on ukraine, russia and the u.s.'s response to president putin's comments. for coverage on c-span now, our free video app. >> >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it is way more. comcast is partnering with community centers so students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up this morning on washington journal, the latest

on tensions between russia and ukraine with ethnic corpsmen -- anthony cordesman. later, bryce pardo of the rand corporation talks about a report on the synthetic opioid crisis in the u.s.. ♪ host: good morning. it is tuesday, february 22, 2022. russian president vladimir putin ordered his troops into two breakaway regions of ukraine following a move to recognize their independence. those actions brought condemnation from u.s. and european leaders and threatened to scuttle efforts to negotiate the ongoing dispute. with the region bracing for wider military conflict, we are asking our viewers this morning, how concerned are you about a potential war in ukraine? phone lines split as usual, by

political party. republicans can call in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text this morning. that number is (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you're from. otherwise, please catch up with us on social media. good tuesday morning to you. you can start calling in now. we will take you to the headline from this morning's associated press story on the latest. were fears grow as putin orders troops to eastern ukraine is the headline there, the story noting a long feared russian invasion of ukraine appear imminent monday, if not already underway. the president of russia ordering his forces into the separatist region eastern ukraine and appeared to dash remaining hopes

of averting major conflict in europe, a war that could cause economic chaos around the globe. it came hours after he recognized the separatist region and what the ap describes as a rambling discourse upon european history. the move paved the way for military support and antagonized western leaders, who set off a frenzied scramble by the u.s. and others to respond. the associated press this morning with that statement from russian president vladimir putin yesterday recognizing this breakaway regions. here is a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> i deem it necessary to make a decision that should have been made a long time ago, immediately recognizing the independence and sovereignty of the donetsk people's republic and luhansk people's republic. i would like to request a

federal assembly to ratify the agreement of friendship and mutual help with both republics. we will draft this document and sign this document in the near future. and those who keep the power, we demand to stop astilbe's -- hostilities immediately. otherwise, all the responsibility for the continuation will be on the consciousness desk conferences of the regime ruling in kia -- kyiv. host: that statement sponsoring a u.n. -- sparking a u.n. security council meeting. the unc gertie councilmembers slam russia's -- security counsel members slam russia. here is part of what she had to say. >> over the past few weeks, the

world has heard the other 14 members of the security council speak with one voice, asking russia to pursue diplomacy. other members of this council, even those who often align with russia on other matters, have been clear that the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of every u.n. member states should be respected and safeguarded, including ukraine. this is a basic norm of international relations and embodies the purpose of the u.n. charter. the sequence of events that secretary blinken spelled out for this council last thursday appears to be proceeding exactly as he predicted. today, president putin has torn the minsk agreement to shreds. we have been clear that we do not believe he will stop at that.

in light of president putin's latest actions, we must stand up for the principles upon which this organization was founded. president biden issued an executive order today that will prohibit new investment, trade, and financing in the so-called dpr and lpr regions. the united states will take further measures to hold russia accountable for this clear violation of international law and ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. we and our partners have been clear that there will be swift and severe response, were russia to further invade ukraine. host: the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. yesterday. we are joined now by brett samuels of the hill newspaper to give us perspective.

first on those sanctions and the executive order that was announced yesterday and what could be announced today, can you explain the options on the table now for the biden administration? guest: thanks for having me this morning. all eyes are on the white house today to see what these additional sanctions will be. yesterday they issued sanctions for having investment in the breakaway regions that russia has recognized as independent. the white house said those were separate from larger sanctions, so i think a lot of the interest will be on whether the additional measures are some kind of measure -- major sanctions package discuss with european allies or additional smaller measures that they prepared in light of russia and

i putin's -- vladimir putin's actions monday. there is growing pressure from congress to see the biden administration impose more serious sanctions here. the question will be, does the biden administration come out with sanctions that they have been talking about for weeks and coronation with allies in europe? host: is it your estimation that this action took the white house by surprise or was this unexpected move, the recognition of these breakaway regions and then the move to order troops in as "peacekeepers"? guest: the white house portrayed it as something they expected. the white house has been trying to stay a step ahead of a putin

by publicizing what they expect his next moves to be. when this happened yesterday, white house officials said they were prepared for something like this and had sanctions ready to go over some thing like this. certainly they portrayed it as something they were ready for and they were a little evasive as far as saying this amounted to an invasion, that russia was sending troops into these regions. they point to the fact that russia has had troops in this part of ukraine for several years now. they have been reluctant to equate this to a full on invasion of ukraine, the fact that russia is sending these troops into these regions now. we will see i think based on the sanctions and measures announced today how serious of a breach they consider it and whether they are waiting to see further action from russia to lay out

these severe sanctions they promised. host: why the hesitancy of calling it a full invasion? guest: there are a lot of european countries the u.s. is try to cordon it with and wants to make sure it is on the same page as. so i think part of it has to do with making sure they are on the same page as far as that language. part of it has to do with keeping sanctions as a deterrent so there is a hesitancy to lay all their cards on the table right away. it is an evolving situation and we will see whether the u.s. and europe are waiting for further action in the coming days. host: the white house announced that president biden would be willing to meet with president putin if an invasion did not happen. is that meeting off the table or still an option?

