caldwell, and on our spotlight on podcast segment, the washington post lillian cunningham joins us with her podcast presidential. join us with your facebook comments, test messages, and tweets. washington journal is next. >> do you feel confident that vladimir putin has made a decision? >> i am convinced he has made a decision. ♪ host: good morning, and welcome to washington journal. president biden has come out with words about the ukraine, leaving that president vladimir putin has made decision to invade the soviet satellite. the ratcheting up of tensions around the world as people wait to see what the russians opt for

more diplomacy or invade their former natives. they have not committed to put american boots on the ground in ukraine, or any desperate any action in the ukraine will have an effect. what should america do about the russian -- ukrainian border crisis? we will open up our regular lines. republicans, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independence, (202) 748-8002. you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading facebook and twitter, and you can always follow us on instagram.

once again, this morning, we are awaiting to see what will happen in the rush ukrainian border crisis, and we have seen president biden come out with the strongest words about what is going to happen, and what they believe is going to happen in the ukraine. president biden, on friday, came out and spoke about the possible timetable of an attack on the ukraine by russia at the white house. here is a portion of what president joe biden said on friday. >> there we believe there is an intention by the russians to attack to ukraine in the coming week and the coming days. we believe they will target the ukrainian capital, a city of 2.8 million people. we are calling out these plans loudly and repeatedly, not because we want a conflict, but we are removing everything in our power -- do anything our power to remove the opportunity

for them to move. make no mistake. if russia pursues its plans, it will be responsible for a catastrophic and needless choice. the united states and our allies prepared to defend every inch of nato territory from any threat to our collect them security, as well. we also will not send troops into fight in the ukraine. we will continue to support the ukrainian people. host: the administration expects false flag operations out of the ukraine as a pretext for war between russia and the ukraine. washington post has a story that explains a little bit about what the administration is talking about. president biden said friday that vladimir putin headed a decision to strike the ukraine after the administration warned of false flag operations orchestrate by the kremlin. they could be used as a pretext

for an attack. hours after biden's remarks, leaders of two breakaway territories in eastern ukraine on saturday signed mass military mobilization decrees that put them on war footing. the head of the self -- self-proclaimed people's republic told all able-bodied men to take up response best take up arms in response to the aggression. biden said this stiffer information was being pushed to the russian public that ukraine was preparing a major offensive. it defies basic logic to believe that the ukrainians would choose this moment with well over 150 thousand troops arrayed on its borders to recs collate -- two x latest conflict. they have blamed others to justify previous military action in chechnya, georgia, and the ukraine. we want to know what you think

america should be doing with the russia ukrainian border crisis. are you following what is going on in eastern europe? how concerned are you about this entire situation going on in russia and the ukraine? let us start with terry in hagerstown, maryland, on the republican line. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: just fine. caller: i think brandon should put those sanctions on today. we have been warned that gas prices will go even higher if he invades, so, he should not. host: i think we lost terry. let's go to chris in california on the independent lined. . go ahead. caller: i am not quite certain

that i understand just how concerned i am about it. personally, i think that we ought to have troops in the ukraine. i understand when the wall came down in berlin, and we saw the state of the troops in russia and its military, we wondered why did we consider it a threat? it was in bad shape. i was indoctrinated throughout the 80's to consider that russia had a system economically that did not work. what i concluded after so many years is that -- how communism works, if that is still a relevant term to russia, is like conquest. that's why it has an imperialistic territorial takeover of different regions. the resources get depleted because communism does not prosper.

it does not prosper for numerous reasons. many of them are relevant to society, family at the fundamental level. that has obliterated through collectivism, where you have such an influence of the party taking care of a fundamental unit, a family. i do not know that president biden is correct to assess that russia, president vladimir putin, is making a decision to war against the ukraine as a matter of choice. the economic sister -- system of russia is communistic and does not work and does not stimulate prosperity. it forces vladimir putin under

sanctions and his own economic system into a position that he has to resort to warfare to obtain resources. host: what do you think the united states and nato should do if vladimir putin crosses into the ukraine? should the united states and nato do nothing, or should there be sanctions? should there be military operations? what should be the response in the event he crosses into the ukraine? caller: it is difficult to determine constitutionally for the united states that there is an actual threat to the united states. it is said that he, president pruden, has violated treaties -- vladimir putin, has violated treaties. he has a nuclear capability with a range greater than 500 kilometers, which puts a launcher in range of the united states. that would be a direct threat to

the united states, which would justify a reaction of war against russia. other military movements through nato constitute movement when one or more of its members are attacked. i am unaware of -- and unfamiliar of which soldiers, which units, which means of transportation or communication such as railroads have been attacked or are currently imprisoned for violation against press, against russia. so, to say what exactly should be done is difficult. host: let's go to tina who is calling from richmond, indiana on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say that i don't under -- understand where we are

looking at joe biden to handle a crisis in the ukraine we have a crisis right here in the united states of america on our border. our border should be more concerning to him then the ukraine and russia. joe trump. -- go trump. host: you don't think there should be any reaction to what is happening in the ukraine? caller: joe biden should be concerned about his own country. we should secure our borders and move forward from there. host: all right. she dropped off. let's go to stephen in new york on the democrat line. good morning. caller: i've got to agree with tina. joe biden should be concerned with the crisis right here in the united states. yesterday, a judge went from the bench for a convicted murderer. and he sentenced a murderer to 16 months in a state with sense

in doing -- sentencing guidelines of 15 years. that is the very definition of a crisis in the judicial system of any civilized nation. host: do you think the american government can do two things at the same time? we work on defensive issues and international issues at the same time? caller: i think the government can do a thousand things at one time, but they are not joe biden is not worth anything. nothing at all. have a good day. host: let's go to robert from frostburg, maryland. the independent line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good. go ahead. caller: i am a vietnam veteran. i just tuned into your channel, watching ronald reagan and jfk with the berlin wall.

what i couldn't believe is these two presidents -- i am sorry, excuse me. these guys were standing up to free russia -- and i am sorry. god bless america. thank you. host: let's go to gerard who is calling from louisiana on the democrat line. morning. caller: what biden needs to do is [indiscernible] a little sense. host: what should we do as a country, the united states or nader do -- nato, do, if they cross into the ukraine? should there be military action? host: we should have sanctions.

we shouldn't even be over there. to start with. biden needs to get out of there and put someone in there who has a little bit of brains left in their head. host: let's go to thomas from spring hill florida on the republican line. good morning. caller: the way you start with this whole mess, the way i see it, the ukraine has had every opportunity to be part of nato. if they don't want to be part of nato, it let them defend for themselves. the nato allies should worry about themselves. this should give an example to them that if you don't want to be a part of us, this is what happens. you have to deal with the big russian bear knocking at your door. let's face it. this is bidens asked -- this is bidens total screwup when he pulled out of afghanistan. he had no exit strategy, so he

chomped to the waters. we have to get used to this. china will make their move on taiwan. thank you. host: let's go to john calling from corpus christi texas on the independent line. good morning. caller: the united states needs to quit being a war economy. united states is entirely a war economy. a few people ever heard of the military-industrial complex? not six months after we pulled out of afghanistan, we are stirring up trouble with china and russia and around the world. this is ridiculous. in 2014, the cia overthrew the democratically elected government of the ukraine and put in a puppet dictatorship that was friendly to the united states and nato. this has to stop. the united states has to stop warmongering and being a bully around the world. it must stop now. caller: what should the united

states do right now if russia decides to invade the ukraine? caller: we shouldn't do anything. we have no business occupying europe for the last 70 or 80 years since world war ii. we are the occupation force. the united states military exists as a mercenary force for wall street. read the book, the war on iraq. this is a typical business, typical business propaganda. this is wall street profit, all for wall street to take over and control the entire world. that is the sole purpose of the united states military. host: let's go to jake calling from south carolina on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. i think that the president needs to stay out of this mess. he is going to get us in another mess. i am a vietnam veteran. we have been a war country all

my life. it seems like every time we turn around, we are going to start another war. we don't need another war. we need a president who is going to look at his own country and his own border and protect the united states and make us self-sufficient in a lot of areas that we are trying to be dependent on in other countries. host: the president says he is not going to put any american troops in the ukraine. that leaves sanctions and bolstering nato for his options. if russia decides to invade the ukraine. is that enough? caller: so we are not putting any troops over there? that's saying to vladimir putin that we are not going to fight you, but we will get everyone else to fight you. we are going to put the sanctions on you. sanctions do not work. not with a person like vladimir putin. and another thing, we are going

to start making friends around the world. not enemies. let's be real about it. host: are you saying that president biden should not commit to putting troops in the ukraine? should president biden say we are going to possibly put troops in the ukraine? caller: we don't need to put our troops in any country with a president like we have. he cannot even protect and bring home our own troops and americans from afghanistan. we need them to fight. if you get into the ring to box, you do not put a light weight against a heavyweight. you put equal balance to people, boxing. it is the same as in war. you don't go in and jump into something that you know you are only going to threaten with

sanctions. if you are going to send our men to war, you need to send them to war, you need to tell them, look, we are going to win this war and we are coming home. not another vietnam like we had in every other war like we had. i like what we did in world war ii. when we got in world war ii. we ended it. host: earlier today in germany, vice president, harris spoke at the munich security conference. here is a little bit of what she said about the situation at the russian ukrainian border. >> not since the end of the cold war has this form convened under such dire circumstances. today, as we are all well aware, the foundation of european security faces a direct threat in ukraine.

let us remember, from the wreckage of two world wars, a consensus emerged in europe and the united states. a consensus in favor of order, not chaos. security, not conflict. by forging relationships, forging organizations and institutions, love entreaty, we could get together and establish a set of rules, norms, that have governed ever sense. europe has enjoyed unprecedented peace, security, and prosperity through a commitment to assess -- a set of defining principles. the united states is equally

committed to these principles. that people have a right to choose their own form of government. that nations have a right to choose their own alliances. that there are inalienable rights which govern and protect, and the rule of law should be cherished. that sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states must be respected. and national borders should not be changed by force. host: later on in the hour, vice president harris will be holding a bilateral meeting with president of the ukraine. we will bring you as much of that as we can later on in this hour, but later on in this hour,

the vice president will be meeting with ukrainian president, and we will go to it if we can. let's go to our social media followers talking about the russia and ukrainian border crisis. here is a post from facebook that says the biden administration is distracting from the horrible economy. russia has all of the border voters and needs. -- it needs. we didn't place hot zones for fun. vladimir putin, no one is fooled. another facebook post says, stay out of it. here's a facebook post this is putin's board and purposely flexing his muscles. it is a power game for him, he cares about no one. one final facebook post says line their border with minds and make their attempts a huge mistake. once again, we will ask you what

you think we should do about the russian ukrainian border crisis. should america stay out of it and let ukraine falter russia, or should america bolster the nato troops that are already in europe? should america send aid to the ukraine? we want to know what you think about it. let's go to tim in ohio on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: we need to get our facts straight. russia is no longer a communist country. they were a communist republic that turned into a democratic republic and they turned into april a chariot government. we have to get our facts straight on the stories. -- a proletariat government. we have to get our facts straight on the stories. the government doesn't want another debate. [indiscernible]

