us, cnn. it's called most a, the ukraine is spend to be invited states, a total shut down will be responsible. what do you mean? most aid a to ukraine is spent in the us. uh, that's not what ends to be blinking says nicely, or people on the press department podium or in the white house. they say this is for the people of you. great. well, the 2 are not exclusive, but i wrote the piece to give a sense of the many different elements of what is referred to as a g o crane. because a dual credit is really a misnomer. this is really aid as a result of the war and ukraine. some of the aid goes ukraine. some of it helps ukraine. some of it helps the united states and other allies. for example, a chunk of the package of a g o crane pays for us forces to deployed to eastern europe the nicest. begin those deployments right after the war began. they were at about $20000.00 troops.

it down to about 10. they're there to reassure the europeans and improve the trends against the russians, but paying for that as part of this aid to ukraine, but that money, most of the most of it stays the united states. another example is weapons. when we send weapons with united states and weapons to ukraine, there's money to replace those weapons. that money goes mostly to us, arms manufacturers. so the weapons themselves go to ukraine, helps with granted, and it's a fight against russia, but the replacement of go see us manufacturers. so when you consider and agriculture, you actually, i mean people can read it online, but you mentioned agriculture as well. that's right. uh, there's a piece of the humanitarian, a that helps countries who are suffering as a result of the disruption in the global of food trade,

particularly we coming out of ukraine and russia and the front of agriculture overseas programs in united states that helps those countries with food, you see the, your endangers, and he, like julian hassan, she said it's a laundromat, and actually all these was the money gets recycled and actually comes back to the united states. that's why your article, maybe because of the shock, because it's usually an argument made by the anti war left in the united states and the mag of republicans, of even they, some of them get donations like you have a situation where the weapons companies they want to keep this secret, i don't think so i, i've seen a number of commentators and even a members of congress making this argument. you know, there's nothing secret about it is i know just because the money is sent to me. i say it doesn't mean it doesn't help ukraine, for example,

with the provision of weapons which you manage, cherry and assistance a, you know, the fact that it ends up in the united states, i think, should maybe make people little more comfortable with it. but in many instances, doesn't mean that that helps you create any less to the interesting thing. is the korean jump? yeah, the white house spokesperson, john liz was shouting out to him because biting it said the shut down of us government was over ukraine. and she refused to confirm that. that was true. of course, lots of debates on so cool, mainstream media there about it, but your, your piece is very much trying to persuade people or to continue support for the landscape on the basis that the shut down would be responsible. is it your understanding that the bone of contention here is ukraine and the funding for ukraine? i mean, it's hard to even quantify the the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been

given to ukraine or given to the united states. 3 great. yeah. um, your credit was one of the elements, the, the broader element was about a government spending in general, the republic and right wanted to reduce all spending defense but also the spending and you know, the government as a whole, as a result of your that you know, they were holding to the government class stage of ukraine is a part of it. it's important to know to know that when the community resolution went to the floor of the house and passed. overwhelmingly, if a bill supporting a h, a u crane went to the floor of the house, it would also be supported over one. when the, the problem is that there's a small group of conservative republicans who are determined it to cut government spending and cut

a to grant. and because of the narrow margin in the house, they have a lot of latitude. we're talking just you know, less than 2 ends worth of people in the house. um, do this for as or is it? yes, the vote was very marginal in florida against the speaker. i think there were 6 republicans who voted against the speaker with the are the democrats now, if you could pay a bill on the floor about your premium for aid, it would probably get $80.00 to a 100 votes against it. but that means that that would still be $330.00 ish votes for it. so it would pass overwhelmingly, except it is cnn poll, which is being running uh since february last year it shows a majority of americans in the united states oppose funding for the war by 55 percent. 55 percent of both a majority claim. the us has done enough,

majority of us have obviously said that a to it endangers us security. it's reflected in polls in europe as well, way. it's even bigger, 76 percent of both military financing, 74 percent of both financial support. i mean, there's a huge mismatches in there between the say that cnn poll and the congressman, the you're talking about who is old, as you say, will always guarantee more funding for the landscape. but there is a split between congress and i think the current pulling the support for the war has been quite strong up until recently. but i think that reflects maybe the broader view that congress has taken it. it's also not clear how deep that opposition is when you see it in congress, but again, it's about 25 percent of the house. okay, well, i'll get to the new federals in

a moment, but tell me about the significance of nato's joint warrior exercise in this week of letting me a page and 71st, but they, they're going on in the northern scotland. and obviously in the shadow as was of hundreds of thousands of ukrainians having been killed in the past 12 months or so . well, i think it's important. keep in mind that nato has drill is going on all the time. that, you know, it's not that this one is particularly focused on the current conflict was probably planned initially years ago. but it is a symbol in an indication about nato's continuing readiness. continuing to focus on russia and, you know, may be somewhat on trying to also, nato is a military alliance. and this is a reminder that they'll tre alliance is conduct exercises in order to the

