ukraine.

he expected our support for ukraine to crumble. he was wrong. he was wrong. ♪ host: that was president biden yesterday announcing that u.s. would provide abram tanks to ukraine. to open the door for other european countries to send heavy tech -- tanks to their own. were asking what you think about the ongoing efforts to aid ukraine. let us know how you feel about the level of support the united states has provided in more than the 11th month old war. if you think too much, 202-748-8000. if you think too little, 202-748-8001. if you think about right, 202-748-8002. we are interested in hearing from current former members of the u.s. military on the topic.

a special line for you this morning, 202-748-8003. that's also the number you can send us a text. if you do include your name and where you are from. catch up with us on social media. @cspanwj a good thursday morning for you. you can start calling in now as we show you more from president biden yesterday. pres. biden: armored capability has been critical and that is why united states has committed hundreds of vehicles to date, including more than 500 as part of the package we announced last friday. today i am announcing the united states will be sending 31 abram tanks to ukraine. secretary austin has recommended this step because it will enhance ukraine's capacity to

defend its territory and achieve strategic objective. abram tanks are the most capable tanks in the world. they are complex operated and maintained. where giving ukraine the parts and equipment necessary to sustain the tanks on the about a bill. -- on the battlefield. will continue to train all maintenance as soon as possible. delivering the tanks of the field will take time. time we will use to make sure ukrainians are fully prepared to integrate the tanks into their defenses. host: president biden from the white house yesterday. reaction among republicans varied yesterday on a variety of reactions including from mike pompeo on twitter saying, the fastest way to defeat russia is to give ukraine the weapons it needs. from lindsey graham, the sooner the war is over the more stable

the work will be. michael mccaul saying, he is glad that reportedly the german government will agree to the transfer of is tank. there is no excuse for the delay. marjorie taylor greene with this tweet, to the president, why are you not calling tanks to the southern border while our country is invaded and americans are being murdered in record numbers by chinese, fentanyl. we serve the american people who pay for the tanks and our salaries not president zelenskyy. from the republican of kentucky, saying, we look weaker. they're not coming back. 31 fewer tanks to defend united states. here's one more from republican tom cotton, this is what he had to say. [video clip]

>> is a welcome decision that they decided finally to provide the tanks ukraine but it is long overdue and continues and powders as before the war started. president biden be as scared of his own shadow and declining military support the ukraine army needs and to defend ukrainian territory and to fight back against russia's unprovoked war. it is an admission of their own mistakes, not providing the tanks months ago, as you have seen for the last year when that administration explained some kind of weapon system or intelligence would be dangerously escalatory onto provided much later too late brett to be used to stop further advances -- for it to be used to stop further advances. to end the war, back ukraine army so they can defend their own territory. host: republican tom cotton on

fox news yesterday. that is reaction among republicans. reactions from democrats and having four members of congress join us in the first segment of washington journal from our cameras on capitol hill. get their reaction to talk about ongoing efforts to aid ukraine. we want to hear from you. do you think u.s. aid to ukraine has been too much? too little? about right? and a special line for current and former members. especially want you to join this discussion this morning on the washington journal. we start on that line, lives in virginia, good morning. host: good morning. i just retired a year ago from the military. i start in iraq twice, afghanistan wants. looking at the situation, i believe we need to back out of

it. it is something about going -- it is like a sibling live -- bribery. -- it is like a sibling rivalry. we need to stay in our own lane. host: sending abram tanks into the fight. what does that mean? what was your reaction? what would that mean on the about a filter from your experience? did you ever encounter those? caller: total destruction. that is what it means. as long as it is not the u.s. military there, i do not want to say i do not care, but as long as it is not as they are with it, that is fine. do not send us there. it is not worth it. host: michael in silver springs is next, the line for those who

say support is too little. caller: i was saying to my wife about six months ago -- i am a democrat. i think president biden is either scared, weak, or lying. i was saying 22-year-old american boys are running these tanks in america and then yesterday i'm sitting there watching msnbc and general mccaffrey comes on and he says it is a lot of malarkey that these are complex equipment. he said we should be sending a whole division i looked up the

definition of division and it was 250 tanks in a division, in an armored division. 18-year-old and then mccaffrey came out and said, we could have these guys able to drive these tanks within 30 days. i am going, oh my god. we should be sending -- we backed to south vietnam and we sit over hardware. we back south korea and we sit over hardware. we do not have to send man but we could send hardware. i think biden is being weak. it is upsetting. all military equipment is one way. it never comes back. after world war ii my dataset in japan they were pushing off

equipment into the pacific -- my dad said in japan were pushing off equipment into the pacific ocean. it is the number one industry in america. that step is not coming back. host: the numbers here, 31 tanks and additional support vehicles in terms of the timing when they might reach in battlefield, that is not clear right now. washington times points out, the first abram tanks could arrive in ukraine months from now. some officials say the delivery could take as much as 12 months and a lot of questions about the training of troops to use those vehicles. u.s. tanks according to the washington post will be purchased from manufacturers rather than transfer to existing military stockpiles. noting it is not immediately clear why the biden administration decided to pursue purchasing new tanks rather than

sending some of the thousands in u.s. military inventory. the pentagon assesses they do not have an excess abram's. all of them are employed for our own national security defenses, according to john kirby the spokesperson for white house national security council. if there were extras available, he said it would take many months to get them into position and provide training and maintenance support. when they get there we want to make sure they fall on ready hands. the quote from the washington post about the tanks. asking your thoughts on the level of support the united states has provided ukraine. harold in california, good morning. caller: good morning. i watch her show almost every day but i have only called a couple times before. i agree with the woman, the very

first caller, former military person. her thoughts, which she said is exactly my thoughts. that is what i was going to say. i do agree with her. we have done too much for ukraine. there is so many billions of dollars over the past 11 months that have been expended from us to them and we can use that money right here in this country. host: in terms of how much money has gone to ukraine in the past 11 months, trying to total that up and the numbers continue to take up -- tick up. as of november last year, $48 billion according to the council on foreign relations including 9.9 billion dollars in military aid. $15 billion in financial aid. those numbers 3 billion

additional dollars provided at the beginning of january. the announcement yesterday on the 31 m1 abrams tanks and support vehicles being sent. significantly above 50 billion at this point in total aid. back to the line for members of the military, chris in tennessee. caller: good morning. host: what are your thoughts? caller: i agree with the last instrument just on and the woman who was on the berries. -- first. i was a part of the invasion and it was overkill. give them more bullets and let their blood spill, that is what it seems like is happening. war is hell.

host: was there any level of support you were ok with? where we had a right level at some point in the past 11 months before we went too far? caller: say again. host: was there any level of support you were ok with with the fight happening in ukraine? caller: no, not really. we gotta protect our country and protecting there's, that is something they got to do. it is a poor, corrupt country. here we are trying to help and we have already helped them too much. we need to help ourselves before we help others. host: two pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning.

americans need to wake up. biden is a good president. i have military family all my life. i think he is doing a good job. people better wake up. i'm glad he ascended military over there because we could be next. you see vladimir putin going to visit china. we are next when you got korea sending a missiles. i am glad. he is a good president. mary trump says something is wrong with him and all of these people who are racist, i am sick of them. host: tom in maryland, good morning. caller: good morning.

i am worried about the timing of sending abram tanks because what i read about it, they're going to sink in the mud in the spring. the january tanks are much lighter and can traverse much more easily. they should have done this a long time ago. they have not done enough. host: you talk about the german tanks, german decision here, the focus of the lead editorial in wall street journal today, tanks breakthrough german lines. braylen will send their tanks -- berlin will send their tanks to ukraine. president biden opening the door for germany to send his own tanks and to allow tanks it assets other countries to be transferred over to ukraine. here is more from president biden yesterday on germany and european efforts. pres. biden: contribution will

be joined by additional announcement including ready available and easily integrate for use of battlefield in coming weeks of other countries. i'm grateful to chancellor shoals providing german tanks and leading efforts to your organize european congregation for ukraine. i want to thank the chancellor for his leadership and commitment to our efforts to support ukraine. germany has stepped up. the chancellor has been a strong voice of unity, a close friend, and we are going to continue. supporting ukraine's ability to fight russia is a worldwide commitment. last week, germany, secretary austin contact group for the eighth time. this group is made up of 50 nations.

each making significant contributions of their own to ukraine integrity. each fully committed to making ukraine remain stronger and able to defend itself against russian threats antiviolence -- and violence. i want to thank every member of the coalition for stepping up. u.k. announced it is donating tanks to ukraine. france is contributing armored fighting vehicles in addition to the leopard tanks germany is also sending. the netherlands is donating launchers. french, canada, u.k., slovakia and others have donated critical air defense systems to secure ukrainian skies and save lives of innocent civilians who are the target of russia's aggression. pollen is sending armored

vehicles. sweden is donating fighting vehicles. denmark and estonia artists sending missiles. lithuania is providing antiaircraft guns. host: president biden yesterday. a note from the washington times, those german tanks to be on the sooner the -- in the american tanks. germany expect tanks to be on the about a operational in march. back to your phone calls asking your thoughts on u.s. aid to ukraine. too much, too little, about right? here he is a too much. go ahead. caller: this is the one issue the people you work for have

lied about from the beginning. you do not publish any -- when you leave out a lot of information is equal to line. host: what information? we are just asking your thoughts on the announcement. caller: we have been in ukraine since before 2013. we have had the bayou labs working on dangerous experiments. we through the presidency of victor young. we have been over there converting, training and weapons way before any of this started. you never reported. it is all built on a pack of lies. all you do is have a parade of guests that come on. host: what would you like to see the u.s. do here? caller: we should have nothing to do with this.