what happened in the last four years. there is an authoritarian government, but we want them to stay that way. and as far as the ukraine, if i was, you know, if i was in a situation with history and all that, they would have a military exercise, joint exercises, and we would go into the ukraine and have joint military exercises with the ukraine. it's like a bully. we have to stand up to them. we cannot back down. if they don't, you have to be ready to fight. the other thing, i just want to throw out there that president biden is called brandon. if you are fist off at someone coming don't resort to name-calling. you are not making that person

look bad, you're making yourself look bad. host: let's go to aurora, indiana, on the republican line. earl, good morning. caller: i don't see how we can get into that situation over there when biden cannot even take care of our own country. look at the killings of our cops. our children are [indiscernible] he knows nothing about what he is doing, and kamala harris is nothing but a farce. she knows nothing. we have two idiots in the white house. that's what we have. we cannot take care of this country. , and we want to get other under -- under other countries. host: let's go to terry in the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with the earlier caller, john. we should stay out. we have no business getting

involved with that. but i also want to say, and this is just my opinion. don't get mad at me. but honestly, i feel that this entire thing was staged or rig. whatever you want to call it. hear me out. i believe this man putin had this plan all along to do this. he was just waiting for the right time. i believe, this president, that we are supposed to pray for, and i pray for him but i do not vote for him. i believe this man has gotten to vladimir putin. i believe he is already given the ok, saying we will not put troops on the ground. i'm going to publicly oppose it, talk real tough, and that's what he is doing. this whole thing it's just, it is something that we should not get involved in. i will say this before i go. call me a crack if you want, but things are lining up for the

great tribulation and the return of christ. host: before you go, how would it be to president biden's advantage to let russia take over the ukraine? how does that help them? caller: sir, i cannot answer that question. i am an untrained -- i don't deal with politics a lot. i really don't. i have three grandkids, and i really don't. it is a good question. ask one of your more seasoned people who are into politics, but. host: you just said you believe that is what happened. why do you believe that, then? caller: i'll be honest with you. this man is the president, god bless him. but in my opinion, he is very dishonest, very deceitful. there have been lies that have been told. and i think, he has done so much, and has gotten him elected. he is in the highest seat of the

world right now. and i believe he is just one of those things where he is saying things to make people believe that he is against this aggression, and i pray that this invasion does not happen. i really do. but i just don't trust him. forgive me. you know. there are a lot of questions i don't know. i am a christian born again. i love the lord. i just trust in him. and, i'm going to keep serving the lord. i am just praying for missionaries, and the ukraine. i pray that the word will still go out, and people will still be able to get saved. that is my prayer. host: let's go to barry in north carolina on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: go ahead. caller: i think we need to work

on a couple things. one of them being, we need to get as much nonsense desk. --. host: are you there? i think we lost barry. let's go to lenora in dayton ohio on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am so astonished by what i am hearing, and i can tell the people calling this morning don't travel. i am a veteran serving in europe , and when i went back, as a civilian independent, they were walking down, and there is a huge difference in the way that the east and west live. however, president putin, on his own mission, i believe to

reconstitute the reef -- former soviet union. you know, you have georgia, pramila, and now you have -- crimea, and now you if you look at the map, he wants to take apart the ukraine, and he is just further west, and it seems like on the border, all the way up the coast. so i have been in europe, during the cold war. basically, the height of the cold war. what i have seen is that we have to be there to support nato. we made these agreements to split up the so you -- soviet union, and each country has a right to determine its own destiny and self-governance. i am just not sure what people are thinking about worrying about what is going on at home. i worry about what is going on

as well. i see high gas prices and all of these other high commodities based on inflation, but we still have an obligation to support those countries who are our friends. those who believe that president biden is colluding with putin. when did we fall in love with russia? i don't understand this at all. had we, you know the ex-president trump in an office, who is trying to tear down nato, i believe, on behalf of putin, he might have been not understanding what he was doing, but in my opinion, the former president, if u.s. president now, he would have moved a long time ago. host: let's go to catherine in north conway, new hampshire, on the independent line. good morning.

caller: good morning. i have a comment, and it goes on -- russia does not want the ukraine to become part of nato. every country has their bad and their good history. the ussr had the berlin wall, stalin and lenin, but they also fought the nazis in world war ii, and 25 million of their people died. so, if you -- ukraine does join nato, why not ask russia if they would like to join nato. tell me what they say. do they want to end up working with china and iran? i would be very interested. thank you. host: once again, the president came out on friday to say that he believed that vladimir putin

has decided to invade the ukraine. in the story of the newspaper this morning, the new york times talks about the consequences of the president's comments, and where it puts the united states. here is what they said. the president's comments are the current indications of just how close the world may be to the largest conflict in europe since world war ii. it would be a highly unusual course of predicting the timeframe and parameters of the invasions. despite the risks that he could be proved wrong. we are calling out russia's plans loudly and repeatedly, mr. biden said. not because he wanted a conflict but because we are doing everything in our power to remove any reason that they may give to justify invading the ukraine and prevent them from moving. the president did not say how the administration knew about mr. putin's decision, but to u.s. officials said that the assessment was based in part on new intelligence showing that nearly half of the 150,000

russian forces have moved out of staging and into combat formation, and they could launch a full-scale invasion within days. the force includes 122 125 battalion tactical groups, up from the mid-80's earlier in the month. some of the forces are reservists who are made up of an occupation force after an invasion. officials said. they asked for anonymity to discuss government assessments. mr. biden found that the united states and its allies were united behind imposing severe economic sanctions if russians or sins -- if russian forces crossed the ukraine border. he said that he held a call with democratic and republican lawmakers who express united support for the ministration during a visit to munich security conference. that comes from the new york times this morning. what do you think about the russia and ukraine border crisis? before we get back to calls, on

thursday afternoon, on the senate floor, republican senator james lankford came out and talked about trying to prevent another land war in europe. here is he had to say. >> we should speak clearly as a nation. we should speak clearly from the administration. we should speak clearly from congress with a unified, nonpartisan voice. the people of the united states want to do what is going to take to stop a war from starting. so europe does not see another land war. that's going to take focus from this body. what do we need to do? we should make it clear that we will provide energy to the rest of the world, that if russia cuts them off, we should fill the gap. we should make it clear about our primary and secondary

sanctions prayed we should make it clear about diplomatic channels and in public we will do. we should continue to work with our allies to build a strong coalition and reaffirm the nato alliance is there. we should continue to make it very clear to russia at that if they choose to move into the ukraine, it would not only be economically disastrous, but nato is well prepared to defend our alliance. we should stand with the people of the ukraine. we should continue to equip them as they work to be able to protect themselves. the people of the ukraine, in the times i've been there, and i have been there several times, the people of the ukraine will be glad to cs drive through the capital and point out the places where they fought for their independence. they are a proud people. they do not want the russians taking over their country, and they have fought for their independence once, and they are prepared to fight for it again.

they should know we are prepared to stand next to them. let us pray for the people of ukraine. host: let's see what our social media followers are saying about the russia ukrainian border crisis. before we get to social media, the ukrainian president has just tweeted, just a few seconds ago, about the situation in the ukraine. i want to read that tweet to you first. the president wrote, met with boris johnson in munich, and talked about security against the russian aggressive actions. agreed on joint steps. we remain united in de-escalation through diplomacy. grateful to england for supporting ukrainian cooperation for security and peace. that was just tweeted earlier this morning from the ukrainian president.

our social media followers are saying about russia -- here is a text that says why are we debating the subject when we are not being asked for help. are we basing our actions on speculation? are we complicating the situation more than necessary? a tweet says that biden was praising -- ember -- racing us for a bloody war in his speech. said after four years of world peace, were in war. another tweet says we are no longer in a position to dictate anything to any other country. a facebook post says, this is not really are concerned. let's not get into another war that is not ours. one last facebook post -- the biden administration is handling this perfectly. if the conservatives had it their way, that nord stream 2

would have been destroyed and we would have zero leverage. we want to know what you think about the russia ukrainian border crisis. what should the united states do if anything? what should the biden demonstration doing? what should nato be doing? let's go to california on the republican line. good morning. -- democrat line. good morning. caller: what is happening on your show? most of these people do not understand that we have treaties with these countries in europe. that is what nato is all about. we are standing up to our responsibilities there. in world war ii, they made treaties with the nazis. they betrayed the treaties. so, --.

host: let's go to john in illinois on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just heard the republican gentleman speaking grid it is really nice that republicans and democrats can get together in supporting the ukraine. i am a big supporter of the ukraine. i do not believe that we have the ground troops there. i believe that the ukrainians are willing to fight for themselves, and there is no guarantee that russia could even be them. especially when we are giving them, the ukrainians, military aid. can anybody guarantee that russia even knows what is doing? host: let's go to danny in north carolina on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the biggest problem is happening now, and it is probably more of a target to the

democrat party, within the ukraine, and russia, if there is a skirmish, if there is a war, obviously, we are not going to engage two superpowers. we would talk about massive destruction, but we will levy sanctions. we are probably overlooking that those sanctions are going to cripple our economy as well. the question is, how long will the american people put up with increasing the inflation as well as energy costs going through the roof? the american people will target the democrat party at that point in time, and there will be [indiscernible] dave were played by vladimir putin, and there will be consequences across the globe. host: speaking of the economic possibilities coming from the russia ukraine border crisis,

cnbc has a story on how the russian and ukrainian border crisis is affecting the board -- markets, right now. i want to read some of that story to you. the indexes fell with the second consecutive losing week, as the conflict put investors on edge. the blue-chip dow jones industrial average shed 232 points, or .7%. 34,079.18. the s&p 500 lost .7% to close at 4000 348.87. the nasdaq composite retreat 1.2 percent to 13,005 and 48.07. the indexes each lost more than 1%. ongoing tensions between russia and the ukraine continue to

drive market action. the wall street journal reported prices that were expected to tax russia. president joe biden is expected to move more united states troops closer to the ukraine. secretary of state antony blinken speaking to the united nations on thursday warned that the situation is at a moment of peril. investors are having a hard time holding onto risk as the likelihood of a standoff between the west and russia will ultimately lead to some ground conflict ed moyer said on friday. wall street will remain jittery until we see a major de-escalation. once again, that is coming from cnbc.com. talking about how wall street is dealing with the russia and ukrainian crisis. what do you think should be done right now? let's go to herbert in rivers edge, new jersey, on the democrat line. good morning.

caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to say that the president has a brilliant strategy which he is using in this situation. he is preempting the russians. whatever strategy they are using, [indiscernible] we cannot be deceived like we have in the past where we are using an excuse to start a war. the president has printed all of that, and anyone who's is interested should listen to the united nations speech that our representative made. he very clearly stated that we don't want war. we are not going to let you take over. remember this. while this is happening, our countries are watching. particularly, china. we have to be strong, otherwise china will go into taiwan. thank you for taking my call. host: let's go to pennsylvania on the independent line. craig, good morning. caller: good morning.

the last caller from new jersey, the first part of his comments were ridiculous. he ended fine. about china. there is no doubt that china is watching all of this, so he is absolutely correct on this, but many of the callers who think that joe biden knows what he is doing are wrong. these people and the rest of the world, the people have watched joe biden over the past 40 years. you have prudent and you have president in china. they have seen him. they have seen what he has tolerated with his son. they see what happened in crimea in 2014 when he was vice president. they have seen what he offered by way of the mba kate -- nba

caved to china. they have seen all of that. they know what he is all about and what he is likely to do. the wildcard and all of this is, i don't think joe biden is making these decisions. there should be a program about who is making the decisions. host: who do you think is making decisions? if joe biden is president, who is making decisions for him? caller: susan rice, and obama administration people in the white house. that is who i think are making decisions. that gives me some hope that they are not as clueless as biden. that they have learned, i hope, from what happened in 2014. they learned what happened in trying to appease china. i hope they have learned that.

