rated the natural world in stages of the year. now, his music has been re composed by alteration intelligence using projected 2050 weather data to reflect the global climate emergency. culminating in a disturbing like performance in south korea. dystopian, roof silver on al jazeera, the, the us house of representatives, degrees of $61000000000.00 a package, the price of the mumps of political wrangling, holding a 3rd will go on with ins, tobacco russian forces. will this help in the war or will it just prolong the fighting influx? shit. this is inside story, the

hello and welcome to the program. i'm toma craig of the months of political holes trading and bring some and ship the us house of representatives finally reached an agreement on a $61000000000.00 a package for you crime. a key for the rooms. the faith loomed of us politicians filed to agree on more money or under attack from the lodge. a better equipped russian forces. ukrainian troops are entirely reliance on foreign assistance at the spot receiving major aid and military packages to died. some believe the boy is that a style mice supposes of the assistance is that will bring you crying closer to victory . the kremlin, along with some of the independent observers, says it will simply prolong the will, meaning more people will dive. how will be assessing without pen look, guess what this package might mean for you kind of russian and what a long google could mean for both countries along with europe and the united states and our path to pace might be found. this is this report from imaging camp

another $61000000000.00, the crane, and it's war against russia. the latest us a package is pushed by the republican high speaker with logic, democratic support. it's a, it's a dangerous time of the 3 of our primary adversaries. russia and iran in china are working together and they're being aggressors around the globe and their global threat to our prosperity and our security. their advance threatens their free world and it demands american leadership. we turn our backs right now, the consequences to be devastating. the legislation still needs approval from the senate, which is expected to get before being signed off by president j. pardon? president wrote him, is it lensky? it's been cooling for more aid for months, saying it's critical for ukraine survival. definitely. i think everyone who's supported a package, this is a live saving decision. we will certainly use american support to strengthen both all nations and bring a just into this will close

a goal that's colton must lose the tied to military and civilian death toll since russia's invasion in february 2022 is on 9. on the 2nd, none of us you have to hold. the un human rights monitoring mission estimated more than 10 size and ukrainian civilians have been killed and always 20000 injured. while the ministry said 31 size and personnel had been killed on investigation by the bbc and jose estimates 50000 russian troops have been killed. the kremlin says only the defense ministry can provide such statistics and hasn't done so due to official secrets tools. ukraine has made little progress, breaking through bushes frontline or its grip on parts of eastern and southern ukraine. well, russian forces continue to carry out attacks across the country. ukraine has also been launching drones interruption. territory of the kremlin says the approval of

security aid to ukraine would lead to more damage and death in the conflict. it accuses the us fighting a proxy war against russia, through its ministry, support with ukraine supplying demand power the us and they to say there are no plans to send troops to increase. the russia says, british military personnel already the with no, i just saw a bucking dying or gaining significant grand and no negotiations on the table. the will seem set to drag on image and can the outer 0, the inside story where ukraine has become the biggest recipient of us for an age. the 1st time for you are p and country. since the 2nd world war, according to the council of foreign relations, even before subsidized by the us, had approve more than $74000000000.00 and assistance. you try and during the war that includes humanitarian, financial and military support of you has provided more than $106000000000.00 and

financial military humanitarian and refugee assistance since the war began. the cadets bring in now panel now in new york, chris, which is a full, the middle east bureau chief of the new times independents a prize winning journalist in washington dc. and the total leaving is the director of the razor program at the quincy institute for responsible state cross us think tank and then boss in the you kind of petrik barry is a defense and security analyst as well as a former british officer who's also with a long side. nice. so thank you very much for being with us here on inside story. patrick, if i can begin with you, and before we get to the long attend implications of this a package, you kind is wasted months and months for this to be signed off. how desperately needed, is it and what impact is it actually going to have on the war? a tom is critical. i think the, the new music in the face reflect

