the range of the atacms is -- would go well into russia.he president has been trying to tread a line between supporting ukraine and their built to defend their country and not providing weapons and material that could lead to a significant escalation in the war. that's the line. you can say, okay, maybe they should have done abrams tanks a couple of months earlier or whatever the weapons are. i think the administration has done a pretty good job of trying to tread that line. the results are that we haven't seen the escalation that we have been worried about. the conflict is limited, at least in terms of geographic area. i'm not one -- i understand the administration's reluctance on the atacms, because again, they are a long-range essentially artillery missile hybrid that can reach well into russia. i think that's what the president is trying to -- he is trying to be careful with. i think that's an appropriate action. we have given them tanks. we have given them drones. we have given them training. the material that they have to fight this w

they are going to produce their own kind of atacms missile to strike into crimea.be they did this with drones but the drones are getting more sophisticated and more capable so the ukrainians are not going to want to allow russia to have a sanctuary from which it can strike ukraine and certainly not crimea which they consider part of ukraine, no sanctuary there. so ukrainians are determined to strike deep. this is part of their counteroffensive and they're not going to relent on this. >> let me ask you about striking deep. there are f-16s that are going to be handed over to the ukrainians but first they have to train for them. twofold question here, how long does the training take and how soon do you see those f-16s making a difference potentially in this war? >> maybe six months at the earliest, probably nine months. they probably won't be fully operational before march, april, may of next year. and here is the thing, we would never have launched a counteroffensive against this kind of a defense without air superiority. we've encouraged the ukrainians to do so and

. >> are you thinking about sending atacms surface-to-surface missiles yet? is that something on your mind at all yet? >> yes. they already have the equivalent of atacms now. what we need most of all is artillery shells. and they are in short supply. we are working on that. >> meantime, closer to home, the secret service set to brief staffers with the house oversight committee today on the cocaine recently found in the west wing. lawmakers various questions about security at the white house ever since the incident 11 days ago. today's briefing is going to be behind closed doors but next week lawmakers say they are preparing for a blockbuster hearing where two whistleblower also tell congress federal prosecutors gave first son hunter biden special treatment during an investigation into his taxes and business dealings. later this month, the first son is expected to plead guilty to tax-related misdemeanors. republican lawmakers are also asking new questions this morning about his past business dealings after an email dating back to 2015 appeared to show executiv

the big fear was not giving them atacms was two fold. we don't want them hitting inside moscow and they could reach. number two, they have proven that they can be trusted when it comes to that. and the last one is we don't have many. we have a small arsenal attack only about 4,000 have been manufactured since the missile was developed in the 1980s by lockheed martin we don't know how many we should give because we have all own need for them. the overall theme for when this conflict is over america has to do a much better job of producing weapons if not only for our own defense, everybody wants to buy them. there is a profit in all these sales. taiwan is still waiting. turkey is waiting. a lot of our allies are waiting. they have to transition out of that russian stuff that we can't resupply and fix into western defense systems. they are not happening right now. for some reason, we are not producing weapons. after 20 years of war, we never heard about this, this new system is we are not able to make the stuff even when people have money t

obviously hugely significant they're saying those storm shadows that the atacms are similar to that and they can use them in a similar way. "outfront" now, a russian investigative journalist whose site has been blocked in russia, along with the retired air force connel cedric leighton. and thanks so much to both of you. let me start where alex finished, the death of these two top russian commanders. so one on the battlefield, one on a jog. tell me the significance of this if you just take a step back, these both happening really essentially the same day. >> basically, erin, the big thing here -- >> okay, sorry, it sounds like it was just -- okay. all right, sorry. we've lost the colonel. i apologize. the commander shot while running, the russian submarine commander. the ukrainian defense intelligence agency puts that detailed statement out on telegram saying, the submariner was jogging around 6:00 a.m. he was shot seven times. as a result of the gunshot wounds, rzhitsky died on the spot. so that detail coming from the ukrainian defense agency. are they admitting they did it? >> yes, it

we have the atacms that go further than the himars.he ukrainians have already showed great discipline in not doing anything with their weapons that would get nato in additional trouble. that is starting to target multiple targets inside russia which you can't blame them if they did start. so you have the cluster bombs in there you have the french pledging long range missiles. now, we have told our allies, can you give some of the f-15s we sold to you, you could give them to ukraine. but we're worried that russia is going to misinterpret it so we're not giving any of our f-15ss to ukraine. we said in the fall we will begin to train ukrainians on the f-15s. why are you waiting until the fall? there is no roorve to wait until the fall. >> ainsley: what are the rules when this comes to nato. why can we give cluster bombs but not certain planes. >> steve: they are controversial. >> brian: individuals. and certain countries in nato that don't want us to do it. the u.k. is one of them. but, if you look at what the russians are doing. they are

with a story quietly american officials are talking about finally giving long range missiles, the atacms to ukraine because the french have said you can have them. i can see you need them and now america goes maybe we should have sent them all along. again, the incremental allocation which could be coming their way has people killed. you eventually give them what they need. but you don't give them detective in which they need them. if attack couples are going to come. why are you still debating it. it should have been done or not done six months ago. >> ainsley: president trump weighed in on the cluster bombs, he said joe biden should not be sending us into world war iii. he should be trying to end the war and stop this horrific death and destruction caused by the incompetent administration. this these munitions could be killing and maiming men, women and children for decades to come. a few republicans are for it like senator cramer from north dakota i'm fine for it that the other side is fighting the war with these munitions, the clupser munitions. they have them and they don't play by

but i think there is still that we need, like is still more that we need, like long—range missiles, atacms know, in f—16. and i think you know, in the meantime, we will continue to do what we do best. smart war using drone warfare , taking using drone warfare, taking advantage of the enemy's weaknesses, identifying their vulnerabilities along the front line . and i would like to stress line. and i would like to stress that we have not committed our major forces yet. so that's still ahead . still ahead. >> do you think that the absence of the wagner group and indeed the instability in russia has proved to be an advantage to you yet it hasn't translated into any tactical operative or strategic advantage on the battlefield, but of course, you know, whatever makes russia weaker , makes ukraine stronger weaker, makes ukraine stronger and makes victory closer. >> so we watch carefully. you know, the developments in this failed state, failed terrorist state, russia. and you know, we see that not all is good in the dutch kingdom. and i think that they are headed towards an inevitable disaster, bot

it's atacms missiles, which still somewhere in the warehouses in the west .raine but still not here. so i think it's not really good to comment that we are moving not so fast, not giving us everything what is needed for counteroffensive based on my information, based on reports from our military, we are moving quite good. mostly thinking about life of our soldiers and trying to target russia and logistics. that's the priority number one for today. >> but but clearly that the problem is you have weeks, perhaps months before the weather, then also becomes an enemy for you . enemy for you. >> already survived during last winter. we know that the winter is not the best ally for any military actions. but don't forget that all last winter it was not a frozen conflict. it was not a frozen conflict. it was hot stage of the conflict of the conflict. despite of the weather. i think the same will happen this time during winter. 23 to 24. yes so we would be happy to move faster. but again, very much depend on the quantity and the quality of military ammunition which ukra