i don't think biden has. i have more hope and what they do. it is time that people just tell the emperor he has no clothes. senator lankford had many excellent points. many excellent points. but my personal opinion is, you go out and you be aggressive. this slow diplomacy thing -- we have been talking about an imminent invasion for a month. after a while, it was a month. he is making millions of dollars every day. the longer this goes on. host: let us go to want in new jersey on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. no one seems to be talking about what i feel is the real issue. that is the nuclear threat.

there are 27 nato nations armed with nuclear weapons, and they are not rockets. they are cannons. there is no time for russia to act if one accidentally goes off. we could be in the middle of a nuclear holocaust. all of these nuclear bombs and rockets have a chain of command, if the president or vladimir putin presses the button and it goes off. there is a whole chain of command. the ukraine is the largest country without one, and vladimir putin does not want another country armed with nuclear weapons. the only safe weapon is one that doesn't exist. when obama was president, they reduce the nuclear arsenal from about 12 or 14,000 to 1600

weapons. they would only take about 250 of today's sized weapons to make the earth it uninhabitable. we have to start stocking -- talking the truth. not be asking around all of the other issues. host: let's go to eddie on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i've been watching the news, and i think biden fell asleep doing a conference. host: please turn your television down and keep going. caller: i would like to speak on the ukraine. i don't think biden is competent to make any decision on war because a man that falls asleep

when he is having a conference and stuff, i have a 10-year-old grandson that is more able to make a decision than he is. host: let's go to jeff who is calling from clintonville pennsylvania on the republican line. good morning. caller: first time caller. i am scratching my head at this whole thing. you have biden, when he first became president, shutting down pipelines. almost at that point, maybe a month or two later, we started buying gold. now gold is going up, and he just takes a little tiny piece of that country, our stock market, which is already falling, he continues to make money. he just shook hands with china. a week ago. how much import do we have from china? all of the sun, china says, i am

sorry, but i have a -- more friends with russia than you have right now. you are all alone. try to make your chips because i'm selling my to russia. i don't know. i see this as a bigger picture, and vladimir putin is playing a chess game, and our president is playing hopscotch. they are two different kinds of games going on, and i don't think we should go to war with them. i think we need to put our energy back in the way we had it, and just back out of this. that's basically all i have. thank you. host: let's go to salsberry, north carolina, the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning to america. it is so ironic to hear how america, essentially republicans, and don't get me

wrong, white people, saying, we don't have -- we should have nothing to do with that war. biden is not the right person, but it you can remember -- if you can remember trump, he abandoned them, and all, nobody said anything about it. then you see trump join the argument, know what to say anything about that. i'm sure vladimir putin is working on what trump is telling him off-line. he is telling him that, this is what trump is telling him. i will tell you what trump is telling prudent. he is -- what trump is telling vladimir putin. the ukraine will not be part of nato. and he got pulled into the uproar thinking that is true. trump is right now, sitting back, negotiating with vladimir putin, trying to tell him the strategy of america with someone whose documents he had at mar-a-lago.

we all need to wake up. this is about voting rights, and this is about getting everything with proof against the insurrection. this is about trying to divert us from what we need to do in america. vladimir putin is not going in. but if he does going, it's the ukraine that is going to have to live like afghanistan, and let him in. host: let's go to terry, honolulu, hawaii, republican. good morning. caller: hey, look. there's absolutely no evidence that biden knows anything about what he is doing. we need to examine the conflict of interest about what his son was doing in the ukraine before he got to be president. there seems to be a serious conflict of interest here. so far, the biden administration has shown no proclivity to be

anything but corrupt. incompetent, stupid. there is no reason we should be over there doing this until we know what the biden family and administration has been doing in the ukraine. host: let's go to written in new jersey on the democrat line. good morning. caller: i want to talk about vladimir putin's problem. this is due to much of the soviet union. he has been doing this using a two-pronged approach. he uses that military, but he also uses other means to cause this in the west. he is using propaganda, he is using the internet, and as he said, he hopes to get trump elected, which he did. he thought trump would vote well with his project.

and of course, if trump was president now, do you think you would be allying nato to fight russia? i don't think so. he has a problem, because trump did not get elected, and now he has biden and nato being rallied against russia. that is the problem. this is why trump got elected. it was part of prudence plan. thank you very much. host: let's go to dave on south carolina's independent line. good morning. i just wanted to say that there was a real estate dealer. for all we know, he could have sold vladimir putin the entire country of the ukraine and got away with that. that is why he is hiding like this. we are in deep trouble. that's all i have to say.

host: let's go to diana who is calling from halifax, pennsylvania, on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i watch your program, and i haven't watched it for years, listening to different voices from different areas in the united states. my concern is of course what is going to happen in the ukraine. mainly, my concern is the divisiveness in this country. i have never seen anything like it in my life, and it is not a matter of having to join together to back the president of the united states in his decisions, it is still republicans versus democrats. that is the problem in this country.

it is republicans versus democrats. thank you. host: let's talk to gloria in warren, ohio on the independent line. good morning. caller: how are you? host: fine. go ahead. caller: you need to show that republican senator from a few minutes ago. maybe people might listen to what he said. biden is doing the right thing and trying to keep vladimir putin from taking over that country. vladimir putin once the power of being in control of all of that area, so he can be more dominant and have more strength, and if people don't pay more attention to what is going on in this country, we are going to be in a deep mess. this world is on its way out. this country is. vladimir putin is just as

dangerous as trump. trump is a dangerous person. he wants the same kind of power that vladimir putin has. trump is taking over this country. host: let's go to eric in new york on the democrat line. good morning. caller: thank you very much. i've done a little reading and research about the ukraine, and over the past years, what i don't here in the c-span coverage of this is the minx treaty that has 14 nations, were among them, the eastern province of ukraine is largely ethnic russians in proportion. they want independence, and they want to be independent, and that is a provision of the treaty. i think the resolution to this, i could be wrong, and i don't understand the treaty thoroughly, but those two provinces have a right to

elections to determine whether they want to be independent and all i themselves with economics in russia, or those two provinces want to remain part of the ukraine. i think it is part of the treaty, and i hope, maybe you could expand the c-span coverage to bring in the treaty that it has provisions and its interpretation of it, because, i could be right, but i think, that would expand it and be more informative about this whole matter. host: let's go to james and luther, oklahoma on the republican line. good morning. caller: hello. i would like to know why i was becca stand and all of that, afghanistan, it cannot be handled like this can. russia went into afghanistan, they try to do it, they couldn't do anything. america went in 20 years, and did it. they couldn't do anything. i would like to know why they can't sit down and figure this

thing out. that nord stream 2 pipeline, that -- trump opened it up, and now they are going to use that as age shut to the new. -- as a shutdown to the e you. -- there is no reason that people should hurt over this. it is a big decision. it is a big decision on the countries around them. belarus, all around. just like us pakistan was around afghanistan. -- i was pakistan was run afghanistan. --uzbekistan was around afghanistan. host: coming up dan caldwell with the growing tensions between russia and ukraine, and the potential for u.s. military involvement. and later on, this weekend, we will be joined by the creator of the washington post's presidential podcast, lillian cunningham.

stick with us. we will be right back. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. journalist mark and matthew chronicled -- chronicled a 62 days following the 20 20's -- the 2020 presidential election in their book "the steel." on afterwords, they talk about " the demo -- the dumbest generation grows up." he argues that the lack of general civics knowledge poses a threat to political and social institutions. he is interviewed by the cultural editor of "the federalist." watch book tv every sunday on c-span2, or watch online anytime

at booktv.org. >> i can report to the nation, america is on the move again. >> live tuesday, march 1, the state of the union. president biden addresses a joint session of congress and the nation reflecting on his first year in office and laying out his agenda. live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern followed by the republican response and we will take your phone calls and social media reaction. the state of the union address live tuesday, march 1 on c-span, c-span.org or on the c-span now video app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with dan caldwell, a senior advisor for concerned veterans for america, and he is here with us this morning to discuss public policy and defense issues impacting

veterans. good morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: first of all, explain to our viewers exactly what concerned veterans for america is and how does it get its funding. guest: sure, it is a veterans grassroots advocacy organization whose mission it is to advance policies to preserve the freedom and prosperity that we fought and sacrificed for a while in uniform. we are focused on reforming -- reforming and fixing the department of veterans affairs, reining in national debt, and advancing a foreign policy rooted in realism and restraint. we are part of the larger stand can -- stand together community a group of philanthropic organizations that aim to help individuals break down their own barriers and realize their full potential. we are funded by individual donors across the country and we are grateful for their support. host: what is your message now

that there are tensions between russia and ukraine, and deployment of u.s. soldiers to bolster nato's defenses? guest: i think we need to start off by looking at what are the u.s. interests currently at stake in ukraine. in my assessment, there are no vital national interests at stake in ukraine that warrant a large deployment of u.s. forces to eastern europe, and warrant action that might indirectly lead to a war with nuclear armed russia. the reality is that we as a country have faced many challenges at home and abroad in the last thing we need is another war, especially with a nuclear armed russia. in regards to the deployment of troops specifically, we have had troops deployed in europe for a long time, obviously since the end of world war ii, even when

we downsized after the cold war, it remained a major focus for the united states. even with the end of the cold war, keeping our alliance commitments, expanding our alliance commitment through nato, it sends a message to wealthy european countries that said we will continues to subsidize your security, we will continue to provide a security umbrella even if they are not properly funding their own defenses and their own security, and that we will continue to do this regardless of whether or not it is in your interest. we have had a lot of challenges at home and other parts of the world, which are frankly more important to the united states security and conditions of economic prosperity. i think the policies we are pursued in europe post-cold war era have not been good in large part have led us into the current situation we are in.

