How the US and UK’s aid package to Ukraine will destroy Putin | EXPLAINED

This is serious, this is not a war of choice. I mean, Putin is waging war in Europe and threatening everyone and unless he is seen to fail, we

will

all be much poorer and less sensitive, and I think that message is now. It is now clear, I mean that different European countries have different views on what they should do about it, but very few European leaders and citizens now think that we should not do anything about it, we should leave it alone. Most Europeans now understand that this is our problem. and we have to face it and I think it is very different from the situation a year ago, but what they need this week and this month are 155 MIM artillery shells, 152 mm for tanks, 120 M mm for tank guns and ammunition. and air defense systems in particular need more Patriot batteries and Patriot batteries cost around a billion dollars each and of that around 400 million is the cost of the battery and up to 600 million is the cost of the different munitions.

They fire, so they need air defense quickly because the Russians can use their Air Force in standoff mode from many miles away dropping glider bombs on cities like Hariv and along the front line that is wreaking havoc on Ukrainian defenses, so if they can neutralize that quickly that

will

make a big difference, but beyond that, beyond ammunition and anti-aircraft artillery, they need more equipment of all kinds to be able to reorganize properly for the rest of the year. The problem that Ukrainians have in the first place. It's all missiles and gliding bombs hitting their cities, so Chiv Sui and particularly KV, which is the second city right on the Russian border or on the border with western Russia, are very vulnerable now that Kiv is a big city, but It seems like the Russians are trying. do to that city what they did to Mariole in the south, it's a bigger city and it will be more difficult for them, but they are going for power, um, water supplies, they are trying to make life intolerable in the city and they are attacking civilian areas and they are doing it in two ways: one is with ballistic missiles like the Escanda missile, against which it is not impossible to defend oneself, but good anti-aircraft systems like the Patriot are needed to defend against an incoming ballistic missile and the other way in What they do is with these Glide pumps called Fab 500 Fab 500 and there is a Fab 1500 and the 500 is a 500 kilo pump that costs £1,000 the 1500 is a 500 kilo pump that costs £3,000 in effect, it is a ton and a half of warheads and these are very old bombs and the Russians have literally thousands and thousands of these bombs, but they found a way to put Little Wings on them and give them a very crude guidance system, so These bombs can be dropped from airplanes to 30,000 feet up to 50 or 60 miles behind the front line and they will glide from that height to their target and they will hit their target with enough precision given that they are large bombs if 20 or 30 meters from the target they will still cause a lot of damage and those gliding bombs They are something that is very difficult to defend against, there is no easy defense against them, the only way the Ukrainians can do anything about it is to hit the plane before they release it and that means they have to have good anti-aircraft missiles, long-range, high-altitude missiles that they're now going to get to be able to target these planes when they're 30 and 40 miles away from the front line, but they also need their own planes, they need their F-16s and any other planes they can get. and they're not going to get them anytime soon, but they need them to fly in a certain quantity to protect the airspace. above their own front lines and maybe to chase some of these Russian bombers, these Su 34s and their 35s into Russia, they have to chase them well behind the front lines to stop them from dropping their gliding bombs.

The glide bomb sounds like a pretty specific thing, but it's actually a weapon that has made a big difference for Ukraine in recent months. The

package

is neither too little nor too late, but it is certainly on the wrong side of the right time to arrive. I mean, if this

package

had arrived in October when it was first proposed then a lot fewer Ukrainians would be dead a lot less Russians would probably be dead actually um and actually the Ukrainians would have held their lines and been able to catch a breath. During the winter because this package was delayed, they lost some territory.

They certainly lost a lot of people because of this. And now they are going to have to try to recover what they lost in the six months. It is necessary that this package be agreed, however, the fact that the package has already been agreed is very important for Ukraine. I mean, in these wars nothing changes the rules of the game, but in this case this keeps Ukraine in the war for the rest. this year means that Ukraine will not lose the war this year, it will not win it this year either, but they will be able to defend themselves, they will be able to plan for the future and they will be able to make it impossible for the Russians to put Ukraine into a political crisis, which is what they were trying to do. : a political crisis in kyiv that would remove Zalinski and replace him with someone who would then come to an agreement on the basis that the Russians would keep what they have conquered, I mean, this war represents the return of the Industrial Age War to Europe and the War of the Industrial Age is one of the sides that can produce the most and deploy it on the battlefields at the right time.

It sounds easy to say, but of course it is very difficult to do and since the end of the Cold War we have depleted our defense industries, as have the Russians to some extent, but the Russians have now prepared for a war economy. and we don't, so we're getting to this. so to speak from behind, but our capacity is much greater than the Russian capacity if we use it properly, so the objective of war in the industrial age is that you have to be prepared to prepare the production of weapons and you have to be prepared to think. of ways in which you can deploy what is necessary because the war of the industrial era consumes a lot of resources and we have seen a kind of use of munitions on the front line in Ukraine, the Ukrainians were firing around 10,000 shells a day at the time. a day and the Russians fired almost 20,000 shells a day, so they fire between two and three million shells a year.

This is what characterizes industrial age warfare. It's not pretty, we don't like it, but that's where we are because of what Russia is trying to do to Ukraine and threatening to do to other European powers at some point in the future, I think what the Ukrainians will be able to do is reject some of these Russian attacks because the Russian attacks of the last few months there have been waves of almost human attacks, I mean, the British Ministry of Defense estimates that the Russians are losing 900 men a day and that means dead and seriously injured, I mean, 900 casualties every day along the front and they can't afford to keep doing that and they will lose more than that when the Ukrainians get more ammunition, the only reason they are only losing 900 is because the Ukrainians simply run out of shells to shoot, they are even running out of small arms ammunition in some places, so the Ukrainians By the end of this week, they will surely start receiving more artillery ammunition, then they will be able to repel these reckless Russian attacks and I think that will be the immediate effect .

I think Russian casualties will increase a lot in the next two. or three weeks and they will lose a lot more equipment, so I don't expect the Ukrainians to suddenly go on the offensive, but I think they will stop losing territory in most places, they could still lose Shazia, which will be a real problem if they do. They do, but we'll see, but if they can stay where they are now and then gradually push back the Russians, they will be able to take a breather before the summer and then have some control over the situation. for the Ukrainians it's that all Helter Skelter was happening and they were losing control of what they were trying to do.

