>> express you view, no matter how you think the audience will receive it and know that, in the greatest country in the history of the earth, your view does matter. >> and remember content is king and remember to be as neutral and impartial as possible in your portrayal of both sides of an issue. >> c-span awards $100,000 in total cash prizes and you have a shot at winning the grand prize of $5,000. entries must be received by january 20th, 2022. on how to get started, visit our website at student cam.org. >> w.

host: we are joined by the democrat chairman of the house foreign affairs committee. we're joined by congressman brad sureman, member of the house foreign fairs committee. to start with, russian military build up on the ukraine border and the talks that are happening this week between u.s. and russian officials. tell our audience, in your opinion why the security of ukraine matters. >> i think we have an investment in the entire world order, particularly peace in europe. russia has already seized some ukrainian territory. that was a while ago.

we need peace and stability in europe. it's hard to say that there's any part of the world that's totally unnecessary or totally not of concern to the united states. but europe has always been a place that we've been gravely concerned, since it days of world war i. and having grown up during the cold war between the united states and soviet union, i see a real need to put a lot of diplomatic effort into making sure that the two nuclear super, super powers, the two that have enough nuclear weapons to destroy life on earth are kept peaceful. >> how should the u.s. respond if vladimir putin, the russian president decides to strike against ukraine? >> the biggest response will be the ukrainian response and the biggest response is what america has already done in arming the ukrainians and training the

military. the number one reason is he will suffer significant casualties. i remember pushing a decade or so ago when our policy was not to provide the ukraine with lethal military assistance. we provide jeeps but not -- i mean, i remember arguing that guns aren't lethal. afterall, it's only the bullet that's lethal. i think ukrainian military is far better equipped and trained than they were ten or 15 years ago. far better than when the russians seized the crimea and that's the number one reason putin hasn't invaded. in addition to that, he'll suffer substantial economic sanctions. but we've been timid when he does other things. he interfered in our 2016

election and we did almost nothing. now and then the state department will exaggerate what we did but basically to tell some hackers in saint petersburg they're never going to see the real disneyland and they have to settle for euro disney. coming from california, i realize seeing mickey mouse in france is no substitute. in terms of sanctions that really hit the russian state, we almost gave him a pass. >> so, what should the u.s. do on sanctions? >> i think we do need to keep our powder dry but it has to be plain to russia that the nordstream pipeline is over and their access to western capital markets is done if they invade ukraine. the number one deterrent is the ukrainian military. not with americans anywhere near the front lines.

it is and we have to provide them with weapons and assistance now. it's that military, not that russia couldn't defeat them but will the russian populous accept the kind of casualties that the ukrainian military can impose? e russian president when he argues support of the west for ukraine is nato expansion, and something he sees as a threat to his country? guest: well, i do think we have to have understandings of not having missiles right up against the russian border. we reacted rather intensely when we saw nuclear missiles based in cuba, 90 miles, separated by an ocean, away from us. ukraine is even closer to russia. so i do think that an understanding on force deployments is appropriate, and i think that some assurance that there is no -- that for many decades, we would expect that

the ukraine would not be joining nato. if you look at the nato treaty, it really does not allow the ukraine to join because of article five. it says that the russian occupation of ukrainian territory would trigger a war between the united states and russia the day ukraine joined nato. in article 10 says that ukraine can't join nato unless it makes the other countries in nato, such as the united states, more secure. i would not feel more secure if my country was in a technical state of war with russia tomorrow or the next day, so the nato packed requires that new applicants demonstrate that by joining they make the entire collective body more secure, and that is not the condition on the ground, neither for the country of georgia nor the country of the ukraine.

so i don't think that ukraine or georgia will be joining anytime soon. the way that nato treaty is designed now, it in effect gives russia a veto. if you occupy part of a nation's territory, it is very difficult for that country to join nato. obviously, that treaty could be revised in light of these circumstances, but i don't think -- the biden administration is certainly not thinking of being the administration to be in the white house when the ukraine or any other former part of the soviet union became a new member of nato. host: let's get to calls. michael, democratic caller. caller: good morning, representative sherman. i think there is one issue the republicans and democrats could really get together on. we've got russia. we've got put in.