host: what would you suggest if you were asked for advice by the white house on what they should do about the current tensions between russia and ukraine? what would be your suggestion? guest: i think one problem that is occurring is that there are a lot of mixed messages from the united states and our nato allies. on one hand united states is saying it does not want war, on the others -- on the other hand we are deploying more troops to eastern europe, we are keeping the open door to ukraine joining nato, which i think is a mistake and a legitimate concern from the russians. i want to be clear that vladimir putin is a bad guy and is somebody who is always looking to metal -- mettle and his neighbor's politics and expand his sphere of influence, but since the end of the cold war and the collapse of the soviet

union, multiple russian governments and political party has made clear that they are concerned about nato expands and. so, i would have urged them to shut the nato open door long ago, and make clear that the united states is not supportive of ukraine and georgia joining nato. again i would not deploy more troops to eastern europe, those are assets that we will need in other theaters and it is incredibly expensive to deploy those troops. it could cost us billions of dollars in a time where we have record levels of national debt and economic challenges at home. i encourage the europeans to take the lead. at the end of the day it is a european security challenge, not an american one. host: speaking from the nato ministerial conference lloyd

austin spoke about the role in need the u.s. defending nato allies in light of russia's military buildup. i want to listen to what the u.s. secretary said and then respond to it. here is defense secretary lloyd austin. [video clip] >> in many ways this brings russian troops right up to nato's to waste -- doorstep. let me begin today but -- today by making clear that america's commitment to nato and article five remains ironclad. as president biden said a couple of days ago, we will, if we must , defend every inch of nato territory. there is no reason, of course, that it should ever come to this. just like there is no reason for russia to again invade ukraine. ukraine is not threatening

anyone, let alone its russian neighbors. and yet, that is what moscow would have us believe. [end video clip] host: first i want you to react to what the defense secretary says. guest: yes. we were the ones that essentially brought nato troops to russia's doorstep i expanding nato to their borders. of course russian troops are going to be at nato's borders because we expanded nato to include the baltic states, which border russia. it is a little disingenuous to say that the russians are the ones that moved to nato's borders one essentially we expanded the alliance to move not just estates that traditionally have been part of the russian empire or the soviet union, but are now actually on the russian federation's borders. i think this gets to the core

problem, at the end of the cold war as the united states was negotiating the reunification of germany and other issues with mikell gorbachev and boris yelton, there were promises made that nato would not expand eastward, and it did. that first and foremost was not in the united states' interest. there was no reason in the aftermath of the collapse of the soviet union to expand nato. it did not enhance security or conditions of prosperity. all it did was tie us further in europe where, as i said earlier, they are wealthy countries that are more than capable of funding and taking care of their own defense. these actions that we have taken and president biden has been a long time supporter of them going back to when he was vice president and head of the senate foreign relations committee, has enmeshed us in europe and in a large part helped create this

dilemma that we are currently in. i think there needs to be end and knowledge meant that these policies of more troops, more aid to ukraine, more arms, bigger nato have not deterred the russians or made united states saver. host: let us move to what the military population, what the veterans population thinks about the russia-ukraine conflict. they can -- you commissioned a poll on this question of u.s. military involvement against russia aggression. according to the poll, 49 percent of the general population, 60% of veterans and 52% of military families opposed war with russia over ukraine. what do you see in those numbers, especially from veterans and military families. guest: it is important to keep in mind that over the past 21

years now, a veteran and military family community has bourne an incredible burden as a result of our endless wars and the greater middle east and era -- in africa whether it is iraq, afghanistan or somalia and niger. the other day there was an american servicemen injured in mali. you've had a community that has bourne the butte -- the burden and cost of repeated deployments of their brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, wives and husbands coming back from deployments injured or wounded, the stress placed on families, if they are in the reserves or national guard, the stress placed on businesses and nonmilitary careers. and, it is important to note as well that our military is increasingly staffed and many of our recruits come from serving

families or families that have already had somebody serve. these wars, for many are becoming multi generational. you are having fathers that are seeing their sons deployed in the same place as that they did earlier in the global war on terror. i had a marine who served in iraq and he had the same experience. his son deployed to the same base for the reasons we were deployed in iraq 10 years later when the united states intervened to fight i says. this is a community that has seen an incredible amount of war over the last 20 years, they have seen the cost of it and they are incredibly wary as a result of a new war, or even a new large-scale deployments, which will put strain on military communities and families, and having seen how these play out, particularly in afghanistan and iraq where there

does not seem to be progress. where the local population does not really want what we are selling in terms of liberal democracy, and not seeing a direct connection to our safety and security, i do not think that it is surprising that this community is more wary than the general population which is already wary of more military commitments abroad. host: let us get viewers into this conversation. we especially want to hear from veterans, military, and military families. we are going to open up special lines. for veterans, we especially want to know what you are thinking about when it comes to what is going on with russia and ukraine. veterans, we are opening up a special line for you, 202-748-8000. if you are active military and want to chime in on what we are talking about today, we want to hear from you, active military you have your own line,

202-748-8001. military families, spouses, fathers, mothers, sisters, sons, daughters, mom to know what you think. the terry families your number will be 202-748-8002. if you are not connected with the military, your opinion still counts and we want to hear from you. we will use you to an -- move you to another line. if you are not connected to the military we want to hear from you at 202-748-8003. you can always text us at 202-748-8003, and we are always reading on social media, twitter at c-spanwj and facebook.com/c-span. now, as he referred to earlier, you yourself were in the military. remind viewers of your military service and how that shape your worldview when it comes to issues like russia and ukraine.

guest: i was in the united states marine corps and served for 40 years. i started out my career serving in what is called the presidential support program or yankee white. i spent a few months in washington, and then i spent two years at the presidential retreat at camp david. after my tour in that program was done i got orders to the first marine division and served with second battalion first marines applied to iraq towards the end of 2008. i spent eight or nine months in the country. for me, i loved being in the marines, it was a hard decision for me to get out, and i am very great full for the opportunities that i had in the marine corps, my fellow marines that i met and still consider my brothers in many ways.

and, it instilled in me a lot of values that have helped me be successful in life and it was a generally positive experience for me. in terms of how it shaped my worldview, what i am looking at debate surrounds when and where the united states is going to deployed troops, i always go back to what is a infantry rifle men or squad leader thinking about this? and what is the impact going to be? at the end of the day, sometimes the debate in washington is detached from the impact that these foreign policy decisions have on real people. and, what these constant deployments and endless wars where you do not see a lot of progress and that can be

incredibly frustrating, especially to someone who is career military and will often deployed to the same country five or six times. and what the impact on families are, it is incredibly difficult for families who have to see their husband, or wives, or fathers or mothers deploy again and again into a combat or non-combat zone. i often go back to the perspective of what will this be like for the infantry, combat arms and support soldiers, sailors, and airmen deployed to fulfill this mission and foreign policy objective that is being pushed by policymakers, and institutions in washington. i want to be clear that at the end of the day there are times and places for military action which is warranted. sometimes you will have to deploy young men and women to fight, and sometimes die in

combat and more. but, for two men -- for too many and for too long, the impact of these wars on our servicemen and women and their families has really been i do not want to say ignored, but in some ways card -- compartmentalized or minimized. i hear now that these deployments in places like iraq, syria, and before, afghanistan. that was low because, and that is infuriating. in afghanistan, prior to the doha agreement, we lost 18 service members. and we had dozens more wounded. same thing in iraq and syria, few were killed but dozens wounded. the aftermath with the soleimani assassination, there were over 100 service members who received traumatic brain injury from the

rocket attack. those are lifelong injuries that are going to have an impact on these individuals for the rest of their lives, and it will inhibit them in certain ways, fortunately, there are programs and treatments that can help them overcome a lot of barriers that those are real impacts, and when people say we should be more aggressive against russia, or we should have stayed in afghanistan and iraq that they are detached from the actual price paid by real people in these conflicts, and that, for me, goes back to what i saw in my time in the marine corps. host: let us let some of our viewers take part in the conversation. we will start with mike from wheeling, west virginia. mike is a veteran. good morning. caller: ees -- yes. i am a vietnam veteran, and i

served with several million other veterans in vietnam, and a lot of us went to a -- went through agent orange and all of this other stuff. i have a disability from agent orange. i do not want to see us getting back into ukraine. we can support them and then do like joe biden is doing is keeping us and nato together, and i think also that joe biden is doing a great job holding putin down. he is letting him know what is going to happen, and he is standing for it. he is speaking his peace and standing for the united states of america and i think he is doing a great job as he did getting us out of afghanistan. i thought it was fantastic getting out of there. we lost 13 people, the thing is it was a combat zone and we left some people behind. remember vietnam and -- in april

25. we left 1.5 million people behind and nobody seemed to care about that. and that was a republican president that got us out of there. and i think joe biden is doing a good job. we do not need to get involved with our troops, but we do need to stand with all other nato nations and then if so we will go from there. host: go ahead and respond. guest: first of all i want to say, the vietnam that, welcome home. in regards to afghanistan, i supported the president's decision to withdraw. i thought it was a bold decision and the right decision. it was time to end the war. i think that the conduct of the final evacuation needs to be fully examined. i think there are people who

need to be held accountable for the failures that occurred. i have to say, again as someone who fully supported the decision to withdraw, i am disappointed that there has not been accountability for those failures. those 13 sailors and soldiers who died at abbey gate, the majority of them with mild unit second battalion, first marines, and that was their sixth deployment and support on the global war on terror. so, it was incredibly heartbreaking to see that attack and those young men and women lose their lives, and i do think there needs to be accountability for the failures that ultimately put them in that situation, not just during the last 20 days, but -- but for the whole 20 years. again, i am disappointed that the president has not been willing to acknowledge those failures and has continued this

tradition of presidents not really telling the truth about afghanistan. he had an opportunity to break president and say stuff went -- precedent and say stuff went wrong and we are going to fix it. in regards to ukraine and nato, i would say that i do not know how united nato is. i think there are conflicting interests within the united's -- of the alliance. germany has an economic interest in stake and they do not want to see an escalation. they have nord stream 2 and they are worried about sanctions. they have been more hesitant to do things like arm ukraine and they do not want to see and -- cema tagging is take towards the russians. the french have tried to do a parallel diplomatic track. i heard some say that was done with the united states which might be true or might not be, i

am not 100% sure. i think it shows that there are different interests at stake, and i do not think that is a bad thing. i think that we should take this opportunity to the europeans to take the lead, is that ultimately as i said earlier, this is a european strategic challenge and countries like france and germany should be in the lead and helping drive a solution as opposed to the united states. and also, carrying most of the burden further europe. germany severely under funds the military. when looking at the size of its economy and economic strength. france has been catching up and they have their own security challenges in north africa and their own endless war, in a sense. they can invest more and do more. i think that the concept of european strategic autonomy is not a bad thing, and we should

use the opportunity to encourage more of that, because we have other challenges at home and abroad that we need to deal with. host: one of our social media followers has a question for you. this person writes "does the presence of our troops in proximity to russian troops increase the likelihood of armed conflict? and if russia invaded and we do nothing, does that further the impression that we are a paper tiger and encourage despots elsewhere?" guest: i think this is a good question. having troops in close proximity to russian troops does increase the likelihood of a conflict with russia. i think that this actually can be applied to what is going on in syria. if you have had many incidents where american and russian troops have come close to getting in firefights with one

another. you had a battle between american troops in syria, and russian mercenaries and syrian militia back in 2018. and there is some intrigue about that. the russian military in effect tried to disavow what the mercenaries were doing. it is a very interesting story and i would encourage your viewers to take a look at it. just like in syria and with the iranians in iraq, the presence of troops increases the likelihood of a major war and getting locked in an escalation spiral that could lead to an armed conflict that is a nobody's interest. this is one reason why i do not think we should be pushing troops further east or putting them in proximity. this is also the reason why i do not think we should be arming an insurgency in ukraine if russia does invade.

