putin would not and what they would be, they should have started planning a long time ago. we have 107,000 people dead from fentanyl. they've done nothing with the border. all of this is piling up and they got no answers. this is -- >> we will leave this here for live coverage of chris murphy talking about the war between russia and ukraine by the american security coverage, live coverage on c-span2. >> he ran for the house and with most things in his life he did it successfully. serving the house three terms, ran for the senate and serving in the senate with distinction now, he and i have had the pleasure of traveling abroad more than once and he has shown himself in his time on the foreign relations committee to

be one of those senators whose most thoughtful, adept, the quickest study and grounding in geopolitical context, human rights issues, the human side of our foreign policy. the american security project has been in existence over 15 years founded by john kerry, chuck hagel and gary hart because they thought we need nonpartisan bipartisan security based foreign policy, serving on the board with retired flag officers from every service branch from whom i learned tremendously. i'm proud to be a board member american security project and prior to introduce you to our audience. thank you and over to you. >> thank you for having me and thanks to the board members and

security product, thanks for your commitment defending the station and allies and looking forward to a brief but i hope important conversation. to those of us watching the trajectory of global affairs, a hinge moment the world is watching, great powers are watching whether the lid has come off post-world war ii order, thus the question we are in the middle of answering today for those who are students of history, if you go back over the last millennia, it's filled with big powers and countries trying to expand its borders through military force but there has been plenty of 75 year periods of time over the last 75 years there's been a reduction in

train instructions one nation to another. did everything change after 1945 or did we just happened to live over the past 75 years and one of those relatively calm areas? the next several weeks and months in ukraine will decide the answer to that question. to tell you a somebody who has been to ukraine probably more times than anybody else in the united states senate, how indebted we are from a president zelenskyy team and ukrainian armed forces. i am proud of our country, not just of what we have done since the invasion, the administration president biden has been

extraordinary so they have taken that let them know world know what was coming and the risks they have taken it began to draw ourselves closer to direct conflict with russia, perhaps we've been in generations but also the performance of ukrainian military as a result of the tale of partnership we've been treating ukrainian forces in western ukraine some years ago for the better part of the last ten years. we will continue to support ukrainian people, we didn't have the latest assistance bill last week, we have a section in this mission as the rest of congress but we also have to adapt for this moment and i will leave it here for questions.

how we allow for not just ukraine but so much of russia's periphery to become vulnerable. this is a conventional military fight planes against planes asymmetric warfare. china is in the business of protecting using nonmilitary organisms whether economic power, propaganda, old-fashioned intimidation and bribery to gain influence. the united states has been fighting these countries, one hand tied behind our backs, we are pretty good standing up against conventional. not very good up by the nonmilitary tools of our projection and we've got to figure out a way to fight with

both hands rather than one hand. over the next 50 years we are in for significant hand-to-hand conflict with countries like russia, china and others did help ukraine win this war but take a mini to backup and make sure we are ready to defend our interests the next 50 years so thank you for having me. >> terrific. we got a good audience, i'm going to invite audience members to put the questions in the q&a. there has been some talk in the last week or so with some suggesting united states and nato allies are experiencing mission creek and the question about what should nato's goals

be in supporting ukraine as we ramp up levels of weaponry we are sending, some are saying we should be more limited because we risk getting drawn in. i'd love your views on that. >> i think it is important the administration has made it clear from the beginning we do not see direct conflict, some criticize president biden for being so explicit up front stating you're not going to see u.s. forces on the ground in ukraine. the president should have held back that commitment, lesson ambiguity whether the united states returns but i think president biden made the right call, made that commitment explicit so as to be clear while we are going to support ukrainians ability to fight for

herself we are not interested in that direct and at the heart of nato's mission has been a defensive alliance seeking to defend ourselves from russia invasion so ukraine is not part of nato. we state very clearly we are supporting ukraine's mission to defend its own territory. we are not going to support ukraine if ukraine decides to take on new projects or beyond their borders, our support for them should stop there. certainly there is a risk of direct conflict, as we get more deeply involved in vladimir putin is more deeply backed into a corner, the list of direct u.s. russia conflict increases but folks no the soviets had