he took crimea, ukraine, kazakhstan. we've got xi jinping, who is going to take taiwan, i think. i was hoping that if the democrats and republicans cannot get together over this issue -- we have mad men out there, in my opinion, and what are your thoughts on that, representative? thank you. guest: i think that the lines are different on some of these issues of foreign policy. they are not strictly democrat and republican. there is more bipartisanship, perhaps. but there is not necessarily agreement. there are those who think that we should spend tens of billions of dollars more enhancing our navy's ability to repulse any effort to retake taiwan, or to take taiwan. and there are those who don't think we should do that. there are the doves and the hawks, and increasingly although you associate the republican party with the hawks, it is not

quite that simple, and you get to the libertarian, the rand paul wing of the republican party, and you find republicans who come up well will certainly denounce xi in china and putin in russia, they are very reluctant -- and i think all americans are at least somewhat reluctant -- to see our troops get involved. if putin could be deterred only with the risk of economic sanctions, and only with international law, harsh condemnation, i think everybody in this country could unite behind that, but when you start talking about americans on the frontline, that scares some democrats and some republicans. host: what does the unrest in kazakhstan due to this? guest: it was not summing putin was planning on. i think he may be removing his troops relatively soon.

it is a terrible shame that the cause of people do not have the democracy that they deserve. this government has no legitimacy. and while the dictator of many decades is theoretically gone, his regime remains. and was not able to kill enough demonstrators without russian help, enough demonstrators to achieve their thuggish purpose of remaining in power without making any concessions to the people. so i think that it is certainly a tragedy for democracy that we are not seeing the government of kazakhstan forced to make at least some concessions to their own people. host: kelly is the first democratic caller.

caller: congressman, i wish senator mccain was here. he was on top of all of this years and years ago. it is just unbelievable to me that we have allowed russia to penetrate as much as they already have. but my concern, greatest concern, is why aren't there standards for withdrawing our troops in emergency situations that are automatically done at a time, whether it is with the airlines, or if it is destroying guns so that the enemy does not get those guns. i just don't understand why there is not an automatic standard, and i hope that you all will consider that and put that in place. guest: from ancient times, retreats have been the most difficult military maneuver. i think your question is really

focused on afghanistan. we pulled some troops out of syria. we have shifted our situation, and i would say we do not have a combat role in iraq. obviously, though, when you look at vietnam, we are all haunted by the sites of the helicopter taking off, the embassy. we had withdrawn, but we left billions -- and that was back when billions was a big number -- of weapons in the hands of the south vietnamese military, because we wanted to give that military a chance to fight the north vietnamese. as it turned out, they did a terrible job. they folded quickly. there are some that will say we should have given them more air support or this or that it we fought and we died by the tens of thousands to try to support that regime.

and you cannot disarm your ally and say you want your ally to survive on their own. likewise, in afghanistan, imagine how many americans would have died if we had deployed our troops all around afghanistan, saying we are collecting the weapons. we have decided you are losers. give us back the guns. the plan was for the afghan military to fight the taliban to a draw at least, and to negotiate a settlement. obviously, that failed. obviously, it had only a slight chance of success, but imagine the reaction toward the world and in the united states if we had disarmed the afghan

government rather than give them a chance to survive, a chance that they were not able -- so i don't think we could have taken back the weapons. as to the withdrawal itself, the people -- what we saw from afghanistan was that the people who had friends and an understanding of the united states, the people who spoke english, were making those videos for their friends to see, not saying please give us some guns's and some shovels so we can fight and defend couple from the taliban. the knowledgeable people, the insiders in afghanistan, all were demanding on those videos that we saw in english, "get me out of here." this place is going to fall. they are going to kill us." and