a doctor. this bill is going to get through because of the nature of the, the threat that you brian is facing. essentially it's quite a defensive, but the way it looks is going to be quite a defensive package. and the number one priority at the moment is air defense. a new brain has obviously had some patriot and ask for assistance from the u. s. and you are, but it needs more uh, it has somewhere in the region of 3 to 5. and as ask for another 7 more, the good news is you can get that quite quickly. um, i'd say most of the nations that can provide the systems can news and fairly quickly, the rest of all have stopped piles of certain cases in europe already. and i'd say not as the number one priority, the 2nd thing that is large kind of artillery shows, i need them quickly to might take a little bit longer. and there's numerous different efforts going in europe. items obviously to us to get those to them. i don't think at the moment that will be quite enough, and at least it gets the ball rolling. chris, a lot of the landscape has a sit in response to this that ukraine will now have

a chance to victory a $61000000000.00 enough die for you, cried to actually finish this war, or is it simply going to per long this current style might that we've seen of, of recent months, you know, it will prolong it. i think since ukraine's failed counter offensive in 2023 day by their own admission where they call it active defense. the russians have made territorial games, but there was always an understanding from the inception of this war that ukraine could not win a war of attrition. and it's now i think the average age of its troops is something like 43. i had 7 parents spring difficulties recruiting. i think the fear and the reason that this was pushed through is the possibility of ukrainian collapse. but the intent of washington was never to essentially allow the premium

forces to defeat the russians. but it was to create a proxy war whereby the russian military would be degraded. vladimir putin would be isolated. uh and then the 3rd aspect of that was to degrade and triple the russian economy that did not happen apparently, but, but that's what proxy wars are about. i covered the pros in northern arac cuz they never wanted to us number one or the current state. they just wanted to harass iraqi regime and so they are prolonging the proxy war that will end in negotiations . oh, sadly, negotiations that have been done before this war began. you will get on to the negotiations and when they may begin and how they would play out in just a moment. but the anatole, we also heard from a zalinski saying that this us, i package seems a strong signal that you kind will not be a secondary dentist on. the united states will stay with you crying. and then it

also sends a powerful message to person in the kremlin. do you agree with those statements? and do you agree with chris as well that this package is just going to prolong this proxy? will that the us is filing with russia? i suppose this package will help ukraine to stand on the defensive. there's no question of that. i'm just missed a very upset. this is basically a defensive package of box. it will not help to crate and it will help. but when insured is that ukraine can break through the russian lines and when it's time, which of course, it failed completely to do last 2. and those lines are being strengthened all the time. now, is, the lensky has continues to define peaks in terms of total. you crime in victory, the ukraine in each package says the russian must withdrawal from the entire tree. it's occupied, including crimea and bull trends,

trials and reparations. that requires complete ukrainian victory, which we're not going to get. i'm the 2nd layer of goals of us support for ukraine is not insured by this package for this year. but we have elections in in november . i'm just goes um it's trump is elected. what happens next year is completely, i'm sure. so in the longer term, given the huge in balance of population and resources between russia and ukraine. um yes, i mean in, in the it will be a war of attrition in the old system on russia side. patrick, just picking up from that point and, and what you said earlier about this being a defensive package, i mean button has more numerous times that without mess of us military, i even support the ukrainian resistance would pretty much completely collapse. what happens if the money doesn't keep flowing, especially after the election,

the us election at the end of this year? well essentially tom, uh, the, the, when the new grand sales would slowly die. um then uh it would eventually be come under such a pressure from the russians. the stay would have to start conceding territory and then it would be down to the manner of which task and how much the russians talk. and also whether the finance have to switch to some sort of insurgency, to go back to charles point, you know, what, i don't think the west actually had a problem for this being a proxy war. i think if you look at the nature of the way that the ukrainians defended at the start of the war, they exceeded expectations much higher than most people. so within the region, the old them, the weapon systems that went in suggested they were going to be the west. we're going to be funding an insurgency, especially in the west of the country, rather than a full this to get scale to go to tote conventional flight, which it turns into. so you brain exceeded expectations and the policy decisions have to evolve with that. we are aware we are and i don't think the writings would