only congress can declare war. we are attacking russia. we have the worst negotiators. they are not negotiating at all. we are led to ukraine be sacrifice as we fight russia. russia is not our enemy, never has been. they have fought with us on every war. no one ever brings that up. host: as we said earlier, we are are chatting with members of congress throughout the morning getting their reaction to the announcement from president biden on sending the tanks to ukraine. our first member of congress joining us, mike rounds of dakota members of the foreign relations committee. good morning to you. guest: good morning. host: your final thoughts on the last caller they're saying russia is not our enemy. how would you react to a statement like that? guest: i would disagree with

that. i think russia is a threat right now, to allies in europe, they have been a challenger to us in the past. they have been on the other side of the break issues whether it is looking at what is going on in the middle east or for that matter what is going on in europe right now. russia has decided they would rather take more of an aggressive tone of looking at going into ukraine to begin with. this used to be in understanding there that they felt ukraine wanted them to come in, which is not the case. they are the aggressor. this is not a case of ukraine attacking russia. it is a case ukraine was attacked by russia. it's russian forces in ukraine. you have not seen ukrainians in russia. in this case and the one we are

focused on the, it is a case of stopping russian aggression. our concern is, we do not have any men and women in uniform that are standing on the front lines in ukraine. we do not want that to happen. if russia were to go after one of the neighbors of ukraine, you would find article five pack we would be in the middle of the battle. we do not want our young men and women over there. if ukraine wants to fight this and we think they do and they have the heart and desire to defend their land, we should do everything we can to provide them with the appropriate weapon system so they can fend off russia. the m1 -- host: as the m1 abrams tanks the appropriate system? will it make a difference? guest: it is one part of the battle group. the strikers and bradley's will be more effective earlier but the abrams were the key to

bridging on britt's and germans and the germans authorizing others to allow for their main battle tanks to be used as well. the abrams may not be as many as number as the others will be, but they will be welcome. it takes time to train on the abrams. they are more complicated piece of machinery. the weapon system is not designed to fight where they are in one spot. the abrams tank is an attack weapon. it is to clean things up. ukrainians will have to learn the appropriate tactics to be use with the abrams but it is an effective weapon when used correctly. host: the strikers, bradley's, other armored vehicles u.s. providing ukraine. are there other web assistance we are not providing you think we should be providing? guest: one the most important part is we not only provide the

system at the appropriate training so they are used effectively. i think we are moving in the right direction. i wish we would have moved quickly with delivery of the systems but let's start out with they do need to have an protection and they will eventually have to have aggressive air capabilities. you're going to see in ukraine's yes ukraine is asking for whether it is helicopters, for some aircraft they'll be ok as well. they got weapon systems right now that can be use but they need to actual web is attached to the platforms themselves. we can help them in that regard when the time is right by the training has to come with it. it is a matter of combining not just the weapon system you want to deliver, it is providing the intel and capability and training to do it correctly so the systems are effective and can break the stalemate which is occurring in some parts of the country. host: what is the limit of u.s.

support for you? is there a financial line? guest: why think we should always try to do is not set lines for ourselves. we want russia to understand we are in this to have ukraine when and the sooner they understand that, the sooner they start looking at of an appropriate solution acceptable to both countries, the better off the world would be in russia will be long-term. most wars do not and in a fight or victory. most wars and when diplomats come together and find an appropriate ending. that is a possibility. russia is going to have to respect that ukraine is a country by itself and should not be subject to russian aggression now or in the future. host: before you go, foreign relations committee, a hearing on countering russian aggression

hearing from state department officials testify before your committee today. what are you going to be asking about? what do you want to know? guest: it will be a matter of what is the most effective approach we can take to find a positive outcome to this war that is going on right now. what can we do to bring it about ? how can we be most effective in assisting our ukrainian friends as they fight for the freedom within our country. host: senator mike rounds. a busy day on capitol hill. thank you for stopping by and chiding with us this morning. the hearing the senator was talking about, we are airing on c-span three today at 10:30 a.m. eastern time. you could also watch it at c-span.org and the free c-span now video app. back to your phone calls as we

chat with you about your thoughts on u.s. aid to ukraine over this more 11 month old war in ukraine. do you think it has been too much? too little? about right? a special line for current or former military members. we want to get your thoughts on the tank transfer. 202-748-8003, is that number. in oklahoma, vincent, thank you for waiting. caller: yes. i think it is a mind game going on. so many countries they have to obey what vladimir putin is saying. if zelenskyy wins and the other countries are going to challenge vladimir putin to.

he better be aware of what he is up to. either way, in poland, i do not know how it feels about the war. what about germany? they were against it a long time. host: germany is sending tanks. poland was for sending tanks of his own topoland was for sendinf his own to ukraine one of the early european partners that want to push heavy tanks and so ukraine to provide the support. the adult now or what the questions the senator brought up in our conversation is what is next? we are providing these tanks, would you be ok with providing helicopters, fighters to ukraine, aircraft? what do you think should be a limit or should there be a limit? caller: vladimir putin is going to enlist people in prison.

that is a good thing for him. ukraine has a stockpile at one time. why did not save them or get the place to make them? host: this is james in maryland, go ahead. caller: yes. i believe we have given too little in the sense that we should have gone 100% to supporting them earlier. i am afraid of us sending the tanks over right now because i do not want them to fall into the wrong hands. i am concerned about if the world does not do anything about latimer putin, -- vladimir putin, we are given russia a go

ahead plan to disrupt and cause conflicts in other places and other small countries we are trying to help keep on our side rather than the russian side. we helped the russian so much through world war ii. and they turned against us after world war ii. they always put up this game about how many people they loss. they would have lost a whole bundle that had not been for us and how much we sacrifice saving them. i spent six years in the military. the part i spent in germany from 1964-1966, i do think that was the most important part i spent in the military. i can justify that.

none -- host: why was it the most important? caller: the russians at that time after all we had done for them, was still trying to spread chaos and conflict. the other thing in the last if his appropriation budget, congress gave them $40 billion more than what they asked for. $40 billion a head of what they asked for. our weapons have proven that the russian weapons are inferior to ours. my other concern is i do not want the ukrainians to think it is one group of people in this country given them aid.

i want them to look at us as a whole country, all of the people here putting their money, our tax money and hope for them. host: you said earlier you wanted us to be a hundred percent supporting ukraine earlier. do you feel at this point the united states is 100% supporting ukraine? caller: not exactly. we are the biggest supporters. we are the biggest supporters voice wise and every day, we are justified in helping these people. host: thank you for the call. helen in california, good morning. caller: i do not think we should send any aid to any country side of war.

-- to fight a war. when russia annexed crimea president obama was asked what are you going to do about this and he replied, crimea it does not fall within the spirit of the united states. it falls within the spear of russia. what happens in that region is determined by russia. with the biden administration, he really wants to wage war. he's going to make -- he has to date weapons and getting other nations to send weapons into ukraine is going to be a point for another global war. i'm looking at a comment made in 1950's after world war ii and it was by a senator and es -- he asks the secretary of defense how are we going -- he said regards had to see some areas taken by the soviets but we are

not going to find ourselves hopelessly committed all over the world. he was say the united states should not be in a business of building empires for itself. that is what we are doing. it has been going on since 1950's, korean war, the vietnam war, war on terror and now we are waging war on terror -- russia. if we do wage war we had to be able to accept we are going to rate wart on china, korea or any other allies who are sick of the american empire justifying korer invasion and oppression of those areas. host: chatting with the all morning long and also members of congress joining pre-our next

member of congress to join us abigail spanberger from virginia. guest: thank you for having me. host: i want to get your thoughts on the concern over if we are waging war with russia we should be prepared to wage war with china and other countries as well. is he going to lead to further wars, the amount of support the u.s. is giving ukraine in the fight? guest: we are not a waging war with russia. we are supporting a free country that has been invaded by russia in their fight for freedom and for their democracy. we are ensuring they have the tools and means necessary, communication aid, humanitarian aid, and yes, that is weapons and legal aid necessary for them to do the fighting, fight for their freedom, and for them to

defeat a nation that is cross into their borders and committed countless atrocities across the country. host: in terms of amount of support we are giving, is 31 a printing is going to make a difference on the battlefield? guest: the abram take is coupled with the leopard to tanks germany ascending, poland is sending and other nations will be sending. it is a coordinated effort for the united states and our partner nations to assure ukrainians have the tools they need. a month and a half ago i was speaking with a member of the ukrainian parliament who was telling me about the reality on the ground. she termed it small country fighting with the soviet style military equipment.

russia with more of this old equipment and she was talking about the reality is they can have more advanced weaponry, weapons systems, and tanks on the battlefield, that will be helpful for their ability to continue their fight and defeat russian invaders. our actions are provision of tanks as well is what we see our partner nations doing. it is what ukrainians are saying they need on the battlefield. host: republican from kentucky tweeted that this is 31 fewer tanks to defend united states. in terms of that sentiment, the $50 billion in aid or so we have given, are you concerned it is the pleading u.s. efforts to defend itself -- depleting u.s.

efforts to defend itself? guest: i disagree quite substantially. we are making investments in our own national security. a land war in europe and unchecked russia is a threat to our national security and our own economic security. to go in and invade ukraine and move on to the nato borders the result will be u.s. engagement at a level far greater than what we are doing now. we are supporting a free people who want to remain so in we are doing it so by providing them with support they need to wage that war. if russia were allowed to take over ukraine and if we in our partner nations were not joining together to ensure ukrainians have what they need, that was said a terrible message to russia and also to china and

iran and other nations who want to see where they can be aggressive, where they can invade other countries, and whether the united states and other free countries will stand by their side in their defense. host: should there be a financial limit to u.s. aid to ukraine? is there a redline in terms of weapon systems or what we would provide you think we should not cross? guest: it is important to have continued oversight and we have had that last month at the end of the year. legislation to ensure oversight of systems we are sending to ukraine and always we are spending but importantly, right now we are providing them with support in terms of materials and weapon systems. they fighting their own war. their soldiers are dying in battlefield. they are demonstrating incredible bravery. the commitment we have made is we will support them with material they need to make that happen and we will try to do --

make clear to the russian people and government through sanctions through diplomatic and economic relationships that we reject and renounce their invasion and atrocities within the borders of ukraine. we should continue making clear art announcement of russia's war against ukraine and continue the support we are given to our ukrainian partners as they continue to fight for their freedom. host: a viewer brought up the fact that in the most recent omnibus bill, congress gave the pentagon $40 billion more than the pentagon requested from congress for his budget this year. what was that for? how should the pentagon be using that funding going forward? guest: that is to continue

ensuring the transfer of materials, the provisions of dod related support. legal aid or nonlegal aid. getting those provisions to ukraine and ensuring our support for our partners and it is oversight of those dollars to ensure the department of defense is fulfilling the mandate of congress and doing so with thoughtful reason and fairway. the job they are doing is what they have been tasked to do and that is with the funding looks to support. host: congresswoman abigail spanberger appreciate you stopping by. from capitol hill back to your phone calls this morning asking you about u.s. aid to ukraine. do you think it has been too much, too little, about right? a special line for current and former members of the military,