guest: it would seem to be off the table. on a call last night, a national security official iterated their line. they will pursue diplomacy until tanks roll from russia into ukraine. they did not officially say that it will not happen, but i think at this point they are aware of what this action from yesterday means. it is unclear whether the secretary of state will meet with his russian counterpart thursday, so that is up in the air. i have a hard time seeing president biden and present putin sitting down for a meeting at this point. -- president putin sitting down for a meeting at this point. host: for the key cabinet players today, where are they going to be today? are we expected to hear from them? guest: president biden is in washington, d.c., having an

event this afternoon on clean energy supply chain initiatives. that will turn away from this situation in ukraine and russia for a bit at least. we will see him on camera. we will hear from him. whether he takes top -- questions on the topic of russia and ukraine remains to be seen. there is the matter of the supreme court pick we expect them to announce by next monday. there will be interested in hearing from the president on this topic of russia and ukraine and certainly jen psaki will brief this afternoon. i am sure we will hear from players on this. i am unsure if matters other than the clean energy initiative will dominate president biden's schedule today. host: thanks for taking the time this morning and joining us. our question to our viewers this morning, are you concerned about potential wider war here in

ukraine? republicans, (202) 748-8000 -- republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will take this question for our first hour of the washington journal this morning. first come out of maryland, good morning to you, line for independents. caller: am i on? host: yes. caller: through the years, i have been trying to follow some of the discussions going on in russia. for those of us in the u.s. who think that these actions will have no effect on the u.s., for years there have been voices in russia claiming that alaska, the purchase of alaska was merely a

90 year lease and that is over. so think of the kinds of things that mad men have done through the years and to some of their actions. it did not take long for putin to move his -- the military from the far east to the borders of ukraine. it will not take him after he captures ukraine -- it will not take him long to bring that military back and why not attack alaska if you think -- attack alaska? if you think it is far-fetched, he can claim there are many russian speakers in alaska. host: is it your view that russia presents the greatest geopolitical threat to the united states and the world? caller: no question. none of his excuses and

especially if you look at his -- history, he is not even very original and his tactics. he just does what other mad men have done and the world has suffered as a result. if you think the u.s. will not be directly affected, think again. read your history. host: this is sandy in tennessee , also line for independents. caller: i have been seeing this for the last three weeks on tv about the two provinces in ukraine and putin. let him have them. let him have them. let him put his army in their and then go in and bite the head off the snake.

use a little bit of psychology about what you are doing because our armed services found pablo and they captured el chapo. use some psychology about it but then go in and bite the head off of the madman. host: in illinois, good morning. caller: this problem is what happens when you have stupidity in the white house. all these people that went out there and embarrass themselves constantly, look at all the problems we have now in this world that we did not have when trump was president. the reason that putin is able to do this is because the price of oil. the first thing biden did was cancel the keystone pipeline.

he would out there and he made it harder for american companies to engage in fracking. that has driven up the price of oil. putin needs money to carry out all this stuff. where does he get the money? he gets the money because of high oil prices. they are saying and michael up to $150 a barrel. think of the billions of dollars that russia is getting. germany gets 32% of their oil from russia. what is putin going to do? i saw on the washer journal today germany is going to cut off the norstrom two pipeline. putin can say, fine. i am going to cut off your oil and it will be a cold winter in germany. he does not have to fire a shot. he needs to flood the market

with energy and drive down the price of oil and then we will be in a position where putin will not have the money to be able to do this. he would not be a threat to us. host: that is cory this morning when it comes to president biden convening with his allies we know from the white house yesterday that he had a call with the french president along the german chancellor and also spoke with the ukrainian president, zelensky, monday after a putin -- vladimir putin delivered that address signing the decree to recognize those regions. president biden remains at the white house today. we are expecting to perhaps hear from him later this afternoon. brian, grand rapids, minnesota, independent. go ahead. caller: thanks for having me.

host: are you concerned about a war across ukraine? caller: i wanted to ask a question. does the white house correspondent still there? host: he jumped off the call with us a little while ago. what is your question? caller: i was wondering, does anybody therefrom c-span -- i noticed the republic south of the ukraine, georgia. the republic of georgia. host: what is your question? caller: quite a few decades ago, i met the vice president of the republic of georgia in minnesota. he was a real nice guy. he did not speak english.

i do not know where the president or vice president of the republic of georgia is now, but i was wondering, what is georgia's stance on what is going on? host: how did you happen to run into the the president of georgia and minnesota? caller: the vice president. he was invited by the governor. host: what were you doing there? caller: i used to have a newspaper in minnesota. host: that is brian in grand rapids. in new york, democrat, good morning. caller: i would like to say this. during world war i, we were warned by the blessed mother on

august 13, 1917. she wonders about russia, not to learn, not world war ii. she said specifically that god would bring russia to her immaculate heart if you pray the rosary and there will be peace in the world. if not, then russia would spread across the world. nations will be annihilated. my point is we were warned about russia before world war two. if we could get our latin nations together and realize we need to pray the rosary to god -- a lot of people do not want to be spiritual, but it is ironic that the blessed mother warned us about not hit but russia. 1917. host: there was a senator on the floor last week saying pray for ukraine. do you think it is time to pray for ukraine? caller: we need to pray for ukraine, absolutely.

this is another domino theory. we need to bring peace to ukraine. if putin were smart -- he is like this boss who only knows oil. you know ukraine is the only country that invented being able to create human beings with the dna of three people? putin does not know that. he only knows gas. he only knows oil. host: that is rosen staten island. in terms of members of congress, some of their thoughts in recent days. here is one from pennsylvania, saying there are more ukrainian americans in my district than any other in the country. many are personal friends. my heart is with them at this moment. this is mike in north carolina. caller: regarding the question,

are you concerned about war in ukraine, i have three things i want to say. first, it is absurd to even speculate the idea that the russian federation would invade alaska as someone alluded to. with all due respect and all that, i do not know what world those people are living in but that is not this one. we have backed russia into a corner here. you know what they say about poking the bear. ukraine was part of russia for a portion of its history, before it became the soviet union. before he became the russian federation. i do not think that president putin has any other option here. if russia backs down from this, they will seem weak. if we were in their position, we would do the same thing. number three, this idea that either former president trump

