bosch talks about the biden administration's agenda. watch a washington journal live at seven eastern tuesday morning on c-span or on c-span now, our new mobile app. join our discussion with your phone call, facebook, facebook message and tweet. ♪ ♪ >> reports defense once the senior pentagon correspondent here to talk about activities involving russia and ukraine particularly means for the u.s. on this call, thank you for joining us this morning for a quick thank you for having the progress we heard from defense secretary last week about the multiple options that russia has involving ukraine, if that is the case, what is it mean by planning by the u.s. decide on how we're going to respond? >> it is a risk calculation. you heard last week pentagon announcedha the 8500 troops that we put on heightened alert units from fort bragg, fort campbellpb, all over the united

states specialize in aviation support, logistics, medical support. we would be sending to each nation around ukraine, lafayette, poland, to reassure the nato alliance that if this does go forward it will not go past a certain point in the u.s. would come to nato's defense. but you even her from the defense secretary is a really important bridge not to cross. that is, if you send troops in and that further aggravate atpollutant and does that raise the risk that he will then take a move on ukraine? there's a lot of diplomacy going on as you know an hour and a half from around the u.s. and security council will meet to discuss this. and russia will have a seat at that table. it is a question of how does everyonene dance around this in a way to avoid war? >> as far as the timetables

are concerned, you talk about the troops been called up. is there a timetable as far as the deployment is concerned or discussion of one? what's the 80 airborne fort bragg, spent very cautious is not named units. or we should say specific use but the 82nd airborne has been relied upon again and again to go in quickly. it can actually go in this units within their the immediate response force that can respond within 18 hours a been called up. they could get over there very quickly if needed. you saw the president last week talk about he thanks there might be a near-term call up of those forces just to have them in place if necessary. >> was here for the defense secretary from last weekend. before we do that if you want to ask questionsf of our guest as far as thent department of defense and their planning as far as russia and ukraine are kurt (202)748-8000 democrats

republicans (202)748-8001 independence (202)748-8002. if you're retired now to call us at (202)748-8003 can also texas that same number for his defense secretary lloyd austin. >> as you know for months now, russia has been deployed forces to crimea and along ukraine's border including in belarus. it has progressed at a consistent and steady pace involving tens of thousands of russian troops. and it is being supported by increased russian naval activity in the northern atlantic in the mediterranean sea. while we don't believe president putin has made a final decision to use these forces against ukraine, he clearly now has that capability. there are multiple options available to him including the

seizure of cities and significant territories.bu but also provocative political acts like the recognition of breakaway territories. indeed, we are seeing a russian state media spoutingg off now about alleged activities in eastern o ukraine. this is straight out of the russian playbook. they are not fooling us. we remain focused on russian disinformation including the potential creation of a pretext for further invasion or strikes on don bus. in any a russian attack further incursion into ukraine would not only ignite conflict it would also violate the bedrock principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and self-determination. >> that was the defense secretary last week talked about those eight synchronous

ways this could go. what is that mean for the defense department? >> just to provide options for now. you, heard all throughout the weekend, not only the ukrainian ambassador to the u.s., but you heard the un envoy to u.s. envoy to the un talking about diplomacy first. you know, to encourage russia to stand down. been trying to push the possibility of sanctions. now the experts i have talked to set russia since the 2014 invasion of crimea has put themselves in a far stronger economic position to whether those sanctions by the question is, to those sanctions work or if they don't what is it russia will accept or what is it that they want? to be able to de-escalate and give putinth enough of a when he could actually withdraw some of his forces and not look politically vulnerable at home. ip has got come at this point

some estimates 130 now troops surrounding ukraine the northern easternrn borders. and for that reason there is a i high cost right now the question is what will putin do? what does he want in response to call it a win and de-escalate? >> when it comes then to potential casualties, how is the defense department measured for that? >> we heard chairman millie on friday. these very disturbing terms of the high cost to civilians ukraine wouldf pay. russia has a short-term missiles all around ukraine's border. it has spent the last decade or so really modernizing its ability to attack. it's troops are in a well-trained, well fed they

can inflict some very, very heavy damage. on the ukrainian side is about 150,000 active duty forces have also benefited from western training and western equipping since that time as well. this ish a fight or both sides could potentially incur heavy losses. and ire think millie really press that to try and encourage both sides to think andd potentially de-escalate. >> host: will hear from gary, gary in miami, florida gary, go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: hi this is gary from miami, florida. i have been around when the united nations was formed in 1948 the purpose of which is for countries in the world to negotiate peace and not have war. if russia wants to present on the scene and be a member of the civilizedem world, and try to start a war that should be censored and ostracized from

the civilizedth world. now is the time for the united nations to stand up and followed the original mandate and see if they have the courage to do that. and see what putin has to say about this. >> the color brings up a really interesting point. the un security council meeting that happened later tonight russia is one of the five permanent members of the security council. whatever decisions are taken russia can potentially veto. i think this gets to the larger point that putin is pressing these decisions about the post-world war ii security construct in europe the decisions are being made without him. cannot have a vote at the table he's using other means such as military buildup to push his own agenda. again some of the exercise talked to said let's get to that question of possibly what could putin really want. few integrator hand at the table if he wants to have a bigger role of determining what kind of missiles are on

the peninsula, this could all be effective negotiating points for both f administrationsab to build to de-escalate this. >> james, san diego california retired military person james hello. i have a point for you. i believe the united states signing an agreement to protect the sovereignty of the eucharist the ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons, maybe we should give the ukraine back certain nuclear weapons give me a comment on that one. >> the threat of nuclear weapons on thet european peninsula russia already has can inflict damage have the ability as well. they have rounds and rounds and roundsun of talks further restricting what type of arms. as a something potent and russia are interested in having a part of it.