202-748-8003. we want to hear from you about the tank transfer, 31 m1 abrams tanks announced yesterday from president biden at the white house. larry from california, good morning. caller: i saw this coming. when donald trump was talking to ukraine about getting information on biden and they did not want to do it and he had that long conversation with vladimir putin. i'm sure he told him if they do not cheat for him to attack them. i am the guy that predicted 911. i called you 22 years ago tried to get -- what was going to happen there and everyone -- everything i said it happened. i am nervous about the republicans. i do not think they want to support ukraine so i think we

have a problem on our hands. i am glad nato is still around the. trump try to destroy nato. host: this is mike in new york, good morning. what do you think? caller: good morning. i think it is that there is war but you have to be prepared for it. by sending, you have time to crank out and train your own troops, trade all of the armored troops and if things go bad, you send 310 tanks and you will start manufacturing. you start changing over to a

wartime footing so you are ready to go. by spring time you're prepared to do everything and hit them with everything you have. right now something on the ground happen, we do not know, as americans, the russians have got to know they will never win. they have to practice logistics with a few tanks. sad it is war. set it is -- there dying there. it is better for peace in the future to be ready for war and pray for peace. host: mike in new york. wall street journal today with background history on the abrams tanks. over the years the pentagon has purchased more than 7000 of the tanks. the abrams tanks first saw

action in the gulf war were a wide wide praise from commanders and crews and maintenance workers for killing power and toughness in the face of enemy fire. the tanks help the u.s. military overpower iraqi forces during the 2003 invasion of iraq. the marine corps company deployed in 2011 suffered only a single within in action despite sending 19 ied strikes according to an article. they have been concerned about the tanks huge full consumption and limited range and long logistic training that follows it. the everest battalion -- abrams but tiant requires hundred vehicles and soldiers to keep it running.

everything associated with the tanks is very heavy says a former marine corps officer. back to your phone calls, milton in baltimore, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning, can you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: i want to say that the republicans are scared, they need to get out of the way and take care of this and russia. i can call on the form of military line because i'm a veteran. i called in the rectum outline. i hope it is the right amount because being military, i know three things need to happen, we need to put complete ordinances

in the operation. you need to have fully reconnaissance so you can recon. a tank is a weapon that needs to have forward operations. with these tanks from germany and other countries and united states, i hope they deploy more of the reconnaissance such as, the drones so we can see. tanks need to see what is in front of them so they can destroy it. i hope biden and the military for all of the assets into this. 31 tanks and the other tanks can be a decent amount if he put all your assets together. thank you very much. host: reaction on capitol hill

yesterday after the announcement of president biden, among those taken to the floor mitch mcconnell, here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> i was happy to learn yesterday and this morning that both the white house and their counterparts in germany are moving forward with these overdue steps. germany has announced it will supply ukraine with an initial 14 tanks and biden administration is expected to send at least 30 m1 abrams tanks as well. good news. now that braylen has taken this step i hope other european countries with tanks in their inventory will move expeditiously to send them to ukraine. moderate main battle tanks will provide armor, firepower, help

ukraine liberate territory and keep pressure on russian aggressors. time is of the essence. of course, as we rush these long overdue capability to ukraine, the work is far from over. these drawdowns in western arsenal how prompt serious work to expand the capacity of our defense bases. the biden administration efforts are overdue but important. i hope more of our allies will follow suit by moving quickly to put critical munitions and weapon systems under contract and expanding each of their industrial capacities. host: on expanding the u.s. military industrial capacities the washington post today taking a look at that aspect of what is going on.

military is about to go on a weapon buying spree. there are wrist to engage in in weapon buying spree as lawmakers committee -- congress should insist military use is new authority to find a middle ground between replenishing a stockpile. contractors are already enjoying a new golden age of buying. we are going to talk more about defense capabilities and weapon purchases later this morning. 9:15 a.m. we are joined by sen. jones: senior vice president for strategic and international studies. stick around for that discussion. focusing on u.s. aid to ukraine. the announcement yesterday is what we are focusing on in the

first two hours of washington journal today. phone lines for those who think the aid has been too much, 202-748-8000. too little, 202-748-8001. right amount, 202-748-8002. line for current or former military members, 202-748-8003. laura's in new york city, good morning. caller: good morning, america. i want to know everyone is attacking america and now they are sabotaging through the cable. host: ok. dave in south carolina for military. caller: good morning. host: what do you think, sir? caller: i think the entire issue

is the military-industrial complex. i was born three years after korea. i would tell you the armistice day or. all of my life, our society, improvements put on hold. our countries treasurer and blood spit like water. who hasn't benefited? where has it gone? the military-industrial complex has worked in every state in our country. it is deliberately done that way so politicians know if they vote against the system, if they vote for regulation, they can affect jobs in their state. they are not going to do it. we are grabbed by the military-industrial complex.

i do not know the answers. i was a metalworker all of my life. i do not understand what can be done but all i know is, -- doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, it does not seem like a smart thing to do to me. i wish everybody a good day and be safe. host: what do you take from the fact and we talked about it with the congresswoman, the $850 billion pentagon budget this year includes 44.6 billion dollars over what the pentagon originally asked congress for. caller: i think it is more interesting they felt another audit -- failed another audit. host: i think we are at five audits they have failed. caller: it is ridiculous.

if i failed five audits they will have me against the wall. host: this is mark is louisiana, good morning. caller: thank you so much for hearing me. please let me speak out so america can hear this. i am calling on the not doing enough. it is not enough leadership we have. how did we ever get in this mess? if virtually nonbiased that is the question you need to ask. how did america find itself in this mess? when mitt romney was running for president he said it russia was the number one enemy. we cannot take our eye off them and he was mugged by president obama and laughed at by president biden and the media. that's where we made our mistake.

we needed the leadership everybody to know russia, everybody follows russia. we needed to stand up. i am frustrated. democrats are frustrated. republicans are frustrated. how do we get ourselves in this mess? the caller that called about the military, network giving all these weapons, now we have to spend more money on defense. now we do not have the money for our schools. for the communities that are lacking. we are going to have to refill all the equipment we are using. it is sad because if we would not have took our eye off of the ball off of russia, that they are our enemy. we can never take our eye off of them. we need everybody, europe, --

remember reagan, he was always hard on russia. we never had to go to war with russia when reagan was president because we dealt from a position of strength. we make sure everybody knew who russia was. i think the media is responsible for this. president obama is it possible for this. biden is responsible for this. we are doing too little but it is too little too late. think of all the money we are going to have to spend now that could go to our country. host: coming up on 8:00 a.m. eastern throughout first hour of the washington journal but it's going to have this conversation and to our second hour and a more members of congress going to join us in our second hour to talk about u.s. aid to ukraine. also the other stories we have been tracking and chatting about

over the recent weeks on the washington journal including the border issue. the latest from this morning's washington post, federal officials saying the number of migrants from cuba and haiti, nicaragua, venezuela taken into custody at the southern border has decreased significantly since president biden expended a program this month allowing migrants to come to the united states legally. officials touting the success of the program which direct migrants to apply all and have a sponsor instead of border crossings. some republicans in 20 states filed federal lawsuits in texas to halt the program. they say the program amounts to an end run against immigration laws. by the administration the latest figures show their policy can ease the influx on the border. the measures are working.

it is an car principal -- it is an car principal some states are sick to block this. that's a story from the washington post today. something to keep an eye on this week, republicans meeting in california tippecanoe national party leader. usa today noting mcdaniel is seeking a fourth term to be challenged by two conservative trump supporters. mcdaniel is the favorite they note but her opponents could add to the party that has been divided over 2022 congressional election. that selection for party leader it take place friday at the convention for rsc this note from washington times today, the announcement from meta that it was soon list is been ban on

former president trump's band. trump will face heightened scrutiny upon his return. we are doing so with the guardrails in place. trump had 4 million followers on facebook and 25 million followers on instagram when he was suspended. we talked about yesterday congressman adam schiff, one of two democratic members who were barred from the intelligence committee. by speaker kevin mccarthy, speaker mccarthy making the announcement earlier this week and talked about the announcement with reporters yesterday. >> used the intelligence

committee as this kind of political plaything. doesn't show the strength of his speakership that shows the weakness of his speakership that he is so beholden to the most extreme elements of his conference. it bodes poorly for how he will conduct the remainder of his speakership however long or short that may last. more to the point, by irrigating to himself the decision about who on the democratic side of the aisle should lead the intelligence committee, who should sit on the intelligence committee, he will cause the intelligence agencies to distrust this action and in combination with the formation of the federal government he will only breed distrust within the intelligence committee as to what it can share and what it

control confident about sharing with the congress. that will impact policymakers in terms of the information we have to make decisions about how to protect our national security. this is, i think, not expected but nonetheless destructive a kevin carthy that will bode well, that would bode ill in the future for the decisions he has to make to placate the marjorie taylor greene's, and of course has boston in mar-a-lago the disgraced former president. host: congressman adam schiff on capitol hill. in the wake of the announcement by president biden sending u.s abrams tanks we want to know your thougs on u.s. aid to rae if you think it's been too much, o ttle, the right amount and a special line for curren and former members of the military joining this discussion. chase is in baltimore, maryland

on the line for those that say it's too much. caller: good morning, d thank you for taking my call. it's not even close to what is needed in order for ukraine to succeed in this war. the bottom line is i don't think the west was prepared to counter russia militarily. we need to rely on our economic sanctions. this would have led to change but that has failed miserably. they will be doing patchwork it's not going to work. ukraine is not going to crush up. we cut our loss and focus on america, thank you for taking my call and got bless america. host: stephen, good morning. caller: good morning.

i think it's the right amount. we are bringing countries and germany had a bad history with russia and i think for us to bring in abrams is sensitive to these subjects. i listen to mike brown and i agree with him. the next step is f-16s. i think that's the nato standard for tanks, the f-16. and the last thing i want to say the security conference is coming up and i would like to see whoever is going talk about prosecuting war crimes for russia. this might take 40 or 50 years but we really have to think about prosecuting war crimes.

host: we had a collar earlier concerned about the tanks and whatever the next was been system might be escalating tensions with russia. does that concern you? tensions between the u.s. and russia? caller: you know, i have watched so much russian propaganda. there is a lot of, what do you call it? a lot of bark no bite. the war on their footsteps, they, the color before was talking about how get into this mess. imperial russia got us into this mess. how do we get out? putin and russia can go back home. that's how we get out of this. host: in connecticut this is

president biden from the white house on this issue of tensions with russia. pres. biden: today's announcement builds on the hard work from countries around the world back by the united states of america to help ukraine defend its sovereignty and integrity. that is what this is about. helping ukraine defend ukrainian land. it is not an offensive threat to russia. there is no offensive threat to russia. if troops returned to russia, this war would be over today. that's what we all want, an end to this war. our teams do not permit one nation, they do not allow one nation to still another nation territory by force. honor the u.n. charter, that is the terms we are working on.