could have prevented this or that the current president, joe biden, ought to have prevented this is also unfair to both presidents. you are assuming that russia would have changed his mind depending on what united states would have answered here. am i worried about it for ukraine? now. -- no. i do not think the united states should have gotten involved. the ball is in our court. host: this is jim in florida current line for republicans. caller: every time i think the u.s. press has been so shameful that they have sunk as low as they possibly can they sink even lower. people want to quote song and

verse about the history and ukraine -- of ukraine and carefully, especially the press, avoided talking about the genocide that russia put on the ukraine people. at least 5 million people were killed by famine and by execution by russia on the ukrainian people. and not a. they allow putin and your callers, quote song in verse about how ukraine was supposed to be such a wonderful part of russia. russia killed 5 million ukrainians. nobody says a word about it. i do not want war with ukraine anymore than anybody else, but when you talk about trump and biden, trump would not have allowed the financing of this

invasion by keeping oil prices low in the first place. so the sanctions are not going to work. what would work is on sanctioning ourselves and reauthorizing the canadian pipeline and opening up drilling for oil. that would solve two problems. ukraine and inflation in the united states. the democrats are just too ideologically stupid to consider doing that. host: that is jim in florida. lance is a neighbor of jim in fort lauderdale, florida, not sure how close. caller: i am concerned. george santana must be spinning in his grave. i am watching mr. putin make the same arguments hitler's did in 1937 and 1938 and 1939.

he took crimea because it was russian speaking people. he starts talking about the same argument in ukraine and this is trickles of ocular and now he is talking just like hitler's did about how they are being attacked and that was his excuse for invading poland. we have our own chain berlin -- neville chamberlain in joe biden. germany is going to stand on because otherwise they are going to freeze this winter. most of europe is going to say what they did in 1938. if we let him have ukraine, he will stop. there we go all over again. this started with president obama letting him take crimea without a word and then joe biden making it easy, as other people have said, by raising the price of oil and showing him we

were not going to negotiate the north stream pipeline. we will not negotiate the treaty. this madman goes, these people are weak. they will not stop me. the scary thing is he is probably right. host: that is lance in fort lauderdale, florida. the new york times and their wrap up this morning describes part of a putin -- vladimir putin's speech yesterday. easter putin -- mr. putin's speech was filled with accusations that ukraine was seeking a nuclear arsenal and eta was planning to place missiles on ukrainian territory. american officials have said for months there are no such plans. mr. biden said ukraine was years away from qualifying for nato membership but has been unwilling to bend to the demand that nato stop accepting new members and that he provide a

guarantee that ukraine would never be part of the western alliance. mr. putin made clear his wider ambition yesterday was to reclaim ukraine and continue rebuilding the empire that collapsed with the end of the soviet union. at one point, he said it outright. modern-day ukraine was created by russia, bolshevik, communist russia. a quote from vladimir putin yesterday. after the speech, a u.n. security council meeting in new york. the u.s. representative speaking there. here's an extended part of her remarks. this is about three minutes long , her thoughts and comments on putin's >> actions yesterday. >>earlier today, russia's president announced that russia will recognize as independent

states the so-called dpr and lpr regions. he has since announced that he will place russian troops in these regions. he calls them peacekeepers. this is nonsense. we know what they really are. in doing so, he has put before the world a choice. we must meet the moment and not look away. history tells us the looking the other way -- that looking the other way in the face of such hostility will be a more costly path. russia's clear attack on ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity is unprovoked. it is an attack on ukraine's status as a u.n. member states. -- member state. it defies our charter.

this move is clearly the basis for russia's attempt to create a pretext for further invasion of ukraine. the consequences of this action will be felt beyond ukraine's borders. we do not have to guess at president putin's mood -- motives. president putin made a series of false claims about ukraine aim decorating a pretext for war and immediately announced russian troops are entering the donbas. he claims that ukraine is seeking nuclear weapons from the west. this is not true. ukraine is one of only a few countries to a voluntarily surrendered nuclear weapons. the united states and our allies have no intention of supplying nuclear weapons to ukraine, and

ukraine does not want them. then president putin asserted that russia today has a rightful claim to all territories from the russian empire, the same russian empire from before the soviet union, from over a hundred years ago. that includes all of ukraine. it includes finland. it includes belarus and georgia and moldova. because extend -- kaz extend -- is pakistan -- uzbekistan and lithuania. it includes parts of poland and turkey. in essence, putin wants the world to travel back in time to a time before the united nations, a time when empires ruled the world. the rest of the world has moved forward. it is not 1919. it is 2022.

united nations was founded on the principle of decolonization cannot recolonization -- decolonization, not recolonization. we believe the majority of the united nations security council are committed to moving forward, not going back in time. host: linda thomas-greenfield yesterday at that meeting. we have about a half hour left in this segment of the washington journal. we will also talk about ukraine and russia more throughout parts of our segments this morning. phone lines in this segment, republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. george, new jersey, independent. caller: thanks for taking my call. i need your opinion.

how are we going to get to mars and be the champions and be number one and be america first? god bless president trump because i think he is going to help us get there. that is why i will be voting for him in 2024. host: do you want to go to ukraine? caller: i do. look at the dictionary. wasn't that area a part of russia in the ninth century? i am not for people taking over other people, but i am concerned that america is being played by china and russia. spin our wheels and we will not have the capacity to get into space and be number one. does that make sense? host: how long does a country have to be around before it should be considered independent?

you say go back to the eighth century in russia. there is a lot that has changed since then and the geopolitical order of the world. caller: yes. is it 1000 years? poland has been there for 1000 years. i did not graduate from the fletcher school diplomacy. i am just a citizen of america and i would also like to say, to your previous caller who referenced the virgin mary, she really wants to read something spectacular, read the diary where she has a vision of the mother of god. host: that is georgia new jersey. this is mike. caller: i was calling because i was going to say that ukraine is

not even a nato country. i am confused as to why we are even over there when we are not even worried about the sovereignty of our own borders. if you look at nato, nato is made of countries that border ukraine and russia for defense. russia is basically selecting the same portions of ukraine. one of the more important things is you mentioned in one of his speeches if ukraine were to take over that he would go to a nuclear arsenal. he has that potential. remember that position he had? host: i'm not sure what you are referencing, but go ahead. caller: the last nuclear test that was banned was in 1961, when he actually detonated a 15 megaton bond -- bomb, 10,000 times more powerful than all the weapons use in world war two.