these are actions that could escalate and bring us close to a war with a nuclear armed power and i do not think i need to explain further what that could potentially mean. with regards to the second part which is the credibility question. i hear this thrown around in the debate in d.c. about how we have to be tough to preserve our print -- are credibility and if we give up on ukraine than putin will push further and further west. i do not buy that, just like i do not buy the arguments that us pulling out of afghanistan is part of the reason for this happening. in regards to the afghanistan issue, putin started the build for this operation if it does occur in march of 2021 before biden made the decision to withdraw from afghanistan. putin sees crimea, -- seized crimea and the eastern provinces

of ukraine why the united states was engaged in afghanistan and while they were ramping up the war against isis and was heavily engaged militarily across the world. in addition, we have increased our troop presence since the invasion of crimea in europe. we started deploying tanks and armored brigades back to europe, and as i said we started pushing them further east. and, ultimately at the end of the day, i do not believe that putin has either the willingness or capability to do something like try and push all the way to germany or france or to other parts of the world where we might have more vital national interests at stake. you have to keep in mind that russia is not the soviet union. there is not a global communist bloc or quasi-pie being run out of masa -- or quasi-empire being

run out of moscow. they have real demographic and challenges that constrain their ability to project power floor west or to do a lot of the things that the soviet union could do prior to their collapse. it is not the same situation, and there are real constraints on russia's ability to be overly aggressive outside of certain areas. remember they border china and russia and china have decent relationships. our actions in ukraine are pushing russia and china closer together which is not good because we are pushing together two countries that historically have had significant relationships. one of our greatest security challenges is china. so, a lot of and i think the idea that we need to do certain things to preserve our credibility despite the fact

that those policies will actually hurt us in other areas is just really an ineffective argument. host: let us talk to rob from new york. rob, good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. this is a great conversation, however i agree with your guest that the afghanistan withdrawal was terrible. we handed the taliban 83 -- 83 billion dollars of blackhawk helicopters and military equipment. it was by no means a success and the people who did that should be held accountable. to further the point, this is all a distraction. our biggest threats are china and bigger than that, we have a threat from within. a lot of those people we brought here from afghanistan and our southern border being wide open. those people are the threats. we do not know who they are. this ukraine and russia stuff,

this is like number 50 on my list of most important things. hillary clinton did spy on trump week ago. you guys should talk about that. thank you. host: go ahead and respond. guest: i would agree that ukraine is not something that we should be prioritizing. china is a bigger challenge and i want to be clear, i do not think we should apply the cold war framework to try not do that with russia. china is a challenge, they are a competitor, but at the same time i do not think that we should take overly aggressive action and further embed ourselves in certain countries and build more alliances. i think that we should be proactive in doing things like equipping our partners and allies in east asia with

technology and anti-access aerial denial technology, anti-ship and aerial missiles. we should do the same things in how we armed taiwan. we should change our policy of strategic ambiguity. but at the end of the day because of our economic relations with east asia and because of the economic power currently concentrated there, it has -- it is of more concern to us rather than eastern europe and ukraine. i agree with that. in regards to the afghanistan issue, ideally, we would not have equipped the afghan army in a way that they would just simply hand over american-made equipment to the taliban. i think that was one of the flaws in the whole conduct of the war. we tried to create an army in our image, we tried to create a

first world army and a third world nation. that was a huge mistake. we should have never built an afghan army and equips them the way we did. as a result there are billions of dollars of equipment no longer in our control or the control of a partner. the good news is that the taliban will have a hard time maintaining that equipment because it does require constant american support and maintenance, which they do not have access to. my understanding is that with the blackhawk helicopters is that they have been able to keep very few of them flying. m16 service rifle or an m4 service rifle is harder to maintain than an ak platform. at the end of the day, i think the bigger mistake was not the decision to withdraw, but actually equip the afghan army

and security forces the way we did. host: let us talk to joe from riverview, florida. he is a veteran. good morning. caller: good morning. how is everyone doing? interesting discussion. i want to focus on what the guest talked about referenced the contribution by european countries to nato. if you remember when former president trump was in office he made that an issue and brought it up, so i do not know to what extent their contributions have gone up. the reason i am bringing that up is the guest did also mentioned that france, germany and the other countries have some economic interest, and russia is providing gas to germany, so what would be the geopolitical effects if an attack was to happen. so if the guest could touch on

that, thank you for your time. host: go ahead and respond. guest: so, i do give president trump a lot of credit for raising the issue of burden sharing, meaning how our nato allies continued. that's contributing to our collective defense. as i said, most countries in nato are not contributing a bare minimum. i believe it was under secretary robert gates in the early part of the obama administration or maybe the bush administration that they worked to set a threshold of spending 2% of the country's gdp on defense, and as far as i am aware, there are only four nato countries out of the alliance that are actually meeting that threshold. i believe it is greece, poland, the united states, obviously,

and the u.k. you've countries like germany which has an incredibly strong economy, robust economy who are not meeting that threshold and worse, they are spending their defense dollars that they do have on the wrong things. they are not building the type of capabilities that they would need to secure europe. so, president trump deserves a lot of credit for really pushing the europeans on this front and aggressively pushing them and getting them to spend more, but there is a long way to go, and it think -- i think it does not solve the fundamental problem that we still have an open door to countries to join nato, that frankly should not be joining nato, is not in the united states' interest for them to join and further expand security through nato to these countries, and as we were seeing with ukraine right now, and i would go back to georgia in 2008, that

actually destabilizes the region and increases the likelihood of war. it does not deter war. fundamentally we need to think -- rethink our alliances and commitments in europe and how we approach our commitments. it is not to say that we abolish nato, but we should definitely shot to the open door and really rethink our posture in europe. i think there is a strong argument that we should continue to withdraw forces from europe, just like president trump proposed, he wanted to take 10,000 troops out of germany, yet people are -- yet people in his administration undermined it and abide in administration reversed it. it does not make sense to have tens of thousands of troops and important military assets like fighter jets and surveillance equipment and anti-air equipment

in a country that is incredibly wealthy and has refused to properly fund and maintain its defense. that is, in effect, subsidizing a freeloader. and that is something that we cannot do with other challenges in other parts of the world and almost $30 trillion national debt at home. host: michael calling from hagerstown, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i appreciate the call. my father was a marine in okinawa, so he left us about four years ago. i appreciate your service. two things if you could touch on high level, primarily about russia but i want to talk about the v.a. system real quick. so, with the v.a., the recent budget was over 200 billion and only about 25% of that goes to

the care of veterans. and, i really think to provide better care, we need to do away with the v.a. system and totally privatize and give each of you guys a card. you go into any hospital that you want and get rid of the buildings, the staff over to privatized, and you would have a better service. they would be first in line and it would be a better system. the second thing with russia is that people do not realize that russia is the size of south korea from a gdp standpoint. they are not that big. 1.5 trillion gdp and we are 20 trillion. so, one thing is why are we buying oil from russia? it does not make sense to me. we could control the oil pricing by increasing our production. and, i think we need to put germany on notice to stop buying energy from russia.

there are 38,000 troops that we have got which cost a lot of money. move them out of germany, they do not need to be there. from a high perspective if you could touch on those two things. guest: absolutely. i am a big fan of hagerstown, maryland. i spent a lot of time they are stationed in camp david. the caller brings up an important point about russia, they are not an economic powerhouse. they are gdp is slightly smaller than south korea and i might be wrong. it is smaller than individual nato and european countries. it is not a country that is an economic powerhouse by any means. and that is important to remember because that is a constraint on who attends's ability -- on putin's ability

to expand his sphere of influence. i am glad the caller brought up the issue of veterans affairs which is another issue that we have worked on over the years. we were advocates called the v.a. mission act, which was passed under president trump, which greatly expanded health care choice for veterans. we also supported the passage of the v.a. accountability act which made it easier to fire bad employees and proposed other substantial reforms to the department of veterans affairs. we support full health care choice for veterans, meaning that veterans can take their benefits from the private sector, if that's what they want to do. we do not support a privatization of the full system. for choice to work, you need to have a good v.a. choice in the department of veterans affairs medical system that is functioning, that is focused on what veterans need, and is positions and funded, in a way

that can serve the veteran population of today, not the veteran population of the past. that is a big challenge that the v.a. totally -- currently faces. this is a system designed to survey world war ii population in terms of where its hospitals are located, where clinics are located, they have been the same for over 50 years. so, that is something that needs to change too and that is why i am bothered by the fact that the biden administration has not executed the air commission, part of the mission act, and this is the asset and infrastructure review. it would do the analysis of all the v.a. hospitals, and health care clinics and other facilities to determine whether or not they are needed in a particular community, whether they need to be downsized or moved to a smaller building, whether they can integrate better with the private sector or in a few cases expand the facility. because abide in administration

keeps kicking the can down the road we keep delaying some of these decisions and as a result there are veterans not getting the best care they could be getting. i have to compliment the caller, i think he is dead on with the budgetary numbers. most of the v.a.'s budget goes to disability benefits, and it is worth noting that this budget is massively expanding while the veteran population is shrinking because the world war ii, korean era and early vietnam era population is passing away. so the veteran population is not expanding because we did not expand the military significantly during these wars and there are not enough new veterans replacing those passing away. so, there are real challenges with the v.a.. there was a lot of progress made under the trump administration but i am worried that that progress is being stunted or rolled back under this current

administration. host: we would like to thank dan caldwell, the senior advisor for concerned veterans for america for being with us this morning and talking us through the veterans' point of view and issues when it comes to russia and ukraine. thank you so much for your time this morning. guest: thank you for having me on. host: coming up, we will take more of your telephone calls after the break getting your reaction to the crisis on the russia-ukraine border. call in with your thoughts and how you think nato should respond. the phone numbers are there on the screen. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. later on this presidents' day weekend we will be joined by the creator and host of the washington post president --

"presidental" podcast, lilian cunningham. as we go to break here is a portrait of president -- a portion of president joe biden's remarks including a few questions with reporters. [video clip] pres. biden: the bottom line is this the united states, our allies and partners will support the ukrainian people. we will hold russia accountable for its actions. the west is united and resolved, ready to impose severe sanctions on russia, if it further invades ukraine. i will say it again, russia can choose diplomacy. it is not too late to de-escalate and return to the negotiating table. last night russia agreed to secretary of state lincoln and foreign minister lavrov could meet on february 24. february 24 in europe. if russia takes military action before that day, we will be clear that they have slammed the

door shut on diplomacy. they will have chosen a war. and they will pay a steep price for doing so, not only from the sanctions that we and our allies will impose, but the moral outrage of the wet touch of the rest of the world will visit upon them. for many issues that divide our nation and our world, standing up to russian aggression is not one of them. the american people are united. europe is united in the transatlantic community is united. political parties in this country is -- are united. russia has a choice between war and all the suffering it will bring or diplomacy that will make a future safer for everyone. i am happy to take a few questions. nancy from bloomberg. nancy: do you think it is wise for president zelensky to leave ukraine if it invasion and -- if an invasion is imminent? pres. biden: that is a decision for him to make.