If you can dig in and establish, so to speak, a stalemate on the front, then you can start planning what you do next and One of the most important elements of this aid package that was agreed to over the weekend in the The United States is now allowing the Ukrainians to plan for the future that they could not plan when they retreated due to lack of ammunition. They can start planning what they will do in the future, and of course they want to try to do it well by the end of the year and next year, when they could make a more decisive difference.

I think the Kremlin had assumed that the aid package would not pass because part of their offensive on the entire front was based on the idea that they could squeeze the Ukrainians and that the United States would not deliver the aid package and therefore they would create a political situation crisis in keev um the fact that the aid package has been agreed is not only good in military terms on the front line, it is extremely important for ke morale, it is also important for the Europeans because the Europeans now have to match it, they have to show that I really mean it and stand behind the United States, which they are starting to do, and they are doing it to a reasonable extent, but now they need to do it more and for the Kremlin this is a disastrous week because they had based their current offensive in The assumption that the aid package will not be approved and the fact that it was approved also leads to other problems that the Russians will have as kyiv becomes more confident and can breathe some of the pressure that has been under down from.

Last year, in fact, the problems that the Russians will have now is that their current offensive, which is not very strong strategically, but is pressing in all places, will run out of steam, they will have used up a lot of equipment. There will be many dead and wounded men and they will get tired. Putin demanded that they press the entire front and you can only do that for so long before the troops are exhausted and if you don't achieve the objectives. and give themselves a chance to rest if they themselves come under pressure, which may be the case now, then they literally lose combat effectiveness and that may well happen and the Russians are already trying to pretend that this aid package is very dangerous , the danger of a nuclear exchange increases and again they use this magic nuclear word all the time, every time something goes wrong for them, they threaten a nuclear war and the real nuclear threat is no greater now than before this war started, but the Russians always use the phrase because they try to scare everyone with it and there is some evidence that they have managed to scare some people with it, um and that's what they are doing now and every time they start threatening nuclear armageddon in Europe .

You know they're having a bad day and that's what they've been doing since Saturday. It is very interesting to find out why Trump has changed his opinion on Ukraine a little and why he gave Mike Johnson the freedom to change his opinion. um I don't know what the answer is, but I suspect it was that Trump was looking at the accumulation of comments about it because I mean he says he can stop the war if he becomes president, he will stop the war in 24 hours and the reason why What can do that is that it would cut off all aid and Ukraine would have to surrender.

I mean, every war will stop in 24 hours if one side surrenders and that was his solution to the war and I think in the lead up to the presidential election, I think he or his people around him perceived that that was not going to happen. to work very well when subject to real scrutiny in the election campaign. You know his followers will believe him because they believe in everything he says. he says, but middle-ground people will actually be a little wary of the idea that this man is going to stop a war by telling the side that's been attacked to simply give up and surrender, and I think that when Trump thought I think he realized he needed greater nuance in his stance and the nuances he provided were enough to put this aid package within the Realms of Possible and it comes with some caveats: There are some face-saving caveats that They were not in the original package so that there is some control over how the money is spent in Ukraine, although most of it is spent in the United States.

There is some discretion for the president to withdraw the whole thing if he doesn't think so. properly spent, I am sure it is not unreasonable, there were some problems regarding the supply of ateka missiles, the ground attack missiles that give the presence some discretion, but on the other hand it was also accompanied by a bill. confiscate assets worth up to $8 billion that are currently frozen and give them to Ukraine and that goes beyond what anyone expected because it's actually a pretty big step and a pretty controversial step and I was really surprised to see a representative move of the Republicans. suggesting that, but there it is, they have done it and that is an advantage for Ukraine, although it may create some legal complications in the future.

You know that freezing assetsis one thing, but freezing them and then seizing them is another legally complicated one. and it sends a bad message to investors for years to come, but we'll see how it plays out. The Europeans are increasing their support in many different ways. The EU had a 50 billion euro package that they thought would help make up for the lack of an American package and then that 50 billion euro package was accepted, but it has been distributed in installments, so it won't have the same effect, but yes. be useful but on the other hand, many European countries individually now, given that if they cannot use the EU framework in the way they expected, they are doing things individually, so the Estonians have scoured the world for artillery .

Shells and they have found about 1.2 million shells that they can buy. The Czech Republic has done the same. They have created about 1.3 million artillery shells that they think they can buy, so there are over 200, unfortunately, 2 million artillery shells available. that would fit the Ukrainian systems, which will cost around three billion euros to purchase, so if the Europeans can commit that money, they can put these shells in now, that won't happen immediately because it's not like they're not sitting in Poland already. They have to be brought in from other countries and controlled, and everything else will take time, but Europeans, both individually and collectively in the EU, are now starting to really support Ukraine and the US decision on USAID on Saturday, in a sense.

It will galvanize that, I think it will actually create a situation where Europeans now have to support the American law, it challenges them to do the same and they need to be seen doing the same because I think the message has gotten through to European leaders. , most of them, if not all, that this is serious, this is not a war of choice. I mean, Putin is waging war in Europe and threatening everyone and unless he is seen to have failed, we will all be a lot poorer and less sensitive and I think the message is clear now.

I mean, different European countries have different views on what they should do about it, but very few European leaders and European public now think that we should do nothing about it. We should leave it, most Europeans now understand that this is our problem and we have to take it on board and I think it is very different to the situation a year ago, now the rich seem to be in Poland today and they will announce £500 million. funding and military equipment package for Ukraine, the Prime Minister will also meet his Polish counterpart Donald Tusk to discuss deepening relations between the UK and Poland and to hold talks with NATO Secretary-General Yen Stoltenberg of which we'll hear from our political editor Kate McCan, who Traveling with the Prime Minister just after 8, but first let's talk to Jerome Star, who is the Sun's defense editor.

Good morning to you, so how is this guy where is this £500 million package of funding and military equipment for Ukraine? Is this in addition to what was previously announced? Well, it brings in the government saying it raises UK aid for this financial year to three billion. There have been three consecutive annual UK aid packages that have put Britain in third place. The rankings in terms of bilateral aid to Ukraine are behind the United States, which in terms of military aid is ahead, but Germany has donated around 18 billion and this would take the UK's total contribution since the start of the invasion to large scale somewhere north of Ukraine. around 9.5 billion if my calculations are correct, it's never my forte, uh, but it is, it is significant and of course it comes as Ukraine has increased its requests for donations and specifically for military assistance.