these are the terms we all signed up for, 143 nations voted for the assembly last october. so united states and shall traditional our allies are going to continue to do all we can to support ukraine. host: president biden yesterday from the white house. back to your phone calls. this is well in florida, william good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i'm a former combat commander. you cannot have a combat arms team, you have to train it as a unit. these ukrainians are fighting for their lives. all we have to do is take a brigade, train brigade which should have been trained already and drop them back on and get

the heck out of the russians. it's not difficult. but austin and miley both the combined arms warfare is the only way to go about this. host: what does that mean in practice? that we need air capability along with tanks, along with scouting and drones capabilities, what do you think? caller: can, rugged artillery, armor, engineers, those guys have to be trained specifically on their missions. i don't know what's going on with the training portion but combined arms warfare is combined. it's combined with their helicopters and everyone is talking to each other on the same frequency. host: do you think sending the artillery we have already sent and now sending the tanks, this is not how it needs to be done? caller: no, sir, it's not.

in my opinion, in march of last year when they first invaded we knew they were going to do it. just like we knew hussein was going to invade kuwait. you get these, the ukrainians want to fight. all you have to do is train them properly on the equipment. host: do you think the u.s. public would have been ok with, at that point, on february i believe it was 20th when the invasion began, would have been ok sending abrams tanks and artillery and engineer capabilities? all that? do you think they would have been ready, the public would have been ready to accept that? caller: the public is not, that's out of my wheelhouse. i'm sorry, but actually the

invasion was the 26th of february. the same day that there was a mission in iraq in 1991. it takes, if boston and miley once they get to four-star they seem to lose all the training and what we are here for. the american public, you know, this is war. if were going to take a stance, you can't -- and the coalition george bush got the coalition together and let's look at the timeline from november to december to january, january 17 we had the air war started. there were rockets and everything else going over my head. then we just launched.

we weren't giving out boxed lunches, if you had a uniform on, you were the enemy. host: william in florida on the issue of public support. the majority of americans don't support sending aid according to a new pulp from the global research firm. there is a story about it in the hill newspaper. that is down from 59% last spring according to the latest survey. this is don in cleveland, tennessee. good morning, you are next. caller: i think we need president obama and president trump and i will give you the two reasons why. the reporter asked obama before he got out of office what do you think about russia? he said we would crush them. remember the word crush and then

when donald j. trump was standing there with his arms folded across and doing exactly what he did and told him exactly what he told them and did when he was our president. and then the lady you had on, you know, when you asked her a question what -- i wish she would have these people clarify themselves a lot more than what they do. i think it would save us all -- serve us all a little bit that are i don't think she was a straight shooter on that. host: this is john in maryland, good morning. caller: yes, good morning, can you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: taking more of a centrist discussion on this. what is the purpose of the united states having 7000 abrams tanks? it's not to find a war in north america but the purpose to purchase them up with the last 30 years was exactly for what they are beginning to be used for.

it is to prevent the land were in europe. i do think it is timing and at the right level. we are probably at the point where we need to have a measured increase. i just, i wish both sides would come together. what was the intent? the intent was to stop the aggressor. post-world war ii and we are looking at the images that came out of holocaust and of all of the people that died. if we really need to present day. february is coming up and we are going to start seeing on news channels, you are going to see men, women, and children freezing to death. and dead on your tv screens. we are saying we are americans and we are here to promote freedom throughout the world, i just can't see how left, right, or center can say we can't do

anything or we need to but out of this. i agree we have to cross the border, i agree we have a problem feeding here back in the united states imagine what an unchecked putin would do to this world. host: you mentioned the holocaust, tomorrow a remembrance day you said earlier that you think we should have a measured increase, what is a measured increase look like? caller: i think, obviously, there is no way you can send 500 abrams tanks. between the logistics trail it would be better to flood the battlefield with equipment ukrainians have the capability to sustain. but say 31 abrams tanks come in, we can see they have the logistics training necessary to

kill them and move them forward in the battlefield and as we see they are capable of accepting 20 more or 30 more, you know, the feed comes in. they would be capable of that logistics training on our end. simply feeding the fight with the machinery when they are incapable of using it is fruitless. as ukraine is prepared and ready to accept the equipment, than the united states and our global allies are ready to send. host: thanks for the call. this is color from fredericksburg, virginia. caller: hello? host: go ahead, ma'am. caller: i think we are sending way too much weapons. i think it's a never ending war. and i think it makes america poorer. we are distracted by this war.

china is winning, everybody is winning but us because we are distracted once again by endless wars. it is a deliberate action by president biden, this bully, a dictator in the white house right now. what does ukraine have on biden? if all the western leaders, they have something that would actually destroy thatkabal that rules the west. no more weapons, no more wars, stop it all. host: a chart from the foreign relations specifically at military aid last year. we talked about total aid to ukraine being in the $50 billion range. military aid closer to 26 billion so about half the total aid package. this compares the military aid

that the u.s. spent last year in ukraine to other countries. ukraine the top of the chart there. the next closest country that we send military aid to, israel and afghanistan in 2022, iraq, jordan, and again other aid to ukraine also on that list. just preparing where we are sending our military aid. this is sue in michigan, good morning. caller: i think they are sending just enough. we are not involved like this other lady is so adamant about not sending these tanks. president biden, he is doing the talks of these people. he knows what's going on but putin is constantly talking about a nuclear war. does this woman think we are not going to be involved in that nuclear war? were not going to be hurt by that?

how can people say these things about president biden? i am getting to the point, we are getting sick and tired of the lies and the stupidity. like, you got people worried about what putin is doing. he is sending his army out there. they are raping and murdering children -- women in front of their children. they are cutting the tongues out of people walking down the street. when they get captured, ukrainian soldiers brave soldiers when they capture them they are cutting her private parts off. so how can this woman allow that to happen? i certainly hope she's not a christian. because, i mean, any christian would care about what is going on in ukraine. and not only for ukraine but for america. host: that's sue in she can. frank is on our line for former

and current members of the military. am i correct that you are calling from germany? caller: yes, can you hear me ok? host: yes, what part of germany are you calling from? caller: the west side former military area. host: what do you think about ukraine this morning? caller: thank you for taking my call. this propaganda with putin is working in germany. who support the war in ukraine and who doesn't. and you would see that half of this country over here is split. i think that the europeans have depended on russia to take them out of nato. there was a phone call someone by the name of helen. she talked just like the people

over in germany. they feel that ukraine went against their word and was wanting to join nato, or wanted to join the west. russia was against that. when you ask the people over here what should the west do when it comes to russia invading their country? they say they should sit down and talk. but then you say the west tried to do that and russia was unwilling then you ask them what should they do? i don't know but they shouldn't send weapons. does -- host: how long have you lived in germany? caller: i came over in 1985 and have been going back and forth from here to the states. i have been here a while. host: what is the transfer of

tanks meaning and what has been the reaction on that in germany? caller: like i said, it's split down the middle. most people feel like you shouldn't send a weapons but when you ask them what they shape date -- what should they do they don't have an answer. the americans are spending too much money. when you take america out of the equation over here, what's left? russia would have invaded this people and they would have moved on over to poland and to germany. that's the way i feel. host: back to here in the u.s. the grand canyon state this is david in florence. good morning. caller: i think this country has really lost sight of what the real problem is here. this whole russia ukraine think. ukraine is not a neato country and our concerns with their

sovereignty at their border is a big smokescreen for what is happening on our border. we are being invaded. we are being trained militarily of any way of being able to defend ourselves against china or russia and i don't understand why it's not being brought to light what is really going on. we have been invaded in this country every day. yuma has been taken over by the aliens. i mean by the illegals. you're not supposed to use that word anymore. my whole thing is ukraine is corrupt as hell. they have something on the biden administration. when it's all said and done, is going to get exposed, and were going to have to take a look at when we need to put our money for the sovereignty of our own border. that's all i have to say about that. host: paul in new york, good morning. caller: i agree with the last

color. i'm calling about the woman that called in just before you had your two interviews with your congresspeople. she said that the way c-span presents the argument is biased towards the war and industrial complex we are talking about. instead of talking with two congressmen that are going to say the same thing, that we need to send more money and keep going in there why don't you invite people like john marsh and heimer or scott ritter, people that know about this war. one was a weapon expect her. -- inspector. russia didn't lose your mind and decide to invade ukraine and then the domino theory, move on to other entries. there's a reason for it. host: there is a reason why we are bringing birds of congress on capitol hill today. to grab them, chat with them,

let you hear from them. some of these other folks you talk about perhaps on the road we will have them on to try to get as many different opinions as we can. the reason we are going with members of congress, we set a camera up up there we can grab a few of them. does that work for you? i think we lost the caller. this is jim in brooklyn. caller: from what i understand we need more soldiers. that's what we need to send. i have a different take on this if you give me a second. i think instead of sending poor young men we should send people that don't need that much, the politicians and their children and hollywood and even you guys at c-span, the media. would you go over there and fight?

host: do you think americans, american citizens should be on the ground in ukraine? do you think that's a good idea to have american boots on the ground? caller: yeah, that would be a great idea. i would love to see that. i think that would go a lot better than sending working-class people. you guys want to get us in a nuclear war, go over there and put your money where your mouth is, john. sean penn, i think that would be great. host: this is anthony in annandale, new jersey, good morning. caller: good morning, john. i just want to say a lot of the callers have nailed it. i think it's a conflict of interest all the way around. we have to look back at the

cuban missile crisis. we are in the perverse position now. we're still painting ourselves as the good guys when in actuality, you know, we are on the doorstep of russia. that's provoking putin and he has even said that he's willing to negotiate, to talk. but the people that, you know, the sock puppets that we see they take their orders from much higher. so, you know, the fact that the economy is in such rough shape and we are sending all this money over there it's really criminal. it should be, you know, we are not over there saving lives. just like in iraq their

protective solidarity, that's not true. and it's not true now. i think we need that money and i think we should get out of there before we end the whole world on an ideology. host: that's anthony. this is candy in california, good morning. caller: good morning, john. host: go ahead. caller: i was calling in on the not enough line. i think what russia did is incorrect. we should be along with the tanks take out the bridges that connect the two countries and take out military bases. host: when you say take out military bases are you talking about in russia? caller: well, along the border in crimea. look at what russia is doing to

ukraine. not like what russia is doing with apartment buildings. that's war. that's what war is. and i don't agree with war, but it's needed. because in the united states there is too much on one country for everything. if we ever got into it with china, we would be, or am i going to buy my extension cord because everything is made in china. they need to look into removing a lot of the dependency on china. host: this is james. the line for current and former members of the military. go ahead. caller: let me clear my throat.

