publicly. we ve seen not respond to penetration of their own airspace much less taiwan s airspace. we witnessed here on the public relations nightmare and not have a rational explanation as to what took place. the present instincts and the pentagon told us is going to be a debris field endanger others. that what the retake of that should have been i still want shot down, bring the options we can do it safely and that is what should have been executed in my judgment. the fact it has not explained the situation we are in now. what does that say to you it appears the white house and the pentagon were at odds in terms
the under current here senior officials in the pentagon who don t believe the ukrainians can retake all this territory. and i say stop under estimating all of them after all this time ukrainians have proven they have the mettle to get things done. russians are defending over 1,000 miles and that defense is vulnerable low morale poor training not having all the equipment they need have. they are going to be able to penetrate these lines and retake territory and give them the means to do it. brian: absolutely. this is the russia s b team they have lost tens of thousands already. general, thanks so much. yeah. great talking to you, brian. the team, have a wonderful weekend. brian: by the way speaking of weekend coming up at 8:00 and repeated at 11:00. one nation yesterday to go. one year anniversary. guest senator tim scott will he run for president.
as the president noted, his country is under attack, unprovoked attack. i don t have any announcements on other systems today. we understand president zelenskyy wants as much capability as possible. as you point out, this has been a changing war. you have made different decisions as the battlefield has changed. that s right. let s talk about the goal here. the president said the goal was to be defensive, not offensive. the goal is also, as you have acknowledged, to have the offensive capability to push back against russia and to retake russian territory. explain what you mean by retake i should say, ukrainian territory that has been taken by russia. does that mean just the territory since february 24th of last year or does that go back to 2014, including crimea? from the very beginning, 11 months ago, and even beyond that, andrea. we have always said and our policy has always been we want
on that point, michael, what do you think about the fear and the threat from that the delivery of these tanks will further threat from russia that the delivery of these tanks will further escalate the situation? at one level it is laughable that a country that invaded a sovereign nation to its immediate south and west wants to talk about escalation because they are trying to help to talk about escalation because we are trying to help that country defend itself and retake territory. but another level we have to take russian threats of escalation seriously and that is why i do not want to provide ukraine things like long range bombers or long range ballistic missiles. but tanks, tanks are harder to use over many hundreds of miles when they are provided in relatively modest numbers. if we provide ukraine with a couple of hundred tanks, i think that is about the right number, it is enough to give them a decent chance to take back its territory, it will not constitute a threat to the interi