enhanced occurrence and to be ready, just complex to come. but why are they uh, losing, i mean, all these billions at all is where the weapons are being sent. and clearly, you know, no, no progress seems to be being made in this calendar offensive. obviously, has some pizza impressions gain more ground actually. and oh, it's just being sent to you, great. and to be destroyed by the russians. so what if they were always practicing war games? why they failing? and of course, i could say that in the context of the fact that the united states has been defeated in war after war. of course, after vietnam, where i understand yourself. i did desert storm. also, i'd say the united states has quite a successful in that. i think the conventional wisdom on the united states is that were very, very good and conventional conflicts likes,

doesn't storm. we're not very good at insurgencies, as we saw in the latter part of iraq and afghanistan. but this is conventionally new drain. is this uh, no. ukraine is a different situation because it's the ukrainians who are fighting. you know that they need an exercise and that's for nato troops and they keep nato ready. the ukraine, of course, is not a member of nato. we are supplying them with weapons and trading. but you know, they have a long way to go, they have to be fair to them. they've greatly expanded their armed forces. they've taken a lot of casualties. but you know, the, they, you know, they need to have a continuous flow of weapons and training if they're going to continue resistance. and that's true of every that's going to make a lot of money. i mean, al terry, do they even have an munition to practice with on this, the nato exercise today? because there's report, i mean, we've heard before, comments from people,

we actually had trucks spinning of the infamous spinning report on their show. telling us about, um, not only the and effectiveness of some weapons, but also the loss of ammunition. we now here from the war source security for room, the admiral role bower and they told me that the committee says the bottom of the barrel is now visible. basically, nature doesn't have any munition. how did we get to that situation? a, is it true? and uh, are they just practicing with the, what's a don't mean? i mean issues and on the nato exercise. um, i wouldn't say that nato is, i would have the admission that the nato countries still have some stuff last night . so, but this is the scene nato's most senior military official. i have no real bo, i'm sure you know of him, but i use a same thing in the united states. but when, when they say we're at the bottom of barrel, what, what they mean at least in united states,

is that we're at the bottom of what we can give to the ukrainians. to give you an example of, of general initials with given above 40 percent of our javelin inventory to ukraine, the pedagogy we looked at the given anymore because we would need to add 4 other possible conflicts, for example, in korea. so when you hear people say we're out of javelin, we're not out of javelins, we're either java is that we can give to ukraine without accepting risk. that the pentagon believes is unacceptable. how would they help in korea javelin miss? i was given that i know from the trump, from him was why you rushed if young and i or these to meet with kim jong, who in so quickly was when he heard the, as every president has do that, the north koreans can destroy los angeles. in 33 minutes, i'm showing javelin, besides a kind of useless and so on. day on the north, koreans have a very large military,

very large of ground for us. and if there were a, an extended conflict on the peninsula of javelins would be very helpful. but what creates also have a lot of change now the very old tank when they just hit the united states, see it is essential if the and the us gone protect themselves from the, you know, the united states has a missile defense system that is, in fact designed to shoot down north korean missiles, you know, it's never been tested against a real missile, but there are defenses there in their ability to strike the continental united states is still extremely limited. and if they did that, of course, united states has overwhelming fire power. it could bring to bear, which i've done a lot of stop you, the more from the senior advisor on the international security program with you as arms company funded sense of a strategic and international studies. after this break, the,

the media has basically been totally on the side of a button and the administration when they say that, well, if i should take 2 crane and they're going to take the baltic, states that they're going to take all the, all of which is ridiculous, and this is what the american public has here a lot of report and i think has spelled out very clearly why russia intervened. and a lot of it makes perfect sense. the the, [000:00:00;00]

the, the welcome back to going on the ground. i'm still here was, were tied kind of all of my accounts in senior advisor, the international security program at the center for strategic and international studies. kind of, we were just talking about actually north, north korea. you know, there's a lot of control as the over those, the defense systems that you have in the united states. they're infamous the secret and by and they can only shoot down at most 3. isn't it? 3 words in the north koreans can shoot for, i don't know. why is it though, that uh the united states is holding a emergency drill. that's

a nuclear drill. this week just now is off to russia, held the nationwide drill. that means in your country and re phone every television set, every radio image feel um, uh, in this case uh that it's a rehearsal. well, this sort of thing is not uncommon in the united states. they test the nuclear broadcast system. they have done that radically over but many, many years. it sounds like the 1950s. okay. and i'll show you when's the last time for sure. the, the broadcast system and i think they tested every year. it's tested, you know, quite frequently united states takes these precautions seriously of the importance of being able to communicate and disaster. i think i might also points out that these capabilities are not limited to nuclear wars and nuclear incidents, you know,