2002-2005, [indiscernible] now, i know sometimes biden was giving aid at the end of last year. the president of ukraine, he was going to get jets. ukraine asked for jets biden said no. host: bring me up to yesterday and the transfer of tanks. caller: a, if biden wouldn't have said no, [indiscernible]

. host: a few of your comments via social media and text messaging service. this is chris in ohio saying this is a huge amount of money and the aid from the u.s. and other countries that's flowing into ukraine i don't mind assisting but i would hate to think someone is minding -- lining their own pockets through third parties. russia needs to withdraw. on twitter, the military hardware is one thing with the economic aid is too much. we have too many crises to deal with here. is just not worth helping ukraine from an increased economic strength a lower end. and mike former military saying how are tanks getting there? what does the u.s. do when air transport planes are shut down?

is he your comments via text, social media. two more members of congress join us in that time but we are focused on your phone calls. what do you think of the amount of u.s. aid to ukraine at this point? too much caller: is the number. too little (202) 748-8001 is the number. if you think it's a right (202) 748-8002. current and former members of the military (202) 748-8003 is the number. as you continue to:, and obituary about a man who was known for his work during a different war james welling stain rates the globetrotting investigative duo in the early 1970's undermine president richard nixon strategy in the vietnam war died on january 3 at his home in washington.

he was 95 years old. president nixon made a promise of a secret plan to end the war in vietnam and his first or he adopted a policy that he called vietnam invasion so that the united states could rapidly drawdown its commitment there. senator william albright and the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee was suspicious and he said both former foreign service officers were sent to investigate. reports were released redacted. it was a bombshell. ambiguous, confusing contradictory evidence indicate the war appears to not only be far from won but far from over. the report represented an early

incident of an attempt by the senate throughout the 1970's to reassert influence over foreign policy which has been long dominated by the white house. they said the president by 1975 there was an investigation. democratic of idaho and the war powers act limited the president's ability to take a country to war without congressional approval and there is a picture there. he died this week at age 95. back to your phone calls. this is joe out of baltimore, maryland. on the line for that support for ukraine being too much. caller: it has been too much. i can give you the birdseye view , there are gunshots and dead bodies daily.

the money they are using to go to ukraine, just the 15.1 million that could have been a godsend to the inner cities of this country, to the cities and places that your previous callers have mentioned. the ones they don't want to travel to at night and lock their doors, that 15.1 billion could have went to all of those places. better schooling, better opportunities for children out there. jobs, opportunities. i think it's too much. host: that 15.1 billion number coming from the foreign relations report on how much the u.s. has sent ukraine. this is just for november of 2022. from january 2 november 15.1 billion in financial assistance. and then ella terry assistance

222.9 billion dollars. the number has picked up since then and of course the announcement yesterday about 31 a1 -- m1 abrams tanks. this is jim from texas. the line for current and former members of the military, go ahead. caller: good morning, thank you for having me on. i was in germany during the cold war. i was there when the wall came down. then i was in bosnia during the conflict over there. we had the russians on our base. we went to the same chow hall carrying loaded weapons. now we go all the way back to this. this, ronald reagan would practically roll over in his grave over the whole deal. we need to help other people

because when we have a problem, they will probably come help us. this is what nato was put together all about. the whole thing was, they wanted to become part of nato and russia is objecting. if we don't help the amount -- them out the world will understand we are weak. thank you. host: donald here in washington, d.c. is next. could morning. caller: yes, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm kind of neutral because i'm from nigeria. when i came to washington, i used to be a member of the [indiscernible] and i used to follow people that

came from new york. i was new to capital. now i'm beginning to wonder if the united states, if its residents have anything to do with the policy here. because in nigeria for instance we have the worst situation happening at the moment. there was a contractor to win an election. they are killing more there in ukraine in a week. nobody is saying anything about that. 2% of the population they

invited and they are killing people for it. they are hiring mercenaries. that is a president who has intelligence. nobody is helping us. you give us a helicopter, you send us an invoice. ukraine, afghanistan, that is how much your country has spent. the lenski, he is -- zelenskyy is the president of the country there. i people have went to that country to study. they are trying to escape the war zone. nobody asked zelenskyy anything about that.

when it goes everywhere and addresses the congress, everybody gives him a round of applause. now you are bringing these citizens are giving them scholarships and putting them in the hospitals, giving them money. but it is what it is. it is the same policy you have in your immigration system. when you need other people that look like you, you open the borders for them. it is what it is, i support what you are doing. i think it is whiteness mentality. the people in congress are not protecting us. we are dying in nigeria, we are in mass graves children as young as 12 are left for dead. and nobody is helping us but we

keep talking about ukraine, ukraine, ukraine. what about the munro doctrine? isn't it about your still over there we are still over here so who is the aggressor here? host: and other donald raleigh, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i just what to say a couple of things and i will be brief. a dictator wants five things, money, power, control, territory, and finally they want to be worshiped like a god. putin meets all those criteria. don't forget, folks, putin had a bounty on u.s. soldiers in afghanistan. he fooled u.s. presidents.

he was 43. he obama. he was telling him he would have more leeway and trump just swung right over in the bed with him. biden was a wise old man who came in at the right time. putin started threatening nuclear war. that is a nonstarter and a non-winter. if there is nuclear war he would not have his money. he would have no power. he would have no control. and the territory, his on people would kill him for what he sent and he's not worshiped. what about the maga thinking folks. that after biden's victory that they would rather be living in russia then living in america. do you guys, i want to say if

you are living in russia, you will probably have been contradicted by non-probably would've been killed. one reason for that is you would be wearing one of those alleged bullet-proof vest that are hall at out inside. host: that is donald in south carolina. lewis in maryland, you're next. caller: hello, how are you doing? i just wanted to call to say everything that i've heard especially the last three callers before -- for everybody to answer this question you have to understand that we put ourselves in the situation. we basically talked him out of owning nuclear arms because of the situations going on within those countries. we are responsible but nobody is saying that. this would not be happening right now if ukraine had nuclear

weapons. this was a country that was intelligent enough to have nuclear weapons. we disarmed them. with the promise to take care of them. i guess nobody knew that putin would try to take over. it's like having a neighbor with the shotgun and you live in in the middle house and i live on the other site and i tell you give me the shotgun, slingshot, if he comes over here messing with you we will protect you. everyone is talking about doing too much. were doing too much? we are in this because we put ourselves here. host: talking about the memorandum back in 1994 is that what you're talking about? caller: yes, you have to know your history. we put these people in this situation so we are responsible.

host: this is joe in new york, good morning. caller: omg, you know what i mean? the whole scenario about policy our military policy throughout the world. can you hear me? host: yes, i think you are going in and out. try again to get you on the line. in the meantime we will go to tom in pennsylvania. caller: yes, good morning. i would agree with the previous gentlemen about we are to blame for this. and furthermore with the budapest in 94 we talked about ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons.

very similar to the north korea situation who had nuclear weapons to bargain with. anyway i would like to go further back. we are very sure when it comes to history. i don't know the exact year, i believe it was in the eisenhower administration, we met russia time for time. and let's go back to the cuban missile crisis. we met russia with firepower. and in both situations, putin back down or -- who back down? russia. we had our influence there when put in light up -- lined up on the border we would not be in the situation today. that's about all i have to say, thank you. host: charles in michigan, good

morning. your next. caller: good morning, john. how are you? host: doing well, go ahead. caller: i was calling, i just wanted to know, have you heard of dr. jeffrey sachs before? host: tell me who that is. caller: he seems to me like he has put some things out there lately that i always admired the man. he has a pretty interesting take on ukraine and america's involvement. it's one that we are spending way too much stuff. ukraine has, you know, they got a little bit of a checkered history over the last few years. i also want to give a shout out to donald in d.c.. that's interesting how things always happen in african countries and nobody knows

anything about it but here we are sending billions to ukraine. bring dr. jeffrey sachs on here and ask him about that. he is a respected person. he would also do well with the covid pandemic situation as well. thanks. host: james in hampton, new hampshire. caller: good morning. i'm not an individual informed on foreign policy however this is a geopolitical question for america. since the president of russia when we established the present

options of all the countries no members of nato exercise their own option to withdraw from the soviet union. this established the present power of alignment in that section of the entire world. the united states was first in the evolution of ukraine not following russian dominance. my opinion is this is well-versed on supporting and continue to support even at a higher level to a rather independence to express itself. host: what is your line? too much? caller: russia is already crossing a line invading the country. host: i mean in terms of u.s.

support, higher level? caller: i would not like to see the u.s. at war but it's necessary to defend the independence of ukraine but it is not our national interests. it started out something like 30 and they opted to leave the old soviet system which i experienced early when they had very low standards of living in very little independence for each state. it collapsed financially. in fact, my daughter was aware of this going way back with gorbachev. yes, i think they are worth defending. not only of the u.s. but in

europe. if host: scott in northville, california, good morning. caller: good morning to everybody in the c-span audience. i'm really enjoying the program a lot this morning. a lot of tremendous calls, tremendous viewpoints. i want to make a couple of different points here. i think this is the point any time regarding this ukraine situation where we are truly missing president donald trump. and leaving all the hatred of the equation for one moment i don't would have your audience have a look at bidens withdrawal in afghanistan they ran out of there like chickens and left a lot of folks behind. this is the real truth of the matter despite them telling us that the greatest evacuation in the history.

