In your testimony, you refer
to private military companies
that Russia relies on
to undermine other nations
sovereignty to the extent possible
in this open setting.
Can you share your perspective
on the relationship
between the Wagner Group
and the Russian forces
at the operational level?
And are you seeing the Wagner
Group's presence in Africa
change as a result of the war in Ukraine?
As you know,
the Wagner Group is a mercenary private
military company.
They're conducting combat operations
right now in park mode, primarily
it's probably about 6000
or so actual mercenaries
and maybe another 20
or 30,000 recruits
that they get, many of whom
come from prisons,
and they are suffering an enormous amount
of casualties in the black mud area.
The Ukrainians are inflicting
a lot of death
and destruction on these guys.
In addition to Moon and Ukraine,
Wagner Group is in many,
many other places
most notably in West Africa,
where they essentially have taken over
a country
and they are
they've pushed out the French out of
I think with Mali
and some other places
for the Wagner groups,
a very aggressive group, it's
led by a very ruthless guy.
Prigozhin he reports to be a,
you know, businessman,
but he's got an incredible
criminal background behind him.
So this is a dangerous group.
They're quite large, are quite powerful.
And there they have
at least reach
throughout parts of Europe
and into Africa
and maybe some parts of the Middle East.
We ran into them in the Middle East
a couple of years ago in Syria,
about a battalion sized force
that was attacking one of our positions.
And we destroyed that force.
So they are there.
They're aggressive there.
Most of them are former
Russian soldiers of one kind or another.
A lot of internationals work
with them as well.
So very dangerous group,
long reach, very wealthy, very rich.
And they are probably very
disruptive, internal to Russian society.
Terminology with respect to back,
which you mentioned earlier,
it appears that Russia
is still
unable to accomplish
core strategic objectives.
It is frankly remarkable to me
that it still stands
and is still owned by the Ukrainians.
Do you share the perspective
that the failure of Russia
after going all out to capture this town
is indicative of the fact
that we're still facing
that the Ukrainians, rather,
are still facing
the same
deeply incompetent military
that they were facing last year?
Or is this a special
brand of incompetence
that we're seeing
with respect
to this particular military effort?
I think the Russians are struggling
in a big way with command and control,
logistics, sustainment, basic
tactical doctrine, but also training.
These forces are very undertrained.
They're essentially
doing frontal assaults
into Machine-Gun positions, etc.
They're getting slaughtered.
The Russian troops are
Ukrainians are doing
a very effective area defense
that is proven
to be very costly
to the Russians
for about the last 20, 21 days.
The Russians have not made any progress
whatsoever in and around back.
So it's a slaughter
first for the Russians.
They're getting hammered in the vicinity,
but the Ukrainians have fought very,
very well.
That's also true
across the entire
front line trace from Crimean
all the way down to Kurdistan.
The Ukrainians have fought
a remarkable defensive fight
and the Russians have not achieved
their strategic objectives.
Do you see the Russian objectives
with respect to permit
as being part of their offensive?
Or would you say this is a special effort
and the broader
offensive has yet to begin?
No, I think it's the latter. I think.
I think the Russian offensive,
if you will, began some time ago.
And it has had fits and starts
and it has not achieved
the momentum and success
that they expected it to achieve.
If I could ask you a broader question,
which you may not be able to answer.
If we had never supported
the Ukrainians at all,
would
Russia have conquered Ukraine by now?
I think without Western support?
First of all,
I think
the Ukrainian people
there will is indomitable.
These are the same people
that are
the sons and grandsons of the folks
who fought
Stalin and Zhukov for ten years
from 1945 to 1955.
So the Ukrainians are not going to be
easily conquered no matter what.
If they're fighting with pitchforks
and spears, they're going to fight back.
But having said that, they would have
probably lost considerably more ground
without Western assistance.
There's no question in my mind
about that.
So I think Western assistance
has been critical
to the Ukrainians
being able to defend themselves
with respect to Putin.
Seems to me, seems to a lot of folks
very clear that he's a war criminal.
Lots of evidence for this.
