At about 20000 troops down to about 10. Theyre 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 in the United States. Another example is weapons. When we send weapons with United States and weapons to ukraine, theres money to replace those weapons. That money goes mostly to us, arms manufacturers, so the weapons themselves going to ukraine, helps with granted. And its a fight against russia, but the replacement uh goes to us manufacturers. So when you consider agriculture, you actually, i mean people can read it online, but you mentioned agriculture as well. And thats right. Uh, theres uh, a piece of the humanitarian, a that helps countries who are as are suffering as a result of the disruption in the global of food trade, particularly we coming out of ukraine in russia and the part of agriculture overseas programs in United States to help those countries with food, you see the, your in dangerous and the like julian hassan, she said its a laundromat and actually all these was the money gets recycled and actually comes back to the United States. Thats why your article may because of the shock, because its 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, uh, you know, his decision for the weapons companies. They want to keep this secret. I dont think so i, ive seen a number of commentators and even a members of Congress Making this argument. You know, theres nothing secret about it is i know just because the money is spent in United States doesnt mean it doesnt help ukraine, for example, with the provision of weapons which you mandatory 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 doesnt mean that it helps you create any less. Heres the interesting thing. Is the korean jump . Yeah, the white as spokesperson. John list was shouting out to him because by that said, the shut down of u. S. Government was over ukraine and she refused to confirm that that was true. Of course uh, lots of debates on circle, 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, todd to even quanta 5 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 of the bladder 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, the uh, you know, they were holding to the government class stage. The ukraine is a part of it. Its important to know to go 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 theres a small group of conservative republicans who are determined it to the Government Spending and cut a jeep grand. And because of the narrow margin in the house, they have a lot of latitude. Were talking just you know, less than 2 ends worth of people in the house. Um, the short answer is yes, the vote was very marginal in florida against the speaker. I think there were 6 republicans who voted against the speaker, whistler, the democrats. Now if you put a of a bill on the floor about your premium for aid, they would probably get 80 to a 100 votes against it. But that means that there would still be 330. 00 ish votes for it. That is, what 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 majority claim to us has done enough. Majority of us have obviously said that a to it endangers us security. Its reflected in polls in europe as well, way. Its even bigger. 76 percent of both military financing, 74 percent of both financial support. I mean, theres a huge mismatches in there between the say that cnn poll and the congressman that youre talking about who is old, as you say, will always guarantee more funding for the landscape. So 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. Its also not clear how deep that opposition is when you see it in congress, but again, its about 25 percent of the house. Okay, well ill get to the new drills in a moment, but tell me about the significance of natos joint warrior exercise in this week of letting me a page and 71st, but they, theyre 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 its important. Keep in mind that nato has drills going on all the time. That, you know, its 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 natos 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 though 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 made in this calendar offensive, obviously, has some feed, same brush has gain more ground actually. And oh, its just being sent to you, grain to be destroyed by the russians. So what if they were always practicing war games . Why are 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, i did desert storm. Also, id say the United States is quite successful and that i think that the conventional wisdom on the United States is that were very, very good and conventional conflicts. Legs doesnt storm. Were 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 as a different situation because its the ukrainian sort of fighting. You know, that the needle exercise and thats for nato troops and they keep nato ready. 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. Theyve greatly expanded their armed forces. Theyve taken a lot of casualties. But you know, the, they, you know, they need to have a continuous flow of weapons and training if theyre going to continue resistance. And thats true of every thats going to make a lot of money every i mean al terry, do they even have an munition to practice with on this, the nato exercise today . Because theres report, i mean, weve heard before, comments from people. Um we actually had trucks spinning of them in from a spinny 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. Then they told me that the Committee Says the bottom of the barrel is now visible. Basically, nature doesnt have any munition. How did we get to that situation . Is it true and uh, are they just practicing with the sports . Uh no me. I mean issues and on the nato exercise. Um, i wouldnt say that nato is, i would have the admission that the nato countries still have some stuff thats nice. The scene natos most senior military official or i have no real bo, and im sure you know of them. I use a same thing in the United States, but when, when they say were at the bottom of barrel, what, what they mean . At least in United States is that were at the bottom of what we can give to the ukrainians. To give you an example of, of chavel initials weve given above 40 percent of our javelin inventory to ukraine, the pentagon. So we looked at the give any more because we would need that for other possible conflicts. For example, in korea. So when you hear people say were out of javelin, were not out of job once were either java is that we can give it 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 he 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, im showing javelin miss. I was a kind of useless and so on. The 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, javelins would be very helpful, but the creeds also have a lot of tags. 