he had a 100 megatons weapon which would have killed people just testing it, not to mention the dome that protects the nuclear power plant from the radiation produces enough radiation to kill 65 million people if they just broke the dome. host: this is steve in indiana. you are next. caller: i want to discuss what i have seen. when you look at sanctions, why are we sanctioning ukraine -- russia? i understand -- i am not concerned about russia invading ukraine. that is not where i'm coming from. the way i see it is, if we are so poised to stop russia from invading ukraine, sanctions is the best path forward especially

it would hurt their economy and make their people mad at their government. i do not understand why we are not sanctioning harder and not trying to sanction russia. host: we are expecting more sanctions to be announced today. the question right now that is been decided is whether president biden and european allies move forward with that full, what they are calling a severe package of sanctions targeting a wide array of the russian economy, whether they do that now or hold that back as a stick in case russian tanks start rolling through ukraine toward kyiv. caller: president zelensky has said, if we are so sure that

they have a kill list, a hit list, that they are ready to do some world war two stuff of putting people in camps, why are we waiting? it does not make sense to me. host: that is steven in indiana. this is alex in california, independent. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. the ukrainian people can adequately defend themselves in a war against russia if they bring the war itself directly to the russian people. they can do that by working with isis to establish an islamic caliphate on russian territory. that process will kill enough russians that they will never again mess with ukraine. host: this is lisa in kentucky. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. russia said they were concerned

about ukraine being a nato country and did not want them to move that close to their area. if they take ukraine, won't they be on the nato borders? we need to stop messing around and get some nuclear weapons into poland, whether he likes it or not. what has happened to everybody? don't we remember missiles in cuba? you cannot trust russia. we need to strike now. host: that is lisa in kentucky. about 20 minutes left in this first hour of the washington journal. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. show you some headlines from around the world and reaction to putin's speech yesterday, his moves to recognize those breakaway parts of ukraine.

this is the irish times editorial. putin moves a step closer to war. from the bangkok times -- bangkok post, defying the west, putin orders troops to ukraine rebel region. more this morning from the planus areas -- buenos aires times. russia sets the world on edge as the ukraine conflict pushes into a new phase. we are asking whether you are concerned about war and ukraine and what that could mean. sam in wisconsin, go ahead. caller: good morning. we have some concerns about russia and all these other countries always warring. it saddens my soul that they come here -- i am native

american. they come to our country and put war on my people. war has been going on for years and years. when is it going to stop? when are we going to have peace in the world? when are we going to get along with their neighbors? when are we going to pray as one? did anybody ever ask them? come over here and pray with us. always pray for your haters and neighbors and everything. always be kind. host: that is sam in wisconsin. in nevada, good morning. caller: good morning. it is nice to be on your show. i like the thought that man before me just said in wisconsin, but it is a scary time. we are all americans and in this

together, but this crisis is divisive. if you look at russia, the russian empire, they have been fighting the western empires around the black sea since the crime area more -- crimean war. there is a historical claim for russia on ukraine. what would happen if the warsaw pact wanted to put a bunch of nuclear missiles a few hundred miles from our capital? we practically went to nuclear war and said get out of our backyard. we have to be tactful. it is sad that we are going to war, but we do not have a right to impose. we do not have any real ability to do something except say we are shaking our finger. we have to try to get away from this or we are at war with this

group, without group. orwell had a good vision of the future. it just took a little longer. it is a scary time right now. god bless the world and let's try to get along. host: a few of your comments from social media and our text messaging service. this is jim. i support countries imposing the most effective sanctions on russia to show that putin has miscalculated. this is saying the usa is so divided and we could does not matter what team is in charge now. derek saying i'm concerned about fox news becoming russian state-sponsored propaganda. and marianne saying the world cannot turn away and ignore. plenty of columns on the latest out of ukraine and russia. here is one of them.

this is in the wall street journal today, why putin is outfoxing the west. he writes, the russian president is still in the driver's seat now and it is his decision that will shape the next stage of this confrontation. russia, a power that western leaders mocked for decades, has ceased the diplomatic and military initiative in europe and the west is powerless to do anything about it. we offer is to and off ramps and hope our descriptions of sanctions that we are preparing to impose will change his mind. at best, we have improvised a response to a strategic surprise but we are far from having a serious russia policy. it is likely at this point that mr. putin will continue to outmaneuver his western rivals and produce new surprises. he writes, the west has two problems. the first is a problem of will.

the west does not want a confrontation with russia. in any crisis, the goal remains to calm things down. that approach not only makes appeasement attractive whenever difficulties appear, it prevents us from thinking proactively. when russia stopped bothering us, we start -- stop thinking about russia. the second problem is a problem of imagination. the russian president is willing to take risk that his opponents would never consider. if you want to read that in the wall street journal, his column. this is tom out of maryland. good morning. caller: i do not think we should go to war with russia. we should put strong sanctions on russia and stop their flowable oil to other countries in europe and put our pipeline back up.