i have spoken with zelensky a dozen times, maybe more, and in the pursuit of a diplomatic solution, it might be the wise choice, but it is his decision. nancy: do you have any indication on president putin has made a decision? do you feel confident that he has made his decision already? pres. biden: as of this moment we have reason to believe that he made the decision. >> there seems to be confusion between the u.s. and europe about sanctions. is everyone on board with the exact same sanctions? pres. biden: there will be slight inferences but they will be more add-ons than subtractions. >> president putin is going to

oversee some nuclear drills this weekend, how do you first see that happening, what is your reaction to that? pres. biden: well i do not think he is remotely contemplating nuclear -- using nuclear weapons. but i do think that it is -- i think he is focused on trying to convince the world that he has the ability to change the dynamics in europe in a way that he cannot. but, i do not know how much of it is a cover for just saying we are just doing exercises and there is more than that? it is hard to read his mind. >> mr. president, to be clear, to be clear, you are convinced that president putin is going to

invade ukraine? is that what you just said? pres. biden: yes. >> is diplomacy off the table. pres. biden: until he does diplomacy as a possibility. >> what reason do you have to believe he is considering that option at all? pres. biden: significant intelligence capability. thank you. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back, it is open forum but we want to know what your opinion is about the worsening crisis in russia and ukraine on the border. you can give us a call, the numbers will be on your screen. republicans can call on 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. i want to start with something that president biden said yesterday in an update. "he spoke about the possible

timeline of an attack of ukraine by russia, and here is a portion from yesterday. [video clip] pres. biden: we have reason to believe that russian forces are planning to attack ukraine in the coming week or days. they believe -- we believe that we will target the capital of kyiv. we are calling out russia's plans loudly not because we want a conflict but because we are doing everything in our power to remove any reason that russia might have to justify being in ukraine and prevent them from moving. make no mistake, if russia pursues its plans it will be responsible for a catastrophic and needless war of choice. the united states and our allies are prepared to defend every inch of nato territory from any threat to our collective security as well. we will not send troops to fight in ukraine, but we will continue

to support the people. [end video clip] host: we want to know what you think of that and how president biden is handling the crisis, what should the u.s. and nato do if there is an invasion. the president is convinced there will be an invasion because of intelligence that he has gotten. here's something that "the wall street journal" is reporting and says that "russia test launches ballistic and cruise missiles and that the exercise comes admitted escalating tensions between russia and the west over ukraine." russia test launched ballistic and cruise missiles in strategic deterrence exercise which is a pointed reminder of what -- of its ability to wage nuclear war amid a standoff with the west over ukraine. president biden -- president vladimir putin personally

oversaw the launches saturday from a command center alongside his celebration ally and counterpart, lukashenko. what do you think? we can go ahead and take our first call, which is mike on the independent line from miami, florida. good morning. caller: hello. my question is why are we worried about ukraine, the russians are 90 miles away from us in cuba. if vladimir putin decides to invade ukraine, why don't we annex mexico and invade cuba? mexico should've been part of the united states from way back when. i am sure that most of the people in mexico would support them being part of the united states. host: do you think that cuba is a threat to the united states? caller: they are down in

venezuela? why do you think, who is instigating all the traffic coming in? they are bankrolling it. host: you think the russians are? i am here. go ahead. caller: yes, they are big time -- we have bases all over. we do not know where they have bases down in south america. like i said, they are 90 miles away from us in cuba. how -- why haven't we taken cuba? host: bill in rogers, arkansas on the independent line. caller: good morning. been around a long time and my father was counterintelligence in the european theater of war and i am just a civilian but i think these things revolving domestic and international policy, we should open our domestic energy and bring back made in usa an increase legal

immigration to 3 million annually, secure our southern border, confront the cartels, cease military competition with russia, do not sanction russia, negotiate the release of prisoners in europe, return troops recently sent to europe, remove troops from germany, invite russia to enter a new peace accord with the west. host: i wanted to ask you about why you think the u.s. should not sanction russia. caller: we could get through the whole list, but how do you get someone to do something when you throw salt and sand in their face? my point is to not sanction something when it is not already done just asking them to be more aggressive. also, we should not engage in a cold war with china, we should

protect our borders and self efficiency. we should bring our troops home from germany and the ones just mode -- most recently sent to eastern europe. this is not our war, we have domestic issues, we have border issues, and we should not escalate war internationally. host: crag next in prescott valley, arizona. on the democrat line. caller: i think what we should do with our strong leader, donald trump, is send a couple of love letters over to russia. i find it amazing that the republicans talked to when we were talking about -- talked tough about mask mandates and were weaklings when we talked about war. host: steve in texas on the independent line. caller: i just had a little comment against the previous guy

that was on there. he is kind of young and does not understand very well. you have to understand where abide is coming from because of -- where biden is coming from because of his age. back in those days you had a nazi regime that took one country and another and another and we sat back and waited until we ended up in a world war that lasted for years and i think he is doing the right thing. we are not fighting russia that will defend over there and i think we ought to, because he will do the same thing. if you do not think he will do like hitler's dead, you are crazy. host: to the republican line, juan in fort bragg, north carolina. good morning. are you there? ok. sam, work -- newark, delaware.

democrats line. caller: i believe it is not too late to de-escalate the situation in ukraine, and i also believe that ukraine should be supported with the rest of europe, even eastern europe. putin is trying to flex his muscles, and pretty much act like a bully. i think it is right for democratic societies to stomp that down. i think it is the right thing to do, and i think that president biden, he is actually too strong and has a good resolved, but you know, russia has crossed the line and we really do not want them to do that. he wants to get to kyiv and that

is my take on that. based on all the capabilities that we do have, the military might, i think that that needs to be paid attention to. that is my thing. host: take a look from the associated press, the headline is "world at a decisive moment in history." the vice president is in munich and says -- and the article says that the vice president warned russia on saturday that it will face unprecedented financial penalties if it invades ukraine and predicted that such an attack would draw european allies closer to the united states. the world is at a decisive moment in history. notice go to neil in -- let us go to neil in new york on the republican line. caller: good morning. my take on this is that years

ago when presidents obama -- president obama spoke about the jv team, he was speaking in future tense about the current administration and all of the advisors and until officers that work for biden. i think that putin could put 200,000 troops on the borders in belarus and the eastern part of ukraine, it means nothing to him. he has absolutely no concern for his own people. he would leave troops stationed out there for six months and possibly deplorable conditions and it is a bluff. this whole thing is a bluff. host: are you not confident in the intelligence?

from the administration? caller: absolutely not. did we lose any intelligence officers after the afghanistan debacle? i doubt it, because because thel part of the swamp. host: and what makes you think putin is bluffing? that this whole thing is just a bluff? caller: i think it is just him. he is trying to influence ukraine into becoming as much of a puppet as belarus is. just to knuckle under any moscow policies, but i don't think an intentional invasion into ukraine is in the cards.

why have an occupying force when you can do it through fear? host: neil -- sorry. andrew is next on the democrat line. go ahead. caller: i was trying to call on the independent line. host: that's fine. caller: one of the things that caused this problem is during the clinton administration they had all these countries give their nuclear weapons away. ukraine was a nuclear power in the u.s. and our allies convinced them to turn in their nuclear weapons and promised them protection. if we left things alone, this would not be a crisis at this point. also, if there is a chess match between boudin and biden, you know, i am taken putin. i don't know biden is up to

handle this crisis. thank you. host: jerry is next in florida on the independent line. go ahead. caller: how are you doing? i am having a problem with america in the sense that we talk to the europeans a what will your going to do with russia -- what we are going to do with russia. we are not going to do anything. it should be nato or the europeans taking care of this. it is always the americans that want to be the leaders of the free world. the european countries can take care of themselves. host: that was jerry in florida. john is next in staten island, new york. caller: how are you? to me this is such a disgrace on what the biden administration is handling it but it is not about

mask mandates. it is about mr. president trump. he knew how to talk to guys like putin. joe biden gets up there and starts talking and the stock market is crashing. this country is going downhill. i cannot wait until we get another man like president trump. host: before you go, what would you recommend the president do if there is an invasion of ukraine? are you gone? ok. arlington, texas on the democrat line. hi, james. caller: hello. host: can you put your tv down? put your volume on the tv down and just listen on the phone. caller: just a minute. hello. how are you doing this money? host: i'm good. go ahead, james. caller: i am not calling in for

anything other than i would like to salute and thank all the veterans who have served the country. i am an educator and did not get the chance to go to war but i would like to thank the veterans who did go and served in my place. host: all right. this is from the associated press. speaking of veterans, u.s. defense chief says russia is uncoiling and poised to strike. this is u.s. secretary of defense lloyd austin. he assured the three baltic nations saturday, today, they would not be on their own if they faced security threats from russia. but he stopped short of promising a permanent deployment of american troops in the former soviet republic. austin was in lithuania as other actions have western

officials saying moscow could invade at any time although russia has denied planning an invasion. karen in alabaster, alabama on the republican line. caller: good morning. you had started out what should nato do? nato should not do anything. ukraine is not part of nato. they are not ever going to be part of nato. one of the things russia is upset about is the fact that we keep wanting ukraine to be part of nato. all we have to say is, we are going to stop saying that, and putin will go home. the other thing i wanted to say is the ukrainian president has already said we don't need your help. the majority of americans don't want to be over there and we have a southern border that is wide open. the biden administration is the

only one that wants this war. they need to be quiet and say, we don't want ukraine to be part of nato. that's it. we are done. host: you don't think president boudin will invade ukraine? caller: i have no idea if he is going to invade now. but it is not our business. host: all right. bill in northbrook, illinois on the independent line. caller: hi. good morning. i have one comment. what restrains us from imposing sanctions at this time? a country amasses 150,000 troops on the border of another entity and we are threatening sanctions. i fail to understand why whatever sanctions, whatever legal sanctions we could impose

why we already have not done that. sanctions would be things that would dramatically reduce the gross national product of russia. i mean, we are worried if there is a slight incursion, invasion, how can you allow 150,000 troops to be amassed on the border of a country? host: do you think we should impose sanctions now before an invasion? caller: absolutely, because of the behavior that has gone on. in other words, there should be negotiations. if ukraine wants to vote, i mean, if somebody comes up to you with a gun and sticks it at your head, you cannot do anything basically. a gun has been put to the head of independent countries.

it really has nothing to do with nato. russia is threatening and this is a direct military threat. i cannot believe we have not acted just on the threat. it does not have anything to do with nato. it does not have anything to do with anything. you just cannot permit something like this if we have the power to act otherwise. that is my comment. host: let's go to rochester, new york on the democrat line. hi, lauren. caller: do you hear me? host: i can. caller: great. my husband did fight in world war ii. i think we need to protect ukraine. let's compare hitler's germany

and japan into peaceful countries. denmark, sweden, poland, and us, we were struck. why does russia and china want to expand more and get more territory for power? well, currently russia and china -- we are in a cyber war with them. and what can they do to us? why wouldn't we protect ukraine? because the more these countries spread into the weaker countries we are being threatened. that's it. host: all right. walter is next in butler, indiana on the republican line. good morning, walter. walter? caller: hello.

can you hear me? host: i can. caller: thank you for taking my call. i usually talk to myself and no one listens and now i have you on the line. i am an ex military veteran and cannot understand this. nancy pelosi and the biden administration being concerned about the sovereignty of another country's border, good grief. i wish they were concerned about the sovereignty of ours. second, it is none of our business. third of all, only nato and european allies -- they are not doing anything about it. fourth, trump said to angela merkel we would supply you with all the energy needs. you don't need to depend on russia. it is none of our business and the reason they are doing this, oh invasion, is to pull us from what is going on in our country. the gall of pelosi to say we must protect the sovereignty of another country, it is pitiful.

it is all smoke and clouds. who cares if they take over? it is none of our business. if you ask all the other european leaders, they are acting like the stupid americans will shed their blood, and the stupid americans will spend their treasure and we can sit back. that is all i got on that. i hope you have a wonderful day and let's have a fresh cup of coffee. [laughs] host: dean is next in ohio on the independent line. caller: how are we doing today? host: good. caller: great. walter i think is quite wrong. what i think is going on is this -- putin does not want to take over all of ukraine, he just wants the eastern portion so he can push his oil and natural gas into europe and germany. what it is coming down to is

energy. he wants that small section of the country and he is going to do it through intimidation. he could not do it through intimidation so he is going to invade. there is no doubt about it at this point. what i am looking at right now if, yes, if we do supply europe with natural gas, then oil, which we can export, people say keep our own oil but we also had to think of the rest of the world. if we close our minds like we did during nazi germany, we will have another world war on our hands. at this point we need to step up, we need to show putin we are united as a world against him and his ability to try to intimidate all these other nations. that is what he wants to do, reconstitute the ussr. he is living in the past and trying to push those views and he is going to do it through intimidation no matter what we do.