have also accepted in the end and it goes a to settlement before the affordable or the some obviously major differences are by whether internally, whether they want to accept anything that is. so, um, but we are where we are. i think the point is, uh, you know, even just the defense or former or persian the ascendancy. it's even hard for the russians, even though they're getting into a groove and making some advances. it's harder for them to mouse in secret and then break through like we've seen any in in previous flores because of the advantages with ukraine, generally, as long as i can keep the sensors, unintelligence picture going them. their big question is, do we take a year and go on the defensive and then with something a massive amounts of us and western support train. you know, if i do a big or offensive in 2024, i actually think that's probably becoming the less likely that as time passes in result and one in part as a result of this delay to the package. if it had to come back in october, when it was needed, then you would have been into a phase and in spring of planning and prepping for the holding off the russians for

a year and going again for an operational big sheets, deposits easy, give another try another operational victory next summer. i don't, i think we've lost so much time now. i'm not sure that's going to happen. chris, it seems like we're already talking about nick some a little on in the one in the coming months. what do you make of, of with this is, is going to go, do you think is, is just going to continue, i guess, rolling along, month after month with very little movements in terms of territory gains or losses on either side as well. i just wanna address the issue of momentum because that is true, that the inception of the conflict and this was a lot of this was due to failure within the russian military, on their intelligence, their tactics. they didn't have the logistics, they didn't have the trip numbers. uh and the trainings, especially in that initial rush driven susie as i'm and the flight of western

weapons, were able to make military gains. but all of that has been neutralized the tactics, especially the strong defensive tactics have changed the russian forces of more than double in size. uh and then of course the ukrainians. uh, as i mentioned before, are having great difficulty mobilizing uh the in and increasingly older troops that are not particularly well trained or motivated. the russians have got more effective tactics in terms of defending attacks. uh and uh, and they've increased their capacity to jam the electronic systems, which these natal weapons use. so the war is changed dramatically from that initial inception. i'd sure i would use the word stalemate because it is a war of attrition. stalemate is essentially something that doesn't change a war of attrition on the ground. it may not change in terms of the actual

territorial occupation, but that steady attrition on the ukraine just can't afford it. and at that point, at a certain point, as you know, you go back to world war one or something. you see those forces that are being shipped away, essentially collapse. and i think that's a real possibility and ukraine eventually. and it's all, i can see you, nothing along there. what do you make of that? i guess that's how you see it to yes, i think chris is exactly right. and it goes absolutely critical here is, is the issue. ready of troops of numbers of troops, because even if we go on giving you kind, massive amounts of weapons, we kind of generate the troops to use those weapons. and ukraine is more and more numbers and its troops on the ground are exhausted. so yes, i mean, the longer the will goes off, the greater the risk that, as chris said, as in, in the 1st will, you have

a war of attrition but which eventually does end with the collapse of, of one side. and that side, i think we must assume would be ukraine, not fresh. i believe it to roughly 50000 ukranian soldiers had been killed. so fire and 2 years of war. and it's all i know that you have been to your crime since the will began. can you just give us a little bit of a view of what the people of the, the population make if this more of attrition is we're calling it here today. i mean, we often hear from the government's point of view, obviously, but we really, very, really here from the people inside you cried as i, at a turning point a with i want to see eddings to the war at this point. well, i mean, as one would expect, saving the great divisions of opinion on to the surface in, in the ukrainian population. a, by the way, mean the estimates of the,

the statement by the lensky of study one sizes and you pregnant, that is taken by nice military experts to be a huge. i'm just a, probably the 50000, bbc think it's russian. that is also a great time to on the statement. but one of the scene of the already when i was there last year, i everybody, everybody i talked to one to the pregnant defensive to succeed, bought a large minority said. but if it didn't, then rather than even a fighting on and on and losing more and more dead with no realistic hope. the victory that you train would have to negotiate and concede from at least a considerable amount of the tire trade, which it has already lost now, majorities and said, no, you pain must, must never surrender territory. but it was also striking. ready the people who said that in the end we will have to compromise. that was the last minority as i say,