I mean, it's been a constant refrain ever since. since the beginning of the war, but it has become particularly dire in recent months and that is actually due to the stalemate that we saw in Washington over a huge $61 billion aid package that was delayed in Congress due to opposition from Republicans and is expected to be approved today. After five months of wrangling in the United States, the $61 billion aid package has been approved by the House of Representatives, must be approved by the Senate and that will mean that potentially American weapons will begin arriving in Ukraine within a few days, obviously. anything the UK can donate will complement that, but I think right now Cher's real game is what's been happening in America, of course, in terms of what Riak is announcing today, like I said, it's 500 millions of pounds of military funding and equipment.

Is there anything new in that or is it what we've already provided? As I understand it, this is more than the UK has already provided. I'm talking about the UK Focus. Well, the weapons that the UK has donated are being incredibly extensive. You already spoke before. or rather in the newsletter about the 4 million cartridges, I mean the most crucial thing that Ukraine needs, it is heavy artillery ammunition, that is quite difficult to get, it is in short supply and there is a great demand, I clearly suspect it, given the numbers. the four million bullets which will probably also include small arms ammunition, I mean bullets to keep assault rifles firing, but the UK also talked about drones and really focused on their support for Ukraine's autonomous weapons that we have provided earlier, the Storm Shadow missiles. which have played a crucial role in some of Ukraine's most spectacular attacks, notably against Russian naval assets, ships, submarines and need a Navy headquarters in Sebastapol, but the UK is also specifically focusing on autonomous maritime vehicles and now supports the campaign in the Black Sea.

That is where Ukraine seems to have had some of its most spectacular successes, while the fighting on the front lines throughout the land conflict, if you will, has been quite slow, mortally costly for both sides, both in terms of men and ammunition, and not much. of land changing hands for huge amounts of lives and material, the fighting that has been going on in the Black Sea has been very different and that is where spectacularly successful attacks have been seen on both ships at sea and ships in port, there was a dry submarine. The first time a Russian submarine was

destroy

ed since the end of World War II and also in recent days Ukraine managed to attack a Russian air defense battery in Crimea and by eliminating it we would expect to see other high value assets have been left vulnerable and therefore That's worth waiting to see what happens there.

I mean in other places what Ukraine has been doing successfully, where they have scored goals, if you will, has been their long range attacks deep into Russian territory and this is something that has caused some anxiety in the United States because some Some of these attacks have targeted Russia's oil refineries and energy infrastructure, and the United States is concerned that this will drive up prices in the global market, fuel inflation, and make life more difficult in terms of the cost of living. for the Americans, but anyway that has been something that Ukraine has been determined to pursue and something that Ukraine has very briefly succeeded in, because you know some people have taken their eyes off the situation in Ukraine and you have talked about some small victories for Ukraine, but would you say that over the last year anything has changed or stayed the same?

No, I think over the last year Ukraine's momentum has slowly slowed to a halt, certainly in the land domain and Russia, where there have been advances on the battlefield, they have been Russia, so it was about a year ago, It was last May that we saw Russia finally capture Bakut, the city that had been the focus of its fury for many, many months. And then earlier this year, in February we saw Russia take AV divka in a similar conflict or a similar assault in which many lives were lost to advance towards what was effectively the shell of a devastated city, but, no However, both symbolic victories for Russia, the only real movement on the battlefield over the last year has been that, I mean, Ukraine had some successful summer counteroffensive late last summer, they managed to advance to a place called oriv in the south central district of zapia. but overall over the last 12 months battlefield movement in the land domain has not been very fast or very far, especially if you think about the beginning of the conflict, when there were big attacks and counterattacks. by Ukraine at Harv in the northeast and Hesson in the south, where the Russian forces were dragged back, you know, tens of miles at a time and we also saw, of course, we can't forget the Russian retreat from their initial assault on Keev , but those Ukrainian victories you seem to know feel increasingly distant in the past.

Well, Jerome, thanks for that. That's Jerome Starky, the Sun's defense editor, now in Poland, where he is shoring up the UK's commitment to Ukraine in its war with Russia, pledging another half a billion. pounds of funding two years after Russian invasion it looks like Ukraine is on the defensive the Prime Minister says he is giving the money ahead of what could be a difficult summer for Ukrainians um William do we have to whisper this but the possibilities This war is coming to an end with a Russian stalemate or victory. You are closer than ever to Ukraine losing this war or at least being forced to sue for peace.

Well, I was worried until Saturday and what happened. It was very, very important on Saturday in world affairs that the US House of Representatives passed the $61 billion aid bill for Ukraine and then - and it's not just the money, of course - that matters, but what is purchased because that covers a lot of technology and weapons that only the United States has, so that will make a very quickly, it will make a big difference, a lot of that is ready to ship in the next few days, so I think that Ukraine will now receive a new wave of support, which does not mean the war is over, but it does mean that it is not easy for the Russians in that situation.

Gain. Russia can probably continue at this pace. Experts say think tanks say that in defense a couple of years like this. Unfortunately, the outlook is still for a long war, but it is not easy for either side to eliminate the other if Ukraine receives this kind of support and the support that is being announced today by the United Kingdom is also very good because it actually It deals with very important pieces of military equipment like more Storm. Shadow missiles um and some ships and marines um Maritime artillery these kinds of things really count. Do you think there is a danger that people care less and less in this country of the United States?

People say we have all kinds of problems, you know? There is a lot of talk that we need to spend 2.5% of the money on defense. Many people say that we need to spend more and more to support Ukraine because it is our war, it is our war in Europe and we have to fight to stop Russia from doing it. Do you think that mentality will continue year after year after year? Do you think that at some point there will be a wave of ground as is already happening in the Republican Party in the United States, where they say that this is not our fight?

This is not a good use of our money. I think we are in a difficult stage at the moment in the sense that we are going to have a general election in the UK this year. General elections make us selfish. They make us focus on our own living standards, our own circumstances, our own experiences of the NHS and the media encourages us to think about that and to reflect on what we will do with that information when it comes to The Polls, which means what What is happening in Ukraine is not at the forefront of our minds nor, indeed, at the forefront of our political debate, but I am not afraid that does not concern me because there is a great political consensus in the United Kingdom throughout Europe and now, fortunately, in the United States on why we need to defeat Putin's attempt to seize power in Ukraine.

I think it's pretty telling now to hear William talk about the reality that this could go on for another two years. I think we all have the strength to support this for another two years the question is whether the public is prepared to do this indefinitely and part of that has to do with political education, right? This is about us all understanding that we live in an increasingly insecure world and that defense spending will have to increase to Answer that: we need our politicians to guide us in that debate, don't expect us to simply fall in line, yes, and two years is one thing, five years is another, 10 years is another and that is a question that only time will tell. is announcing a record amount of military aid to Ukraine, he is going to pledge an additional 500 million to Ukraine before flying to Germany to discuss defense issues with German Chancellor Olaf Schulz.

