research on conquering

authorrian corruption. if you are joining us, we are a nonpartisan think tank based in washington, d.c., promoting american leadership. i'm honored to welcome back to hudson and worked tirelessly the highest levels of u.s. policy. senator jim risch served as senator since 2009 and ranking

member. he has promoted a robust approach to safeguarding american interests and those of our allies and about ways to support ukraine. senator risch is a leading co-sponsor of economic prosperity and opportunity for ukranians act. i have to note that hudson doesn't take institutional positions and can't endorse legislation. but we have profound. i will be moderating an expert discussion panel to explore these issues. you were last here in april about why supporting ukranian victory is in ukranian's

interest. senator risch: thank you very much and good to be back here again. the remarks i made in april about why a victory until ukraine is critically important to american national security interests, actually for the planet's national security interests. nothing has changed since then other than i think there is even a clear understanding that it is important that there be a victory there and that putin is defeated and is restrained from further ambitions on the planet. today marks the 631st day since

the russian illegal invasion of ukraine. over the last year and a half, putin has single handedly brought war back to europe. we have seen russian troops commit unspeakable crimes including targeting of civilian areas, indeed, deliberate targeting of civilian, mass graves, kidnappings and countless other horrors. putin is making every effort committing atrocities that amount to serious war crimes including genocide. russia has to pay for the devastation it has caused. indeed it's rare i get a chance to stand up here and tell you that the effort we are making here is an effort that is bipartisan, bicameral and says

we see issues like that. but more importantly there is enthusiasm for this particular issue on all parts. so in that regard it's fun to be doing one of these instead of constantly fighting over something. in kyiv, i have seen the destruction russia has rained down. the scale of the damage as you all know is immense. this devastation has decimated ukraine's economy with experts placing current estimates to rebuild at $400 billion and will increase more and the longer that this war drags on. the harsh reality presented the united states and allies with a problem. how do we hold russia with significant resources and veto powers at major international institutions accountable for its

invasion of ukraine. the destruction it has created and lives it has cost and how to best keep ukraine rebuild of build its country and save its economy and become integrated more into the west. this is a simple matter. russia broke it, they ought to pay for it. that is really simple. we understand it and the world understands that. international community has overwhelmingly condemned russia for its war of aggression. the international court of justice ruled that russia has violated international law and u.n. general assembly adopted a resolution establishing russia to provide reparations to ukraine and g-7 averts that russia must pay for ukraine's reconstruction. that's what we are talking about today and this effort that we are pursuing here is very

clearly targeted at. the problem, of course, is that russia has ignored all of this. why? because it can. putin refused to discuss compensation for damages and let alone to pay for the reconstruction of campaign and inflicts continuous destruction. russia continues to use its veto powers at the u.n. which house traditional mechanisms for competition effectively rendering these mechanisms useless. so we need to do more, thus the act. meanwhile, public reporting indicates that there is more than $300 billion in russian assets currently frozen around the world with most of it held in kreurp. we have some here in the united states. like-minded countries agree that russia should pay to rebuild ukraine and no country has taken

a step to make that happen. on assistance to ukraine thus far, u.s. leadership is absolutely essential. we are here to provide that leadership. european countries have hidden theoretical premises that protect sovereign state assets, however the ukraine situation is not a theoretical one, it is very real and real consequences. the truth is that russia will never agree to its obligations to compensate ukraine and russia veto powers have taken mechanisms off the table. thus, the need for the act. given this reality, the international community is left by a choice will we allow russia to skirt international obligations or will we acknowledge that both domestic and international law must be evolve in order to meet this relatively new problem and unique problem. make no mistake, this situation

presents the international legal system with one of the greatest tests since world war ii. the entire international system is based on the premise of international peace and security through respect of territorial sovereignty. if international law cannot resolve this, cannot evolve and hold russia accountable for violating not only a foundational preliminary of the u.n. but also this most basic tenet of the international system in the modern age, we stand no chance of china invading taiwan or other future aggression. the stakes are too high for us to let our team legal theories keep us from doing what needs to be done. over the course of this conflict, u.s. leadership on key assistance to ukraine from tanks to fighter aircraft to long-range missiles led other