we saw people hanging on airplanes that 120,000 people were evacuated. when you hear the reporters that have sources on the ground there you see how tragic this was for a lot of our folks as well as a lot of our allies. that brings us to ukraine. donald trump lost that election by 40,000 votes in three states. and i'm here to propose that he not lost that election we would be seeing world peace in a big way like we were and i'm focused on the world peace. let's leave all the other donald trump shenanigans and comparisons out. i would ask the audience to look at world peace and i'm sure nothing would be happening in ukraine and it would be a beautiful world like it was and i really do appreciate you guys on taking the call. host: that was just in

california. chatting with viewers for this morning about this topic and bringing members of congress to talk about -- from capitol hill. is congressman chris stewart. your thoughts on this announcement, the 31 aim one -- m1 abrams tanks and what it means for u.s. support going forward. guest: i have always supported efforts in ukraine. i'm an air force pilot i stayed on house intelligence committee so national security is something i'm deeply involved in. i support our efforts to ukraine. i do think we are at an inflection point. i think we need to make sure our goals are aligned with president zelenskyy's i think he wants to go much further than we can support him. he can expel every russian at of

crimea and if we attempt to do that vladimir putin will respond. and the second thing is this, every time you have these proxy wars there is always an escalation on the others. it never solves a problem it increases the violence and as many times as they televise this or i'm not saying we shouldn't send the tanks and just say we should be thoughtful and also recognize that it may not have the desired effect. it may not create a conclusion to the war it may lead to more death and more violence. so the expectation is helicopters and fighter aircraft. is that in your mind? escalation were we shouldn't go? guest: the other thing is it's almost entirely impractical. let me get back to the tanks it's not like they're going to show up next week and the military in ukraine begins to

use them. it will probably take more than a year for us to train them and get them what they are capable using such a sophisticated weapon. is not something you do over a weekend. it will take months, like i said, probably even more than a year. that's even more so when it comes to aircraft. just because you can fight a soviet aircraft doesn't mean you can put them in the plane and dig them the buttons. even if they have previous experience. so, again, it's almost impractical if you want to affect the battlefield right now or over the next few months. it would certainly be viewed as escalatory and always always hesitant to the idea of sending american fighters. host: there was a poll recently

on americans support for ukraine. it is so high but it is slowly fading according to that survey. what would you say to americans who are falling in that slowly fading category? guest: i understand how they feel. once again i will emphasize i support our efforts in ukraine. i think we responded the way we should have and i support the additional efforts in the following months to send equipment and more money. ukraine leadership has to realize we can't do this forever. we shouldn't do this forever and at some point there has to be one of two choices either you show us a plan where you can achieve your goals and we agree with the goals or what i think is more likely and what i hope the administration would do is quietly reaching out to both sides and say what do you need in order to be satisfied here? isn't there a pathway where we can have a settlement that would

end the bloodshed. that's unfortunate that some people are not happy with the settlement that is the real world. that is the world we live in. i'm hoping the administration is taking those steps because they will be wary of this and they will begin to say what would we do with another hundred billion dollars? or another hundred billion dollars? i think that's a fair question to ask. and also this, are we making the world more or less dangerous if things to need to escalate in ukraine. they will if we continue to send more sophisticated equipment. i would feel less safe with 31 less abrams takes nearly 200 less artillery pieces, 38 less highmore systems, surveillance drones, the various armored vehicles, are we depleting our

own ability to defend ourselves? guest: i think in the short-term the answer is no, we are not less safe but if we continue down this path what we will be. our munitions industry can keep up. they can human -- manufacture at the rate we would need in ukraine. china is watching this and china is asking these questions and measuring. i'm worried more about the day to day munitions. and again that's not the kind of thing you create an manufacture. it can take years. we won't have replaced our javelin missile systems until

2026. it's a 384 years before we replace that weapon system. those are some of the questions we need to ask. host: we appreciate you taking up our 9:15 segment. a report this week specifically on that, how prepared we would be our munitions of stockpile if u.s. goes to war with china, but a hypothetical situation. we will talk about that with seth jones coming up in about 15 minutes. different topic, to ask about you remember the intelligence committee, the reaction to speaker mccarthy not seating to democrats on the intelligence committee. they were talking about it with the media yesterday was your reaction? guest: i think democrats should

be able to see whoever they want on their committees. when nancy pelosi and the democrats kicked republican members off and also we wanted to see certain republicans on the january 6 committee but having said that the intelligence committee is different. it is a select committee and there is a certain standard that should be applied. they have not met the standard and getting on the committee and looking almost everyday we were in the middle of the russian investigation. mr. schiff would go out and he would normally where there's collaborative information, we knew that wasn't true. a seventh grader would have been suspicion of this relationship. a college student who had access

to powerful people. it raises all sorts of red flags. they shouldn't sit on intelligence committee they simply have lost the trust of the members of congress who feel the committee is different and they need to have higher standards. host: we will see you back in studio sometime today. thank you so much. host: we go to senator ben cardin, our fourth and final member of congress joining us, good morning to you. >> good to be with you, thank you. host: i know you are a member of the foreign relations committee but first, your reaction to the m1 abrams tank announcement from president biden? >> obviously, it unleashes the

ability of germany to live up to its obligations and deliver its tanks. these tanks are critically important in regards to the gridlock we have right now in ukraine between the russian forces and ukrainian forces. this will allow the ukrainian forces to mount an offensive to regain some of the territory russia has taken in ukraine. host: when the idea of tanks was floated last year, there were concerns about escalation, that this would escalate tensions between the u.s. and russia. are those concerned still there today? guest: i do not have those concerns. this is been going on for almost a year now. russia has escalated over and over again, targeting urban centers, committing atrocities. russia has been the aggressor and there's no justification for

their invasion of ukraine. the country needs to defend itself and we are not escalating. the country that escalated and started this conflict was russia. host: ukraine once aircraft, helicopters, would you support that? guest: i support giving ukraine everything they need to defend themselves. sometimes we have to work out how useful particular equipment is and where it's available and our supply chain issues, our needs. there are other considerations. we have to make sure they will be used effectively by the ukrainians and both discussions take place at the same time. president zelenskyy has been aggressive as of the type of equipment he wants. he is an incredible leader of ukraine and has been effective in the international committed to getting support and we have responded. ukraine has been able to defend itself but will need more help. host: on the supply chain

issues, what about the united states own military supply chain? are you concerned about depleting munitions or capabilities with all we have sent to ukraine at this point? guest: it's not just the united states, it's our allies. the type of defense equipment we need to provide our national security, i'm convinced we have not jeopardize that and we have concentrated on providing the additional inventory we need not only to defend ourselves but help ukraine so i am not concerned. host: in the senate foreign relations committee hearing today, defense officials will testify on countering russian aggression 11 months into this war, what do you want to find out? guest: we want to find out what we need in order to change the calculations. it's sort of becoming a cold war we don't want that.

we want to know what ukraine needs in order to successfully complete its defense and for russia to lead -- to leave ukraine. the questions will center around the current lines of conflict, what is needed for ukraine to be able to have the military advantage. some of this is done the classified setting. we had a classified briefing on this yesterday which i cannot talk about. i think this hearing will provide a glimpse as to the current status of ukraine. host: to the larger work of your committee in the senate, who is our guest geopolitical threat in the world now? guest: it depends on the issue. china has the greater capacity economically to jeopardize the national security of the united states. we have to keep our eye on china, they are much more aggressive globally particularly on the economic front and there is the potential of conflict

with taiwan. china clearly is what we need to spend most of our time on. russia is aggressive in the use of its military so we have a national security threat from russia. iran has been aggressively supporting terrorism and we are concerned about them. there are countries but i think china is probably our greatest challenge. host: we will let you get back to work on capitol hill today, senator ben cardin committee on the senate foreign relations committee and we will have that on c-span3 this afternoon. guest: good to be with you. host: about 10 minutes left on this topic on u.s. aid to ukraine. has it been too much or too little? we have a special line for current and former members of the military. a couple of colors are waiting on that line including tommy in georgia, good morning.

caller: good morning, can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i think we are not giving ukraine enough support fast enough to push russia out of their country. i am disappointed in the republican party. you actually had a guy come on your line and say that trump was still president and we would have peace and prosperity. russia has a madman, a madman bombing women and children and we want to stop giving aid to a country that's trying to push them out of their country. i don't understand their thought process. president trump said in his second term he was going to pull us out of nato. can you imagine if we were out of nato and what would be going on now if this madman had his

way? i just want people to think about that. host: tony in texas in the line -- on the line for current and former members of the military. caller: as i was listening to your guest earlier from the senate and the house, congressman stewart and i are in agreement. he answered most everything regarding this particular question. now, on a geopolitical point of view, the country needs assistance and we need to help them. some of the other callers, there is information that can be corrected -- ukraine did not own its own nuclear weapons. it had soviet nuclear weapons left in it when the sioux viet

-- when the soviet union collapsed. we were negotiating on getting them out. host: going back to that agreement? caller: yes and vladimir putin, in his own life, he was a kgb agent and he woke up and went outside to find out the wall had come down. that's a lot of his anger. i did not vote for donald trump, barack obama or joe biden. i am not in the political fray, but i have to tell you that from what i've seen, vladimir putin, being the kind of person he is, he respected donald trump, maybe not respected, but he had more apprehension and he wasn't going to do anything. realistically, i believe that donald trump would have been an

effective block in the invasion would have never happened. if you consider that in 2014 when russia took the crimea and the response was nothing. we left about little green men walking into ukraine and we didn't do anything. that is exactly why i believe vladimir putin time did -- timed it until we changed presidents. i am not defending donald trump, i am not accusing anything but i really believe there was a direct weakness and if any of these biden accusations of corruption in ukraine were real, then there is a really good possibility that vladimir putin was also reacting to that

because he may have been suspicious of what we were doing with ukraine then. host: george in brooklyn, good morning. caller: good morning, i just want to say a few things. first of all, sending 30 m1 abrams tanks to ukraine is absurd, it's irrelevant. it requires an incredible amount of support, the fuel that it consumes. it's just not a practical munition to be giving to ukraine. they are going to be destroyed just like all the other equipment is been there is really irresponsible to send that. this is the result of the u.s. state department policy, people

like victoria nuland who are taking us to war all over the planet, left nothing but death and destruction in their wake in syria, libya, iraq and afghanistan this conflict in ukraine is a result of u.s. foreign policy trying to push against putin with an irresponsible attitude. putin is not a madman. he's a very smart and calculating person. he knows what he is doing. he is not crazy. these are all narratives that are put out by western media. he is very much in control of himself and his faculties as country as military, his economy

and everything else. host: this is glenn from new jersey. go ahead. caller: there is an over estimation of russia's military abilities. there are three examples from history, the 1905 war between russia and japan where russia was beaten and lost most of their fleet. it led the first russian revolution we set the stage for the dish set the stage for the one in 2015. the second time was during world war ii when stalin and had learned -- and hitler's sign the nonaggression pact, russia was not an ally of america. hitler's justin voided the invasion.