they can be used in natural disasters also. yeah. they famously didn't work and now we of course were given the fact then the, the munition is running low bottom of the barrel, according to nato. what happens if um, what happens if the, the stuff to you great, does that mean there really will be a negotiating table time and people can actually start to negotiate some kind of piece rather than fueling the conflict. a lot depends on how much a gets to ukraine. if united states cut off all a, do you create in all of the elements of that a it would be hard for ukraine to continue, is resistance. the europeans in global community contribute a lot. it's probably not enough to keep the ukrainian armed forces in the field. they would be forced to negotiate some sort of in place ceasefire. and that would give, put me at least

a partial victory controls about 18 percent of ukraine and the settlement will allow him to keep that so. so it's good if they run out of weapons because they'll be peace talks and they'll be a season. and people, few people who can be killed, i'll get by hand and, and put in will have a partial victor in, you know, if you're comfortable with keeping food and in power with a partial victory, then i think that's a when, if you're uncomfortable with that, then that's a lose. so you said put it in in power. i do this is what about keeping page in in bowers? it's all to do with the resumed change in rush, or is this cool? well, if pulling wins the war, if there's a negotiated a ceasefire on the current line, and we'll claim that that's a victory and that will ensure that he stays empowered, movies, particularly very, very popular anyways, me. but i mean, i that certainly don't want to be names, but funny enough this week. also the state department released their integrated country strategy. i think believe it goes that it was leaked wrongly,

but actually it was up there on the website. and what about the fact that the most of the state department paper is talking about the importance of us? i mean, visitor, take one line. they basically say the whole of ukraine is corrupt, so i don't know where all the money is ending up. it seems to be the implication and the management objective of the usa department, recruit, retain, drain and integrate a premier team to advance us policy goals. so, they issue a paper which basically says the ukraine must be, is completely corrupt. it needs to be reformed urgently because the political control is wielded by only galks and there's a whole system of corruption, an empty democratic uh, some anti democracy there. so that's the, that's from the state department. is this really about democracy at all?

i mean, i know you mentioned regime change in russia. is this really a war from start to finish about? about russia? nothing to do with you create? oh, truly about both of russia had not invaded ukraine, who would not be having these discussions in russia and they, that ukraine, uninvited. it was a deal of aggression on their part. uh and do say on provoked on us media, do you, do you agree with that? it was unprovoked, there was about, i mean, rush or argues that the existence of ukraine as an independent country is a provocation though it never, you know, that mean what you're the means get cards ratified of the un security council. and it's the violation of that. the rest of your claims is that is the reason for it. you said in 2019 nato expansion weakens nato. quite a, quite a statement. what, what did you mean by that?

and is nato today as its weakest in the history argue that nato is that it's, we just, but i, i do a worry that expanding nato further east towards adding countries that are not fully stable, of would undermine nato's confusion. anyone listen to you when you wrote that piece, because clearly the people in the state department, the policy thing, thanks winning for your thank day. did anyone listen to you when you said that? because i've never seen a to expansion like it in terms of new members recently. and the 1st thing in the hi. so it goes about the fact that some of aka is now led by someone who clearly does not agree with the of i would do any blinking goals. well, i wish i could say that people have listened to me, but they clearly have not. you know, we're talking about bringing in, uh, uh, you know, a variety of countries, you know, we brought in a number of bulk and countries. um, you know, i,

i don't think that stream. why do you think they listen to you? as you know, there's tremendous momentum to expand nato. you know, many countries regard nato as, as something you know, like the e u. i mean a good thing to belong to. and, you know, has some benefits and don't regard it as a security alliance. you know, you know, the down play that part, play up the political part. so unfortunately, i think that there's just a lot of political momentum towards expansion. you see that in the discussions about ukraine also, of course that's what we're glad that we have food and has been saying since 2014 and the my then a q arguably other people. what listing do what you were saying because all the leading presidential contenders for next year's election appear to understand that there are dangers with this unalloyed expansion? well,

what do you think of the fact that the leading opposition figure in your country, donald trump? once immediate negotiations because our f k junior much more popular than bite and he's running cornell west. they all want the water and the aid to ukraine to stop and reevaluation of uh, the united states as role in nato. and i was more full was about the american people who suffer so much it since the economic crisis of 20 o 8. i think that there are also a number of candidates who strongly support the war. you can see nikki haley in the hand. you know the falls about nikki haley and i'll be here just then probably number 2 after donald trump, donald trump's all over the place. you know, when he's out of power, he says that he a lender to lend a war in a day. you know, for donald trump, it's all about donald trump. you know, i mean,