we need to worry about the lives of people today. do not worry about 50 years down the road. worry about today with the gas prices. help people today, not worry about 60 years from now. that is what i believe we need to do. host: joe, woodbridge, virginia, republican. caller: thanks for taking my call. just a few observations. i think it is not important where we are at. it is how we got here. the american people elected a weak leader in joe biden. our enemies and adversaries do not respect him. we have lost afghanistan. we are about to lose part of ukraine and likely china will retake taiwan. when we have strong leaders, the world is secure. when we do not, our adversaries -- i do not believe we should go

to war over ukraine. they are not in nato ally and are in the russian sphere of influence. i believe what is going to happen is russia's going to annex eastern ukraine. they will create a corridor between crimea and mother russia and biden will impose week sanctions. nato will impose week sanctions that will be temporary. in the end, they will agree and what is left if ukraine will never become part of nato. that is my take on it. host: is that acceptable? caller: i think it is. how would we like -- i compare this -- very similar to the cuban missile crisis. we would not permit russian missiles 80 miles from florida and nato, which is the enemy of russia, we have encroached on mother russia. i'm not a supporter of russia.

these are just historical facts. we have moved nato to russia's borders since the fall of communism. they feel threatened and we should have had enough foresight to not -- i do not want to use the word provoked, but we played a part in the conflict now that has taken place in eastern europe. we should have had more thoughtful foreign policy. host: stay on the line because i want your thoughts on what thomas friedman writes in today's new york times. he speaks to some of what you're talking about. he writes, there are two huge logs fueling this fire. the first was the decision by the u.s. in the 1990's to expand nato despite the collapse of the soviet union. he says the second is how putin is exploiting nato's expression -- expansion to rally russians

to his side. he says putin has failed to build russia into an economic model that would attract is neighbors cannot repel them, and inspire talented people to want to stay. we need to look at both those logs. he says most americans paid scant attention to the expansion of nato to countries in eastern and central europe like the czech republic, all of which had been part of the former soviet union or its sphere of influence. it was no mystery why these nations would want to be part of an alliance that obligated the u.s. to come to their defense in the event of an attack by russia. the mystery was why the u.s., which -- we streamed that russia might one day 20 west, which used to push nato into russia's face when it was weak. a small group of officials at that time asked that same question, but we were drowned out. what are your thoughts on that?

caller: that is thoughtful. a lot of that is accurate. america has an inconsistent foreign policy based on who gets elected, a democrat or republican. i have seen for my lifetime that mostly when a democrat gets elected, like jimmy carter and now biden, they are weak and foreign policy. the world gets dangerous. our adversaries get aggressive. america retreats from the stage. then we elect someone from the opposing party and things get tough again. maybe there will be a minor conflict or mild war somewhere and set things straight. i think america's foreign policies and that contributes to the problems the world faces. the old saying is, when good

nations do nothing, people prospers. right now, america is not leading. we are seeing it play out in the world today. host: this is peter in connecticut. good morning. caller: i would like to say that the vox popular of this program day after day is very good. every person has a perspective that is valid. every single person. concerning all of these issues especially today. i have one piece of history in terms of broadening the perspective. in 1945, if not before, ukraine was, as far as the world is concerned, and independent state significant enough to be an

initial member of the united nations. russia did not object at all apparently for ukraine to be sitting in the united nations as an independent state, no matter what they may call their presence. a republic is what ukraine was and continues to be. recognized on an international basis. no one had mentioned that. host: this is william in ohio. good morning. caller: this is just a crazy 86-year-old individual. it is a shame that our country goes the way it is going but look at our ex-president, who praised these dictators. if you check his apartments, what percentage of russian

people live in his apartments? it is just a shame. i have a lovely granddaughter that is in the navy. she is a nuclear engineer. i cannot sleep at night thinking about her. i have nine great grandkids. they are not going to stand a chance and how to survive. host: this is hunter in delaware. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on the show as far as being concerned with the war happening in ukraine, i guess my question is, how many times have we seen this happen where russia has threatened to attack ukraine? back in 2014, when crimea was annexed into russia and president obama imposed sanctions. has that stopped them before? i have yet to see where it has

made them think twice. president obama said in 2014 that they will always be subject to military dominance because the u.s. has no interest and they are not a member of nato. are we really going to send our troops over there and get involved in another potential afghanistan conflict when we have problems at home ourselves? i'm a big fan of strong foreign policy, but we have to count our chickens before they hatch and say we are not going to be able to do anything. am i concerned? i am half-and-half. sometimes you have to know when to hold them and know when your opponent is bluffing. host: when is it worth it? you talk about you are a fan of strong foreign policy.

at what point should the u.s. to mistreat that strength? you are saying this is a time where this is not a good hand. what would require a response? there is concern right now that this will just lead to something else, to putin pushing into another area. caller: yeah. i am going to use afghanistan as an example. we went in there. we set up a democracy, brought you by the u.s.. within not even 24 hours the entire country fell, the entire government. my thing is when we are getting imposed as a direct threat that is a different story. even to go to war still requires congress to approve this. doing the guise of military exercises because in my just happened that russia tax -- i do not think vladimir putin's that

stupid that he is going to attack when forces are right there because he is a former kgb officer. when the threat is directed to us or impacts our economy to some degree, strong foreign policy says we are strong but we also know when not to get involved. host: are you in agreement with one of the fundamental principles of nato, that an attack on one is an attack on all and that would require a response from all? so if vladimir putin were to push into some of the baltic states, former soviet areas that are now members of the u.n., is that the time when you think it is time for the u.s. to demonstrate that strength? caller: i not familiar enough

with the nato policies to give you a strong opinion. i have heard other countries are not contributing to nato. like when rand paul was running for president because he said they were not helping. i would have a hard time giving you an educated answer or fully formed opinion on that. host: this is angela and washington, d.c. -- in washington, d.c. caller: what i would like to say is that i believe our is doing as much as they can in concert with the governments in the european union. it is helpful to remember that there are many things being said and done behind the scenes that

the public does not know about, so it is not helpful to be critical of president biden or his administration. it's not helpful to look at this through a political lens, democrat or republican. the election is over, let's not apply that lens to this problem. the only thing i can say is i hope everything works out ok, i hope the sanctions work. but i mean, the united states is doing as much as it can within the boundaries of international law. we do not need another convoy out there trying to make things worse than they are. host: you say you hope the sanctions work. lizzie asking, what will be bidne'next -- biden's next section, because nothing has -- sanction, because nothing has helped.