once the insiders are saying that, we should not have been surprised that that causes a panic, when the most knowledgeable people are panicked, and the idea that the afghan army was going to fight for months so that there would be an orderly withdrawal -- what ordinary afghan soldier who does not speak english, does not have american friends, wants to be the last to die once it is certain that the americans are leaving and their best friends are leaving, and that the insiders are interested in getting out rather than fighting? so once you have a panicked withdrawal, it is very difficult to have an orderly panicked withdrawal. there is no book on how to have a country in which all of the insiders are desperate and fleeing, and it is done in an

orderly way. host: carolyn in rockaway, new jersey, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, greta. mr. sherman, i had a feeling from the time i started seeing the headlines regarding russia and the ukraine that this was all about the nordic stream tw o, which as you indicated several times -- there is a relationship here. the nordic stream 2 was a siberian oil dig. it was engaged in by the two national oil companies of russia, gazprom and president of, -- and raznev, but it was also coupled with exxon and mobil and british petroleum, and so on and so forth. and they have, by the results of

the dig -- they have acquired a stream of gas and oil to supply western germany and all of our patrons that used to purchase the american oil and gas. so the situation is always a little deeper if you scratch the surface, and what politicians like yourself want to indicate to the pit -- to the public. host: congressman, your response? guest: i don't think that putin is putting his forces around the ukraine in an effort to help or hurt american or british oil companies. on stream 2 -- nord stream 2 is part of the overall picture. he very much wants that pipeline

completed. we are opposed to it in part because it will create an infrastructure where germany in particular, and other western european countries, will be dependent for their natural gas on russia. he who supplies the natural gas can turn off the natural gas, and that creates a certain dependency. russia could impose economic hardship on germany, instead of the west imposing sanctions on russia. but i don't -- i think the caller has a strong distrust of the institutions of the united states, and especially of international oil companies, and i'm not going to say there are not reasons to investigate, but i don't see how those dots connect, except to say that they

germany dependent on russia is not good for germany's security. it is not good for american security. and it is probably the first thing that is stopped if putin invades ukraine. host: we learned yesterday from european free radio that the pipeline is done. it is ready to deliver natural gas, according to the operator. if you put sanctions on it, what would happen? guest: according to that new story, completed. according to the latest i saw, almost completed pipeline. it would not have any use for a while. and it would be prohibited from operation. i hope very much that putin does not invade the ukraine. i don't think he will, so in all likelihood, putin will extract only some minor concessions,

will decide not to invade, and will get the economic and geostrategic advantages of that pipeline. but there are other scenarios. there is the possibility that he invades, and that creates a worse world, and it probably useless pipeline. host: dave in spokane, washington, independent. go ahead. caller: good morning, greta. i have an image for congressman sherman. thinking about russian propaganda, just visualize a great big poster of uncle sam wants you to protect the biden business interests, the family business interests in the ukraine. that will come out at some point in time, and how are we going to respond? thank you very much. guest: i would say the entire

congress and all of those involved in foreign policy for the last three decades have been in favor of an independent ukraine, a democratic ukraine, and that biden is no more in favor of an independent ukraine than his predecessors, including his immediate predecessor, and no more in favor of an independent ukraine than the consensus in both the house and the senate, not only this decade, but last decade, and the decade before that. so to ascribe this to business interests that i don't exist, and seem to be invented by those looking for a conspiracy, it does not explain why, for 30 years, america has had pretty

much the same interests in the same objectives in the ukraine that we have today. host: john, santa paula, california, republican. caller: >> john, california, republican. >> caller: good morning. good morning, america. good morning, congressman sherman. my question is, or my feeling is, ipo have been watching the ukraine situation d over the la month or so, and to me, it is the most important issue of the day. thes filibuster, the january 6, it's all noise compared to this. and whatc. i'm seeing is presidt biden slow walking us into a confrontation with russia, which could beti catastrophic. and he's making some mistakes. i think one big mistake was to announce whatce his sanctions would be, and not realizing that if he imposes sanctions, the