countries to follow suit. this multiplies the amount of assistance many times over. i do not want to denigrate or take away from what the europeans have done. we have pushed and shoved back and forth who is doing more. that isn't relevant. both sides of the atlantic are working on this issue and should and it has been the thing that has brought our partnerships, our nato countries together and stronger more so than it has been in many years. if russia refuses to honor its moral obligations, other countries can and should seize russian assets and transfer them to ukraine. united states should lead on this issue by passing legislation to transfer russian

assets to ukraine and work with our allies to do the same. we are going through the lawful process and due process. this is why i rused the rebuilding economic prosperity and opportunity for ukraine act. it is a simple piece of legislation. it does four things. first and foremost, it grants the president authority to seize russian sovereign assets frozen in the assets and gives the president the authority to transfer those assets to ukraine for reconstruction. under current u.s. law there is no clear cut way to see assets of another country unless the u.s. is at war with that country. the bill makes clear this would be a one-time authority and applies only to russia in this unique circumstance. second because the president may not transfer all of russia's frozen assets the bill says the president cannot return frozen

assets until russia has withdrawn troops from ukraine and agrees to compensate ukraine. ensures that conditions have been met. third, the bill ensures that these funds can get to ukraine quickly to limit russia's ability to challenge seizure in courts. ukraine has the need for money now before the damage to its economy is irreparable. russia would like to tie these funds over a decades' long time period of complex litigation in order to keep from having to pay out. interestingly, our court system is designed that this is possible if we don't have this legislation to make things happen otherwise. this provision would provide congressional intent in its unique and extraordinary situation that russia should not

be able to use the u.s. legal system to skirt its obligation and delay justice for ukraine. finally, the bill directs the president to engage with other allies and partners to establish an international mechanism. while i believe the united states has the authority to seize russian assets and send them to ukraine i do not believe that we should act alone. we should have our partners with us. according to on public reports, most of russian yeah's frozen assets are in europe. europe will need to participate. because this is an extraordinary situation, collective action in concert with our allies and partners will send a message to putin and any other authoritarian state contemplating illegal military action and more importantly u.s. leadership will be critical to encouraging our european

allies. while the act is focused on domestic law, it sends a strong message to europe that seizing russia sovereign assets would be legal and appropriate under international law. under the international law of countermeasures third-party countries have the right to take proportionate temporary action to comply with the legal obligations. therefore it is legal and appropriate for nations to term nailt russia's sovereign immunity and transfer frozen assets to ukraine. some argue this would limit the president's ability to end the war in ukraine. they argue they should use frozen assets as carrot and place preconditions and congressional oversight. part of this legislation gives the president more tools to compel russia to negotiate by

giving the president the discretion to use this authority, he will have added credibility in negotiations up to and until this authority is exercised. by making seizure a real possibility putin will be under pressure to make a deal and make meaningful conditions of withdrawal. if he refuses, this creates a pathway to make ukraine whole. if russia attempts to challenge seizure in u.s. federal courts the department of justice would have the ammunition to rebuff these clalings. the argument i would hear most often is that seizing russia's assets will set a new precedent all of which have grown up over a period of time and there for a reason and in general and normal circumstances. the preliminary that states are immune from having their

appropriate to several debts is incredibly important preliminary and the fact that the law of countermeasures has never been used to suspend sovereign immunity with regard to seizure of state's assets. there are rare and extreme cases where exceptions are necessary as long as there are appropriate guardrails to keep the exceptions limited. indeed, there is precedent for seizing assets of an agressor state. in 1991, the international community seized iraqi assets. russia's war in ukraine is another unique but rare situation that warrants such similar actions and is both legal, appropriate and very much in line with the single precedent that is out there and that is the iraq-kuwait