caller: i have a question. when? i'm about done watching c-span, i really hate to say that because it is the best part of my 4:00 a.m. when are you guys, because i hear it over and over and over, when will you bring on people that republicans have been calling for you guys to bring on for over a year? you brought on every person you can think of that has written a book or been in a tv show for the last four years 20 different times. we want denise with the 2000 mules. we want amanda lambert, kashyap patel, we want these people on the show.

and we want you guys to interview them. and it's about time. do you agree with that? host: i am running out of time in this segment, do you want to talk about ukraine and russia? ok. william, independent. good morning. caller: yes, i think that they should offer the people of ukraine to, just like alaska, if you are a citizen there, you get royalty checks for the oil that comes through there. and if they did that, the ukrainians could decide to get a lesser check and the ukrainian or get a better check and ba russian. host: last -- be a russian.

host: stick on, we will continue this conversation with anthony cordesman from the center for strategic & international studies to talk about the latest developments in the russia-ukraine border crisis. then we will turn our attention to the opioid crisis with bryce pardo, a researcher with the rand corporation later in the program. stick around, we will be right back. announcer: the american presidents website is your one-stop guide for information on joe biden to george washington. find rich images that tell the stories of their lives and presidencies. on the easy to browse c-span website. visit c-span.org/presidents to

explore this catalog of resources today. ♪ announcer: c-span offers a variety of podcasts. weekdays, washing today gives you the latest from the nation's capital. every week, but notes plus has interviews with writers about their latest works, while the weekly uses audio from archives to look at how issues of the day developed over years. and talking risk features extensive conversations with historians about their lives and work. many of our television programs are also available as podcasts. find them all on the c-span now mobile app or whatever you get your podcasts. ♪ announcer: weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday you will find

events that explore our nation's passed on american history tv. on sunday, book tv brings you the latest nonfiction books and authors, it is television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore, weekends on c-span2. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: we continue our focus on russia and ukraine with anthony cordesman, who serves at the center for strategic & international studies and has worked in a variety of advisor roles, including the nato international staff. what is your response on the latest from ukraine, putin yesterday recognizing those separatist regions, ordering in the so-called peacekeepers. guest: it is obvious in practical terms that this is an invasion. there's elements of russian

forces now in these separatist parts, two major provinces in the eastern ukraine. it's not clear how many forces there are. and it is not clear in saying that basically he was recognizing these as independent countries exactly what he was recognizing. if you look at the media reporting, it names both provinces. but in fact, really the separatist movements only occupy a third of the two provinces. if he is claiming the entire provinces should be independent, that would be a massive increase in the areas taken out of the ukraine proper. it's also clear that one equally important development is that the russian forces in belarus,

to the north of the ukraine, are going to stay in belarus indefinitely. so while we are focused on the ukraine, russia has effectively begun to occupy another country, a former part of the soviet union, with its military forces. anthony cordesman it might be -- host: it might be semantics, but why not call it innovation -- an invasion? the white house has not done that, perhaps to hold back the most severe sanctions as a stick that can still be wielded against putin. although we are expecting move today to add more sanctions to the executive order that came out last night. for all intensive purposes this is an invasion? guest: it's a very limited invasion to all intensive purposes.

i think that when you talk about applying sanctions and doing it gradually, you have to be very careful. so far, we have only limited indications that russia is taking you large part of the eastern ukraine. the forces to the north that really threaten the capital and the central part of the ukraine have not moved across the border. the forces in the crimea to the south that could threaten ukraine throughout most of the country, particularly if there was any nato activity, these forces have not been used. and quite honestly, as one looks at it, you need to remember in the real world that russia is a major air and naval power and all the reporting today showing

russian forces either around the ukraine or that are moving into the eastern ukraine has only talked about land forces. so you have a very limited beginning. and the question is, can you negotiate? can you find some way to reach an agreement that both sides can live with? because the alternative could be extremely -- be an extremely serious war. one that goes on to the use of missiles. host: is this the biggest threat nato has had to respond to in recent history? what is your assessment of how nato has responded, especially with this country not being a member of nato? guest: you make a very good point, nato has basically absorbed the former warsaw pact

eastern european states, but since the breakup of the former soviet union it has cut its forces. this is true of the united states and each of the european countries. the former warsaw pact states that joining nato never really joined forces to u.s. equipment. you have seen a steady decline in european and u.s. capabilities now for something on the order of nearly 20 years. and for all the talk in the previous administration, to the extent there was an increase in the expenditure, it did not reflect any major nato capabilities. after 2014, some important

steps were taken to deal with the serious problems after the brick above the former cv union, but those only begin -- soviet union, but those only began or affected the limited ability to actually defend the forward area of nato in eastern europe. and they gave the u.s. virtually no capability to quickly intervene in the ukraine. host: the center for strategic and international studies is where anthony cordesman does a lot of his writing. and here is a piece from last week on the topics we are talking about. "nato and the ukraine, reshaping nato to meet the russian and chinese challenge." how could nato emerge from this conflict stronger? guest: there are a lot of ways

and some have already begun. they are limited steps, you do not suddenly deploy massive forces or a new equipment, but the u.s. has moved more forces forward. an so haved britain, france and other powers. there's been support for the ukraine in terms of new weapons systems. and some elements of training, although nato has been very quiet about this, as has the u.s. the key issue that comes forward, regardless of how serious and the invasion is, is will nato actually invest in creating effective modern forces over time that can contain and deter russia. nato was particularly weak in the case of the baltic states,

though poland is the only country that joined nato from the former warsaw pact that's even begun to seriously modernize. and countries like france, germany and britain basically need to modernize and rebuild their capabilities. the nato countries in the rear need to develop plans to have real forces that can move forward quickly. and the u.s. needs to reevaluate its strategy so it can project power from the united states more quickly and effectively into the forward area. all of these are called for with nato strategy, but at this point they are not being funded. and it still is not yet clear what strategy the biden administration will adapt. it's not yet made its formal

budget submission that is part of its own administration. they have the trump budget. so they are waiting basically on this new budget submission to see what plan, if any, the biden administration will put forward to strengthen nato. the only country that is consistently moving to modernize is great britain, but it has done so in terms of seapower, so we do not know what the europeans will do. host: let me give the phone numbers to join us. republicans, 202-748-8001. it democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. as folks are calling in, can you dig down a little bit on the term modernize. what are you specifically talking about?