this might be one of the areas of negotiation that could potentially lead to de-escalation of the current conflicts. the problem is right now this 130,000 troops surrounding ukraine without understandingho what putin wants being able to find some substantive response. >> host: this is that nato operation discussions are sent around nato. really response from the allies as a deer detox with them. if you seen germany is not going to be sending weapons but to rely 40% expert gasoline and 20% of oil. the european countries and

more than $200 billion of trade with russia every year. there is a lot at stake for not only with the sanctions with the potential for war. you've seen other nations such as eastern european nations, they are actually depriving ukraine initials which are antiaircraft missile missiles to help ukraine better defend itself in case it does come under air assault. there is a mixed result in a mixed bag. and in a way that's kind of what putin is going for in the alliance. to do it if you are asks about how many u.s. citizens are currently in ukraine. i don't know if that goes into effect or what decisions we make here in the united states about that? >> we asked the defense department last week because as you heard the president is not going to send forces into ukraine. there will be positioned around it outside. weer pressed, if there needs to be an evacuation of ukraine,

while u.s. aircraft military personnel be involved? and we did get an answer on that. as far as the number of people are u.s. citizens currently in ukraine i do not know that answer. none of the state department the deity of encourage to leave the country now but potential for warburg. >> democrats line. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. sixty years ago russia call this almost a nuclear crisis with jfk. october 14 covid 1962. a year later he was assassinated by russian, lee harvey oswald. and he was killed two days later russia is called a problem, khrushchev was in power at the time. he is going to put missiles in cuba and candy said you get them out of here. i was in the philippines during the vietnam war when kennedy got assassinated.

that is all i want to say russia has been a problem for 60 years, okay? i hope some people are listening and know why we have a problem. he went so why does that apply to what's going on today do you think? >> caller: i don't have a way to fix this problem. like i say he's got leverage because they sent gas to germany using that. they see a were fighting over here with each other. our countries get together a republican or democrat and get serious with russia. they will do everything they can to start problems that's all i can suggest i don't how they're going to solve it okay. >> south dakota. >> guest: the cold war security construct is been in place since the end of world war ii. do you engage with russia? you bring it closer in? do you allow it to have a vote

at the table? this administration had really, really wanted towa pay attention to the indo pacific. now the last six months because of the buildup understood it also has to pay attention to europe and the security construct. so what you do going forward? do inflict i punishment on russia feels further alienated and distract 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 the biden administration has to choose. i think you see them leaning that way they continue to press the idea of diplomacy first military force only as a last resort. when c you heard general millie characterize was currently going on with russian comparing it to what they have seen over history, can you describe that characterization that general millie made?

>> yes. so the chairman has more than 40 years of militaryil service. and over that time they've seen the cold war they have seen conflict after h conflict. he is asked how is this different? he said he had never seen a russian buildup like this in the sense that it gave him that there was an imminent threat now. one of my readers there is 100,000 troops at the border. the last time we did that in kuwait and the belt to theti goal for there was no question u.s. forces were going in. so, for a lot of people there is no question that rush is going to go into. the question is, how limited can the incursion be and how strong a hand of diplomacy have been trying to limit those damages? >> a diplomatic you heard them talk about un security council meeting this going to take place today per going to show

you at 8:00 p.m. tonight on c-span see if you want to watch it there. c-span.org and our c-span now app. let's go to doug and virginia republican line. >> anhey there, thank you for taking my call. i am a really big fan of c-span in general. thank you for all that you all do. regarding the topic we are discussing, deafening for diplomacy and trying to de-escalate. think that is in everyone's interest in the world's interest. i am a little alarmed by some the comments i'm hearing from your guests. it feels like it's on the board of appeasement. i do not really know that is in anyone's interest. the whole world is watching china, north korea, iran. anytime someone presents a military threat of any kind or at least jockeys that way were willing to give some concession purdue think that's going to result in more or less of these type of situations? i think in the end a threat of aggression is not excel for an

act of aggression i'll be curious your guests thoughts, thank you. >> i certainly did not mean to suggest any form of appeasement. simply trying to characterize what i've seen and heard from both the government the u.s. government or our position is. andls then also from the security experts i've talked to have been watching this for very long time. this russian buildup did not happen overnight. it has been building up for over a year. this is been a long planned move by russia to try and force the issue of ukraine i guess stopping ukraine from joining and hass not had success so far and the pressure campaign is solicited. the question is do they feel like they have to at this point invade and inflict heavy damages? and att, that point is at risk pulling the u.s. into a regional war? or can there be a diplomatic solution? that is the point i was trying