situation. still others argue that if a country takes russia's assets, russia will retaliate. putin is seizing western assets. in april, putin announced a decree that had countermeasures as justifications to seize private companies if they are based in countries deemed unfriendly by the kremlin. so the russians themselves have provided a clear legal precedent to this action. they have already done this and it's appropriate that we follow suit. unfriendly countries is an interesting proposition by the kremlin. that is probably everybody with the exception of north korea and china, iran and cuba and venezuela. but only a handful of 200 countries on the planet. some critics say if united states take russia's assets,

they will take other country's assets. the fear of confiscation would weaken the value of the dollar. this argument doesn't hold water. some countries have tried to shift by demanding saudi arabia pay them for their oil. there is a reason these efforts have failed and rebuffed. the dollar is the standard for international investments period. it is highly unlikely for the future that another currency could overtake the dollar. it is clear this bill targets a very specific and unique case. the approach of the act is not to represent my view. in crafting this legislation closely with constitutional law professors, policy practitioners, european partners, ukranian legal advocates and officials, this

effort to bring so many stakeholders to the table is why this bill is the bill to russian sovereign assets that has bipartisan, bicameral and enthusiastic support. the act is ukraine's top legislative request. in the senate i partnered with senator whitehouse and key architect of legislation enabling the size you are of russian assets in the united states. senator wicker and senator graham. in the house foreign affairs committee just passed its version of the bill by overwhelming bipartisan majority of 40-2. the act has been endorsed by legal and policy scholars from all parts of the political spectrum outside of government. we are entering a new phase of strategic competition that is growing more fierce.

we need to develop and use new and more creative tools to seek justice for those who are wronged but deter bad actors from doing things like russia has done in ukraine. the countries who want to change the international system, china, russia iran, north korea don't care about the rule of law and don't care about precedent. we must put them on notice that we will not act with impunity, that they will not be allowed to act with impunity. they will be made to pay. the act will show them that that is true and i thank all of you who share this enthusiasm and support this effort. and i commit to you that we'll move as diligently as we can to get this legislation across the finish line. i'll take a question or two or whatever you like.

[applause] i'll take a couple of questions. [indiscernible question] senator risch: we have worked across the board and state department is important, but just as importantly is the national security council and we have worked with both of them to hone this legislation to the point where everybody can embrace it. as always, there are different views and pushing and shoving on the detail as always. that's the way the democratic system works. but i can tell you as far as this legislation is concerned we don't have stumbling blocks, we

don't have blockage. we have a bipartisan good faith effort to bring all those things together including the state department and national security council. and those are important. thank you. good question. reporter: i wanted to ask about prospects of getting this through congress this year. new house speaker has voiced support for this idea. can you give us an update whether it will make it into the defense bill or some other way of moving it soon? senator risch: as you know, the system is complex on the hill as to how we move stuff forward. i met with mike last night and we had this discussion. i would say to you and i don't

want to focus on one because otherwise that's what people do and other doors may close, but there are a number of ways that this could go. as the bottom line, i will tell you that i am cationously optimistic we will push it through one of those doors and multiple doors to push it through. and i wouldn't feel that way if there wasn't the broad, broad support. thanks for the question. i know you like to get into the weeds like i do. most people don't care that much about it. we'll get this done. the exact train it rides on. reporter: the house is moving

this bill. what would you say to the general public to move the political will because we need this bill to happen urgently given the political landscape? senator risch: for the general public, i would say if you want this in the rear view mirror and everybody does however you feel what support we should give to ukraine and we know the reasons for national security why we have to be there. in april when i was here, we spent about the reasons we need to do this. this is one of the best ways to do it. the world works on money and talking about this amount of money and it is a very significant amount of money. if we get that money and hand it over to ukraine, that will go a long way to debilitating the russian ability to move forward

with the war. this is just the right thing to do almost any human being of goodwill could stand back and look at this. if you had no politics involved, had no knowledge of the party and said this is what one party did and this is what happened to the other party, on a kindergarten school ground they will say these guys should pay. it's that simple. i'll take one more. [applause] >> thank you so much, senator. how compelling the case is for the measures contained in the act. we will have a panel discussion

and take your place on the stage and probably time for question and answer as well. >> zhao see the value for ukraine and the american people -- indiscernible] voices are growing louder about the costs to u.s. taxpayers.