what is an example of the modern weapons needed for the fights of the future and what is an example of outdated weaponry or strategy here? guest: virtually every one of the eastern european countries i n nato has an obsolete air force. so, creating a modern air force is one key test. most nato countries do not, at this point, have effective land bases, air or missile defenses. some nato countries have given up their tanks entirely, countries like belgium and the netherlands, basically many others have not modernized their tanks or converted to the armor that can fight effectively as

russia's most modern tanks. it is not a limited a problem. and you have 30 different approaches. you do not have fully interoperable forces, integrated management, integrated space or cyber warfare or a whole host of technologies in ways that make nato fully capable of operating as a unified force. nato is recognized -- has recognize the documents that make this problem clear, but countries have not reacted and have made the plans and investments necessary to deal with russia. host: a caller out of seattle, derek, an independent. caller: what you people are doing makes no sense. there are no weapons you can give ukraine to defend themselves against russia.

it seems to me there is a large amount of senators and people who work for the u.s. government who are ukrainian, have ukrainian relatives, and are involved in this. and there are a lot of russians in the united states. you say you're a white, but you are ukrainian -- host: let me take the first part of those comments. weaponry that the u.s. has provided and nato has provided, what are we providing and what could make a difference? does any of this make a difference against an armada that has 100,000 on three fronts? guest: the answer is you could not suddenly create an effective force, but the ukraine has built to modernize its forces since russia seized crimea and part of

the eastern ukraine. the u.s. has deployed systems that give the ukrainian forces a significant capability to deal with threats like tanks. we have deployed an advanced, modern antitank guided weapon and have given that to the ukraine. we have deployed light air to surface missile systems that help the counter the russian advantage in airpower. this does not allow them to fight and win against a massive invasion, but part of the threat russia faces is not simply the initial battle, it is what happens when the population is hostile. when you may have an ongoing attempt to try to occupy the ukraine by force. this kind of weapons treatment really leans towards

attrition. it's an unpleasant cancer, not as good as creating certain defensive capabilities, but it is a serious effort and one that can make a difference. host: john in pennsylvania, a democrat. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: this shows that donald trump was right about the failures of nato. and how we should reevaluate our entire position there. how the russians have gained control of europe and the european economy by the use of their raw materials. and if europe is not willing to fight for the ukraine, there is no reason we should risk our sons. my son fought in the iraq war. he is a wounded warrior. i cannot see any reason why we should waste our lives or in my son's or my son's sons henri

fighting a 30 european world war. host: you bring a lot up in that number one, so let's give him a chance to talk about those topics. guest: first, we are not attempting to deployed forces at this point into the ukraine. no one has talked about putting nato forces in to fight russia if it invades. the emphasis on sanctions is precisely because there's no real capability on the part of nato to deployed into the ukraine an meetd the russian threat, but it is not true that europe has not improved its forces. if anything, the united states actually cut its forces as much as most european countries did.

it certainly did not, as a result of the emphasis under president trump, really lead to any significant improvements in nato capabilities. basically it became an argument over having europe spend more rather than create more effective forces on both sides. this is a change that has to occur, and may occur under the biden administration, but once again we do not have yet a clear indication of how the bid administrationen -- biden administration will react. in fairness, it is difficult for them to create effective plans until it is clear exactly what russia is doing. and if it is a major invasion of the ukraine, it is almost

certain the administration will focus on strengthening nato, as part of the effort instead of fighting in the ukraine. host: back to the trump administration, for nato to modernize, wouldn't they have to spend more or meet their obligations, which is what he was calling for? guest: two points. one, according to testaments that have been vetted by u.s. intelligence, russia is spending less than $100 billion a year on its military forces. and europe is spending $300 billion. we, of course, contributed vastly larger defense spending, over $700 billion. the problem is not spending, the problem is what you buy, the amount of coordination and effectiveness of your plans and

your actual spending. we have laid out good strategies on paper, but we have not seen the u.s. or europe implement an effective plan to use that money properly. the problem with burden sharing was we kept pushing the europeans to spend more without pushing them to spend effectively in showing that we would spend effectively. this simply is not a solution, throwing money at the problem without having a target is not a way to deter the soviet union, or i should say russia. host: derek on twitter saying the way that the biden administration has handled this will go down as a masterful guide to handling authoritarian regimes. our intelligence has been 100% on point.