russia would have been our enemy then. the third one was the collapse of the soviet union after they were beaten so badly in afghanistan. i think if we continue to give more and more support for weapons systems to ukraine, we can bring about an internal change in russia when the soviet union collapsed. there isn't one drop of american blood being shed. it's just a matter of sending equipment and that's what my point is. give them everything we can to try to bring about some change. it won't be permanent, it never is, but it might give us a few years where they are less capable of invading the rest of europe. thank you very much. host: maureen, toms river, new

jersey, go ahead. caller: good morning. a lot of the callers i have agreed with on a bunch of different points. the ukrainians are fighting our proxy war and it's terribly unfortunate because russia had complained for decades about security concerns for the expansion of nato all along their border. they said ukraine and georgia, that's a redline and there have been many callers that have agreed on that. that's a statement put out in september of 2021 that we will support ukraine a matter what and find a pathway for them to join nato. they knew this information coming in as it was going to happen and was not justifiable for russia invading the country

but the united states foreign policy's death and struck and everywhere and it's not for the good of anyone. it's just world eminent -- domination. we are seriously escalating the war right now. taiwan and china are very antagonistic and aggressive. it's terrible because it's a national security risk to us. we just put ourselves in this position all the time. host: we will talk more about china and taiwan but we will ended there in terms of -- and it there in terms of the segment. we will be joined by seth jones of the center for strategic and international studies to discuss their report on the u.s. armament industry and specifically china and taiwan.

that will be right after the break. we will be right back. . ♪ >> book tv come every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing the latest nonfiction books. at 8 p.m. eastern, philip wallick shares his upcoming book. he explains the legislature is a necessary piece of government and talks about addressing the challenges then at 10 p.m. eastern on afterwords can buck argues that big tech companies like apple and google are hurting commerce and censoring speech. he is interviewed by wall street journal reporter ryan tracy. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and for the full

schedule, go to your program guide or watch any time online at book tv.org. >> from c-span essentials this winter, during our sale going on now at c-spanshop.org area sato 20% on our latest collection of c-span sweatshirts, hoodies, blankets and drink wear. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operatn. enter thco on the right to shop now through monday at c-span shop.org. >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2, exploring the events and people to tell the american story. at 7 p.m. eastern, the contagions of liberty, the

politics of small tax -- of smallpox and how inoculation became a force to achieve independence from great britain. at 9:30 p.m. eastern on the presidency, jimmy and rosalynn carter, chronicling their lives and work together from 1975-2020. exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a ide or watch online anytime at www.c-span.org/history. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have a discussion on u.s. defense capability. the headline from the hill newspaper from earlier this week, according to a study, the

defense industry is unprepared for a war with china. what makes us unprepared? >> the challenge we have now is that it's the defense industrial base and it's both industry and the u.s. military. we do not have sufficient stock files of munitions that will get us through even the first few days of a possible conflict in the taiwan straits of china. the challenge is less about war fighting but more about deterrence. part of the u.s. defense strategy is to deter chinese actions. you need adequate stockpiles of munitions and capabilities to do that and that's the problem is it's long-range. host: how do you know what's adequate and how much we need in the taiwan straits? guest: one way to do it is

through wargames. we've arranged wargames with 24 different variations of wood at the taiwan straight dish of war in the taiwan straight. -- of war in the taiwan straight. we were quite taken aback by this. we run out of a range of precision munitions very quickly in a war. add onto that analysis the quantitative modeling you can do. we've talked to folks on the hill in the defense industry and the department of defense on this issue and all came to the exact same conclusion. host: csis.com is where you can go to find that study. empty bins in a wartime environment. seth jones is the author that

reported is joining us to talk about it. are these empty bins because we are sending so many munitions to ukraine? guest: no, that's an important question to ask. the war in ukraine right now is very different from the type of war or deterrence required in the indo pacific for several reasons. it's a perfect ground war in ukraine. what the u.s. has sent are things like stingers and javelins. what would be required i merrily in the indo pacific is largely maritime and air. you are talking about huge distances and a country like china with much bigger military capabilities than the russians have. what you need and that kind of a conflict or submarines, long-range strikes because the chinese will push you back because that got so much inventory and you need things

like strategic bombers. it would be absolutely wrong to equate those two. what the u.s. should be doing is providing support to ukraine and preparing for something in the pacific. host: tensions in taiwan are not new. why are we unprepared? why was this a surprise when we ran these wargames? guest: this issue is not new people have been talking about the for years. it has changed on several things. one is what the war in ukraine has shown us is that a conventional war, unlike afghanistan or iraq, when you are fighting a major power or trying to deter them, it's an industrial war. you need munitions because you expend them at large rates.

11 months into the ukraine war and both sides are using lots of munitions. you also need a lot of hardware. stuff breaks down and that has highlighted these kind of wars are industrial wars. the second issue that put us on alert is there is a sense of urgency with conventional war not being hypothetical. the russians invaded a country. this is a real possibility. i cannot tell you how many times we spoke to people before the war in ukraine, senior officials and european governments did not believe something like this was possible in this era and clearly the russians of prove everybody wrong. host: how does a war in the taiwan straits start? what starts the shooting? guest: there are a whole range of ways a war like that could start.

we looked at the chinese invasion and didn't focus as much on the actual trigger event. to go to it would g-man okinawa, that's a huge in for b is landing against taiwan -- that's a huge amphibious landing against taiwan beachheads.

we are talking about that invasion of taiwan. what's critical is to deter that even from happening. those stockpiles are critical for deterring a war to begin with. this is less about war fighting than more about deterrence. host: 45 minutes till the house comes in. phone lines are open if you want to talk with seth jones about this report that came out this week. let's go to president biden from yesterday at the white house talking about the u.s. contribution and the international community contribution to ukraine. [video clip] >> the u.k. is donating challenger to tanks to ukraine and france is donating amx vehicles in addition to the leopard tanks that germany is also sending, also a patriot missile battery.

others have donated launchers. others have donated critical air defense systems to help protect ukrainian skies and saved the lives of innocent victims who are the target of russia's aggression. poland is sending armored vehicles. italy is giving artillery and denmark is sending howitzers. let the when he is providing antiaircraft guns. host: that's the president talk about the importance of the international community contribution. if there were a hypothetical war between taiwan and china, wouldn't there be international contributions that would fill the bins you are concerned about? guest: one would hope so but probably different countries.

the primary countries on the front lines of a war in pacific would be japan, south korea, australia, philippines. the types of munitions you be looking at would probably less what we see in ukraine with tanks and high mars. in the pacific, you were talking more about maritime. host: do these countries have these weapons you were referring to? guest: some, they are in the process of building them right now. there is big discussions right now between the u.s., the u.k. and australia building submarines. maybe the australians will buy submarines. the japanese have already announced an increase in their defense budget they are looking at buying tomahawk's. same thing with the australians. they are filming theprism

missile and tomahawk's as well. there is a growing recognition among the u.s. allies and our nurse in the indo pacific that they will -- the urgency is because of the time it takes to do that. we have a two-year window to produce long-range munitions but if you need more, you got to build in an additional time for negotiating real estate deals, you need insurance to cover it. the defense industry has said you will ask us to do more, it will take some time. the u.s. started in the late 1930's for when it eventually got into world war ii. if this stuff doesn't happen in months, it's a multiyear process. host: stan from texas, the line

for democrats, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. you had senator cardin on before. i understood from them that we do have the weapons. they are not worried about that. now you have this gentle man telling us otherwise. what are we supposed to make out of this? host: we were talking about the announcement of tanks for ukraine yesterday. i will let you respond. guest: when you look at the biden administrations, the foreign policy focus what the current administration calls the

pacing threat. is the u.s. and its allies prepared for potential war fighting in the asia-pacific? categorically the answer is no i've talked to senior members on the republican and democratic side. i've spoken to folks within the u.s. defense industry and folks of the senior levels of the pentagon as well. the answer here is pretty unanimous. in the indo pacific, we have a long way to go to build capabilities to deter china from aggressive action and they are in areas like long-range munitions, submarines. we are making progress on some of the long-range strategic farmers. -- bombers. i'm think anybody could say categorically when the chinese might invade taiwan. none of us know.

the u.s. president and uniformed military officers have said it's almost the third term for the current chinese president so he met -- so he might take action on taiwan. host: what is strategic ambiguity? guest: it's not making it clear what the u.s. will do in a certain situation. people have talked about this in the case of ukraine. the u.s. administration made clear it was not going to enter a war in ukraine before the russia's -- before the russians invaded. strategic ambiguity is not as clear with raises questions about what the u.s. will do. there are many reasons based on

how things transpire come you don't want to show your cards. host: is where we spend our dollars showing our cards in a way? guest: it is but what do you use it for? you need to show your cards to some degree for deterrent value. the chinese need to know if they were to act in taiwan, the u.s. has the capability to fight. the germans needed to know that world war ii and the japanese the same thing. we did not have the capability at that point. i think it's important to show the capabilities even if you are not going to tell anyone specifically what you are going to do. host: you are on with seth jones. caller: congratulations on studying the scenario as far as china-taiwan conflict. i think you've made an important

contribution to the debate. the question of strategic ambiguity seems to be elaborated on further. you say we like the capabilities to deter china from attacking taiwan. i think when you to focus on the question of intent and will and that's an important component as much as capability. do you think the united states is conveying to china through statements on taiwan that we will defend taiwan? or are we leaving that question open to get the chinese to be tempted? guest: i think there's been growing statements by senior u.s. officials including the military that the u.s. would defend taiwan. i think we have to be careful because the u.s. is committed in the case of taiwan to a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

not through war. chinese aggression against taiwan would be a redline for many in this administration and the last. the taiwan call for independence would not be helpful. that would not be a mutual resolution of the conflict. we don't want taiwan to unilaterally come -- declare independence and we get dragged into a fight against china. we want to continue to have both taiwan and china committed to a peaceful resolution of the conflict. that's where some ambiguity is important. in the case of chinese aggression, like russian aggression in eastern europe, we need to make it clear that chinese aggression will be met

with a response. host: akron, ohio, terry, you were on with seth jones. caller: thank you, you probably already answered my question. the nato alliance is pretty strong and it's not the same as what we have in southeast asia. how committed are we to the defense of taiwan? given the fact that i think some of those countries over there probably aren't too rigid to go to work against china. -- aren't too ready to go to war against china? guest: that's a great question. when it comes to the indo pacific, there is not an alliance the way we have in europe right now. i don't think there is going to be for the foreseeable future.

