♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> dara cop report for defense, senior pentagon correspondent to talk about the activities involving russia and ukraine particularly what it meansia for the u.s. thanks for joining us this morning. >> thank you for having me. >> we heard from the defense secretary last week about the multiple options that russia has involving ukraine.

if that's the case what does it mean for planning by the u.s. side about how we're going to respond? >> it's a risk calculation. you heard last week the pentagon announced 8500 troops that would be put on heightened alert units from fort bragg, fort campbell, all over the united states specializing aviation support and logistics and medical support. and would be sent to the eastern flank nations around ukraine, lithuania, latvia, poland and estonia to reinsured the nato alliance that if this does go forward it won't go past a certain point in the u.s. would have defense. you even heards from defense secretary that there'sar a realy important bridge not to cross. and that is if you send troops in that is that further aggravate putin and does that raise the risk that he would then take ave move on ukraine? so there's a lot of diplomacy

going on. as you know about an hour and a half from now the u.n. security council meets to discuss and russia will have a seat at that table.e. so it's a question of how is it go to dance around this in a way war? >> as far as the timetables are concerned who exactly, you talked about those truths being called up tickets are timetables for as their deployment is concerned or least discussions? >> the 82nd airborne at fort bragg, specific units but the 82nd airborne has been relied upon again and again to go in quickly. they can actually go in, there's units within their, you meet response for spec will respond within 18 hours the up. they could get over there very quickly if needed andve you saw the president last week talk about how he thinks there might be i guess a near-term call for

this forces you to have in place if necessary. >> host: let's hear from the defense secretary from last week and before we do that if you want to ask questions of our guests as forest department of defense in their planning, russia and ukraine are concern, 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans 202-748-8001 and independence 202-748-8002. if you're active or retired military you can call on the 202-748-8003 and text us at that same number. here's defense secretary lloyd austin last week. >> as you know for months now russia has been deploying forces to crimea and along ukraine's border, including in belarus. it has progressed at a consistent and steadyad pace involving tens of thousands of russian troops, and it is being supported by increased russian naval activity in the northern atlantic and the mediterranean

sea. while we don't believe that president putin has made a final decision to use thesein forces against ukraine, he clearly now has that capability. there are multiple options available to him, including the seizure of cities and significant territories, but also coercive acts or provocative lyrical acts like the recognition of breakaway territories. indeed, we are seeing russian state media spouting off about alleged activities in eastern ukraine. this is straight out ofe russian playbook, and they are not fooling us. we remain focused on russian disinformation, including the potential creation of pretext for further invasion or strikes. in any russian attack or further incursion into ukraine, it would

not only ignite conflict but also violate the bedrock principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and self-determination. host: tara copp, that was the defense secretary last week, talking about those asynchronous waves this potential conflict could go. what does that mean for the defense department? guest: you heard all throughout the weekend, not only the ukrainian ambassador to the u.s., but you heard the human envoy talking about diplomacy first. to encourage russia to stand down, they've been trying to push the possibility of sanctions. experts that i have talked to says russia since the 2014 invasion of chromium has put themselves in a far stronger economic position to whether those sanctions -- weather those

sanctions. what is it they want, to be able to de-escalate and give putin enough of a win that he could withdraw his forces and not look politically vulnerable at home? at this point, he has 130,000 troops surrounding ukraine on the northern and eastern borders. for that reason, there is a high cost right now, to putin, to have all of those troops there and do nothing and then come home. the question is what will putin do and what does he want in response, to be able to call it a win and de-escalate? host: when it comes to potential casualties, how has the defense department measured for that? guest: we heard the chairman on friday with these very disturbing terms of the high cost of civilians.

russia has short-term ballistic missiles all around the border. it has spent the last decade or so, really modernizing its ability to attack. it's troops are well-trained, well fed. they can inflict very heavy damage. on the ukrainian side, there are about 150,000 active duty forces who have benefited from western training and equipment since that time as well. this is a fight where both sides could potentially incur heavy losses, and i think millie really pressed that to try and encourage both sides to think and potentially de-escalate. host: we will hear from gary in miami, florida, independent line for guest, tara copp of defense one. caller: this is gary from miami, florida.