plenty of an a lot of troops there as well but we managed to avoid direct conflict and we can manage to support ukraine while staying out of the competition between the two nuclear superpowers. >> one of the questions from the audience asked the question that follows on that, putin nuclear threats, his teams nuclear forces and retaliation and how you see the strategies he's deploying and what should our sponsors be? particularly if putin were to invoke nuclear weapon in a more active fashion whether launch

mechanisms so no doubt our policy and strategy or tactics have to be educated and informed by the knowledge is stable enough and i think it will be desperate enough to consider some unshakable options. we all shuddered a bit when we heard bill burns state publicly cia could not rule out vladimir putin ultimately resorting to use of tactical nuclear weapons but the alternative for the united states stand down, a man ukraine because of that threat is unpalatable as well the reason you see finland and sweden signing up for nato and

fundamental shift in the disposition is because they know should he succeed, he's likely not so it is a moment even with risk of potential tactical nuclear use we got to stand up for ukraine. we are watching russia's nuclear footprint very carefully. we stay informed by the administration of any changes we see, this is all, our tactics have to be dependent on up or down of nuclear uses. just one quick, whether we should get into nuclear agreement with iran, i don't

know why u.s. policymakers would be rooting for another adversary to become nuclear weapon arms, we should do everything within our power to keep iran from getting nuclear weapons having seen how putin's nuclear arsenal limits and constraints are options when he does something disastrous is perpetuate war crimes in a neighboring country. >> indeed. indeed. you noted of course nato has been strengthened over these weeks and months. looking to join after decades and centuries, you have a lot on the architecture, transatlantic architecture, how do you look at the future of nato which three

years ago, some are saying has it outlived future, is it five years from now, ten years from now? you have a vision for nato and our goals for nato should be? >> i think it's a really important question because i don't think finland and sweden are the end of nato enlargement. western balkans, i'm deeply hopeful several countries there are going to be candidates for nato and european union. ten years ago, five years ago we had this question president macron posed, it looked like we were aligned for a threat that was not the most critical or important for russia invasion,

we should spend more time on propaganda and cyber attacks. i think it is still an important conversation and nato should be more nimble when it comes to these nonconventional threats but we have been reminded that it does make sense to have a structure concentrated on military defense because we have confirmation that russia is expanding borders through invasion in might not end with ukraine. we use the opportunity to strengthen and bring in new members, countries like germany to spend more money on defense and we tried to expand the mission but maybe will focus on a rocksolid military alliance, that may be the most important

thing. drawing on the questions in the chat, one of the issues we are going to be facing in the months ahead as we look toward and games or possible and games is what to do with the territories in eastern and southern ukraine the russians currently occupy going all the way back to 2014, perhaps you and i both were in brussels in 2014 when men went into crimea and began the process. what lessons do we take from the fact perhaps not as strong in the face about 2014 takeover of crimea and what lessons should we draw for the parts of ukraine, donbas conversion has

as we look ahead? >> you are right we were together during that moment, in ukraine a few months later with senator mccain, when they had ukraine together on the day of the referendum in crimea. i think you were right collectively as the transatlantic alliance we were not ready for 2014 but ukrainian military was not ready for 2014 so what we decided to do was get into the business of significant training which is what we have been doing. ukraine deserves 99% of the credit for the defense of the

country but jointly with the united states has made a difference. i think it's hard and not helpful to get into all potential hypotheticals if ukraine and russia and a better negotiating table. the foundation for now is it's up to zelenskyy that we will support his decision to sit down at that table and support the decisions he makes but if he decides the price russia is asking him to pay in or the recognition of russia's ownership of crimea is to be a price to pay then we will continue to fight with ukraine. if zelenskyy was divided out and

they will stand with them. the day may come when zelenskyy signs a peace treaty and will give him advice but ultimately it's his decision but does not it. over the course of the last eight years since 2013 and 14 is sovereignty is what it's all about. united states doesn't tell ukraine what to do but we believe it's up to the ukrainian people to decide for themselves whether they orient east, west, both, it's their decision so that has to be our operating premise for the duration of the fight, it's up to them and we support them. >> pulling back from ukraine, if i recall despite having this, you got roots in poland. what you make of the way, the