Now I'm joined by Jamie Shay, exDeputy Assistant Secretary General of NATO, welcome. to the show Jamie, thank you, good afternoon, nice to be back with you, yes you are a household name, you were ubiquitous a few years ago when you were speaking on behalf of NATO, so nice to talk to you, I mean the 500 million. of pounds. I have described it as a record amount of military aid to Curr. I mean, Britain has no shame in terms of the amount of money she has given to Ukraine, but it's obviously a drop in the bucket compared to the $60 billion. which the Americans just promised well yes you are right and the EU of course also voted 50 billion euros just a couple of weeks ago but the UK matters, number one, the UK was one of the first to enter the game under the Prime Ministership of Boris Johnson, of course, helped Ukraine to be the first to deliver tanks and the first to deliver cruise missiles, so it really played a very important role, particularly in terms of support for Kev uh theThe second thing is that this package contains the kind of things that the Ukrainians really desperately need: 1,600 missiles and air defense systems.

Four million ammunition. They may not be jets or tanks, but given the situation on the battlefield at the moment, these air defense systems, this ammunition, if it can be supplied quickly, will really be a shot in the arm for the Ukrainians. , so don't leave the UK. It plays a very important role because it tends to lead others. Go on and it's a good point Jamie, isn't it? In reality, what the Prime Minister is announcing is that the money is there as a kind of headline, but in reality he is announcing the transfer of real weapons in real time.

There is a big difference. between doing that and maybe what the Americans have said, which is here's the money, but how quickly American material is likely to get to Ukraine. Well, it's true that US suppliers have often not been fast in the past. There is always, of course, the bureaucracy of getting export licenses and approving these kinds of things, but the other thing is that the Pentagon has often had a bit of a debate about whether it should supply Ukraine immediately with existing stocks or whether it should go to the defense industry and say "look." You know we need you to make 100 Abrahams tanks for Ukraine, which could take months or even years, but the Pentagon has been waiting a long time, obviously, as you well know, for Congress to finally get its act together and approve this 61 billion. package so that they have had time to at least identify the equipment and stockpile so that they are ready to go as soon as the Senate, hopefully, today follows the House of Representatives and passes this package, would have been very negligent.

The second good news for the Ukrainians is that it appears that the United States is immediately ready to supply the so-called long-range strike artillery system that the Ukrainians have been asking for. for a long time it has a range of about 160 kilometers, which means that it is ideal for the Ukrainians to attack the Russian rear to prevent the concentration for a major spring offensive, which of course is what everyone has predicted at this moment, so yes. There have been some bottlenecks in the past but of course the United States is well aware of the rather difficult, I won't say desperate but difficult situation that the Ukrainian military now finds itself in having run out of many ammunition, missiles and air defense. so I assume they have made their preparations to get these supplies flowing as quickly as possible.

Great, Jamie Shay, thanks. Let's now look at the cross pier of Lord Richard Danner and former head of the British Army to try to really understand it. what does this mean in practice, very good afternoon, from us, hello, good afternoon to you, right, could you explain this to us in terms of we are actually going to understand what 2.5% of GDP by 2030 really looks like? The first thing is that it is good news that we have a toughened promise from the current Prime Minister to increase our defense spending from around 2.2% to 2.5% by the end of the decade, but that is actually still quite a long way off. far.

It's five or six years away, but listening closely to what he was saying, it sounds like there are significant amounts of new money, additional money, it's hard to quantify, but we're talking about 10 to 20 billion. pounds an extra year every year, between now and 2030, and that is good news from a defense budget point of view, whether 2.5% by 2030 is enough, I am afraid it remains an open question and there are several of us. of which I am one of those who have been arguing that reaching 3% would be a more appropriate figure given the uncertainty in the world at the moment and particularly given Russia's continued aggression on Ukraine, but, to give the current Prime Minister Se owes, has promised more money year after year, while Ukraine needs it, that is important.

He has committed to putting our industry, our defense industry, on a war footing. Now the important thing about this is that there are two here, particularly ammunition manufacturers. They have hesitated to improve their production lines because they were not sure that the government would provide sufficient funds; the Prime Minister today has promised that that will be the case so that they can increase their ammunition production and then The third priority he outlined, as far as I can remember, is innovation and improving the quality of weapons available in the three armed forces , so I think it's fair to say that these are considerable steps in the right direction, but is it going far enough?

Is it going fast enough? I'm afraid that's where the debate will be in the future. Yes, so if we can quantify this, that would be an extra £70 billion in core defense spending over six years. What does that really mean? I mean, it's possible to give examples of what that means. Well, you can see various projects across the board. Take the aircraft carrier strike program. We know that we have not currently purchased the number of F35 aircraft that we have promised and that we always said before. which we wanted to buy to fly from our aircraft carriers to make them credible, so that as soon as additional money is available we can place an additional order for F35 aircraft.

Likewise, there are around 20 new ships for the Royal Navy. uh on the drawing board right now um again some of these are just on the drawing board and they're not funded but if there's additional funding on the way it will mean that some of that shipbuilding can be accelerated now all These things are of course good for British jobs, then thirdly - and this is where, of course, I am most interested in a parochial way - the army has considerable plans to spend on equipment, particularly for air defense and field artillery, um, the type of artillery that the Ukrainians have been using for a long time.

In Ukraine, in recent years, only 20% of the programs the Army wants funded are currently up for contract, so 80% of Army upgrade contracts need to be funded now that we've talked about in recent years . While they want to contact the MoD, there is concern that, as always, at the MoD trying to find enough money to balance the books over the next 12 months is a big problem for them, so They are going to look to see. part of this money will be presented early to balance the accounts for next year and the other thing to say, which is not good news, is that there is a black hole, in particular the budget for defense equipment of between 15 and 20 billion . pounds, so if this extra money comes in there will be a negative use of some of it and that is to fill the black hole between aspiration and what is properly funded, so that's the result, isn't it the Cross party?

The Public Accounts Committee said in March that the gap between the mod budget and the cost of military capabilities could be £29 billion, so that's quite a bit, paying off the overdraft, isn't it before you can make new purchases? Yes, and before. long before anyone gets politically partisan about it - and I'm an opposition supporter so I'm not going to - it's worth remembering that in 2010, when David Cameron's government came in, there was around $40bn in the defense budget, so This is not new, this is more than an aspiration, more than an ambition in the Ministry of Defense, which does not coincide with the amount of funds available.