do you see u.s. taxpayers paying for your defense? you would rather have russia pay for the damage? >> we are extremely grateful the assistance we are receiving from the u.s. and european union because we are we have the feeling that -- that is not in our intention. we are extremely grateful but we have to ask more russian aggression is continuing. and russia is in for the long war. their eventual goal hasn't changed and to subjugate and if

the state fails, they understand that in the protracted war it will be much more come play indicated for ukraine to win because we are smaller, because this is our economy being destroyed. we lost over 30% of our g.d.p. it is our energy critical infrastructure is being destroyed and we have another winter ahead of us which will be much harder than the previous one and russia wants on the heads of ukranian civilians and what russia is doing that is not the goal to populate ukraine, to cut our transport and export to our economy and make money.

we are advocating for the confiscation of assets that would create a dangerous precedent. but one dictatorship trying to take over a sovereign country by force, it's much more dangerous precedent. while we are extremely grateful for the western taxpayer assistance we need to consider this as an investment. and i think that the senator is saying why the return on this investment is very high in itself. but we definitely think look at the short-term horizon. we have to think what could be

supporting ukraine in the long-term. it does not substitute the assistance which is being debated in the congress and hope it has the bipartisan support because it is very important for us but have to think in the longer perspective. i can absolutely subscribe by everything the senator said that was amazing and very inspiring speech because we are meeting a lot with european partners and doing a lot of advocacy in the u.s. and other countries. very often we miss the feeling of the sense of urgency which russia is doing and may change the world order and other dictators are taking note and other dictators are taking note

of the western response. making russia pay is not only about providing ukraine with more secure sustainable support and assistance in the mid-term, in the long-term to make sure we have sufficient resources for ukraine, but this is about holding an agressor accountable. it is also about safeguards against other acts of aggression. the dictators are calculating benefits and disadvantages of their aggression, and this could be a very powerful addition again, acts of aggression if they know the west is ready to move as strongly and firmly in confiscating the assets in order to keep the world order.

that is why we have to make russia pay. that's the right way to go. >> i didn't introduce the panel. i didn't have enough coffee. [introduction of panel] can i come straight to you and pick up on the idea that elena about deterrence on the border, context in which this bill is being brought forward. you have written a lot about how ukraine is building up military security exaights that wouldn't have been possible.

military preparedness, and economic and financial preparedness. important part of that. you spend your day talking about the military situation which is on everyone's mind. >> thank you for having me and the opportunity to be able to speak on this. policy perspective and why i became very interested in this and also from a political small p partisan way and why it is what is happening globally right now. there are two elements of the bill that i note are very promising for effecting putin's calculations. when you think about the term, people throw that word around a

lot and we have to flesh out what we mean. we are trying to get into the mind of putin so he concludes that it's time to end the conflict and no longer worth it economically to him from his own personal power perspective inside of russia and now time to come up with an off-ramp for himself. you don't have to provide one, you can make one up and sell it to the russian people. he has to decide to get out of ukranian territory and end this war. there are two components of the bill that get us at. and one is that this idea that putin is going to outlast, that we don't have the will and he does have a will that outlasts the united states and our allies. so what does this is, we are saying actually no, we are going

to confiscate the $300 billion in russian frozen assets and collaboration of $200 billion in europe and second piece of that which the senator spoke about is really important is prohibition on the release of blocked russian assets until russia agrees to pay for it and that russia cannot be off the hook is because somebody will pay to rebuild ukranian society when this war is over. that will happen. that's an a fact of reality. it should not be primarily the american people and it should not be primarily other european people, citizens, that it should be the people who are responsible for this unpro joked war and that's russia. and we have those funds