i was around when the united nations were formed, the purpose of which was for countries of the world to negotiate peace and not have war. if russia wants to present on the scene and be a member of the civilized world and try to start a war, they should be censored and ostracized from the civilized world. now is the time for the united nations to stand up and follow their original mandate and see if they have the courage to do that, and see what putin has to say about this. guest: your caller brings up an interesting point. at the un security council meeting today, russia is one of the five permanent members of the security council. whatever decisions are taken, russia could potentially veto. i think this gets to the larger point that putin is pressing, that these decisions about this post-world war ii security construct in europe, these decisions are being made without him and if you cannot have a vote at the table, he's been

using other means such as a military buildup, to try and push his own agenda. some of the experts i've talked to have said let's get to that question of what could putin really want? if he wants a greater hand at the table, to have a bigger role in terming what type of missiles are on the european peninsula, those could all be effective negotiating points for both administrations to be able to de-escalate this. host: james in california, retired military person. hello. caller: hello there. i have a point. i believe the united states signed an agreement to protect the sovereignty of ukraine if they give up nuclear weapons. i think we should give them back their nuclear weapons and throughout the agreement. guest: there is a point the caller is raising. the threat of nuclear weapons on the european peninsula, russia

already has nuclear warheads that can inflict damage on europe and the u.s. has that ability as well. there have been rounds and rounds of talks about reducing the number of arms, further restrict and what types of arms, and this is something putin and russia are actually very interested in being a part of. i think this is one of those areas of negotiation that could lead to de-escalation of the current conflict. the problem is right now, you have 130 -- 130,000 troops surrounding ukraine and without understanding what putin wants and being able to provide some sort of response, there is no telling that this won't happen again. host: this is a nato operation or at least discussions are centering around nato but as far as discussions from the defense department with allies looking at this, what has been the response from those allies? guest: it has been mixed. germany is not going to be sending weapons, and part of

that is because of the very intricate relationship that russia has with some of the european nations. they rely, 40% on russia exported gasoline and 20% exported oil. they do more than $200 billion of trade with russia every year, so there was a lot at stake. you have seen other nations such as the eastern european flank nations. they are providing ukraine with antiaircraft missiles, to help ukraine better defend itself in case it does come under air assault. it is kind of a mixed result, a mixed bag and in a way, other security analysts say that conflict -- host: a viewer asked about how many u.s. citizens are currently in ukraine, and i don't know if that goes into factoring what decisions we make here about

that. guest: we asked the defense department last week, because as you've heard, the president is not going to send forces into ukraine. they will be positioned around outside. we asked if there needs to be an evacuation of ukraine, will u.s. aircraft or u.s. military personnel be involved, and we did not get an answer on that. as far as the number of u.s. citizens currently in ukraine, i don't know that answer but i do know the state department and dod have urged all civilians to leave the country for now, due to the potential for war. host: our next caller from rapid city, democrat caller. caller: 60 years ago, russia almost caused a nuclear crisis with jfk. a year later, kennedy was assassinated by russian, lee harvey oswald and he was killed

two days later by jack ruby. russia has been causing problems. khrushchev was in power at the time and he was going to put missiles in cuba and kennedy said to get them out of here. i was in the philippines during the vietnam war when kennedy got assassinated. russia has been a problem for 60 years. i hope some people are listening . host: how does that apply to what is going on today, do you think? caller: i don't know how they are going to fix this problem. he's got leverage because they send gas to germany and he is using that. they see how we are fighting over here with each other, and our country needs to get together whether you are republican or democrat, and we need to get serious with russia because they will do everything they can to start problems. that is all i can suggest.