the u.s. has some alliances in place with australia for example, japan. there are various organized -- organizational structures which includes japan and india, australia and the united states. but there are some arrangements like the strong relationship with south korea. we haven't historical relationship with the philippines. there are some bilateral relationships with countries in the region but we are seeing growing worry about china from all of these countries. the indians have been engaged in border skirmishes with the chinese. the japanese have increased their defense budget. i met with senior australian officials and their worried about chinese expansion. this gets to the broader issue -- there are inherent tensions

between the china we have under xi jin ping, about the communist party in china which is political, economic system. it's different from our own. it is not a democratic system and it's not one that supports an open and free press and doesn't support capitalism. there is a big crackdown on companies in china. we will have growing tension between our democratic system and china. they have been trying to push changes in various aspects of the international community and you see it in their reluctance to investigate the origins of the covid crisis. that means if the chinese were to expand through military force, it would pose a big challenge to democracy, to our free market system, to the

openness that we and their allies in the pacific and europe value. that puts us into a conflictual situation. host: the headline on the washington post -- guest: let me start by saying that we didn't do an assessment of the defense budget. i am sort of agnostic whether the defense budget should go up or down. we looked at these changes that have to be made regardless of the defense budget. in terms of a wartime budget and what the implications are, there

are significant restrictions in place on foreign military sales to foreign governments. there has been an effort to loosen those. the time like it can take to export a system to a country that is begging for them can be years. an example is there is a system that taiwan was asking for a system that takes two years. you can start that but that's a 2025 delivery. you ask foreign military to do it, the bureaucracy the u.s. has led by the state department, there was a lot of paperwork involved in a range of activities. that adds another two years to that delivery date so that's 2027. that is the time were some have predicted the maybe you are in the midst of a conflict with china. part of the issue is what we

have done already with ukraine. it's finding ways to make it easier with key allies and partners to get systems in place and export them. if host: the bins are empty, what are we selling equipment overseas? shouldn't we be using that equipment to refill the bins on our own? guest: i think it's both because when you look at any scenario i can think of that they are multilateral conflicts. we need our bins filled and our allies need their bins filled. in world war ii, we fought directly with the reddish and the us trillions and canadians and the french. the same thing in the pacific. our first priority as a government in the u.s. is still our own bins. the problems there are things like contracting. we have a process in place of

one year contracting for a range of munitions. the defense industry has been asking for multiyear contracts so they can build. the worry is our companies going to be given the money to actually do that? are they going to be hung out to dry? host: pennsylvania, democrat, good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i hope i can keep my thoughts straight. i tried to get in on the last segment. glad we are sending the abrams tanks to ukraine. i have worries that these things way 80 tons and it will be mighty difficult to get them where they belong at the front. the germans rented to the same problem in world war ii with the tiger tanks. they were so heavy and complicated that a lot of times, they were out of action. i also think we need to provide

longer-range weapons to the ukraine because right now, russian civilians are not paying a price like the ukrainian civilians. as far as taiwan, we need to get our chip manufacturing back into this country because of something was to happen like an invasion or a blockade of taiwan, this country would shutdown virtually overnight. we only have ourselves to blame for this. the company i work for started buying parts from china, i believe it was in 1989. this country has sold itself down by going to china for cheap labor. they made china. thank you and have a nice day. guest: on the tanks, the abrams for example, the army has reassured the administration and

general dynamics that they can get the tanks were they need to go. probably to a country like poland and then across the border. the russians never put blocking forces along ukraine's western border with countries like poland. you can get a lot of stuff into ukraine. the tanks will be useful. i have not heard much concern from the army or industry about getting those tanks were they need to go. the tanks will be helpful to ukraine. on the supply chain side, there are issues. one of the things we have seen with ukraine is a conflict or increased tensions to bring in sanctions. one of the challenges the u.s. has is the industry relies on a range of various components of

its supply chain like the rarest metals. the u.s. relies in the chinese for his rare earth metals which are an important part of some weapons systems. i think there is a need to find more resiliency on where you are buying some of your key components for systems where the vulnerabilities are. there has been some recognition in the last administration and the chip act in the current administration. i think that will continue to be a full-court press on this issue. host: about 16 minutes before the house comes in. until then, we are chatting with seth jones about u.s. defense capabilities. csis.org is the web address and

you can find his study -- empty bins and a wartime environme, the challenge of the u.s. military industrial base. seth jones is the author of the report. this is from texas, good morning. caller: good morning. it looks like a beautiful day there. regarding the aid to ukraine, we haven't seen this level of depravity from a dictator since hitler's, i don't think. i could be wrong about that but they are aiming at civilians over there so we have to support them wherever we can. regarding tiger tanks compared to abrams tanks, we may have upgraded a little bit. i hope so. maybe there are instructions they can understand. what other kind of defenses would you send to ukraine in addition to tanks?

in your opinion, what do they need more? guest: that's a great question. i think the reason i would argue the aid is important because what we have here is a government under vladimir putin that has invaded a foreign country, a supporter of the united states in a country that has tried to push more western, democratic, more open. what's been disturbing is how the russians have adopted something called a punishment strategy which involves literally targeting the ukrainian civilian population with weapons. we've seen them involved in what peers to be alleged human rights abuses in ukraine. the bigger picture, leaders across the globe need to understand they cannot get away with this kind of activity.

this is not just about russia and ukraine. chinese need to see if they need to do that kind of invasion of taiwan, there would be repercussions. as for the types of systems, my view is that this is a ground war. when you look at the activity in ukraine, the fighting at the contact line involves long-range fires, aircraft also shooting buyers, it involves maritime vessels. the issue is what is needed to help ukraine conduct offense of operations to retake territories the russians have taken since february, 2022 but even before that.

what they been asking for is more long range munitions. attackum is a missile that put on a himars system. the normal missiles you put on their can shoot like 30 miles. attackum will shoot 190. they give ukraine longer-range capabilities. that's critical because this is a slugfest. the ukraine's and been asking for aircraft. we have not given them aircraft. i think that is coming. you need aircraft to fire long-range munitions and you needed to can duct surveillance and reconnaissance. we haven't given it to them but

they are desperate for it. those are two types of systems -- there has been worry that every step of the way, from some of the administration that if you give ukraine some of these systems that the russians will retaliate, they will escalate the conflict. the russians started this war in the first place in their hounding you any and civilians. also they have not escalated area we have not seen the russians escalate. they can't really do it except nuclear weapons. i don't think the cost-risk calculation will make putin do that. some of the worries about russia escalating are unfounded. this has been proven in every step of the war so far. host: next is fred on the

independent line. caller: i am puzzled in that something you touched them -- upon about aircraft, why the love affair with tanks? if you have aircraft and missiles and drones, don't you think russian tanks would be vulnerable? giving the ukrainians tanks will take time for them to learn how to use the abrams and leopard tanks. should you use tow missiles and drones and satellite identification to knock out russian tanks? guest: great question. what i take away from your comment is the importance of a range of these systems and platforms. you need unmanned aerial vehicle drones and the u.s. has provided

some smaller versions. the turks have provided drones. you need tows and the u.s. has provided some of those. where the tanks come in handy and this is why ukraine has been asking, is because the close up fighting going on in the donesk region, in order to push in infantry like armored fighting vehicles and put it in tanks are critical because they got fire capabilities and the ukrainians and russians are using them. the issue on the air strikes is no one owns the skies right now. because of the surface to air missile capability, stingers, neither the russians nor ukraine's owns the sky. one of them did, it would pose a more significant threat to the tanks on the ground but because

no one has air dominance, tanks little bit more useful. i think the caller is right, a range of different systems will be important. there tanks have been destroyed or a number are broken down on the russian side. host: what has the war in ukraine taught us about the future of warfare? guest: one of the most interesting developments is the use of drones. in terms of the future of war, when i was in the u.s. government in the department of defense, we used drones primarily for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance. it will flight in the skies and collect intelligence through signals as well as full-motion video. occasionally, the u.s. would use

those to strike targets. there were terrorist targets in the last 20 years. what we see now is ukrainians and russians are using them for arrays about things like electronic warfare, putting up drones to jam signals, information operations so you see them taking video pictures of the ukrainian striking a russian target and putting it on youtube for propaganda. they will push of drones to identify a target and artillery to disrupt the target or aircraft shooting missiles to strike the target or maritime vessels striking a target. or even using drones after the strike for battle damage assessment. what this means in army speak is that drones are being used in

combined arms operations in ways we've never seen. we look at the future, this revolution in robotics, we are seeing similar views of the use of not just aerial drones but also surface vessels and subsurface vessels in the indo pacific. how do you use robotics to get close to a target? one thing that makes a drone or unmanned system different is that you don't lose a pilot when they get shot down. this has been a fundamental rethinking of how wars are fought area host: a couple of menace before the house comes in, texas, democrat, good morning. caller: how are you doing? what's host: host: your question or comment? caller: i tried to get on the military line at a while ago.

two parties have become one. they need to have military on a separate line and then i would have better feedback. when it comes to ukraine, it's too much right now. host: you think the level of support is too much right now? caller: yes. host: what was acceptable and when did it become too much? caller: [indiscernible] we were going to put nobody on the ground.

nato had to come in their and the other 500 countries are part of nato. guest: his point is laudable they are careful not to fly aircraft into ukraine. we have not applied ground forces into ukraine right now. u.s. systems are being used in the u.s. is providing intelligence to ukraine and helped train ukrainian forces so the u.s. is indirectly in all.

the u.s. is not directly engaged in the only way at this point for the u.s. soldiers to die would be if the russians expanded the war outside of ukraine and started hitting u.s. soldiers deployed to poland or germany. the russians are careful to keep the were confined to ukraine right now. some say we have given too much to ukraine but my personal view is every indication now is the russian counterattack, we have her u.s. officials raise the possibility based on information they collected on a march timeframe for russian and fences. the russians are pushing into these now. -- into the east right now. without continuing a system to ukraine, there's a possibility

the russians will advance and retake more territory. this started from a provocative russian invasion of you praying dish of ukraine. the goal should be to prevent the russians from taking and incorporating territory that doesn't belong to them. host: as we wait for the house to come in, on the idea of americans being killed in this fight, we are talking about 31 abrams tanks being shipped to ukraine. they have to be moved into ukraine at some point. what if russia targets the movements of those into ukraine? is there a possibility that americans could be killed getting the systems into ukraine? guest: since the beginning of the war, there have been u.s. and other european systems. those components often get broken down and exchanged and handed off at the border.

it would be generally killing ukrainians transporting it. to kill americans, you would have to fire missiles into poland to strike americans. u.s. soldiers are not moving the equipment into ukraine. ukrainians are generally doing that. host: what part of your report having we talked about yet? guest: the issue is what do we do about it? one issue we have looked at is the united states has operational plans for areas like china. what hasn't really been done is an analysis with a protracted war, what would the u.s. need in terms of key weapon systems? these are important for deterrence. what do we need based on a working range of