And yet there are plenty of people
in this country
who still don't see it
that way, who see Putin
is basically a national leader
pursuing national interests.
If you could speak to those folks
and give us your sense
on his status as a war criminal,
that would be appreciated.
I think the war itself is illegal.
It's it undermines the very
one of the first principles
that were established after World War Two
that underwrites
the so-called Rules-Based
International Order.
That is part of the United Nations,
for example, which is wars of aggression,
which are unprovoked,
not in the cause of defense,
where large countries
then use their military force
to attack smaller countries,
not in the defense of their own nation.
And Ukraine presented
no military threat whatsoever to Russia.
And yet he lined up 100, 700
200,000 troops,
multiple divisions, multiplex events.
And he conducted a major league war
of aggression.
A war of aggression
in and of itself is a war crime.
And then, of course, you've
got the actual war crimes
in many of the cities and towns
When you bomb and shelled
civilian cities,
when you bomb and show
civilian infrastructure,
when you're
when you're killing kids
and women and children,
all of that
all of that is war, criminal war crimes.
And their units, their unit commanders
all the way up
the chain are committing war crimes.
The Russian forces are.
And it's a tragic unfolding of events.
But it's true.
There's a lot of war crimes
being committed
by the Russian forces in Ukraine.
Putin has
clearly made some of the most outrageous
miscalculations
of any leader in modern times.
He miscalculated the will and commitment
of the Ukraine people
he made a major miscalculation
in not understanding
the leadership of the U.S.
and the commitment of the U.S.
to lead
and he made another miscalculation in
not understanding how our allies,
trans-Atlantic allies in particular,
but even our global allies
even it beyond NATO's,
how they banded together
so coherently
and strongly under this leadership.
And I've been able to witness this
not only as a member of this committee,
both informed by classified
and public information,
but also
with my service
on the Foreign Affairs Committee
where I chaired and ranked
on the European subcommittee
for that time, engaged in very private
and important conversations
with leaders there
Yet, there are voices
in the American public right now
that will say that our coalition partners
are not holding up
their end of the bargain.
I'm informed by information.
You know,
I've had that just to the contrary.
In fact, it's quite extraordinary
and in some areas,
some countries historic in nature.
But can you take this opportunity
to inform from your perspectives
the American public that they're wrong?
Because we have people
voicing those concerns
and using that as a justification to say
the U.S.
shouldn't be committed to Ukraine
because these other countries
aren't holding up
their end of the bargain
when I've been informed
that they clearly are.
But can you take this moment here
in from
this committee
to just inform the American public
that level of commitment
that exists there,
how strong it is, how important it is,
and how they are carrying great weight?
Well, thank you, sir.
I think you're exactly right.
As you know, I meet with
50 plus nations,
the ministers
of defense of those nations every month.
And
in those meetings, what I see displayed
is a strong sense of commitment and unity
to support Ukraine
for as long as it takes.
As a matter of fact,
that's the language
that I hear them employ
Some of those countries,
especially the smaller ones, have given
a lot in in terms
of the percentage of their GDP.
And they're looking for ways to do more
and when they've run out of stuff,
they invest money in in things
like helping other countries
expand their product lines.
As as we look to acquire
additional munitions and weapons.
So the commitment that I see is strong.
What I've seen them provide is
is is impressive.
But there's always more than we can do.
And you hear me
consistently beating the
drum for more air
defense and other things.
In support of Ukraine.
But what I've seen thus far,
I've seen tremendous support
for for Ukraine in helping
it defend its sovereignty
Yeah, exactly the same thing.
The, you know,
54 countries
and obviously is only 30 and NATO's
so those come from all around the globe,
you know, Britain, France, Germany,
Finland, Norway,
Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Poland.
These countries are Romania.
These countries are poor
and they aren't soldiers.
And they realize that this threat
is proximate to them.
So they you know, you look at Poland,
how many refugees they've taken,
how many,
how many tanks they've gone
and all they've provided,
how many bases are provided,
all the training that they've done
And they are a major throughput
for all the logistics.
And it's not without risk.
So these countries are putting in
as one team
and they understand
the threat that's facing them.