given that you observe these issues and as i say, said there with dangers with nato expansion. why do you think russia has not level key of, i mean the russian, the think tanks and analysts will say that the initial stages on february 22nd last year with many a response to the increased chatting on the don't bass and east and ukraine. you clearly understand that the russians have the power to level of care of in an hour . why do they not do this? and why do american them? let's continue just say, well, we're going to pull more weapons and we can win this war and so on. when, as we know, the more the, the united states in western europe or in the more of the russians will just use to destroy all that machinery equipment in personnel and, and, and sons and brothers and fathers of the ukraine. and knowing that they can always with i mean, you don't seriously think about you're going to lose hardship and certainly lose

power based as well. you can see that they are being badly traded on the battlefield. they're taking casualties. probably $2.00 to $1.00 compared to the ukranian, $2.00 to $1.00. where is this figure coming from? i mean, you said they're running out of ammunition unless they desperately in need of an munition. i mean, what i, i don't understand when you are me that treatment and you're a pentagon official, you're comfortable, you know, the rush. it could just, if they decided to just go for it. were other than this slow. so it means of course, people like that get to started this house, speakership or destruction. and this week said the dollar eyes ation was the fear he was concerned with when he put the motion in the house to one seat. the speaker does no one in the us security firmament. understand that the united states dollar is under attack and the united states has to do something to

defend it. and the animal is arguments for ukraine. they destroying the use of the federal reserve and the dollar around the world. or come back to the dollar in a minute, but through the answer this question about being able to level cheve in an hour, the only way they could do that is with nuclear weapons. and of course, that would be an escalation that would have, it doesn't have to be new theory can be a, a safe and conventional weapon. as you know. now the, these, the russians have run out of conventional weapons. they've, they've tried to level chief, what you've seen is the maximum they can do. their aerial attacks have become further and further apart. they become weaker and weaker because they just don't have that many areas. this intelligence information coming from that you're getting because everywhere in the global south, they're getting different types of information fairly engaging. they're getting really, very different information and they certainly must have watch for his extra saving retents. and this week saying that ukraine is really about the one china, where are you getting this information?

they've run out of conventional weapons losing it to, to one of their with some excellent works by c s i s, but also some other think tanks. for example, lucy in the u. k. has done some grid analysis on the cruise missiles and the cruise missile inventories that the, the russians have. and these are people who track the missiles, want you know, individually and keep a account. so i think that their analysis is pretty dependable. wait, wait. well, what about the motive? what about the motive of ruthie? i like to minimize 6 in england and your center for strategic and international studies. with your, your finance by arms companies. it's in the interest of your institute and a ruthie both institutes, but of course got us into so many wars in libby air and iraq and afghanistan and syria lost by the united states argued weight is in the interest to prolong the confidence in more more weapons to be destroyed because it makes more money for

those ins for the donors who then supply your salary. you need to look at the data that they provide the data for any other organizations that make an argument, this space. i think lucy has shown that their data is objective as has c s i s, and i would recommend that people look at that data and make their judgments about whether it's reliable, which i kind of thank you so much. i happy to join you and that's for the show will be back on monday with one of the candidates running against joe. by the next is us elections and a battalion bodies, jacob horn burger, who like all the candidates are f k, junior and cornell. west would end on the shipments to the landscape until then keep in touch by roll. social media is nonsense as in your country and had to our channel going underground tv. hon. they'll come to what you handled episodes of going undergrad. see you monday.

the media has basically been totally on the side of a button and the administration when they say that, well, if i should take ukraine and they're going to take the baltic states that they're going to take all the, all of which is ridiculous. and this is what the american public is hearing report, and i think has spelled out very clearly why russia intervened. and a lot of it makes perfect sense. the start the shower and the bone,

the soldier monument was erected in 1947 in the estonian capital by the soviets. authorities originally built above the burial side of troops remains. it's the memorials of the soldiers who gave their lives in world war 2 was the risk of the informing service. the william forgive for really confused. in 2007, the stony government decided to relocate the monument from the city center for the year on that. i've got the i, me to a, to really the sooner frustrated to move divided the population. estonia is large of russians. the community strongly opposed. it's an intense, rising growth, college and talent. these have since become the as the bronze knight drives me to bring us

a few people across the globe, here's lane, down on television, damaging residential buildings as how last week. probably a guest is really the highest price, but hit somebody in areas and goes as the primary plan. as a yahoo says he's, come, fee will do only cost to destroy and all the places where how mazda is hiding, we will destroy them, because the residents must be evacuated from those places because we will destroy them. the