It is a perennial problem and needs to be addressed. Mr Danet, thank you very much for your time, we appreciate that this is late, that is Lord Richard danet crossbench pi as former head of the British Army said, well then we will soon act to raise UK defense spending to 2 and a half per cent of the GDP national income by the end of the decade, arguing that the increase is necessary because the world is in its most dangerous state since the end of the Cold War, the Prime Minister made the announcement at a joint press conference in war with Yen Stenberg, the Secretary General of NATO, in a world that is the most dangerous since the end of the Cold War.

During the Cold War we cannot and should not be complacent, as Churchill said in 1934, urging Defense preparation is not inserting the imminence of War; On the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too late. I believe we must do more to defend our country, our interests, and our values, which is why today I announce the largest strengthening of our national defense in a generation: we will increase defense spending to a new baseline of 2.5% of GDP. by 2030 starting today and increasing steadily each and every year over the next 6 years we will invest an additional 75 billion in our defense and it will be fully funded without increasing borrowing or debt.

The Wishy Sun law established what the package would include. Now we will have three immediate measures. priorities for this new investment we will first put the UK's own defense industry into a war that fits one of the central lessons of the war in Ukraine is that we need larger reserves of muni I and for the industry to be able to replenish them more quickly so today we are giving P10 billion in ammunition support to provide the industry with long-term funding security backed by long-term contracts so that they can produce more, be prepared to increase capacity and move to always-on production activate when necessary, from the surface to the missiles.

From Bolton to anti-tank weapons in Belfast we will replenish our stocks while supporting British jobs across the union. Rishi Sunak also announced another £500m to support Ukraine. NATO Secretary General Yan Stenberg prays for what he calls the British cast. ironclad commitment to supporting Ukraine and once again the UK is leading by example just as it did in 2014 after the illegal annexation of CA, when it was one of the first allies to provide military training and support to Ukraine and after the full-scale invasion in 2022. you significantly stepped up training for thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and provided billions of pounds of military assistance and today your announcement of additional support including more air defense munitions and deep precision strike capabilities shows once again the commitment of the British people to Ukraine.

I welcome your strong commitment to continue these levels of support to Ukraine for as long as necessary. Jan Stoltenberg, the general secretary of Naso, now let's welcome to the show, firstly, James Heape, the Conservative MP and former Minister for the Armed Forces, welcome to you James, good evening John, how are you? Well, thank you for joining us, so this extra two and a half percent by 2030 is an important announcement and that's enough, James, yeah, I mean, it's for you two, your questions, yeah, it's an important announcement, just I put it. in perspective, um, if the Prime Minister had done something different, if he had said: I've got 75 billion pounds worth of ads, uh, and I'm going to do 40 billion pounds on hospitals, 20 billion pounds on schools, 15 billion pounds on roads. or the entire 75. billion in tax cuts would be incredible news and he has chosen to allocate 75 billion to defense instead.

It is the first time in my life that a prime minister would have chosen that priority in an election year. I think it is the right decision, it reflects the geopolitical situation. uh the reality of the world around us and that the government's first priority is the defense and security of the kingdom, but you know the scale of it is seismic, now you will argue that it should be more, that it should come faster, I think. that that is rude today when the scale of the announcement is what it is and what this money will do is mean that our Armed Forces, as they currently are, will be lethal, more sustainable, more resilient and therefore strengthens our deterrenceconventional and Ultimately, it makes it less likely that our adversaries will try to confront us right now.

Some of our listeners James, who pay attention to defense issues, may remember Boris Johnson, the former Prime Minister who spoke at the NATO Summit in Madrid in June 2022, just listen. Again, we need to invest long-term in vital capabilities such as future combat air while adapting to a more dangerous and more competitive world, and the logical conclusion of the investments we intend to embark on from these decisions is to reach 2.5% of GDP on defense by the end of the decade, so that was the former Prime Minister and that was Boris Johnson and he set the priorities on the urgency and the need for this for this SP, why some may It took two years for Richie to reaffirm that policy now.

Well, I think the Prime Minister would say that he inherited a financial situation in which he did not feel that he was capable of making that commitment. To be fair, when he was seeing who could. support in the two leadership elections that have occurred since Boris Johnson gave that speech in Madrid. rishy was very clear that he did not feel capable of matching the 2.5 commitment that Boris and Liz had previously made. I know that it is a great credit to him that he has achieved the fiscal conditions that he believes he needs to achieve, but B who, as a result of knowing that he is in a bind, is at these G7 Summits and the G20 all the time thinks about the meetings.

He has had for the last few weeks reflecting on the threat, um to uh, from Iran, um, and he has come to the obvious conclusion, but with a huge political decision to return to that point. I told John honestly about all things. He could have spent £75bn on a Manifesto promise for the next Parliament, yes, and instead focuses on defense and security. I think he deserves a lot of credit. Yes, well, I don't doubt the validity of the spending commitment or the need to Yes we discuss it on this program almost every day, but I suppose there are elections coming up that will not be insignificant in the calculation, no, no, but look, I mean, every political strategist in the last six and seven general elections would have I told you the only thing that really matters is an auction on a compromise with the NHS um or maybe the kind of pension spending you know, anything else Whatever, there are things that are more immediately politically advanced and that you could announce that kind of money to spend. itself, um, now I think that reflects the Prime Minister being in the hot seat and reacting to the world around him and the threat that he can see to the interests of the United Kingdom and the fact that, as he put it in his speech I know you need to give the industry the power to start scaling, you can't just be on like that, so this is the right time to make the commitment, but I also think the British public is increasingly aware of the challenge to our National security.

And so I think the kind of political importance of defense is increasing. But. I have been accepting, if you will, for the purposes of our conversation, the importance of this expenditure and the importance of National Defense at a really difficult time. It's a difficult time, but they also know that tax issues need to be addressed. I mean, while the Prime Minister is doing this, making this promise, are you also or the Prime Minister and his senior ministers are also promising to abolish National Insurance, which is a cost of £46 billion and if there is to be a pre-election budget b , there will also be more tax donations there.

I mean, how could it be possible to promise all those things? Well, I'm going to allow myself the luxury of no I'm no longer the government spokesperson and it's not a legitimate question James no John, I am, I'm not, but I just don't know the answer and I would be speculating, uh, if I understood the conversation. What I had with the Prime Minister and the Defense Secretary today is that he has made the decision to spend the proceeds of a major crusade for White Hall Drive efficiency on this and that has consequences for other parties who might have set their sights in that money for other things, particularly if those parties continue to deliver on this defense commitment, so I wonder if this is also because other challenges are being raised.