neighboring country has responded to this, romania, poland and the eastern end of nato. >> absolutely extraordinary. i have more polish and irish blood despite my last name. i have a great grandparent when he came to the united states wrote on his card the country is coming from was poland, he was ukrainian by nationality so i have roots in ukraine as well so extraordinary how they have stepped up, poland up to the baltics and we have had beef with warsaw over the last decade and i remain worried about their

rule of law and it should stop us from celebrating from what they have done to defend the transatlantic alliance. i came from spending last week with the relatively new prime minister of bulgaria we have tuesday pay special attention to these states like bulgaria or you have high level of residence inside from their view, countries very reliant on russian gas, much more than poland which are at a breaking.right now. united states has to think aggressively how to support countries like poland and bulgaria. i worry we outsource that to europe we say our line is getting arms to ukrainians and

you figure out how to stand up bulgaria and get new energy supplies. they can't be how we look at it. if it were up to me the $40 billion we are approving would include energy independent products to make the connections away from russia so it's time to play a leading role in these vulnerable nations. >> you test on this, the western european power, france, germany, critical how they will deal with the war. in the early days germany executed abrupt, 180 turn where germany has been for decades in

terms of participation multilateral military base defense system. have you seen that continue? have the germans continued down that path? some have suggested they've overflowed, do you have a view on that? >> what happened inside has been extraordinary and i'm sure their pace has been unsatisfactory to some but it is a live revolution. it happens quickly as you mentioned at dinner with the chancellor shortly after had come to the united states, he was telling us about time while he would be ready if russia

invaded, they were not confident this would happen. given this position it's remarkable. the biggest question for germans at the center of the question is the eu still open for business taking applicants? that's maybe in the long run hurting putin the most, countries they still have influence with having a pathway into the european union. balkans is a place russians would love to get into, especially if we have no places like ukraine. we saw scholz a few weeks ago creating different rings to allow for ukraine to coming in

balkans, it's an important issue they need to lead on, not just motor macron standing with him figuring out a new structure. >> no longer formally part of the european union is great britain in the first international crisis six brexit, how do you make of the british government johnson government efforts to keep great britain's but a player on international issues? they are not members of the eu to judge that. >> as they normally do with these moments, the first country almost without reservation in the first country the answers the extraordinary nature our

relationship. it's a bit clumsy only because they continue to operate outside the eu, it will be essential to the perspective against putin, the energy decisions is probably what he's paid close attention to are made in brussels. the polls and the structure. a lot of this money that has enriched putin's crowd through the streets of london for decades prior. we've made mistakes, no doubt they've made mistakes on the russia policy but british made a lot of mistakes as well. i am enamored with the way they have stepped up during this crisis but also a reminder of how tragic it is they are doing it separate and aside from

european. >> we are approaching the bottom of the hour, let me take you back to the foreign relations committee. just wish our new nominee, the ambassador, i'm sure you wish she or someone have been named earlier but she is up there now for consideration, how do you view her chances and when you think she will be in place? >> i hope she would be in place if not by the end of this week by the end of next week, she'll get there very quickly. we have been incredibly well served, she has labored under extraordinary circumstances without the title of bachelors entirety of the biden

administration has done remarkable work and we have been grateful to her. we've got this problem, we cannot move nominations right now in an example, i didn't check to see if it was clear by the end of last week but assistant secretary of defense for logistics literally position in charge of organizing material shipments to ukraine walked by senator hawley for the entirety of this year so while it will go through, we still have dozens of state department, defense department, nominees being talked by republicans for passage who are part of the team the administration would be working on ukraine policy. when i hear we are united by

ukraine, i remind my friends, no we are not. if they cared about ukraine, they would support these nominees and we are letting a small amount of republicans exercise veto power and we have to figure out a way to break that. >> as i knew you would, you've talked a lot in the 30 minutes, i want to thank you on behalf of the americans security project which i'm proud to be a part of. audience members, i'm sorry to those whose questions i didn't get to but it's so good to see you and hear your comments, educated perspective on these competent issues. the senate and government on this issue, god speaks. >> thank you, nelson and thank you everyone for being part of this today. ♪♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television