available to us. and so not to avail ourselves of those funds and put it back spue the ukranian society i think conveys something wrong and weak about the resolve of the united states and our allies. i think it's important we pass this bill even if the united states does that, it will not get to the russia's frozen assets but demonstrate strong american leadership and push the europeans. the canadians have already done it and they take international law very seriously and examined it and determined it does not make any sense for there to be harbor of russian assets in our country exploiting this concept of international law. and the international law is therefore the thing that we are trying to get at which is respect for national sovereignty

and rule of law and break into somebody's country and steal their people and territory. by not passing, you are undermining the premises of international law. and the other piece that is important, once again it demonstrates there is strong bipartisan congressional support for ukraine and really have been leading in pushing the administration. you have seen this on particular weapons systems -- [indiscernible] save you from going down the list, but something congress has been pushing the do even more. and i think it is a compelling part of the story in terms of american support for ukraine. it really does would affect his calculations about how to expend on this war effort and conveys

to china, there this idea when it comes to financees in our economy that the united states is not willing to pull that lever. and i think that this would again, china is a whole different -- very difficult problem as to how integrated our economies are but does send a signal that the united states will use these particular tools to punish authoritarianism and sends the right message for president xi. with that -- >> working with the senator on this legislation. any thoughts you want to add in addition that the senator may have not had time. do you see this legislation as discrete and stand-alone for

russia or could you copy and pace -- paste this or if china decided to invade taiwan, is this going to become a principle to deal with conflicts? >> as both the senator said, first and foremost, yes, it points specifically to ukraine and russia invading. you look at -- we have to first step back and look at the legal foundation or lack thereof in terms of russia's invasion of ukraine. the i.c.j. ruled it was in invasion of international law and other international conflicts whether it was the u.s. invasion of afghanistan

under international law to do that. that is the important distinction here and must be clearly understood and that is the presume mess behind then seizing sovereign assets in terms of repayment for ukraine. russia did this without any legitimacy and therefore its action is a pa riaa in the international system. if you find a similar case like that going forward then yes, this should be used as an example for future cases, but that is the important distinction that needs to be drawn here in that regard. if you had invasion of taiwan, i would be curious to see what legal basis to say they would do that. and that is part of the message that rebecca refers to that united states willing to take

that stap. should send a very powerful signal to the international community that you can't do this without expecting some sort of consequence in terms of sovereign assets. it is an important deterrent signal. if we do this ukraine. it will have been done in 40 years and that is important to consider in this. but this is the greater peace. this is a new error of global competition and you have to think about new tools or tools that have existed in the past being used in different ways if you want to maintain deterrence or discourage certain actions that we find to be particularly egregious. and use this as a tool sends a mixed message in the global competition that we have to be careful that we don't send.

and dan flatly asked about different mechanisms to get this across the finish line. there are different mechanisms but there are things that the international community can do. we will have a g-7 meeting in december where this has been discussed previously. i would love them to come up with a morrow bus announcement in december that they are moving in this direction. we in force by the legislation. but our g7 allies can do to move this in the proper direction. that would be another powerful signal in terms of that message. so i think there are a lot of different things we can do going forward in the next couple of months to continue to push this issue. >> i want to put a finer point on the point i wanted to make how it is smart politics and

somebody asked about speaker johnson why i think this is really important. the american support for ukraine and against russia is so high, but i think we would not be honest if we didn't mention the fact that it is lacking a little bit and the american people do want to understand when we can see this in the rear view mirror. and i think that this particular legislative initiative and the bipartisan support behind it, part of the reason why it is so attractive because it is good stewardship of the american taxpayer dollars when we have the russian frozen assets available to us and be able to the american people that yes the united states can do what we do best, providing weapons for the war effort and how well the

ukranians have been able to fight back on the russians and push them back out of their territory using our weapons and then the united states has been able to use this opportunity to replenish our own stock. when it comes to rebuilding ukranian society, who is going to do that? we have an answer. a big chunk is going to come from the russians and we have the note to realistically do that. in terms of the political moment, it's right for that and very smart and what helps maintain that support from the american people to help end this war on terms that are favorable to ukraine. >> u.s. taxpayer dollars going to fund reconstruction of the ukranian welfare state --