Other policy announcements in recent days have been challenges to the Labor party now the clip we heard there is one thing there is one thing there John of course there is um but I would prefer not to make the partisan point In fact I would I would go back The question of If K Starma and his team agreed, it would cost them a number of other policies because they would have to spend that money on this, but the message it sends to Putin of a complete political consensus within the UK on defense spending is enormously powerful and in itself contributes to the deterrent effect of increased defense capabilities, so I will not do so.

I will let other colleagues try to make more overtly political points. In fact, I hope that the unions see the strategic advantage not politically but for the UK internationally to match the commitment because I think that sends a real message to both allies and adversaries: what can a spending commitment have? ? Merit in its own right and being a political coup; Those two things are not mutually exclusive. I mean Bris Johnson's promise that we heard there in 2022, which was just a few weeks before he was evicted from 10 Downing Street, would it be too cynical to say that this is also a policy of self-defence for Rishi Sunak himself, as well as for Britain and the West, well, I would choose to look at it more charitably.

You can apply any analysis you want. I think you have seen the situation around us. I think you've seen the real danger of the NATO Summit in Washington in July, followed the next week by the Republican convention and the need for European allies to show up in Washington with a new tune to dance to, and I think what you saw It was significant that Yen Stoltenberg was on the podium with Rishi today in Poland, yes, because I think a bit like that Summit at Celtic Manor in 2010 where Cameron and Obama achieved the 2% baseline. I think there's a big opportunity for Sunak um Biden Stoltenberg to try to make 2.5 the new baseline at the Washington Summit and that. would confuse a lot of criticism of European NATO allies, um, you probably hear from the Republican convention, otherwise, okay, good to know your opinion, James, thanks James, he, the former Republican senator from Defense, Ron Johnson, who joins us now, um, hello.

To you, senator, can we ask if you will approve this bill? I will vote no and it's not that I don't have much sympathy for the freedom-loving Ukrainian people who have been invaded by a war. The criminal Vladimir Putin or the people of Israel who endured a horrible massacre, a brutal massacre at the hands of Hamas or the people of Taiwan who are being threatened by China. The problem is that this is money we don't have. This is not exactly it. Coming from us, the taxpayers, this is borrowed money that is plundering our children's future and we are not recognizing the reality, particularly in Ukraine where Vladimir Putin will not lose this war and the other reality is that there is very little momentum on the part of of my constituents to provide funds to help other countries secure their borders when we have not secured ours first and that was our first result: we sought to force President Biden to use the authority he has to secure our own border, which is a clear and present danger to America, before we go ahead and spend hundreds of billions of dollars of money that we don't have, which further mortgages the future of our children, so again there are a number of reasons, but in the end I'm not going to support this package now, many people might I'll accuse you of being America First from that standpoint if you use a slogan that has long been associated with the Republican Party, particularly under Donald Trump, there is a border security, um, right now, although it was rejected over the weekend, but there is a proposed border security bill ready to address issues on the home front, as you say, with the issues related to your own border security.

No, it was a terrible bill. Again, President Trump had the legal authority to secure the border. He so he did it. President Biden used that exact same authority and opened the border. The bill that was negotiated was only negotiated to give Democrats political cover. He cited that between four and 5,000 immigrants per day come to this country illegally. In reality, it would have weakened a president. that was serious about securing a border, it would have weakened the president's authority, so it was a terrible bill that fell on its own and, again, I know the Democrats are using it as political cover, but that was not the solution, the solution was some type of law enforcement. mechanism to force President Biden to use the authority he has to secure the border and might not add I think most nations should consider their own citizens and their own nation first when considering any policy, that is the role of a nation , there is nothing wrong with that, uh, if America is strong, the world is a safer and more prosperous place, unfortunately, under President Biden, almost all the actions he has taken, the open borders, the massive deficit, spending, fossil fuels, the shameful and dangerous surrender in Afghanistan, have weakened the United States, emboldened Western adversaries, people like Putin, people like President XI, Ayatollah Kim Jong-un, so first we have to start strengthening America and another hundred billion dollars in death suspensions does not strengthen America.

I think a lot of people might say and look, this bill is going away. through uh, it has largely Republican support, not from you, obviously, but many will say, well, it's a pretty shameful look that you continue to go against your party and not defend the good progress of this bill, It's a bad thing Many of your fellow senators and colleagues share your concerns, but you can see where this is going and rejecting aid to Ukraine and indeed the other countries involved is a bad look, so where is this? You know, I heard Senator Schumer coming out of the White House saying this is simple: if Ukraine gets $60 billion, they win, if not, they lose, how are they going to win?

Russia has four times the population of the average age of Ukrainians. soldiers are 43 years old Russia can produce four and a half times the amount of 155 millimeter projectiles being used in this bloody stalemate. My concern because I am very concerned about the people of Ukraine. I do not want to use the people of Ukraine as Cannon Fodder in a proxy war between the West and Russia and I believe that is exactly what this war has become. It seems I don't want to see any more Ukrainians die. I don't want to see Russian recruits die. I don't want Ukraine to be

destroy

ed anymore because it will have to be rebuilt, so again, where is this going?

Does not go anywhere. The 60 billion dollars will go down a hole and in the end they will know when it will all end. there will be no change there will be no change we will continue in this bloody stalemate so why spend another 60 billion dollars? It sounds like you're handing this war over to Russia that's what you're saying you know because we're at a stalemate the only solution is not to go ahead with this war which would mean considering large parts of Ukraine Vladimir Putin where else did he want to go? What is the strategy to end this war?

Tell me how Vladimir Putin loses this war without literally risking a nuclear exchange. it's just not possible why why he didn't do it or why the west blew up the peace negotiations in istanbul uh just weeks after this war started what was that all about? So there are many questions. I realize you are familiar with our military industrial complex. the narrative in the media is about you know we have to be firm, but you know the only guarantee we gave to Ukraine and I take these things seriously is that if they were invaded, we would take that invasion to the Security Council, that's all .

It far exceeded our commitment to Ukraine and, again, I'm very concerned about the Ukrainian people, so I don't want to see any more of them die and I don't want to see any more of Ukraine destroyed, but I desperately want to put the rest of them in the situation, no, Yeah. I mean, the Ukrainian people will say that they don't want to give up any of their land and that if they completely ended that war right now it would mean Russia taking additional territory. It would mean that Ukraine would have to give up lands they have called theirs to Russia.