host: let's look at what secretary of state antony blinken said yesterday in munich. on u.s. preparations in the coming days. sec. blinken: we remain fully prepared, both of us with our colleagues, to engage on the diplomacy but we have to be, i think, informed by history. you referenced 2014. one could reference 2008 in georgia and we have to be informed by the facts. despite what russia has said about pulling back forces from the border, that has not happened. on the contrary, we see additional forces going to the border, including leading edge forces that would be part of any aggression. we have to be informed by that. we have to be extremely vigilant and i will finish with this. the single greatest strength we have in dealing with this issue, in dealing with this challenge, is the solidarity we talked about. i think president putin is going

to be surprised at that solidarity, at the way nato has come together, the european union has come together. we have come together individually, as partners, institutionally. as long as we maintain that solidarity we will, either way, whichever path president putin chooses, we will be ready to respond. host: that was the secretary of state speaking yesterday in munich. clarence in columbus on the republican line. good morning, clarence. caller: good morning. i do believe putin will advance his forces in the ukraine and i would just suggest the ukrainians evacuate and come to our southern border and they will be welcomed and our taxpayers will foot the bill. thank you. host: kathy in texas on the

republican line. kathy? caller: thank you for having me. yes, i just wanted to comment that i was not in favor for the u.s. going to war for the ukraine. it is not our position and i'm sorry, but i feel this administration is putting forth this agenda basically so they can have a back channel when they give military aid to the ukraine. i think in the u.s. we need to clean up our unfortunate, very unfortunate corrupt system we have developed over the past decade. thank you very much for having us and thank you for your company. host: c-span. aubrey's next in richmond, virginia on the democrat line. caller: good morning.

i want to clear up a little history and establish what is going on right now. first, the biden administration and nato are doing what they are supposed to be doing. they are reinforcing nato members and no americans are going to be fighting in ukraine, number one. but there is a lot of urban myths about what the obama administration did and did not do. number one, no, the obama administration did not arm the ukrainians at the time because they were still corrupt and under the influence of the pro-russian dictator. joe biden's mission was to help the ukrainians purge their government of the corrupt influences so that we could arm them which is what we are doing now.

these are the some of the things americans don't seem to understand. the other part of it is president putin is an anachronism but he has the power of a capitalist economy to fund his military. what they want to do is basically start re-absorbing some of these former nations so they can start siphoning their resources. and the american people need to start paying attention to c-span, watch committee hearings, instead of fox news and all the other trump propaganda networks.

i don't even know how to care to rise -- categorize them. disinformation networks. the biden administration is doing what they need to be doing and for all those people who think the border is open, it is closed. host: that is going to be the last call for this segment. thank you to everybody that called. coming up is our weekly spotlight on podcasts. it features "washington post's" "presidential" podcast and i will speak to lillian cunningham after the break. ♪ ♪ announcer: american history tv, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. on the presidency, how did george washington's experiment with farming influences thoughts

on slavery? then coverage of the international conference on world war ii in new orleans with discussions on women reporting on world war ii and investigating the war's history. exploring the american story. watch american history tv every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. ♪ ♪ announcer: on almost all presidential rankings list you will find warren harding's name near the bottom. sunday on q&a, in honor of president day, ryan walters says while he had his faults his accomplishments are often overlooked, including bringing the country back to normal after world war i and an economic plan that led to the roaring 20's. in his book, mr. walters lays out his case for why president

harding should reg hire -- rank higher. >> he has finished last more than any other president. he and james buchanan are running neck and neck. harding has come up in recent years but what has been said about him is really in the realm of myth. there is a lot of false truths and outright lies. when you look at his record and what he accomplished as president it is actually quite impressive. announcer: historian ryan walters sunday at 8:00 eastern on q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. ♪ ♪ announcer: former president biden's historic pick for the next supreme court justice. from the nomination announcement all the way through confirmation on c-span, c-span.org, or by downloading the free c-span now

app. ♪ ♪ announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. this is our spotlight on podcasts segment and i am joined by lillian cunningham, the host and creator of "washington post presidential" podcast. guest: i'm excited to be here.

host: tell me about the podcast, what it is about, and when you started it. guest: i started back in 2016, january 2016. it was an election year and the idea was that, you know, we were seeing this whole cast of potential candidates and debates and i thought, as a public servant, it would be great to actually spend the election year giving people a look back at previous officeholders so it could help inform their own decisions as they would go to the ballot box in november. so the idea was to create this podcast that, starting with george washington in january and working my way up week by week through each president in chronological order, would give

people a sense of these men, all men, who held the office of the presidency. who they were, what their legacies were, with a window into hopefully helping people decide for themselves, what makes a great president? what have we learned from history about what sort of demanded of this office in order for someone to be successful? i did this by myself at the time week by week. i turned to historians, biographers, to the head of presidential libraries, in some cases to relatives of presidents themselves. and i tried to craft a portrait each week of that given president and what happened was we worked our way up to the election of donald trump and

since then, even though the podcast ended five years ago, we have continued to release some special episodes. we released an episode on biden. host: i want to ask you about the biden one but viewers can call in and ask questions. if you are in the eastern or central time zones, give us a call at (202)-748-8000. mountain and pacific can call (202)-748-8001. you were going to tell me about the episode you did on president biden. tell us about that one. guest: sure. i mean, it is a little different than most of our other episodes, right? for most of our episodes we had the benefit of time. like george washington's episode, to reflect on the legacy that has been left to us. the biden episode, because it came out after he was elected,

was not at all about his time in office. what it did was paint a portrait of what led him to the white house. i talked with evan osnoff who wrote a biography about joe biden and have the death of his first wife shaped him, how he got into politics, what his time was like as vice president. all of these things that shaped who he was by the time he would enter the white house as president. host: what was the most surprising thing you discovered about joe biden if anything? guest: you know, in a way it is hard to say. when we go through these elections we learn so much about these people. so much gets aired.

i think it is not necessarily that there was a new fact no one had learned before but i think there were things that we kind of dwelled in moments that really shaped him. of course, the death of his first wife was one of those. but another was his stutter. evan osnov spent a lot of time talking to me about how that insecurity as a child turned into certain defense mechanisms for biden. ways of overcoming obstacles that shaped the persistence that would define his career later on. host: let's talk to lisa calling in gainesville, georgia. hi, lisa. caller: thank you so much for the great broadcast. i had a couple of things i would bullet out if i may.

first i would like to say i have a little bit of a bully attitude. wish i could carry a big stick to all the people in the world that cause such oppression and fear and death. but if the well runs dry, we don't have much to give to anybody else. that being said i preface this with a couple of things. we and others who went to afghanistan -- people don't want to bring it up anymore -- but we cannot forget history. we left a lot of our own there and brought in those that should not be here. second, i get all about wanting to support -- if i was in the ukraine, i would be begging for anybody to help. i get that humanity. but i also know we have a lot of people -- i was speaking to last night to two friends in texas at the border, senior citizens, trying to sell homes.

we just had 154,000 people come in in january and we have no idea where they are from. it is not one continent or hemisphere. host: do you have a question about the podcast for our guest? caller: i beg your pardon. i thought we were still talking about the border. host: no, we have moved on. al in new haven, connecticut. caller: hi. how are you? my question is about the biden family. what i really don't understand -- i didn't understand the story of biden's son in ukraine. did he make billions of dollars like the trump people claim? can you help me understand that? host: lillian, did you know anything about that? guest: you know, i will say that

was not something we actually got into any depth in the podcast. we focused on biden's personal story. i am not as well-equipped to get into that. of course, with all of these presidents the story never ends. there are a million stories to tell about the person himself but also a million stories to tell about the people who surround him and in some episodes we did that. the fdr episode, we went into a lot of depth about eleanor roosevelt and the figure she was. in his administration and his life but in the biden episode, not so much. we stayed pretty squarely focused on joe biden himself. host: lillian, speaking of the first episode you did with george washington, you took a

trip to mount vernon. tell us about that. guest: i did. that was the very first reporting trip i went on for the podcast. mount vernon, george washington's home, is in alexandria very close to washington, d.c. it was not a far trip. but i thought it was really important, as much as i could, to get to these places where the presidents were shaped, because i think part of their life is such an important part of understanding who they were as men. as we tried to explore their legacy places like mount vernon and monticello, jefferson's estate, they are really wrestling with how to tell the stories of legacy. how much do they focus on george washington as the father of the

country? and how much do they focus on the fact he had enslaved people throughout his lifetime? although he did free them in his will. i thought going to a place like mount vernon was important in order to get a fuller picture of who these men were, and also to talk with people. talk with historians, talk with the curators of their museums and libraries, to get a sense of what we are still wrestling with today when we try to tell stories about these figures. host: let's go to liz in westport, connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good. caller: lillian, i loved your podcast. i listened to it five years ago and i started late and caught up and caught up in it was so much fun. how long did it take you to do

each episode if there was a tremendous amount of research? guest: thanks. thank you so much for listening. it took a lot of effort but the timeline was incredibly condensed. i made this podcast in real time over the course of 2016. there were 44 episodes and i put them out in 44 weeks which meant that first week i made the george washington episode and then i started fresh on monday doing the research and the interviews to release at the end of the second week the episode about john adams, and so on and so forth. it was an around-the-clock crazy 44 weeks of my life to dive into reading biographies and pulling together all of this audio from interviews i did.

it was a lot of work in a short amount of time, but i think, to something you said, one of the greatest joys for me has been i think there are a lot of listeners, as you are, who did not necessarily come along on that journey in real time as i was making it and seeing episode after episode but who found the podcast partway through. there are still people who are starting today and going back to episode one, listening to george washington. it is kind of an evergreen resource i think for learning about the presidency. that has been really wonderful to know that i created something people can still listen to today, especially in classrooms. i think a lot of teachers have founded a great resource for students. host: lillian, you asked this

question on your podcast which was, what would it be like to go on a blind date with this president? where did that question come from and what have the answers been? guest: yeah, that became a signature question in each episode of the podcast. it's funny, the origin of that question was slightly different. the question was, imagine i am about to go on a blind date with this person but you know him well. i would pitch this to historians. tell me what i should expect. tell me about him. the question of a jury did -- originated not to be what the date would be like but to get historians to open up a bit and talk in a really authentic way -- to give me insights on who these people are. where they quiet? were they rude?

were they oppressive? and it sort of morphed over time and i think a lot of historians took that question and ran with it in terms of, oh well, he would take you to this kind of restaurant and he would make you pay the check. there were a fun little stories that ended up coming out. host: which president would make you pay the bill? [laughter] guest: most of them, you know, the answers that were really revealing were like, lincoln, for example. very funny, really dry and sarcastic and dark sense of humor. but also someone, you know, it turned out from talking to doris goodwin she said, you know, he felt really uncomfortable around women.

he would get kind of shy and closed off in a way that he wasn't when he was in social situations with men. so some of that humor and the charm and wit he would display in other situations he would not have had if you went on a date with him. that was a very interesting little detail about him that i think you don't tend to get in your lessons about lincoln in high school. host: and you found out eisenhower would have been the best blind date? is that right? guest: at least according to eisenhower's historians. i do not know if that is an objective statement, but he was described as someone who had, you know, great manners. actually had a lot of charisma.