to make. they went randy in alabama democrats line.. >> caller: yes. there ain't never going to be no diplomatic resolution with russia or n china. they don't recognize, nobody but themselves. general millie has got a yellow streak up his back wide.2-foot in austin is a joke. >> why would you characterize it that way? >> i watch him i listen to them on tv i am a military man. no general comment back when i was in the military would have act as a cowardly. but, the united states told ukraine you give up your weapons, we will defend you. now ukraine needs to get their weapons back or give them chemical weapons of mass destruction take care of the

rest of this themselves by. >> alright that's randy in alabama go ahead. >> again 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? at what point with the u.s. find itself dragged in. the question and does the american population have the >> foror another war? we just left afghanistan six months ago. you saw the large appetite among voting population for the u.s. to get out of afghanistan. the real question as to whether or not there is a political will from the american people to send more troops to europe to engage with russia. >> even as we are talking about this, story in the paper today about north korea

launching its seventh missile test. all of the attention being paid to russia and ukraine what did the other theaters in the world is the defense department concerned about? >> the last phrase every single defense secretary technical concern they are. this is been an unwanted distraction might be a way to describe it. because secretary austin and the pentagon was really set on maneuvering forces and ciresources especially after the end of the war. this is put a pause on that because all of these same aviation's that would be used to support the indo pacific are currently on hold to be necessary to support any potential conflict in the european theater. so this question of priorities in the administration started with the priority everything will deal with china you have to put that on hold. >> from another alabama this

public line will hear from karen, hello. >> hey good morning. i have an idea here. the ukrainian president had a news conference last week and said we do not need the united states to come over t here. we can defend ourselves, number one. number two, instead of worrying about a sovereignty of a border in europe, why does the pentagon worry about the sovereignty of the border in the southern u.s. and but out of europe? cox will call her kinda 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's definitely countries that wonder why. we still have about 3500 troops assigned to the southern border, that is not counting the different units of states independently sense.

there is a question, do you need more? in that mission wind down? there again has been a growing sense of why hasn't the u.s. but more of its own resources into protecting the homeland instead of always responding to another nations calls. >> as far as the caller's point about training president's response as far as tensions how is the dod responding to that? >> we heard secretary come out very clearly and almost immediately this does not have to result in a conflict. there is still a lot of time and place for diplomacy. and that is the message he has been trying to press as a member of the biden administration. he saw then chairman millie also pressed for diplomacy but very bluntly talk about the threat to civilians on both sides and troops on both sides.

and then urged putin to stand down. you have these two messages of diplomacy still possible. but the military also sing will be there diplomacy is not possible. stu went from vero beach, florida independent line. hello. >> caller: it would have been better. [inaudible] we can make to the whole world, you and i in america. it never happened. and then he stabbed him in the back. [inaudible] and poland it is not right. this is aggression. those people have had 300

years. it's at least by russian soldiers. >> okay let's take one call after that this is timothy from crystal lake, illinois democrats line. >> caller: yes hello. basically russia's gdp is one tenth of the usa's comments military budget is one tenth of the usa's or less. it is surrounded by her militaries forces especially on one side. it's shrunk massively from the soviet union, it is not a threat it does not want to invade or not all at once is a friendly country or two around it likee holy cross that's all at once. i wish we could understand and stop threatening russian stopping the bulliesst ourselve. the limits timothy in

illinois. >> there are couple of misconceptions about the russian military right now. one, it is a weekend, this just not the case anymore. since putin took office in 2000 he has significantly amped up russia's military capability. you saw this in play in 2015 in sierra. russian landed aircraft that will start to control the airspace. and then it took basically the european military leadership by surprise went to see launched missile from the boxee that landed in sierra so i get had developed the ability for this type of cruise missile. there are a lot of things different about the russian military today that's just not what it was in 2000. there is aif significant risk to route ukraine for this a significant risk to the u.s. forces if it was going to get tto the point where u.s. forces had to engage with russian forces. >> any sense what will hear

from the dod this week regarding this? >> i suspect it's going get pretty low profile and stay mostly the same to see what happens on the un side. i do see some of these things like the letter we sent last week will gain any traction. what kind of response there will be. i think all of us want to know what is on the negotiating table. and so until both sides come to some kind of agreement i don't think you're going to be seeing anyyo sort of movement from the dod and less of biden decides to send a couple of those units just to have them in place in case. >> our gas a senior pentagon correspondent for defense won her workk and without defense one.com, terra cop joining us for this conversation. thanks for your time. >> thank you for having me. ♪ ♪'s he spent unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including charter communication. >> broadbent is a force for

empowerment. that is why charter has invested billions, building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> the un security council met today to discuss russia's military buildup along the border with ukraine. russia's ambassador includes united states and creating hysteria by the u.s. ambassador to the un, linda thomas greenfield responded that russia's actions indicated planning military action against ukraine. [backgun