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, its never been tested against a real missile, but there are defenses there and 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 ive done a lot of stop you the more from the Senior Advisor of the International Security program with you as arms company fund, a sense of a strategic and International Studies after this break, the the, 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 to crane, then theyre gonna take the Baltic States that theyre 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 the welcome back to going underground. Im still here it was were tied cut. All mark counts in Senior Advisor. Vince national Security Program at the center for strategic and International Studies kind of, we were just talking about actually north, north korea. You know, theres a lot of control as the over those, the Defense Systems that you have in the United States. Theyre infamous the secrets. And by and they can only shoot down at most 3. Isnt it . 3 words in the north koreans can shoot for, i dont know. Why is it though, that uh the United States is holding a imagine see, drill, thats 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 uh, in this case uh that its 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. Sounds like the 1950s. Okay. And ill show you whens the last time for sure. The, the broadcast system and i think they tested every year. Its tested, you know, quite frequently the United States takes these precautions seriously of the importance of being able to communicate and disaster. But the government 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 didnt 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. So im 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 to create in all of the elements of that age, it would be hard for ukraine to continue is resistance. The europeans and Global Community contribute a lot. Its probably not enough to keep the Ukrainian Armed forces in the field. They would be forced to negotiate some sort of in place to cease fire. 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 its good if they run out of weapons because theyll be peace talks and theyll be seized. And people, few people who can be killed, i can play him in and put in, will have a partial vector in, you know, if youre comfortable with keeping food and then tower with a partial victory, then i think thats a win. If youre uncomfortable with that, then thats what it was. So that you said put it in in power i do that is what about keeping page and in bowers it all a facility will do is resumed change in rush, or is this cool . Well, if pull wins the war if theres a negotiated a ceasefire on the current line, and well claim that thats a victory and that will ensure that he stays in power movies, particularly very, very popular anyways, me. But i mean, thats certainly not one of the names, but funny enough this week. Also the state Department Released their integrated country strategy. I didnt believe it goes that it was leaked wrongly, but actually it was up there on the website. Uh, what about the fact that the most of the state Department Paper is talking about the importance of us . I mean visit to take one line. They basically say the whole of ukraine is corrupt, so i dont 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 of premier team to advance u. S. Policy goals. So, they issue a paper which basically says the ukraine must be, is completely corrupt. It needs to be reformed. Gently, because the political control is wielded by only galks and theres a whole system of corruption, an empty democratic uh, some anti democracy there. So thats the, thats from the state department. Is this really about, um, democracy at all . I mean, i know you mentioned regime change in russia is, is 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 did ukraine uninvited. There was a deal of aggression on their part. Uh and do say on provoked on us media. Do you agree with that . It was unprovoked, or there was on for about a rush or argues that the existence of ukraine as an independent country is a provocation, though it never, you know that youre not sure the means good cards ratified of the un security council. And its the violation of that the restaurant 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 its, we just, but i, i do worry that expanding nato further east towards adding countries that are not fully stable, that would undermine natos confusion. Anyone listening to you when you wrote that piece . Because clearly the people in the state department, the policy thing, thanks winning for your think thing. Did anyone listen to you when you said that because ive 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, were 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 dont think that stream. Why dont you think they listen to you a deal. Theres 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 dont 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 just a lot of political momentum towards expansion. You see that in the discussions about ukraine also, of course thats what were 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 president ial contenders for next years election appeared 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 r f k junior and much more popular than bite and hes running cornell west. They all want the w