host: tara copp? guest: the cold war security construct has been in place since the end of world war ii. do you engage with russia? do you bring them closer in? do you allow them to have a vote at the table? this administration had really wanted to pay attention to the indo pacific, and now for the last six months because of this troop buildup, it also has to pay attention to europe and this security construct. what can you do going forward? do you inflict such punishment upon russia that it feels further alienated and decides that a stronger military option might be the only choice next time around, or do you do a decision of engagement? these are big policy decisions that the biden administration has to choose. we continue to press the idea of

diplomacy first and military force only as a last resort. host: you heard it general milley characterize what is going on with russia and comparing it to what they have seen over history. can you describe that characterization? guest: yes. so the chairman has more than 40 years of military service and so does secretary austin. over that time, they saw the gulf war, they saw conflict after conflict and he was asked how is this different, and he said he had never seen a russian buildup like this, and the sense that it gave him, that there was an eminent threat now. -- imminent threat now. the last time we did that in kuwait in the buildup of the gulf war, there was no question that u.s. forces were going in. for a lot of people, there is no

question that russia is going to go in. the question is, how limited can this incursion be and how strong a hand can diplomacy have in limiting those damages? host: you heard our guest talk about the un security council meeting that is going to take place today. we will show it to you at 8:00 tonight on c-span2. c-span.org and our c-span now app. let's go to doug in virginia, republican line. caller: hey there, thank you for taking my call. i am a big fan of c-span in general. regarding the topic that we are discussing, i definitely approve diplomacy and trying to de-escalate. but i'm a little alarmed by some of the comments i'm hearing from your guest. it feels like it is on the border of appeasement and i don't know that if that is in anyone's interest. the whole world is watching,

china, north korea and iran. if any time some of the present a military threat or at least jockeys that way and we are willing to give some kind of large concession, do we think it is going to result in more or less of these types of situations? i think in the end, a threat of aggression is in itself an act of aggression. i would be curious to hear your guest's thoughts. guest: i certainly did not mean to suggest any form of appeasement. i was civilly trying to characterize what i've seen and heard from both the government -- the u.s. government as they have expressed where our position is, and also from the security experts i have talked to who have been watching this for a long time. this russian buildup did not happen overnight, it has been building for over a year. this was a long planned move by russia, to try and force the issue of ukraine -- further stopping ukraine from joining nato, and it has not had success

so far and the pressure campaign is elicited. the question is do they feel like they have to invade at this point to inflict heavy damages? at that point, doesn't risk pulling the u.s. into a regional war, or can there be a diplomat solution? that was the point i was trying to make. host: randy in lf -- randy in alabama, democrats line. caller: there will never vino it'll medic resolution with russia for -- there will never be no diplomatic resolution with russia or china. they don't recognize nobody but themselves and general milley has a yellow streak of his back about two feet wide, and austin is a joke. host: why did you characterize them that way? caller: i watch them and listen on tv. i am a military man, and no

general back when i was in the military would act as cowardly as those men, but the united states told ukraine to give up your weapons and we will defend you. now ukraine needs to give their web -- get their weapons back or give them chemical weapons to take care of russia themselves. host: that is randy in alabama. guest: there is a risk. no war is limited and at what point if this becomes a small conflict, initially between russia and ukraine, what is the risk of pulling in nato bordering countries such as lithuania and estonia, and at what point with the u.s. find itself dragged in? does the american population have the stomach for another war? we just left afghanistan six months ago. you solve the large appetite -- you saw the large appetite among

the voting population for the u.s. to get out of afghanistan. it is a real question if there is the political will to engage in a war with russia. host: talking about this, the story about north korea launching their seventh missile test. with all the attention being paid to russia and ukraine, what other theaters of the world is the defense department concerned about? guest: for the last four years, the defense or terry has talked about the concern over china's rise. an unwanted distracted might be awake -- destruction might be a way to describe this because it secretary austin and the pentagon were set on maneuvering forces and resources, especially after the end of the afghan war, to the pacific. this has put a pause on that because all of these same brigades that would be used to support the indo pacific are

currently on a swivel to see if it will be necessary to support any count -- any confrontation in the european theater. this question of per year were tees and the administrator -- the administration started with the priority of dealing with china, having to put that on hold. host: this is on our republican line, we will hear from karen in alabama. caller: good morning. i have an idea. so the ukrainian president gave a news conference and said we don't need the united states to come over here and defend us, we can defend ourselves. instead of worrying about the sovereignty of a border in europe, why don't we worry about the sovereignty of the border of the southern u.s.? why don't we do that and just but out of europe? guest: the caller gets back to one of my earlier points, about where is the political will?