There's another point too, actually, that the $61 billion that money allocated specifically for Ukraine in the aid package will go a long way, it's an incredible amount of money that will make a huge difference and many will argue that the reason why that the wars came to adeadlock right now is because that money hasn't been committed, so no one knows what their situation is. Ukraine is having to ration all its um. uh, guns, um, and you know, bullets, etc., shells, having to ration all that because they just didn't know if more money was coming and another thing that happened, Senator Johnson, are you committing that money?

It has meant that today Prime Minister Rishi Sunako has made a huge new commitment to Ukraine and the war effort that will go to Germany tomorrow. Other Western leaders are also willing to do the same. Passing this bill builds confidence in the Western Alliance behind Ukraine and causes other countries to increase their spending as well. and that increases Ukraine's chances, it's not just about the UK, but the US giving that trust to other nations, so it's just the West throwing more money into a bloody stalemate, how can you break that stalemate? You know they had their counteroffensive. uh last summer unfortunately it failed uh I don't see success this summer again either unless we are willing to risk a nuclear exchange with Russia again Vladimir Putin will not lose this war it is existential for Vladimir Putin he has nuclear weapons if it really is so I arrived to that point.

I don't doubt I would actually use them. What we want to pressure Russia to do. I don't think this war should have happened. I don't think we could have deterred Vladimir Putin. to invade but we wouldn't do what we should have done basically we declared that we will not offer Ukraine membership in NATO, that was the red line now that we have the Secretary General of NATO saying that absolutely Ukraine will become part of NATO, that It's not going to help end the war, so again I don't see any strategy to end this war. I don't see any strategy to win this war.

All I see is a strategy of spending money we don't have, mortgaging our children's future. Once that money runs out, we'll be pretty much in the exact same position we were in before we spent it. Again, there is no strategy for success. I will return to you my argument that the reason we have reached an impasse is because the funds have dried up and that has happened for the last six. to nine months, I mean, I just don't agree with that premise, okay? And to be clear, you fear that, by the way, Europe is as big as the United States if this is in Europe's backyard, if they're so concerned about it, they could step up the effort, they could provide that funding, if that was really the reason we're at a stalemate, you know Europe could have avoided it too, but then again, they're going to sit back and wait for the Americans to come to the rescue and spend $60 billion, that again will not change the course of this war, so to be clear, your concern, Senator Johnson, is that if more money is thrown at Ukraine, 61 billion from the US and several other billions of dollars from other Western nations who will agitate Vladimir Putin to the point that you feel that a nuclear attack by Russia against Ukraine is inevitable.

I think when all is said and done and this money is spent it will be pretty much exactly the same position, uh, we will continue to fight a proxy war using the Ukrainians as cannon fodder in that proxy war, more Ukrainians die, more Russian recruits they die, don't rejoice about it and more Ukraine is destroyed that will have to be rebuilt in the future, so the only way to end this war is to negotiate a deal, so we should have some kind of strategy to prompt Putin to start talks. Telling him from the beginning that Ukraine will become part of NATO is not a way to bring Vladimir Putin into the negotiation. table and again Vladimir Putin is an evil war criminal, you know, I harbor no affection for the guy.

I mean, he's a horrible human being. I'm not going to like that agreement, but every day that the agreement passes, it gets worse because more people die. and more Ukraine is destroyed, that is the sad reality, the supply reality situation and not recognizing that reality again will cost more people's lives and waste tens of billions of dollars more that will ultimately be wasted. Do you think this will change if Donald Trump secures a second term as president. I think he would certainly be dedicated to trying to end the war, something this president is not dedicated to.

Well, look, thank you very much for talking to us today. I greatly appreciate Republican Senator Ron Johnson, thank you. One fine day, the Prime Minister's promise to increase UK defense spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030 was accompanied by his announcement of another £500m of British military support to Ukraine, including 400 vehicles, 1,600 ammunition and 4 million rounds of ammunition. It comes as the US Senate is expected to approve a $60 billion military aid package for Ukraine that was approved by the House of Representatives over the weekend after months of delay. Will some Republicans oppose the deal? The United States should secure its own borders first.

I will vote no and it's not that I don't have a lot of sympathy for the freedom loving Ukrainian people who have been invaded by a war criminal Vladimir Putin or the people. from Israel that endured a horrible massacre, brutal massacre at the hands of Hamas or the people of Taiwan who are being threatened by China, the problem is that this is money that we don't have, uh, this isn't exactly coming from us, the taxpayers in this moment, this is borrowed money is plundering our children's future and we are not recognizing the reality, particularly in Ukraine where Vladimir Putin will not lose this war and the other reality is that there is very little impetus for my constituents to provide funds to help other countries to secure their borders.

When we haven't secured ours first and that was our first bottom line, how much difference will the latest US aid package make in Ukraine's efforts to prevent Russian forces from gaining more territory? Daniel Freed is a former US Undersecretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and a former US Ambassador to Poland. Good night to you, Daniel, good night, thank you for having me. It's a pleasure to have you with us. It appears that the Senate will approve this latest aid package for Ukraine. um something that President Zalinski has been saying that his forces desperately need um the House of Representatives, of course, finally passed it over the weekend um what a significant measure do you think would be good not giving more aid would have been a catastrophe for the The Ukrainians and all our problems in Europe and the United States could be worse if Ukraine lost and that was the danger.

Now the assistance gives the Ukrainians a fighting chance, so to speak, for relative success. Much depends on how quickly the United States can provide. Ukraine with weapons and what type of weapons in particular are we Americans going to give to the Ukrainians, the longer range missile attack that would allow them to put at risk more Russian military structures and bases inside Ukraine, so it is possible. that the Ukrainians, with additional help from the United States and Europe, can mitigate Russian ground offensives this fighting season and can degrade the overall Russian position by hitting them behind the lines, if they do so the Russians may suffer casualties, the Putin's desire to win this year here will be frustrated and things at the time of NATO, as soon as the NATO Summit in Washington, will be better for Ukraine, so I am not saying that Ukraine will win with the help, but they have a reasonable chance and the people of the Biden Administration. talk to we are operating on this we have to be leaning forward we and the Europeans help the Ukrainians make the most of this new opportunity we are having a little difficulty with your line we will stick with it for a moment and see if it stabilizes President Biden , as I understand it, has given assurances that the US will send supplies as quickly as possible, but I mean in the past it has taken quite a while to get supplies from the point where they are.

