Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg's sound on
Speaker 1: attack on one as an attack on all, and we
Speaker 1: will defend every inch of NATO territory. You know, as
Speaker 1: I mentioned, we're looking into these reports. Don't have any
Speaker 1: information to corroborate him at this time, so I don't
Speaker 1: want to speculate or get into hypothetical. Let's President Biden
Speaker 1: may clear, we will defend every inch of NATO territory.
Speaker 1: If we care. Bloomberg sound on politics, policy and perspective
Speaker 1: from DC's top name, I will very very very probably
Speaker 1: do it again. Okay, that's a three time loser. I
Speaker 1: think that this selection was the funeral for the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: As we know, I would just tell people to go
Speaker 1: check out the scoreboard from last Tuesday night Bloomberg sound
Speaker 1: on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Russian rockets reportedly
Speaker 1: hit Poland. So now what welcome to the fastest hour
Speaker 1: in politics is the U S and NATO allies meet
Speaker 1: to consider the path forward, waiting to learn more about
Speaker 1: what happened today. We'll have the nique perspective of the
Speaker 1: former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper on the Pentagon's next steps,
Speaker 1: and as the Polish president calls for a National Security
Speaker 1: Council meeting, we will talk with Melinda Hrring of the
Speaker 1: Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center on Ukraine. With the aftermath of
Speaker 1: the midterm elections now setting off a leadership battle in
Speaker 1: the Senate and Donald Trump preparing his big announcement for tonight,
Speaker 1: will discuss all of these stories with our signature panel
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and Jeanie Schanzano. The Pentagon
Speaker 1: is treading very carefully around this story from Poland today,
Speaker 1: as the Associated Press reports two Russian missiles crossed the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian border into Poland, killing two people. Pentagon spokes from
Speaker 1: Brigadier General pat ryder So, as I mentioned right now,
Speaker 1: we are aware of the press reporting on this. We
Speaker 1: have no information at this time to corroborate those reports,
Speaker 1: but again are are taking them seriously and looking into them,
Speaker 1: and so um I will make sure that we provide
Speaker 1: you with any updates as soon as we have them,
Speaker 1: and we've been waiting the news prompted though an emergency
Speaker 1: meeting of leaders in Poland, with Warsaw now considering invoking
Speaker 1: Article four of a NATO Treaty, which brings consultation with
Speaker 1: allies to raise concerns about national security, a step away,
Speaker 1: of course, from a part possible Article five response, which
Speaker 1: is what everyone today has been asking about when it
Speaker 1: comes to our security commitments UH and Article five. We've
Speaker 1: been crystal clear that we will defend every inch of
Speaker 1: NATO territory. That's a Brigadier General pat Ryder once again
Speaker 1: echoing the words of the President right, President Biden just
Speaker 1: a couple of months ago, attack on one as an
Speaker 1: attack on all, and we will defend every inch of
Speaker 1: NATO territory. Or the Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, it's
Speaker 1: President Biden may clear we will defend every inch of
Speaker 1: NATO territory. If require every inch. We're making good on that,
Speaker 1: every inch. But what if it was an accident. What
Speaker 1: if NATO decides it's it's more dangerous to respond militarily.
Speaker 1: What if Poland doesn't ask for help. We are facing
Speaker 1: some big questions to nights, and that's why we're lucky
Speaker 1: to have former Secretary of Defense Mark Asper back with
Speaker 1: us on sound on, author of the books Sacred Oath.
Speaker 1: Mr Secretary, welcome back. We understand that President Biden has
Speaker 1: spoken with President Duda. We also know National Security Advisor
Speaker 1: Jake Sullivan has gotten on the phone with the chief
Speaker 1: of Poland's National Security Bureau. Bring us behind the scenes
Speaker 1: into what's happening right now, well, Joe, first of all,
Speaker 1: great to be with you on this important day. So
Speaker 1: I think you know behind the scenes, the Secretary of
Speaker 1: Defense is having conversations with his counterpart as well. I
Speaker 1: think the critical thing is to understand what the polls
Speaker 1: know and what they don't know based on the forensics
Speaker 1: on the ground as they look at the wreckage of
Speaker 1: the of the missiles, UH, to compare radar tracks, if
Speaker 1: you will, to try and figure out the point of origination,
Speaker 1: and then to kind of getting their head with regard
Speaker 1: to where the government is thinking, what the government is
Speaker 1: thinking as we weigh out responses. My suspicion is that
Speaker 1: this was an an accident until um firing caused by
Speaker 1: either poor targeting or a malfunctioned by one of the
Speaker 1: Russian missiles. But we need to go through a deliberate process,
Speaker 1: investigated out and come to the facts before we draw
Speaker 1: any conclusions. If we do conclude that it was an accident,
Speaker 1: does that mean no military response, or is is it
Speaker 1: not that easy? Well, I look, accidents happened. Uh, United
Speaker 1: States has created accidents in the past. If you're called
Speaker 1: the shooting down of an Iranian jetliner a decades ago
Speaker 1: by U. S. Navy ship, and there's been other accidents
Speaker 1: in the past. I don't see it as a reason
Speaker 1: to go to war. But it's certainly a reason for
Speaker 1: us to demand a full explanation from the Russians, to
Speaker 1: demand some type of actions that they plan to take
Speaker 1: to make sure this doesn't happen again, and to continue
Speaker 1: to warn them that we will defend NATO territory from attack.