the u.s. has been a global response force for so long, and there is definitely a segment of our country that wonders why. do we still have 3500 troops assigned to the southern border, not counting the different units of independently since pete -- independently sent state forces. there has been a growing sense of why hasn't the u.s. put more of its resources to protecting the homeland instead of always responding to another nations call. host: as far as the caller's point about the ukrainian response to trying to sooth tensions, how is the dod responding to that? guest: you heard secretary austin come out very clearly and almost immediately, that this does not have to result in a conflict. there is still a lot of time for

diplomacy, and that is the message that he has been trying to press as a member of the biden administration. we saw chairman millie also pressed for diplomacy but bluntly talk about the threat to civilians on both sides and troops on both sides, and then down. so you have these two messages of diplomacy still possible, but the military also saying we will be there if diplomacy is not possible. host: from vero beach, florida, independent line. caller: you remember a yelton of russia -- boris yeltsin of russia -- never happened.

nato and the baltic states, alaska, lithuania, and poland, we are surrounding russia. it is not right. this is aggression. those people used to live for 300 years. what we call crimea. host: let's take one call after that. this is timothy, illinois, democrats line. caller: hello. i feel like russia's gdp is 1/10 of the usa's. its military budget is 1/10 of the usa's or less. it is surrounded by our military forces. it has shrunk massively from the soviet union.

it is not a threat. it is not want to invade or attack anybody. all at once is to have a country or two around it. that is all it wants. i wish we could understand that and stop threatening russia and being the bullies ourselves. host: that is timothy in illinois. guest: there are a couple misconceptions about the russian military right now. one, that is weekend. -- weakened. that is not the case anymore. he has ramped up russia's military capability. you saw this and play in 2015 in syria. russia started to control the airspace. it took the european military leadership by surprise when it launched a missile from the black sea that landed in syria, showing it had developed the ability for this type of cruise missile.

there are a lot of things different about the russian military today that are not what it was in 2000. there is a significant risk to ukraine and u.s. forces if it was going to get to the point where u.s. forces had to engage with russian forces. host: any sense of what we will hear from the dod this week regarding this? guest: i suspect it will be low-profile and mostly the same, to see what happens on the u.n. front and see if things like the letter sent last week will gain any traction, what response there will be. all of us want to know what is on their negotiating table, but until both sides come to some sort of agreement i do not think you are going to see any sort of movement from dod unless biden decides to send a couple of those units just to have them in place. host: our guest is the senior

pentagon correspondent for defense one, tara thanks for your time. >> guest: thank you for having me. >> the heritage foundation hosts a discussion on china's human rights record and the olympics with nba player enes kanter freedom and congressman michael mccaul. watch live coverage of one p.m. eastern on c-span2, online at c-span.org or on our new c-span now video app. >> get c-span on the go. watch the days biggest political events live or on-demand anytime anywhere on our new mobile video app c-span now. access top highlights, listen to c-span radio and discover new podcasts all for free. download c-span now today. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including charter

communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that's why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers giving you a front-row seat to democracy. >> house majority whip james clyburn commented on the upcoming supreme court vacancy and says he is pushing for michelle childs to replace the retiring stephen breyer. judge childs pesco in nominee for a seat on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit and a judge on u.s. district court for south carolina here is "washington post" event runs about 25 minutes. >> hi, everyone and welcome to "washington post live." i am arianna sotomayor,,