[indiscernible] >> i want to add that why ukranian's case is unique itself because this is not an ordinary war illegal where one country tries to take over another one and there are a lot of banks that makes this unique starting with the fact that russia violated budapest memorandum which gave up third nuclear arsenal on russia's promises not to attack us. then they occupied crima and since the start of the war, look what they have done apart from major war crimes, which are kind of, you know already

legitimatize because there was no proper international response. russia continues to do the largest nuclear power plant and not a single sanction was imposed for that. russians are doing major deportations. what we have our government has documented on more than 20,000 cases. but russians themselves deport and are proud of deporting 750,000 kids, that's almost one million. those kids who stayed in the occupied territory are largely brain washed. even their names and surnames under the pressure are being changed on this russian manner. they are being forced.

we are seeing deliberate attacks not only on the energy system and nuclear power plants those that are not occupied. a month ago we saw an attack on the nuclear power plant where russian missiles are flying over it almost every second month. attacks on the food and grain. two days ago there was an investigation where russians were buying a lot of new trucks in order to deliberately steal our grain and sell it on the international market. so all those things -- and that was something by listening to other panelists. i'm sure this list could be much longer which makes this russian

adpretion unique and need to make sure that this instrument that we are pushing for would be kind of a stand-alone case which would create precedent and not a negative precedent opening pan dora's box. >> you do have a coalition of countries that working democracy and western values that europe, the united states our allies represent. one of the concerns that exist here in the absence of russia paying for the reconstruction of ukraine, several of those others aligned with russia will try to come in with their own financial resources to rebuild ukraine and i specifically mentioned china in this regard. whether using very good ukranian

defense technology, whether it's trying to set standards in ukraine to away from standards the united states and western europe has set is something we need to be very, very careful. using russian assets to pay for the reconstruction and western contractors helping participated in that is incredibly importants is part of this. and we need to be very careful how we move forward in that regard. seizing russian assets helps us avoid tougher choices. >> i remember before the invasion, china's footprint was interested in poking around there. we have a few minutes. does anyone have any questions?

[indiscernible] seems disingenuous for americans since 1947 spent trillions of dollars defending against the russians and they destroyed half the army and 112 days without a combat casualty. so thank you for keeping our kids safe. [indiscernible] someone else back there? >> former state department analyst on ukraine issues. do you think that western leaders are too afraid of bankrupting russia? there is discussion that the war will end when putin and his mafia friends decide it's not worth it anymore but the second part is putin's regime when his

faff yeah friends think it's not worth it anymore. how much of a collapse hippedderring economic sanctions and economic punishment against russia for their aggression. >> you have been around in europe. >> absolutely the question from the very beginning, my organization is international center for ukranian victory and established in the first few days after the war started. whether ukraine will fall three days or one week. you have gone through this for weeks, will you survive for months. there was no plef that ukraine is actually capable of winning this war and should be given all

of the sufficient forces. pause every day of fighting costs us. the right of our people. and i think that the issue -- the goal defines the news. if the goal helps. you cannot have ukraine and something in between you know in russia. despite the fact that i fully agree with rebecca putin will come up with an idea how to his internal audience to make sure that it's not hurting him that much. and fighter jets for more than a year and you know long range missiles for a year and a half.

and we have this approach of the western leaders. one of the reasons we were hearing that there is no understanding what will happen in russia whether you know there will be collapse of the regime or whatever and that we are having sanctions which are -- because western technologies continue ending up in russian missiles and in russian drones all the time. we are seeing that russians are increasingly trading oil. the price cap is not that effective and has to be lowered. but this is not implemented. and only a handful of russian banks are under the sanctions. why not all of the 330.