but not one of them is willing to say on the record of it. this one has to be wary of including, of opinion pose, which say that you know, you'd be brand new people are united in opposing, any kind of compromise piece. and a bit more recent opinion, polls have suggested that that has been a strong shift towards belief that that that must be a compromise piece. not yes, the majority, but even larger minority. now, of course, one must say that that does not mean that these people support ukraine, simply so rendering to russia and ukraine becoming, you know, of course, session clients state was overwhelming opposition to that. the question is basically whether you negotiate a piece which involves russia holding voltage, it now has and which also of course, involves ukrainian treaty of neutrality was also being that it just goes by many

ukrainians is the fact that while the west has given massive aid to ukraine, of course, the west has not gone to war, to defend ukraine, which, as the lensky himself said, in the 1st month, does raise the question of what nature membership, what is for whether the inside nature ukraine will be a member of nature. and that's why, in fact, ukraine should not sign a treaty of neutrality if accompanied by you some forms of guarantee for its future security. but before we move on to potential negotiations and all of this picture, when it comes to you just in regards to the ukranian soldiers, obviously as we had a minimum, the city thousands of have died already up to potentially 50000. the longer this goes on, is this the greatest risk to you, cried the, the, the, the lack of troops that they have coming in behind those on the front line that

continue to be killed. it depends, doesn't that, you know, depends on the rate of loss relative to the russians and their ability to refresh it. but look, it's not like you're talking long term in the way the germany was eventually strong goals in, in the 1st for a walrus christmas. all kind of a, there is on some choosing that analogy a smaller nation with a smaller population and economy can go against, you know, a former global superpower with, you know, 200000000 people. and it just doesn't happen. a lot of people have left you brain to, so that's a longer term picture and i agree, but, but you know, and there's worrying indicators, you know, rushes out in your bait or release, replacing out of goods forces. 30000 people amongst ukraine installed over there, mobilization um, over the winter basically, you know, and he's just getting ran through and thought should have happened much faster. you know, a porch. i do think that the, you know, we're gonna talk about negotiations. that's ultimately i think it's all the software that has been to the branding is to decide when enough is enough is enough, is enough enough for them to the side. and all we've done really is giving them the

stuff. and some of it's too late to, to, to keep fighting. so, i mean, we've also gone out and see and it's all you know, statements that we've gone over and told them to keep fighting a time to give them support and which stand by stand by them. and i suppose the, some of the ukrainians are coming out and they're saying, well, we thought there be more, but on the nato point, you know, you probably didn't, to nato, it wasn't able to core, i like is right. and i and you know, so i'm, i think that's probably not being made clear enough to them in the, in the, in the past potentially. yeah. and so i'm going to come to you shortly if now is the time to negotiate. but course i want to bring you back in here because do you think that this really is up to $61000000000.00 of 8 as soon to be heading towards ukraine? is this the time to negotiate and, and if not, when as well. i think the longer you frame delays negotiations the week or it's position becomes

a and there is going to have to be an exchange of land for peace. i think that's inevitable in eastern ukraine, which russia regards was russian historically and culturally with some justification. um, so i don't think time is on the side of ukrainians. and to tell i want to bring you back in here obviously. yeah. so we saw you shaking your head before in regards to this. do you think that it has to be an exchange of lands to pace and do you think that the ukrainians will accept that as well? i think so, 1st of all we, we do, we obviously have a road in this if, if we are giving so much help to you crate and it is endangering our end security and the process. of course we have a say in the end of the assessments and negotiations, i mean, i, i think the american people,

your pin publics have every right to them on that. but i think it's very important to say 2 things. one is there all things that the west really i the in fact america can i'm sure negotiation. one of those things is nation membership is up to 2 members. business up to ukraine. it's up to us subsidy, existing members of nature. we can negotiate as we did with the soviets over australia and the 1950s. we can negotiate screeches of neutrality, but i need some membership and false mutual false invitations that still have to be crated. now, when it comes to saying that only the premiums can negotiate the settings of the program is also that if you look at the political situation in p, if, if you look at the pressure on presidents and landscape, they come to actually do that. it's not politically possible for them to initiate negotiations. we, we will have to do that. the final point is on territory. ready concessions. look