price of gas in america will probably triple. and so what is he thinking when he's going to put hardships on the american people to combat russia? i just think he's making blunder after blunder. he's going to back himself into a corner, and what has he got to do exceptt fight? i'm really just really concerned about the ukraine issue. and i just don't see president biden doing anything positive right now to avoid it. >> all right, john. congressman usherman. > well, biden didn't wake up one day and say let's have a crisis in the ukraine. putin woke up. n those troops on the border are not biden's idea. that's putin's forces. biden very much does not want international distractions. his focus is on domestic policy. this is a crisis biden does not want. second, the idea that the

gentleman mentions gas. i assume he's talking about naturala. gas because that's wh we were talking about before. wewe don't import any natural g from russia. inan fact, the united states natural gas. and natural gas is a complicated and expensive thing to move from one continent to another. so it has to be liquefied, and that's an expensive process. so to think that we would ever import natural gas from russia when we have so much natural gas in the united states that we are liquefying it and exporting it to asia, and now, i will say this. if russia invades the ukraine, that isn't biden's idea. that's putin's idea. america has to respond. the listth of responses we have talked about, but if we didn't talk about them, putin knows what they are.

anybody who looks at ul international economics could make pretty w much the same lis. and if you say, well, biden shouldn't be mentioning that we're goings to take tough action, well, that would be an invitation tog putin to invade theif ukraine. you can say it's bad for biden to give a speech saying putin, if you invade, we're going to hit your economy. imagine if biden had given the other speech and said, putin, if you invade, we're not going to do anything at all economically, and we're certainly not going to lose ourur soldiers. so we're not going to do anything militarily and we're not going to do anything economically, but you'll get a stronglyly worded letter. i would say that that would increase thele likelihood that putin would invade. now, of course, the ukrainians themselves give putin plenty of reasons not to invade, but at the margin, the ability of the

united states to organize not just american but a worldwide economic sanctions response is something p that may keep peace between, and a fragile peace on the ukrainian border. so i think putin -- i think putin hass. created this crisis. i think biden is handling it as well as we can under these circumstances. and i don't think that sanctioning russia would have a significant effect on our economy, but given -- given what we have done in the world, the cost that we have imposed on our soldiers, our sailors, our marines in afghanistanur and ir, that the american people are unwilling to endure any cost to achieve an international

objective i think belies history. >> congressman, we only have a couple minutes left. let me ask you, what other areas in the world as one of the top democrats in the foreign affairs committee, what areas of the world concern you? >> obviously china. both n taiwan, and i do not thi that xi will invade at this time. also, for similar reasons on the ukraine. because the taiwanese would impose great cost on him. i think the economic relationship with china is a very unfair one d in which they are able to use their capricious granting or denying of access to u.s. businesses in order to control our policies. and our companies. for example, theyn only allow about 40 movies into china. so if you're in hollywood and that's your second biggest

market, if you make a movie about m tibet, that movie will never be shown in china. not only that, none of your other movies will either. so china, by rationing access to itsby market, can control what everyy studio in hollywood make, byis making sure they never maka movie that's hostile to beijing, that's about the uighurs, that's about the tibetans, et cetera. they can andex have recently terrified -- you know, if just one executive in the nba says something nice about taiwan, they threaten a billion-dollar revenue stream. we don'tco do the same thing. we don't say, oh, well, we're going to stop all chinese toys fromf coming into the united states, or only the toy companies that declare that they respect the rights of the taiwanese people will be allowed

to bring in toys. we don't do that. their control over their market for political purposes gives them a control in our society that's very pernicious. >> congressman brad sherman, democrat of california, thank you for the conversation, as always. we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> this afternoon, the senate intelligence committee holds a confirmation for president biden's nomination to serve as undersecretary for intelligence and analysis in the homeland security department. live coverage begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. you can also watch online at c-span.org or watch full coverage on our new video app, c-span now.