oozing with charisma and charm and humor and also someone who was just extremely polite, who would have paid the check, who would have pulled out your chair. those it traditional values. you know, i certainly can't say he would be the best date, but his biographers seem to think he would be up there. host: let's take a call from yaya in new york. caller: good morning. i am calling about george washington and his life because back then they did own slaves as you said. do you think the african-american community

should get restorations because they were the backbone of america? helping to build the white house, basically helping to build american history? do we preserve, as african -- do we deserve, as african-american people, restorations? sometimes it feels like we take two steps forward and 20 steps back. that is my question today. thank you so much. host: what do you think, lillian? guest: so, i mean, to me what you raise is a really interesting question and point about how we are supposed to wrestle with the legacies of these men. of course, it was not just george washington who had enslaved people, right?

jefferson at monticello had over 600 enslaved people working on his plantation. james madison, i mean, john adams is the exception. he did not have any enslaved people working for him. but all of these men, absolutely. this is a question we as a society deeply need to wrestle with now. it is presidents' day on monday. we think of it as a time where we should just celebrate all these figures from our history but i think we can also think about it as a moment to stop and ask ourselves, well, you know, what is worthy of celebration and what isn't? what do we need to hold them accountable for? i actually have a new episode

for the presidential podcast coming out on monday where part of what we look at is the way that our teaching of the presidency, especially the high school students, has changed over time. one of the biggest changes, as i am sure will not be a surprise, is that those parts of president's legacies, washington, jefferson in particular, but also someone like woodrow wilson who was extremely racist and that was part of his legacy that was covered over for a long time. it has only recently come to the fore. one thing we are seeing is in classrooms, at least in some classrooms around the country, there is sort of a new approach to teaching these men that asks

those more important questions. host: let's go to john in pennsylvania. hi, john. john, are you there? caller: yes i am. host: go ahead. caller: ms. cunningham, i never saw your podcast i am sorry i missed it, it sounds interesting. but i would like your view on james pulled, the pros and cons. guest: oh. host: james polk, who would have thought? guest: before i did the podcast i would have had zero idea how to answer your question because polk is one of those presidents who many of us don't really study when we are in school. and part of the beauty i think of podcasts where he picked through every president is it

forced me and i think gave the listeners opportunity to spend equal time with someone like james polk as they did abraham lincoln. i mean, to your question the really interesting thing to me about polk is that he was held up as the example of the one president who delivered on every single promise he made going into the white house. he had a list of things he promised the american public if he were elected he would do. he got into the white house and one by one checked those off. the interesting thing is though we don't really remember him as a great president even though he did that, he did everything he said he would do. which i think begs an

interesting question to us of, what does make a great president and what are we ultimately looking for in our president? is it just that they can deliver on their promises? or is it that they, in some deeper and more profound way, really propel the country forward? so i think history landed on the side that james polk didn't do that as much as some other men did. host: let's talk to peter in yorkville, illinois. caller: thank you for letting me ask a question. my question goes to projecting today's morality upon individuals from centuries ago. a lot of times i feel like we are canceling these presidents or people by using today's

morality. someday in the future people will be canceling us for using gasoline vehicles. anyway. host: lillian? go ahead. caller: how do you keep yourself from judging from afar like that? guest: that is a really interesting point and question and it is something i thought a lot about while constructing these episodes. i supposed to me part of what goes along with studying history and makes it so fascinating is that the facts have not changed at all, right? the facts of who george washington was, his time in office, his home life, nothing has changed about the facts.

but things have significantly changed about which facts we focus on. why think, you know -- i think, you know, you look throughout the 20th century and you can tell based on the way we study or biographers write about someone like george washington, you can tell what time period that historian was living in who wrote about him, because the type of questions they were asking and the types of facts they were focusing on were absolutely a reflection on their time and the questions that felt most pressing and relevant. i don't know there is a way around that and i am not sure there should be. engaging with history is a way of all of us today kind of

having a conversation about what our own values are right now and what we think the right values are going forward. so i think, yeah, it is always going to continue to evolve. the things we pulling statues down today about may not be the same thing 30 years ago we pull a statute down about or we rewrite someone's story through a different lens. that is going to continue happening. that is how we engage with who we are. host: we were talking about james polk earlier but what about william henry harrison? he was only in office for 32 days. how'd you get an episode about him? guest: [laughs] a lot of people were wondering how i would do that. as i said, i look back on when i

started the podcast and i asked people for, you know, advice about how i should go about it. william henry harrison came up as an example when people would make the argument to me, you don't want to do one episode on each president, right? you should do like five episodes on lincoln and like a two second episode on william henry harrison. he was only in office for about a month before he died. to me that was part of what i felt was missing. we just -- we skip over. we skip over people we don't think our as important. i took that on as a huge challenge to think about how we

do a harrison episode. part of what i focused on in that episode actually was his campaign for the white house and the way he kind of pioneered a bunch of campaign techniques that had not been done before and would change the way people hit the campaign trail going forward. he went from town to town drumming up enthusiasm. he went to a parade through the town. and he put himself out there and his story out there and this image of him as someone worthy of the white house in a more aggressive way then we have seen with previous presidents. that is one example of, even if someone has a short time in the white house, there is so much to say about why in that moment he

seems like the type of person we needed for office. there is also some -- host: sorry, you are going to say something. guest: there is also something to debunk about his death. what we know of him is he died of a cold while giving this superlong inaugural address. that turns out to be an inaccurate myth. things have shown since then that the white house water supply was tainted and he most likely died from drinking contaminated water in the white house. that was an interesting part of the episode about him, too. host: let's take a call from sam in ailey, georgia?

is that correct? caller: yes, ma'am. there was a caller talking about subjective lenses. i felt your answer -- i think it is an important issue. i would like to hold your feet to the fire. you said now we can look at president wilson for his racism and, in your words, "these more important issues we have to look at." 's racism the legacy woodrow wilson left in your mind? of course, this speaks to the greater point where i think there are two histories being taught, one on the right and one on the left. there are things some parents would have teachers teach and not teach. there is a big debate going on about who controls the narrative and who controls the history. i think this is a far greater

and more impactful issue that people are giving it credit for. i did not want to gloss over that. i would like to clarify now these more important issues. is racism his legacy or is it his character that may have affected his legacy? host: let's get our response. guest: i think that is a very valid question and point and to clarify, i think what i was trying to do was say, you know, that we need to engage in discussions about all facets of president's legacies and, you know, putting on something like

president's day thinking about their accomplishments and thinking about them in a two-dimensional way that i think a lot of students don't learn much more than the george washington said, "i cannot tell a lie" mythology. we have to. and everyone for their own self i think needs to decide with the questions are they want to engage with, right? these are all human beings and there are an infinite number of actions and characteristics that we can explore about them. and at any given time in any given classroom, yes, you are right, people have to make hard choices about what they're going to study, what they are going to teach. certainly, race is an important

part of that discussion. there are a lot of other important parts. we have not talked about foreign policy but there is a lot to talk about there for every single president. i think that is why all of us need to engage in studying history, so that we can have those conversations. host: let's take a call from alex in madison, alabama. caller: yes, lillian, i really appreciate your studies and all you are doing. i got a couple of questions. first question is with regards to the context that these presidents who were slave owners, what is your thoughts? if the grim reaper was created and gin by eli whitney, if those

presidents had those inventions, what with the effects have been on that? the second question regarding thomas jefferson and his stance against slavery even though he owned slaves. can you talk to both of those? guest: why don't i start with the second one. he, you know, thomas jefferson is obviously an incredibly important figure in our history. as you mentioned, he drafted the declaration of independence and the words "all men are created equal." he did also, as i mentioned earlier, have more than 600 people enslaved at monticello. you know, i think that is on a grand scale that there was

hypocrisy between his writing and his personal actions. and on smaller scales we see that with other presidents on any number of issues. but jefferson i think -- i live in alexandria, virginia. jefferson is a figure particularly in virginia who there has been a lot of thought given to how you teach all these parts of who he is. there is so much to teach about jefferson and so much that he did as president and a founder of the nation. i think a great example is that monticello and the people who would run his presidential

museum at monticello have started giving tours about slavery at monticello. they started doing exhibits on sally hennings, an enslaved woman he fathered a child with. they also of course have exhibits about, you know, the aspirations and ideals he set forth for the united states that set us up to carry out this incredible democratic experiment, right? these are people who i think are at the frontlines of figuring out how you tell all of those parts of the story. and it is hard because it is a big story. he is a huge, huge person and figure in american history and there is a lot to learn about him. host: let's take another call. fred is in memphis, tennessee. fred?

no? fred. caller: yes, ma'am? host: go ahead. caller: i taught history 40 years in high school and i used to tell my students, you know, she was just talking about jefferson, is very complex person. you have to give the whole story to them about these individuals. for instance, washington freed all of his slaves. that was part of his legacy. he freed his slaves when he was dying and he inherited them from his wife. he did not own any himself to begin with. but there is so much complexion about that. i really did not think it was fair -- i told my students and

they could make a decision from that, mostly juniors and seniors -- two judge -- to judge them based on our values. but it was a more acceptable thing they were doing at that time regrettably. just want to get your opinion on that and talk a little bit about history. guest: thank you for that perspective. i mean, i think very commendable to have taught for so long. that is a hard and very worthy job. it actually reminds me for this upcoming episode we are releasing -- i talked to a history teacher today in new jersey who has been teaching about 13 years and he gave the example of he talks to his students about thinking about

the study of history as though, you know, you have a camera. and you have the ability to totally zoom in tight on a figure and blur out the background and all you see is that person. and then you have the ability and obligation to take a wide angle shot where you see that person but you also see the context that surrounds him. and i think that is part of what you are getting at, too. that it is important both to sort of zoom in and study these figures and, you know, their strengths and weaknesses as we can ascertain. but also to be able to make sure people understand, students understand context and think critically for themselves about what that context means, right? because, for example, it is part

of the context that even at the constitutional convention there were really deep, long going arguments about whether slavery was morally right, whether it was in the constitution to begin with. they should decide this was a country that should not have slavery, whether it should. that is another important piece of the conversation and understanding the context is knowing this was also a debate that was happening at their time as well. host: lillian, that is going to be our last call. thank you so much for joining us and happy presidents' day on monday. guest: thank you so much. host: just a reminder, if you are a podcast listener, c-span has podcasts. everywhere you get your podcasts

and on our website, c-span.org. that is it for today's "washington journal." thank you for watching. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern. in the meantime, have a great saturday. ♪ ♪ >> c-span's "washington journal." every day, we take your calls live on the air on the news of the day, and discuss policy issues that impact you. coming up sunday morning, we will talk about the biden agenda, the upcoming midterm elections and news of the day with a republican strategist brendan bock and democratic strategist rebecca piercy. then, we discuss u.s., european,

and nato responses to the ukrainian crisis. watch on c-span now, our new free mobile lab. join in with your calls, comments, texts and tweets. ♪ >> on our presidential rankings list, you will find warren harding's name at or near the bottom. in honor of president's day, historian ryan walter says while harding had his faults, his accomplishments are often overlooked, including bringing the country back to normalcy after world war i and an economic plan that led to the roaring 20's. in his book "the jazz age president," walter lays out his case for harding. >> he ranks last more than any other president. harding has come up a few notches in the recent