the territories in the east at the moment or last, if you can kind of recon cuz i'm on the battlefield. it went get them back to the negotiating table. but that does not mean that the ukrainians should or code or that we should all could tell them so many to give up those territories. negotiate them away because they can't do that. so in any case, that will be completely concrete to international law. but russians have suggested that actually, and by the way, this was part of the, the, the piece plan it in march of 22. that's rather than agreeing on the status of those territories. negotiations on them should be deferred for future discussion, which also is what we have done of the international community in the case of kashmir, in the case of cyprus. so you've done tried to solve the territorial issue,

you freeze on for future negotiations, which in the case of cyprus and caching is probably the ones that have generations . petrik, is that viable? is that a viable option here? do you think i it, while it comes in to the intent of vladimir putin and whether you control some and whether a frozen contact is indeed going to be frozen or if they're going to keep taking pot shots that have cost us? cuz i would, if i was him to stop them getting anywhere near neighbors, i wouldn't do. and so, you know, i'm, i'm not, as i said, intent on trust of which both i think it's intended very, very difficult under that to understand and trust. very, very low, but i totally agree that it's on this and you know what i was getting. that was the brand new as we'll have to decide whether not enough device. and of course we have some skin in the game. we've got a lot of skin in the game and that gives us, and i'm sure it's going on, you know,

good cancel being being given to give it to the leadership, but ultimately is it's for them to the side. and i do think there's a lens, you know, the maximum us go and bolivar, tyronica, useful, etc. especially in the early days, you know, really, that's be realistic, military, even with a mass of longer term support. and from that, you know, how long as i include in the us, you know, you're looking at a larger version of wall failed last summer. you know, a larger, better cracked version of that. that's a big domestic. and that would just take back another chunk of land, you know, so it may be the southern coast right in front of mary up all around to um, to the outskirts and on further side of that was the reason for example. and of course, that would put probably me under, you know, much more direct rest. uh, but it were still totally operational out on the strategic victory. you know, when you need to string together a number of operations to get it into a, it's a strategic victory. so, um yeah, i think militarily, it's but because of this,

the light is back on the more difficult thing to any to take back any brand. yeah, chris, uh, i just wanna finish up with you and, and take it, take a bit of a step back. does anyone actually want, whether is the you with ukraine, russia, united way? does anyone actually want this to come to a quick conclusion or, or are all of those potties prepared to just grind this out? as long as it takes? i don't think they're prepared to grind it out well that, that is, by the way, their strategy as long as it takes whatever that means i don't care is any hard of the sense or understanding of where we are going with this. i'm talking about the united states. they have an app, so it was hard question. what is as long as it takes me one way you know strategic? um so, but, but the support is waive, right? and i mean, we see it in the united states. uh and uh, with a trump presidency. uh, it's very possible that there could be

a severe reduction in terms of support for ukraine. so uh no, i think that there is a diminishing appetite for a forever war in ukraine, especially since there is not been clear cut and definitive goals set in particular by washington. we'll have to leave it there, but we really do appreciate your time and i guess for some 4 months we'll have to say exactly what difference the 61000000000 dollars is actually going to make on the battlefield. chris and tell them patrick, we really do appreciate your time. thank you. and thank you to for one thing, you can see the program again, any time by visiting a web site. that sounds, is there a dot com? and so for the discussion, go through all facebook page, that's facebook dot com, forward slash a inside story. you can also join the conversation on x. i handle is at a inside story from a time to cry and a whole team here. bye for now the

the killing of i'll just return it is shooting of the hawk. there was not an isolated event. it highlighted the whole question of press freedom of turn in a skilled one doing their job. they were certainly aiming in the direction that the terms of the 0 world looks at the number of journalists killed into occupied palestinian territories, which has increased dramatically during the war on god and at the problems of holding anyone accountable for their death. shooting. the messenger $1.00 0 to 0. the,

[000:00:00;00] the 11 o'clock in the top stories here on al jazeera and the head of israel's military intelligence has resigned saying he takes responsibility for the lapse and security . the let to be attacked by him asked in southern israel on october, the 7th, major general out on how many eva is the 1st senior government figured to quit, more than 6 months off to be attacked, which killed 1139 people. but as smith says, more from occupied east jerusalem and speech major general out on leave