He agreed that the US political system would really hand them over and I mean the Russian forces have been gaining Ukrainian territory, haven't they? You're right that the Ukrainians have been on the defensive, they've been losing ground, the administration, the people in the administration, oh. It looks like we're losing Daniel freed, let's just see if we can get a better connection so we can hear what Daniel is saying, because now the United States Senate, maybe even later tonight, is expected to approve that . big aid package, there is money for Israel, there is some money for Taiwan and there is 60 billion dollars of military support for Ukraine, and I must say that we are also hearing that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who was in Poland before, um , he's going to be in Germany, he got there tonight and uh, he's going to be talking about uh, the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom and Germany open a new chapter in defense partnerships, um, we have Daniel released, um, Daniel, um, the question is.

I mean how quickly that military support can come because President Zalinski has been warning that Russia is gaining ground. You are absolutely right, the Administration has had time to prepare and it would be unforgivable if after the vote the arms were not moved quickly. but the people in the administration assure me that they are prepared, that they are ready to move the weapons quickly, which must happen the faster the better. You are absolutely right and we have had British Prime Minister Rishy Sunac today announcing an increase in Britain's defense spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, he has also announced an additional package of British aid to Ukraine and it comes in a time when, as we were listening to a defense expert earlier in the show, it seems that Europe is actually starting to spend more to support Ukraine now and it's about time.

Europe's assumptions that peace with Russia could be taken by Grant Gred and that the Americans would be there to clean up, if that assumption were wrong, have been shattered. I think Germany has had two generations of assumptions about Russia gone, French President Macron has gone from endlessly reaching out to Russia to recognizing the Russian threat and it turns out that the Polish and Baltic positions on Russia have been proven correct, it's about time that Europe, that Europe. Intensifying this is absolutely essential regardless of who wins the US election. We need a stronger Europe. We need a stronger Britain because our adversaries are sincere.

Putin is an aggressive dictator along the lines of, say, the 20th century. I don't know which president of China will follow the same path regarding Taiwan, but we have to be prepared. It would be nice to say that the balance of military power is a consideration that belongs to the 20th century, but it belongs to the 21st century. It's our problem right now. And to what extent do you think that that increase in defense spending among European nations, particularly the European members of NATO, is a recognition of the Russian threat and to what extent is it, frankly, a concern that Donald Trump may return to the White House? and that they can't trust us to spend on NATO to help protect them.

I think it's the combination. I think the Russian threat is now real for Europeans who dismissed it until very recently. I think the impact of Donald Trump's decision. The pronouncements on NATO have forced many Europeans to wake up and realize that military power is neither a luxury nor an anachronism, it is necessary that the European project and the Free World Order, if I can put it that way, are not. automatically self-sustaining we have to say it seriously, we have to turn our backs on it and an increase in military spending is important. I think the polls have risen to 4% of their GDP and are going to rise even more.

I think that the Western European countries also need to increase their spending, if we want to overcome this, and we can be in very good shape if we turn our backs on it, yes, because, as you say, Poland is approaching 4%. uh Britain has now committed to reaching 2.5% by 2050, but many other NATO countries are still quite a bit behind, aren't they okay? The trends are moving in the right direction, the polls are in the Baltics, are they there? to spend more, I know they have economic problems because their industry was based on cheap energy from Russia and that no longer exists.

The French need to invest more in their armed forces, but the trends are moving in the right direction and this. It's not because of American sermons, it's because Putin's threat seems real to Europeans and because concerns about the United States have increased no matter what happens in our elections and I personally hope Biden wins, we need a stronger Europe and a United Kingdom militarily strong like you. Let's say we're still a few months away from the US elections, it's going to be a very close affair given what Donald Trump has said about his commitment to NATO. not spending enoughin his own defense.

I don't see why we should rush to help them, which of course would undermine one of the basic principles of the NATO alliance, and given what he has said about Russia and Ukraine and the past. um, if President Trump returned to the White House, what do you think his approach to the war in Ukraine would be? That is a key question and I think it is possible that despite all your terrible comments, which are based on what I consider a terrible set of strategic assumptions reminiscent of the first American movement of 1940 and 1941, which by the way was indifferent to the European security and the British struggles against Hitler.

I think that despite this, there is a possibility that Trump could change his views on some of the people around him. He has hinted that Trump would be willing to take credit for increases in European military spending and then claim that he saved NATO. I'm not saying Europeans have to like that, but they might care if Trump is elected to accept it. I also find it interesting that last week, just before the House of Representatives broke with the hard isolationist right and voted on aid to Ukraine, Trump in the middle of a tweet acknowledged that the survival and strength of Ukraine, his word survival and fortress was an American interest.

I think that was the first time he said that, I don't think he said it because he had had a change in his strategic orientation, but because he saw the way the debate was going in Congress and, if that's true, it means that let's say the Political opportunism could be Trump, so to speak, Donald Trump's strategic instincts now. I don't know if this is true, but it's at least worth considering and I'm glad that the British Prime Minister and the Polish President met with Trump, I think this kind of thing can be useful and finally, of course, we're talking from that increase in defense spending from Great Britain, from the new aid package from the United States, from other European allies, who also send more money to Ukraine. "But, of course, Russia is investing money in its Defense Forces.

I think it's 7.8%. It has a large number of conscripts and an economy very geared toward increasing defense spending. How big are Do you think they are the risks at the moment that we could be reaching a turning point in the Ukraine war, with Russia facing the real prospect that it could win. I think that without American help, Russia had a good chance of winning the. war and that would have been a catastrophe and It would have opened the way for even more catastrophes. I think now that the battle in Ukraine is open I think the Ukrainians have a much better chance of success and the best reasonable scenario for Ukraine would be if the Ukrainians succeeded. mitigate Russian ground offensives this summer. and strike deeper into Russia and Russian-controlled territory, Putin's war may turn against him and in that case, well, Russian history of the last 150 years shows that when Russia starts wars. aggressive and loses, political changes may follow.I would not assume that Putin's position is great if he loses if Russia R is not successful in its war Russia's position Putin's position could become difficult and the notion that Russia never loses a war or just because Putin is committed to this war means he will automatically win it is ahistorical, no matter how committed he is, he could lose, we have to think not only about what Putin is going to do to us, but what we are going to help Ukrainians do to him.

Daniel released, former deputy secretary of the United States. of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and also former United States ambassador to Poland. It was truly a pleasure speaking with you tonight. Thank you very much for joining us, thank you for inviting me.