Speaker 1: Should the President be saying every inch that that line
Speaker 1: that we've heard repeatedly, and and he's even said, you know,
Speaker 1: whether it's on purpose or nod or have have we
Speaker 1: gone too far to draw that red line without allowing
Speaker 1: for some flexibility over you know, a potential screw up
Speaker 1: like this one. Well, I think it's important to be resolute.
Speaker 1: You're sending a message to at least two audiences, one
Speaker 1: Russia and number two the allies, you know, reassure the
Speaker 1: frontline States, the Baltics, Poland, etcetera, that we will be
Speaker 1: there to defend them. But you you have to balance
Speaker 1: that out with a message to all the players and
Speaker 1: the American people that we need to get to the
Speaker 1: bottom this first, and we need to sort out whether
Speaker 1: it was an accident or intentional. And intentionality makes a
Speaker 1: big difference here, particularly when you're talking about possibly escalating
Speaker 1: the conflict and injecting NATO into it. When you read
Speaker 1: actually read the article five, it refers to action as
Speaker 1: deemed necessary, Mr. Secretary, including the use of armed force
Speaker 1: to restore security, implying that that's an option one of
Speaker 1: potentially several options that UH the allies have to to
Speaker 1: do this, even if it was on purpose, that does
Speaker 1: not guarantee a military response right now, That's right. A
Speaker 1: lot of people misread article to five to to believe
Speaker 1: that it's just an automatic reaction military response, And grantly,
Speaker 1: what it means is that the decision has to go
Speaker 1: back to UH national capitals for decision first and then
Speaker 1: consultation among the allies within the within NATO, So it's
Speaker 1: it's not automatic and they can consider a full range
Speaker 1: of responses. And I believe that this was an accident
Speaker 1: that the appropriate response would be a diplomatic one, but
Speaker 1: on the other hand, we should consider what additional actions
Speaker 1: we should take NATO should take to safeguard from something
Speaker 1: similar happening in the future. So do we UH put
Speaker 1: more air defenses in along the Polish border, for example?
Speaker 1: Should we accelerate, as I've been arguing for some time now,
Speaker 1: accelerate the provision of air defense assets to Ukraine so
Speaker 1: that this doesn't happen. Think about how far this Russian
Speaker 1: missile would have had to travel across Ukraine to pass
Speaker 1: into the Polish border, the renumerous opportunities to shoot this
Speaker 1: thing down, and so I think we it's a call
Speaker 1: to accelerate the provision of air defenses to Ukraine as well,
Speaker 1: not least of which because they've been suffering under air
Speaker 1: missile attacks from the Russians now for months. You said
Speaker 1: a couple of important things there, and I do want
Speaker 1: to go back and point out the fact that you're right,
Speaker 1: President Biden would have to seek UH congressional approval to
Speaker 1: act on this militarily right as opposed to responding to
Speaker 1: an attack on our own country. So that's number one
Speaker 1: and two to your point about missile defenses. How does
Speaker 1: this impact the debate if we can call it a
Speaker 1: debate to be fair around Ukraine funding war funding going
Speaker 1: into the new year with a new Congress. Well, uh, look,
Speaker 1: the air defenses are desperately needed. We've known this for months.
Speaker 1: I think we've moved too slowly and and with not enough,
Speaker 1: not just the United States but our allies as well.
Speaker 1: We know at this point in time, given the tactical
Speaker 1: vitories on the ground being achieved by the Ukrainians, that
Speaker 1: the Russians are now resorting to these air missile attacks
Speaker 1: and drone attacks by the way, to provided by Iran
Speaker 1: to knock out the Ukrainian infrastructure so that it becomes
Speaker 1: a very tough winter for them, for the Ukrainians and
Speaker 1: they try to break their will. So this is why
Speaker 1: I've been arguing that we need to provide the Ukrainians
Speaker 1: the means to defend themselves. And I just don't know why, uh, NATO,
Speaker 1: the United States are allies have been moving too slow
Speaker 1: on this front. We're spending time with Marks per former
Speaker 1: Defense Secretary Mark, When when the administration does know what
Speaker 1: actually happened here, does the president speak even if it's
Speaker 1: from the G twenty in Bali and this does this
Speaker 1: actually helped him being with all of these fellow leaders,
Speaker 1: He's basically got a NATO meeting at breakfast today. Well,
Speaker 1: the United States is the clear leader of NATO, the
Speaker 1: clear leader of the free world. I think it's important
Speaker 1: for the President once he understands the facts and comes
Speaker 1: to a conclusion and consults, by the way with his
Speaker 1: his fell long leaders, particularly Poland and UM and of
Speaker 1: course a NATO sectary general, that he explains to the
Speaker 1: American people what we know and what it means. But
Speaker 1: it's we need to understand what's happening. We need to
Speaker 1: know the way ahead. We need some reassurance that, uh,
Speaker 1: that Washington has this under control. We were asking questions
Speaker 1: earlier about force protection. Brigadier General pat Ryder, as I mentioned,
Speaker 1: was briefing reporters at the Pentagon earlier. Here's what he said.
Speaker 1: We always take the safety and security of our troops,
Speaker 1: no matter where they're serving, very seriously, and so we're
Speaker 1: very confident in any force protection measures that we take,
Speaker 1: whether it be Poland or elsewhere. You made the point
Speaker 1: earlier here that this missile had to travel some distance,
Speaker 1: or these missiles to where they were going, do we
Speaker 1: need to have better countermeasures just to protect our own forces.
Speaker 1: Never mind the border of Poland. We've got tens of
Speaker 1: thousands of additional troops over there now, right, what force
Speaker 1: protection do we have? Well, I assu you know what,
Speaker 1: where there are congregations of US forces, particularly on bases
Speaker 1: or Polish bases, that they are well protected from the
Speaker 1: ground um and and more importantly from the air with
Speaker 1: the US air defense systems supplemented complemented by Polish air
Speaker 1: defense systems. So I don't worry as much about the bases.
Speaker 1: What you have to worry about is is again these
Speaker 1: if it's an accident um missiles falling in in areas
Speaker 1: that we wouldn't expect. In this case, from what we're
Speaker 1: told it was, it fell into a farming area community,
Speaker 1: a very small community, which which adds to the suspicion
Speaker 1: that it was an accident more than anything else. So
Speaker 1: but look, force protection always has to be taken into account.
Speaker 1: And at this point in time, given that this seems
Speaker 1: to be the resort of the Russians to fire drones
Speaker 1: and missiles and artillery and in many cases randomly to
Speaker 1: terrorize the Ukrainian people, we have to be doubly on
Speaker 1: guard with regard to force protection and and and where
Speaker 1: the spillover could occur. I think I know what your
Speaker 1: answer is going to be. But does this and the
Speaker 1: argument about whether they should send the MiGs, do you rane? Uh,
Speaker 1: we should have sent the mixed months ago. We should
Speaker 1: be pushing the Germans and others to provide tanks, that
Speaker 1: we should accelerate air defenses and and anti ship missiles.
Speaker 1: All this stuff should have been provided. We could foresee
Speaker 1: all this happening, and so I don't know why we
Speaker 1: continued to hesitate to do these things. And so yes,
Speaker 1: by this time we could have trained, uh, the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: pilots and they would have been ready to go and
Speaker 1: they could have shot down these systems. What a thought,
Speaker 1: What a thought? Mark, thank you for sharing your insights
Speaker 1: with us. To your point on a very important day,
Speaker 1: Mark asked for the former Secretary of Defense, getting things
Speaker 1: moving on the fastest hour in politics. Will assemble the
Speaker 1: panel next to here from Genie and Rick, I'm Joe Matthew.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg. You sound on
Speaker 1: with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Reports coming in from
Speaker 1: Poland today that as you were just hearing on Bloomberg
Speaker 1: wound on a couple of Russian missiles hit NATO territory,
Speaker 1: landed in Poland, killed two people. May reframe the debate
Speaker 1: surrounding funding for Ukraine. It certainly came up today in
Speaker 1: a newly awakened Capitol Hill. Lawmakers are back in town.
Speaker 1: Senator Mitch McConnell, still minority leader, was sasked about it.
Speaker 1: I'm a robust supporter of Ukraine. We need to get
Speaker 1: them what they need to continue to fight this war.
Speaker 1: I think they have the capacity to win it, particularly
Speaker 1: we give them what they need. We have more later
Speaker 1: on a test to his leadership this hour, but let's
Speaker 1: assemble our panel or Genie Schanzano and Rick Davis are
Speaker 1: with us, our signature panel Bloomberg Politics contributors. Genie doesn't
Speaker 1: reframe the argument around funding here with some Republicans primarily,
Speaker 1: and but also some progressive Democrats as well, making some
Speaker 1: noise becoming a little more restless as we approached the
Speaker 1: end of the year when it comes to sending tens
Speaker 1: of billions more to Ukraine. Yeah, it should reframe the argument,
Speaker 1: but the reality is it really shouldn't have to reframe it.
Speaker 1: The biggest surprise about what happened today is that it
Speaker 1: didn't happen before. The Russians have been shooting missiles in
Speaker 1: this area, and they had what ninety missiles that came
Speaker 1: in aimed towards the infrastructure, the electrical infrastructure in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: And regardless of whether this was an accident or whether
Speaker 1: it was on purpose, the shock here is it didn't
Speaker 1: happen before. Anybody in Congress who doesn't realize that and
Speaker 1: is prepared to maybe cut funding or have a discussion
Speaker 1: about that at this point really hasn't been paying attention
Speaker 1: to what's been going on. So it shouldn't reframe it,
Speaker 1: but it probably will. The nightly address from President Zelenski
Speaker 1: rick was, you can imagine, fairly draumatic. He asked how
Speaker 1: many times as Ukraine said that the terrorist state will
Speaker 1: not stop on our country. It's only a matter of time,
Speaker 1: he said, before Russian terror goes further. Is that true
Speaker 1: or is this just a dumb move, a mistake by
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin? Well, I think there's a legit intimate concerned
Speaker 1: that Putin's brandishing all these weapons across you know, Ukraine.
Speaker 1: One has the potential of causing an accent. This is
Speaker 1: the problem when you put on a war like Putin has,
Speaker 1: with the lack of lethality that he's been able to do,
Speaker 1: he has no idea half the time probably where these
Speaker 1: missiles are going. So the idea that they somehow can
Speaker 1: deny this without you know, UH being found to be
Speaker 1: UH at risk at fault UM is nuts. UM. Ninety
Speaker 1: missiles were launched yesterday. This is one of two of
Speaker 1: those missiles all the way across the country. UM. Ukraine
Speaker 1: was successful at shooting down seventy of them. But UH,
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin doesn't have control of his troops. He doesn't
Speaker 1: really know what's happening on the ground. UH. And the
Speaker 1: idea that somehow this doesn't spread UH to a broader
Speaker 1: war is I think naive on people's part, because Uh,
Speaker 1: I think there's a part of Putin's political calculus that
Speaker 1: says he's to be even tougher than he's been. You know,
Speaker 1: he's got he doesn't have problems on the left, he
Speaker 1: knows those. He has problems on the right. There are
Speaker 1: right wing advisors and leaders in Russia who don't think
Speaker 1: Putin is doing enough, and to some degree, maybe This
Speaker 1: mollifies them because Putin will be able to say, potentially, hey,
Speaker 1: I shot these two missiles into into Poland and NATO
Speaker 1: did nothing. It sounds to me like a response might
Speaker 1: be necessary, whether or not it was an accident. Is
Speaker 1: at your point, Yeah, I don't think we can tolerate
Speaker 1: Russia is shooting ninety missiles in the Ukraine one right,
Speaker 1: that is absolutely inappropriate. He's what he's doing is what
Speaker 1: you mentioned earlier. He's knocking out all the powers so
Speaker 1: he can freeze the Ukrainian population. That is not war
Speaker 1: uh in in a traditional sense. So what's the what's
Speaker 1: the response? I think the response has got to be
Speaker 1: beef up everything that we're doing in the Ukraine and
Speaker 1: and increase the global pressure on Russia. And that means
Speaker 1: secondary sanctions, that means, you know, targeting new industries within Russia.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are a lot more we can do,
Speaker 1: and I think we've kind of taken our foot off
Speaker 1: the gas pedal. How close are we to World War three?
Speaker 1: Then here, Jeanie, you know, a response could be interpreted
Speaker 1: in a lot of different ways by Vladimir Putin. Obviously
Speaker 1: it could. I mean Vladimir Putin is threatened at home.
Speaker 1: There there is a school of thought which says that,
Speaker 1: you know, we need to be thinking about providing him
Speaker 1: some kind of face saving off ramp, because otherwise he
Speaker 1: could feel threatened internally and maybe do something like launch
Speaker 1: a nuclear attack. So that's reality. The other reality is
Speaker 1: the United States and NATO. We've been trying to limit
Speaker 1: this wor to Ukraine. We see that that's going to
Speaker 1: be a lot tougher to do at this point, and
Speaker 1: that's where this concern about say, World War three comes about.
Speaker 1: But in the meantime, civilian populations in the Ukraine are
Speaker 1: under attack. I mean Rick was just talking about it.
Speaker 1: They're attempting to completely disable the electrical grid as they
Speaker 1: head into winter. They are destroying an entire civilization. And
Speaker 1: that is a really, really something that's got to be addressed.
Speaker 1: And you know, these were two, you know, two deaths,
Speaker 1: really unfortunate. Look at the number in Ukraine. Do you
Speaker 1: worry You're absolutely right, Do you worry about drawing red
Speaker 1: lines here? Uh? Jeannie, This term has come up a
Speaker 1: number of times, remembering Barack Obama and Syria. When you
Speaker 1: think about Joe Biden, every inch, no matter what is
Speaker 1: that good or or bad geopolitics right now. It's dangerous
Speaker 1: because he has been unequivocal. You have played all the equips,
Speaker 1: all the equips, all the clips rather and he has
Speaker 1: said that as his advisers. And the question is now,
Speaker 1: did he mean every single inch only if it wasn't
Speaker 1: an accident. If it is an accident, is it still
Speaker 1: every single Yeah, it's a dangerous game to play. He's right,
Speaker 1: he should be unequivocal in that. But they've got to
Speaker 1: mean it. And that's you know what we're waiting to hear.
Speaker 1: How do we respond and do they feel that, you know,
Speaker 1: accident means that this is excused in some way a redline?
Speaker 1: Dangerous here, Rick or necessary? I like redlines as long
Speaker 1: as you back them up. Yeah, well, that's a whole
Speaker 1: different conversation, Rick Davis, Jennie Chanzano stay with us for
Speaker 1: the hour our signature panel as we continue our conversation
Speaker 1: about some of the very difficult decisions that are coming.
Speaker 1: Wellnda Herring of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center on Ukraine
Speaker 1: is here. Next. This is Bloomberg. So at six thirty
Speaker 1: in the morning right now in Bali, where, of course
Speaker 1: President Biden is waking up along with the heads of
Speaker 1: the other G twenty nations there for the big summit
Speaker 1: this week, where the war in Ukraine has been a
Speaker 1: massive topic. It was a topic yesterday when President Biden
Speaker 1: met with President she from China. It was a topic
Speaker 1: today when Bloomberg News spoke with John Kirby, spokesman of
Speaker 1: course for the White House National Security Council, while talking
Speaker 1: about China, you cannot avoid the war in Ukraine. China
Speaker 1: hasn't condemned the war. They haven't stopped buying oil, they
Speaker 1: haven't provided any military equipment. But but clearly they haven't
Speaker 1: come out as forcefully as the rest of the international
Speaker 1: community in really condemning this war. That by the way,
Speaker 1: it was just a couple of hours before the headlines
Speaker 1: broke from Poland about the apparently stray missiles is that
Speaker 1: what we're calling them that killed two people in Poland?
Speaker 1: Were joined by Melinda Herring Glad to say, the deputy
Speaker 1: director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasias Center on Ukraine, back
Speaker 1: with us here on Bloomberg's sound On. Melinda, it's great
Speaker 1: to have you with us. How likely do you think
Speaker 1: this is a mistake at this play. We don't know,
Speaker 1: and it's it's early days. Everyone's trying to figure out
Speaker 1: what happened. So it may have the Russians may have
Speaker 1: overshot and they may have intended to hit Poland. Or
Speaker 1: it's possible that that the Ukrainians tried to shoot this
Speaker 1: these Russian UH missiles down and their air defenses landed
Speaker 1: in Poland. We simply don't know, and everyone's trying to
Speaker 1: gather information right now, So we're trying to be careful
Speaker 1: as well. When you consider though, the environment that President
Speaker 1: Biden is in right now, Uh, is this not the
Speaker 1: best possible scenario for him to be surrounded by Arnato
Speaker 1: allies at this very moment. Look, it's not bad. I
Speaker 1: don't think anyone expects anything monumental to come out of
Speaker 1: the G twenty. I certainly don't. The big themes that
Speaker 1: the G twenty were energy security and food security, and
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin did even bother to show up, and both
Speaker 1: of those issues revolve around him, and he is the
Speaker 1: decision maker in Russia. So you know, it's good that
Speaker 1: he's nearer some of our allies and he can make
Speaker 1: phone calls and have conversations easily. But but you know,
Speaker 1: I don't see any headlines coming out of the g T,
Speaker 1: any real ones. So he needs to come home, meet
Speaker 1: with military officials and so on. Is that your point?
Speaker 1: We know Jake Sullivan was speaking with his counterpart in Poland.
Speaker 1: The Pentagon, though, is being very careful about what comes next.
Speaker 1: We're not we're not at Article five yet, we're technically
Speaker 1: not even an Article four as Poland considers opening the conversation.
Speaker 1: That's right. So we know that President Biden just got
Speaker 1: off the phone with President Duda in Poland, and the
Speaker 1: polls are supposed to put out a statement very soon.
Speaker 1: But I think you're right that that everyone is looking
Speaker 1: at Article for for consultations to sit down and talk
Speaker 1: about what the proper response is right now, uh, and
Speaker 1: hopefully a meeting will be forthcoming. The Ukrainians, Dmitri Kala,
Speaker 1: the foreign minister, has put some statements out on social
Speaker 1: media and he's asking he's asking for a NATO conference
Speaker 1: that would include Ukraine, and he's urging the West to
Speaker 1: send air defense systems and to send S sixteens and
Speaker 1: S fifteens as soon as possible. Do you think that
Speaker 1: will happen? No? No, I don't think so. Look, the
Speaker 1: White House, our White House is not willing to give
Speaker 1: long range rockets that there's no way that they're going
Speaker 1: to agree to greenland jets. They already poop poo this idea,
Speaker 1: you know, months and months, never mind the megs that
Speaker 1: they already know how to fly. When you hear when
Speaker 1: you hear Moscow using the term deliberate provocation, when you're
Speaker 1: done chuckling, do you assume that that means the opposite
Speaker 1: of what you're reading? Normally? Yes, normally, normally you do. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but you know what the Russians are also saying. Now,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't think the Russians want to go
Speaker 1: to war with the NATO. They realize that they're going
Speaker 1: to get their butts kicked. So Russia's official line is
Speaker 1: that it's Ukrainian air defense. Since it's too far for
Speaker 1: Russians three hundreds, let's let's wait and see. Uh. You know,
Speaker 1: we don't know yet. Uh. And we need to be
Speaker 1: judicious because if the Russians did indeed intend to hit Poland, Uh,
Speaker 1: this conflict between Russia and Ukraine will get out of
Speaker 1: hand and no one wants that. But Linda, what should
Speaker 1: the administration be telling lawmakers or maybe already telegraphing to
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer, and I guess at some point it will
Speaker 1: be to to the speaker, and it looks like that
Speaker 1: will be Kevin McCarthy. We need more money? How much
Speaker 1: more well we need this year? I don't have a
Speaker 1: figure for you, but I can tell you what needs
Speaker 1: to be sent. Ukraine needs air defense systems as soon
Speaker 1: as possible. And Ukraine's infrastructure is very, very vulnerable. We
Speaker 1: saw this today. Russia sent a hundred missiles and hit
Speaker 1: a number of targets across the country. In Ukraine is
Speaker 1: very cold and very dark tonight, and if the situation
Speaker 1: is only going to get worse if the United States
Speaker 1: and our western allies, Ukraine's western allies don't provide these
Speaker 1: air defense systems. So that's one. Another point though, is
Speaker 1: long range rockets would make a big difference, and we've
Speaker 1: seen the high mar systems have a huge influence on
Speaker 1: the battlefield already. So let's do it now. Everyone wants peace.
Speaker 1: No one wants this war to continue, least of all Ukrainians.
Speaker 1: The best way to end this war is to send
Speaker 1: all of the heavy equipment and the arms that the
Speaker 1: Ukraine's are sending are requesting now, but that's not enough. Uh.
Speaker 1: We also need to talk about budget support. Our Congress
Speaker 1: has been amazing, Joe. Our Congress has sent a point
Speaker 1: five billion with a B to Ukraine to provide budget support,
Speaker 1: which sounds so boring and unsexy. What does this means.
Speaker 1: It's money for pensions, it's money for schools, it's for hospitals,
Speaker 1: and it's for railways and that's what's keeping the state
Speaker 1: of floats. And the EU is a lagger. The EU
Speaker 1: promised nine billion with a B and only since three
Speaker 1: the Germans are sitting on their hands and they won't
Speaker 1: authorize more money. So that's a big, big problem. But
Speaker 1: we also need to be thinking about winter and authorizing
Speaker 1: additional assistance packages so that people don't freeze the death
Speaker 1: because it's really cold. I love talking to you. Come
Speaker 1: in here and talk to us in the studio next
Speaker 1: time we Linda Herring your well. You do really important
Speaker 1: work there and I appreciate your bringing it to our listeners.
Speaker 1: The deputy director of the Atlantic Council's Your Agias Center
Speaker 1: on Ukraine, who could say it better. She's actually sounding
Speaker 1: a little bit like Rick Davis with only thirty seconds left. Rick,
Speaker 1: it's time to send the kitchen sink. Yeah, go beggar,
Speaker 1: go home. And I think the point making his right.
Speaker 1: Let's get NATO into this, Let's get Europe backing them
Speaker 1: as much as we are. We've got friends, Let's take
Speaker 1: them to work. Rick Davis and Jennie Chanzano will be back.
Speaker 1: We'll reassemble the panel and look ahead to a big
Speaker 1: night at Mara Lago. Yeah, Trump's going forward. Apparently, we
Speaker 1: also have to talk about the leadership struggle on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: It's been dicey today inside the bubble. I'm Joe Matthew.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg who sound on
Speaker 1: with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. It appears Kevin McCarthy
Speaker 1: will be the person to hold the gavel if Republicans
Speaker 1: closed the deal, and that could happen any minute, one
Speaker 1: seat away from calling the House for the GOP, and indeed,
Speaker 1: House Republicans reelected Kevin McCarthy as their leader today. This
Speaker 1: sets up the full vote. But this sent him on
Speaker 1: Conservatives remains a hurdle. As I read on the terminal
Speaker 1: for him, claiming the gavel when the GOP takes charge.
Speaker 1: As expected, he got votes from a hundred eighty eight
Speaker 1: Republicans in what was a closed party leadership election. According
Speaker 1: to two people in the room, a conservative who challenged him,
Speaker 1: we talked about Andy Biggs. He got thirty one votes.
Speaker 1: Just don't tell Matt Gates right now there are a
Speaker 1: lot of the establishment Republicans in denial believing that Kevin
Speaker 1: McCarthy can somehow still become speaker. What I'm here to
Speaker 1: tell you is there are definitely at least five people,
Speaker 1: actually a lot more than that, who would rather be
Speaker 1: water boarded by Liz Cheney than vote for Kevin McCarthy
Speaker 1: for Speaker of the House. And I'm one of them. Okay,
Speaker 1: Matt Gates of Florida, he spent time rehearsing that one right,
Speaker 1: water boarded by Liz Cheney. So it didn't turn out
Speaker 1: quite well. Maybe look, maybe five did vote no after all.
Speaker 1: Any Biggs got thirty one. So that's done now. At
Speaker 1: least we put that on the back burner as we
Speaker 1: wait for the House to be old. On the Senate side,
Speaker 1: we've got a little leadership battle there too. As I
Speaker 1: read on the terminal GPS. Scott's the challenge McConnell amid
Speaker 1: mid term blame game. Yeah, Senator Rick Scott. Of course.
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell was asked about it the minute he walked
Speaker 1: in the hallway. Well, look, I don't know him this job. Um,
Speaker 1: anybody in the conference is certainly entitled to challenge me,
Speaker 1: and uh welcome the contost. By the way, Rick Scott
Speaker 1: was on Bloomberg News earlier today when he was asked
Speaker 1: about you know, Donald Trump was the big story. He's
Speaker 1: gonna be announcing the big campaign for the nights. He's
Speaker 1: only got one focus, right, Well, first off, I focused
Speaker 1: on making sure we win in Georgia. I'm focused on
Speaker 1: make sure that we solve the problems out here. And
Speaker 1: there's I think it looks like there's gonna be a
Speaker 1: lot of people interested in running in four Um. I
Speaker 1: don't know if President Trump will announced today he's running,
Speaker 1: but it seems like a lot of people will will
Speaker 1: watch it as it happens. But you know, my belief
Speaker 1: is voters are gonna choose. Well, it turns out Rick
Speaker 1: Scott is running for the leadership. Will challenge Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: in a closed door meeting tomorrow. Let's reassemble the panel.
Speaker 1: Rick Davis and Jeannie Chanzano are here Bloomberg Politics contributors.
Speaker 1: This is part of the joy of coming off this
Speaker 1: election for Democrats. Genie is watching this leadership fight, even
Speaker 1: if we know or think we know how it's gonna end.
Speaker 1: McConnell says he's got the votes, but this wouldn't be
Speaker 1: happening right now if things didn't go the way they
Speaker 1: did last Tuesday. Right. Yeah, we've got a few senators
Speaker 1: who who, like Matt Gates, would apparently rather be waterboarded
Speaker 1: than support the meeting Canada. And among them not just
Speaker 1: Rick Scott, but Josh Holly, Ted Cruz, all coming out
Speaker 1: and making statements saying what we've been doing hasn't been working.
Speaker 1: We need new leadership, and so hence, you know, Rick
Speaker 1: Scott making this run. You know, it looks like McConnell
Speaker 1: will withstand the fight, but it does set up, you know,
Speaker 1: a really really tough Thanksgiving family meal for the Republicans
Speaker 1: as they head into the holidays. Mitch McConnell, though, saying
Speaker 1: that he has the votes to get this, to pull
Speaker 1: this through, and I'm sure you know he would say
Speaker 1: that if he didn't write Rick, you know Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: pretty well, and he's there's a reason why he has
Speaker 1: been the leader for so long. Josh Holly is probably
Speaker 1: not going to be the one to change that, or
Speaker 1: Rick s good for that matter. Yeah, you could tell
Speaker 1: even by the clip you played as he said, yeah,
Speaker 1: anybody can run against me. You know, he almost enjoys
Speaker 1: killing off other Republicans, um Cook, I mean, like you
Speaker 1: take yourself out of the moment. I mean, Rick Scott's
Speaker 1: job was to elect a majority, right, and and he
Speaker 1: started by saying he was going to cut Medicare and
Speaker 1: Social Security. Brilliant move that didn't slow us down a bit.
Speaker 1: And then he says today on bloom Workers, I think
Speaker 1: this is the most important quote of the week, which
Speaker 1: is it wasn't that we had bad candidates, it was
Speaker 1: that we had bad intensity. So blame the voters for
Speaker 1: the mistakes you made on recruitment. I mean, I just,
Speaker 1: I mean, anybody who watches this play out knows that.
Speaker 1: You know, it's like Gene he said, if you're at
Speaker 1: Thanksgiving and you've got your family all around, these are
Speaker 1: the crazy cousins you put at the end. Of the
Speaker 1: table talks to them. That's saying a lot about Rick Scott.
Speaker 1: Listen to Josh Holly. By the way, this is Holly
Speaker 1: pulled aside by a couple of reporters in the corridor.
Speaker 1: He said he will not it was specific, will not
Speaker 1: vote for Mitch McConnell, and he went on, I think
Speaker 1: that this election was the funeral for the Republican Party
Speaker 1: as we know it. The Republican Party is as we
Speaker 1: have known it is dead, and voters have made that clear.
Speaker 1: And in particular, the folks who did not vote for
Speaker 1: Republicans in this last election were independent voters, working class
Speaker 1: independent voters, Folks who voted for President Obama once upon
Speaker 1: a time, Folks who then voted for President Trump but
Speaker 1: stayed home this time. We are not a majority party
Speaker 1: unless we can appeal to those voters. So he's having
Speaker 1: a funeral for your Republican Party, Rick, Does that mean
Speaker 1: that he would be the one to rebuild it? Yeah,
Speaker 1: But the people who lost were Josh Holly's guys. I mean, like,
Speaker 1: this is the maga wing of the party that he represents.
Speaker 1: It's a fringe element, and I think the voters made
Speaker 1: that selection loud and clear, we do not want people
Speaker 1: like this in the United States Senate. And so I
Speaker 1: think Josh Holly ought to look in the mirror and say, yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe we aren't picking the right kind of candidates that
Speaker 1: part of the party. If you believe Josh Holly is dead, great,
Speaker 1: then you can have a new part of the party
Speaker 1: that maybe represents a broader majority that can win elections.
Speaker 1: Or maybe tonight at Mara a Lago, Genie will be
Speaker 1: like that hand that comes out of the water at
Speaker 1: the end of the horror movie. In order to make
Speaker 1: our country successful and safe and glorious, I will very,
Speaker 1: very very probably do it again. Okay, he may have
Speaker 1: had a fourth ferry in one of those lines. Genie,
Speaker 1: this is happening apparently, regardless of what Republicans around him
Speaker 1: are saying, which is, at least wait until the Georgia runoff. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're begging for him to wait. But I like what
Speaker 1: Ken Griffin said. He called him a three time loser.
Speaker 1: He was, yeah, and he is. He can very very
Speaker 1: very whatever he wants. But this is a disaster for Republicans.
Speaker 1: And you know, all Democrats have to do is just
Speaker 1: imagine that. You know, Josh Holly Ted Cruz, Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: They seem to be working for the Democratic Party because
Speaker 1: it's hard to imagine that somebody like Katie Hobbs wins
Speaker 1: in a place like Arizona unless they are nominating the
Speaker 1: craziest among them. And so this has been a boon
Speaker 1: for Democrats, not because Democrats were incredibly successful or voters
Speaker 1: were very happy with what was happening in the country,
Speaker 1: but because Republicans are nominating crazy candidates. And McConnell was
Speaker 1: right on that. And I'm no big fan of Mitch McConnell,
Speaker 1: but you got to give him credit. Early on he
Speaker 1: said candidates mattered. They do. Donald Trump endorse these candidates,
Speaker 1: and it's been a disaster for Republicans ever since. That
Speaker 1: line from Ken Griffin was something Rick that, of course,
Speaker 1: the CEO of Citadel who moved from Chicago to Florida. Listen,
Speaker 1: he lost, We lost Georgia because of his behavior in
Speaker 1: the Senate race. In that's the second loss. And then
Speaker 1: this year the Republicans lost the Senate because the Trump
Speaker 1: back candidates in the Senate races were rejected by American voters.
Speaker 1: That's a three time loser. And I'd like to think
Speaker 1: that the Republican Party is ready to move on from
Speaker 1: somebody who's been for this party, a three time loser, Rick.
Speaker 1: Most of us would have, you know, gone back to
Speaker 1: bed if they were talking about us. But I hear
Speaker 1: that three time loser, and that's that's just the kind
Speaker 1: of thing that energizes Donald Trump, that makes him want
Speaker 1: to announce tonight, doesn't it It doesn't dissuade him. I
Speaker 1: don't think he really cares about anybody else but himself,
Speaker 1: right in the sense of like, what am I gonna do?
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Ken Griffin says, I'm a loser. That's gonna
Speaker 1: stop me from running for president? No? No, probably not
Speaker 1: likely they want to do it more. I do think
Speaker 1: he loves the media. He loves to be seen in
Speaker 1: the media, and even sometimes you know, angrily. But when
Speaker 1: things like the New York Post, in the Wall Street
Speaker 1: Journal and and Fox turn against him, that I think
Speaker 1: does have an impact because that is how he gets
Speaker 1: his message out. Uh, And he doesn't have to pay
Speaker 1: for it. You can use their budgets and and without
Speaker 1: that available and I think basically Rupert Murdoch has said
Speaker 1: the same thing, which is we're done with you Trump. Um,
Speaker 1: I think he's gonna have a lot of trouble and
Speaker 1: if anything will slow him down and make him think
Speaker 1: that will well. This other this other guy he was
Speaker 1: observing with in the White House. Name is Mike Pence.
Speaker 1: Out with not one but two televised interviews last night,
Speaker 1: the first ABC than did any wanted to talk to Hannity?
Speaker 1: By the way, if you look at the contrast of
Speaker 1: those sets, you know, they're like this dark, smoky room
Speaker 1: on ABC, you hardly see each other. Hannity is like
Speaker 1: a seven eleven that all the lights are on the
Speaker 1: fluorescent line. Anyway, Mike Pence asked the big question by
Speaker 1: David Muir. Did I get that right on the rules? David? Yeah, David,
Speaker 1: Given all that you witnessed in the capital on that day,
Speaker 1: this is a pretty straightforward question. Yes or no? Do
Speaker 1: you believe that Donald Trump should ever be president? Again?
Speaker 1: Plain and simple? Here you go, David. I think that's
Speaker 1: up to the American people. But I think have better
Speaker 1: choices in the future. Okay, better choices. But why not
Speaker 1: just say no about the guy who wanted to have
Speaker 1: you killed? Rick? Yeah? Why not just say no? I mean,
Speaker 1: like why finesset? Uh? You know, I couldn't understand that
Speaker 1: interview because it's almost like he wanted to, you know,
Speaker 1: make a definitive statement, but he just couldn't bring himself
Speaker 1: to doing it, you know, and so we are left
Speaker 1: to fill in the blanks, and you know, it's it's
Speaker 1: not the profile of courage I was looking for. Then
Speaker 1: we heard from Rhonda Santas today, Jinny. He actually responded
Speaker 1: to some of the stuff he's been hearing from Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: who claims to have rescued his political career and coming
Speaker 1: off the elections last week. Here's how the governor of
Speaker 1: Florida put it all. That's just noise and really what
Speaker 1: matters is are you leading, are you getting in front
Speaker 1: of issues, are you delivering results for people? And are
Speaker 1: you standing up for folks? And if you do that,
Speaker 1: then none of that stuff matters. And that's what we've done.
Speaker 1: We focused on results and leadership, and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, I would just tell
Speaker 1: people to go check out the scoreboard from last Tuesday night.
Speaker 1: Check out the scoreboard from last Tuesday night. We just
Speaker 1: put Katie Hobbs on that scoreboard as well, Jennie. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump must be climbing the walls today. He's got to be.
Speaker 1: But you notice their rhondescant is still not calling out
Speaker 1: Trump directly. And you know, we have to remember what
Speaker 1: compels Trump to run in in large part that attacked
Speaker 1: by Barack Obama on him at the White House Correspondensider,
Speaker 1: those attacks matter to him, Ken Griffin will matter a
Speaker 1: lot to him. It's just he can't take it. Rick Davis,
Speaker 1: thank you, Gennie, Thank you as well, Jennie Chanzano. They
Speaker 1: make up our signature panel on the fastest hour in politics,
Speaker 1: the speeches at nine. We'll watch it together virtually. Pop
Speaker 1: your corn. I'll meet you back here tomorrow. This is
Speaker 1: bloomber