this unfortunately -- it is hurting ukraine very much. because if the goal is to support ukranian victory whatever it takes and as long as it is needed. then you know it can significantly change the dynamics of the assistance. >> could i add to that one. and this goes on the military side, too. the one thing i have been focusing on and i agree that if you -- one of the things that we have not done well, we as a country and pointing to the white house on this is, you have to died what you want the out congresswoman and develop a tray strait guy and we have not done that. i have been uncomfortable with as long as it takes slogan. because you have to define what

it is and resource it and use the tools at your disposal to do that. there is a fear -- i would say we are out of practice as a country on thinking through this idea of escalation and keep hearing about escalation, the e word that everyone is afraid it. ukraine wins if russia decides to stop. the alternative, they are in a long war of attrition that extremely expensive in blood and treasure. it's strategic incoherence from the united states and united states and deeply immoral. as i agree with the assumptions that are in that question we should be using the tools at our disposal smartly, but in order for ukraine to be able to

actually force a conclusion to this conflict. that is something we still have not seenment all of these category of weapons seem to be released but takes enormous amount of pressure on ukraine and congress, congress has been leading from the beginning. not how often how the media portrays it. but across the board in terms of leadership on both parties and pushing and collaborating and on the republican side pushing hard when -- long range attack them and real-time intelligence on the part of the united states. these are all things that have been really pushed and shouldn't have to be. it shouldn't have to be, especially since you end up getting there but only have we collaborate and don't make the russians too mad. we have to a strategic mindset

to help ukraine stay in the momentum and take the initiative to drive the russians out of their sovereign territory. >> echoing what my colleagues have said, early on in the days of this conflict there were a number of people believed that you could use frozen assets as a way to buy a ceasefire and this is why congress has pushed so hard and there are limitations on what you could use the assets for in the language that russia russia must fully withdraw before you can return assets to them. this money was dangled in front of russians to get them to stop shooting for a while. clearly they didn't take that offer but this is why we have come in and said we can't even do that. they have to fully withdraw.

so that, i think, is one of the challenges in terms of taking these assets, is that there's an idea that we cap get back to the way things were. i think this legislation is the definitive answer that you have to have a different strategy toward russia. we have to admit the rail in a world as it is and move on, recalibrate our policy toward russia. >> thank you all for come, we're right at the time. we can't endorse these action, the actions russia should take, confiscating frozen assets is a good one, give the president more leverage in a future time he may need it, it's a cost effective way for americans to show their support for ukraine which they still overwhelmingly want to do, despite the noise you hear from washington. i wish you, chris, and your office all the best, i thank you elena and rebecca for joining us

today. thank you all for coming out to hear more about this fascinating and exciting that moves us a step closer to ukrainian victory and accountability for russia. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

announcer: today on c-span a discussion on israel, ukraine, and the evolution of warfare with a retired u.s. army general. that is live from the atlantic council starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. 1:00 p.m., former fcc chair in the current fcc chair discuss the biden administration and the expansion of 5g. later, live mpgn 2024 coverage starts at 4:00 p.m. eastern with hopeful governor ron dans, nikki haley, and vivek ramaswamy speaking to voters at a familyeader form in iowa. you can also watch our network by using the free c-span now app or go online to c-span.org. ♪ announcer: book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest

non-fiction books. beginning at 11:00 a.m. eastern overage of the miami book fair on what it means to be latino in the united states. the lecy of martin luther king jr. and then racial equity in america. at 10:00 a.m. eastern on afterwards author of "the world i see" on artificial intelligence. she is interviewed by technology reporter jeremy su. watch book tv every sunday and find online anytime at booktv.org. ♪ announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more,

including mediacom. >> we believe that whether you live here, or here, or in the middle of anywhere, you should have access to reliable internet. announcer: mediacom supports c-span as a public service along with these other providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. announcer: coming up on "washington journal" this morning, your nationwide calls and comments live. and then miles yu of the hudson institute and jake werner of the quincy institute discuss u.s. china relations. and npr's roben farzad discusses the u.s. economy. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: