One of the largest assaults on Ukraine in months now, prompting new calls from President Biden for Congress and the international community to step up and help stop Vladimir Putin. With more than 150 Russian missiles and drones being fired on multiple Ukrainian cities across the nation, it killed dozens, injured more. It's an aerial bombardment, unlike anything that Ukraine has seen since the beginning of this war, almost two years ago. Schools hit, parks, malls, homes, hospitals, including a maternity ward. Ukrainian President, Zalensky, says that Russia used nearly every type of weapon in its arsenal. Reporter, Helena Lens, was on the ground in Keeve earlier, inside the ruins of a warehouse that was hit.

The warehouse was hit. It caught fire. When we arrived here, the smoke was still very visible from the outside. The structure is completely destroyed. The roof of the warehouse is totally destroyed.

Just a small sliver of the damage. I should note that this onslaught comes as Ukraine got its last package of military aid from the United States. Unless that is Congress approves President Biden's latest funding request or comes up with one of its own. The President is warning lawmakers to act tonight without further delay, arguing that this is a reminder that Putin is trying to obliterate Ukraine and there won't just be consequences for Ukraine here. Joining me tonight is Mark Esber, the Defense Secretary under former President Donald Trump. Secretary Esber, thank you for being here. I wonder what you make and what you read to Putin launching this massive attack, as Congress is at a standstill over whether or not there will be more aid coming from the US, at least, to Ukraine.

Yeah, well, good to be with you, Kaitlin, first of all. Look, I think there are a few reasons why this happened now and with regard to the scope and scale by which it happened. First and foremost, Putin had a bad week at the beginning of this week. One of his landing ships was destroyed in Crimea, where it was moared. There are still 30 some sailors unaccounted for. He lost several top-end aircraft at Su-34 to Ukrainian air defenses. And so it hurt him tactically and probably politically back home. So one way to to get rid of bad news is to present some good news to the Russian people, particularly when they are a week away or so from their Christmas, the Russian Orthodox Christmas, which is in about seven, eight days, is to provide good news. And the good news was this onslaught. That's number one. Number two, I think it's a message to the Ukrainian people that Russia still has the ability to strike, to strike powerfully and to strike across the country. They hit multiple cities, as you mentioned, with a broad range of weapons. And they did so effectively in a number of areas.

And then I think the third thing is to show also the Ukrainian people that Russia still has the means is developing arms and ammunition at a time when, as you noted, continued funding for Ukraine is up in the air here in Washington, D. C. And just a few days ago, Hungary blocked an EU package of $55 billion of military aid to Ukraine. There are a lot of things swirling around right now that I think prompted Putin to make this attack.

You mentioned there what Russia was using here. They basically appear to be using every weapon that they have, these hypersonic missiles, cruise missiles, air defense ones. What is the tactic, do you think, here? Is it to overwhelm and confuse the air defenses that Ukraine does have?

That is one reason, because Ukraine does have fairly effective air defenses. We provide them over the past year and a half from Germany, France. Of course, United States provided Patriot and other weapon systems like Stingers. And the Patriots have been very effective. They were the ones that have done both their hypersonic weapons from Russia and recently the SU-34. So a way to defeat air defenses is to overwhelm them, make it so difficult for them to sort through and destroy and then rearm, reload that you get some missiles through. And the proof is Russia launched 158 or so weapons. Twenty, 30 % were not destroyed, and those are the ones that may have been through and caused the damage that you've been reporting on.

Well, given they have that capability, if Russia continues, to what we saw today over the winter, which is what Ukrainian officials have been dreading and warning. I mean, how long can Ukraine make it without another package based on what we know they've said so far about what they need and what they're running out of?

Yeah, first of all, that's a part of this, too, is we're really heading into the dark part of winter in Ukraine. January is typically the coldest month. It's another message to the Ukrainian people who are openly tiring of the war. Recruiting is a problem right now in Ukraine. The war is going on for almost two years now. Look, I think when you look at Russia, you see that they've actually moved their economy to a war footing. They've doubled defense spending. And at the same time, you see in Western capitals, a wariness setting in. And you see, again, blocking by Hungary. And this package sits there now being negotiated between the White House and the Senate. Now, we recently gave them a $250 million package. There are other arms and ammunition, ammunition in the stockpile or in the pipeline, I mean, they can move through. The same with the Europeans. But we have not got onto a full footing yet when it comes to having the ammunition, and let alone the political support to continue funding Ukraine indefinitely. I think most importantly, when President Biden hosted President Zelensky here a week ago, it's very important the words he used.

For the longest time, he was saying that we would support Ukraine for as long as it takes. And then the words came out recently, I'm paraphrasing, but he said something like, as long as we can. And that's a big difference, the signaling that's going on there.

Secretary, we're thinking on the same track because I had made note of that tonight when we were thinking about what to get your perspective on is how that language has changed. And of course, the question of what that looks like, if your former boss, Donald Trump, is the Republican nominee if he ends up back in the White House. Speaking of him, while I have you, I am curious what you make of the fact, what we've been talking about this week with Trump being removed from the ballot, because you're someone who said you former President Trump incited people to come to Washington. You said that he's a threat to democracy. Given that view, what is your position on what these secretaries of state and the Supreme Court in Colorado, this decision that because of that, saying that Trump did incite the insurrection and added fuel to it, that he shouldn't be on the primary ballot.

Yeah, look, I'm not a lawyer, but I've been paying close attention to legal experts who've been commenting on this. I always go back to first principles. Look, I'm not a supporter of Donald Trump. I've been very clear about that. But I do think in this country, everybody's innocent until proven guilty and that the proving of one's guilt has to go through some type of process, a due process. I do process, and I have not seen that yet. In my mind, what has happened in Colorado and Maine isn't warranted, and I suspect it'll be overturned by the Supreme Court. Again, I say that as somebody who does not want to see Donald Trump on the ticket, let alone in the Oval Office. But that's just my read on it based on what I see right now.

If he is back in the Oval Office, do you ever think about who he might pick to take the job that you had, Defense Secretary? What are your biggest concerns about that?

Well, I think one of the biggest lessons he took out of his last year, his-pasture in office is that you have to pick the right people. For him, the litmus test will be about loyalty. Number one, number two, and number three. Competence will probably be number four. I think that's going to be the litmus test for anybody he brings into his administration. He's not going to want people who push back. He's not going to want people who challenge his assumptions or his views or his ideas. He's going to want people to do what he wants. And that was apparent to me at the time in others sense because he's already talked about things he wants to do. There were some of the things he talked about doing in the first term that we were able to push him off of. But that's my biggest concern is who he will put into office.

Secretary Marc Espar, as always, thank you for your time, your expertise, and your experience on all of this.