what are your thoughts on this approach that the u.s. is taking, releasing classified information in real-time to try to push back on what is being released into russian media, what's being put on social media? is this approach something new and different, is this the new strategy to prepare for war or to defend against attacks in an age of disinformation? guest: it is not, we have always released significant amounts of intelligence when we have gotten to the point of a crisis. not all involved conflicts. for example, when russia deployed a new generation of nuclear missiles, the united states was very clear about issuing warnings, dealing intelligence with the numbers

and at the capabilities. throughout the history of the cold war, they released intelligence data. the question always was how accurate and convincing it was. in general, it was very convincing. the u.s. issued a document calle d soviet power during the modern existence of the last years of the former soviet union. it was issued by defense intelligence. and it became a reference for the world as to what russia was building up in terms of nuclear and conventional warfare capabilities. so this is something that we need to do, we are doing more effectively. but i think what people are often disturbed by is the fact that secretary powell was given misinformation on iraqi

missiles, nuclear and biological weapons. this was really a rather unique case, because in general we use intelligence as information warfare in virtually every crisis. and i would say our history, with the exception of iraq, has been we have provided a and convincing data. host: san francisco, this is todd, an independent. caller: good morning. i'm curious about your assessment of russia's economic ability to engage in a deeper incursion into ukraine. that's my question. thank you. guest: it is a very good question and there's no doubt russia faces a potential problem in terms of trade. one key question would be the

reaction of germany and other states with natural gas, which has been critical to russia's export economy and its economy in general. so far, the sanctions that have been put on russia have been relatively limited. and they were designed to achieve only limited influence on russian behavior in what was a small part of the two provinces in the ukraine that were effectively being occupied by pro-russian forces. serious sanctions will deal with russia, which has nothing like the economic strength of the former soviet union, and where military expenditures are certainly a real strain. exactly how much impact it will have and how soon is hard to predict. one difficulty with sanctions is

that they have an immediate, usually relatively limited impact. but it takes sometimes years for them to have their full impact. so you do not go from an incurred military invasion to major economic impacts in a hurry. then the question is how many european countries and other countries will join the u.s., and how determined will the u.s. be in actually enforcing the sanctions. host: steve in south carolina, a republican. good morning. caller: it's a pleasure to talk to you, anthony cordesman. i'm 74 and i know how old you are, but the point i am making as i have been around and i remember you serving under john mccain and working for the defense department. i really enjoy talking to people

who have the kind of experience you have and it is a pleasure. i got to talk to -- one time. most of my question has been answered. you have got an impressive resume and i do not want you to tell state secrets, does the state department, do they ever reach out and say, we have an issue, give us advice. in particular, i want you to speak to president xi laughing and waiting, and how this will affect our energy issues. i appreciate your answer. guest: those are all good questions. one thing about being in a think tank is you can offer advice whether anybody wants it or not. i think people do pay attention, particularly when the advice is technical, when you are offering

options or offering information that has a different way of looking. today has a wide spectrum of people offering advice. and, unfortunately, a lot of it is political in the sense that it is not an "flute that cannot be bridged, it's advice where you are debating different perspectives and you are helping people. many of whom are very confident in areas like the joint staff and the national security council in the department of defense, the state department. so there is a lot of dialogue in spite of what is sometimes the feeling that we have become to partisan to talk to each other. i think in terms of energy, your question is a good one because finding substitutes for russian

gas in europe is a major challenge. we do not have that kind of export capability to instantly turned around. we are actually importing oil from russia ourselves, something that people tend to forget. and shifting that is not something that we can instantly accomplish, although we have the resources to do it. one of the things that this interacts with is, if we are going to reduce dependence on possible fuels, that reduction also limits the importance of russian exports. so oddly enough this is one case where our strategic military interests coincide with our environmental interests. although we are talking about a decade or more to really make progress. host: we have about 15 minutes,

but i want to follow up on that because the caller asked about president xi's view on the conflict and it speaks to the paper that you were part of last week, rishi being nato to meet their russian and chinese challenge. can you talk about the chinese challenge and their view on the conflict? guest: china has been very careful to position itself so he cannot be accused of supporting a russian invasion, but it has in fact supported russia. and and this is part of a much broader move between china and russia. really, a level of cooperation that has not existed since henry kissinger and president nixon went to china. it reflects the fact that our national strategy singles out russia and china as major

threats t the united stateso. that's going to be one way, or another, the focus of the new biden strategy, as it was the focus of the trump strategy, when president trump issued his first national strategy. and then his national security strategy. i think the key difference that very few people would have expected is that china is now by far the more successful economic power in comparison to russia, and is going to become a far larger power, at least in conventional terms. so, our primary threat in some ways, at this point, is coming from china. although as the ukraine demonstrates, we can scarcely

ignore either russia or in the case of other threats that have nuclear capabilities or threaten us in other parts of the world, like iran and north korea, we face significant threats to key interests. host: paul on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i am wondering why you have not mentioned that the u.s. has been supplying about $1 billion in arms to the coup in ukraine that has taken over the government and did not get voted in by the russians in donets and lugansk, and why we are supporting neo-nazis? host: we will give you a chance to respond. guest: the bulk of the ukraine

is a democratic population. it has not voted fascist leader to office, but of all things an ex-tv comedian who has emerged as a strong democratic leader who shows a great deal of concern for human rights, the rule of law and democratic behavior. i think when you talk about the money involved, we put weapons into the ukraine in limited numbers. and that is hardly because many of the systems are not the kind you can suddenly strengthen. you do not send really modern systems that are highly technically invents advanced -- highly technically advanced when

they have to fight almost immediately. it takes time to support them. when you talk about the voting in live various parts of ukraine, we really do not have votes in the eastern ukraine. but remember, we are not talking about two provinces, we are talking about a third of that area and claims to the territory that these elements to not occupy. there's many russian speakers in the ukraine and a speakers of both russian and ukrainian, but their voting patterns have not been fascist or nazi, but they have been very much democratic, following the kind of divisions we have in our political parties. host: 10 minutes left with anthony cordesman of the center for strategic & international studies, the emeritus chair of

strategy there. and joining the conversation, for republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. mlb asking if putin wants nato destroyed, how far will he go to make that happen? guest: i do not think that putin has any intention of trying to destroy nato. the problem is that if he succeeds in crippling the ukraine, what he may do is exploit some of nato's other weaknesses -- the baltic states, those on the edge of the former

soviet union -- they are not military threats to russia. that has nothing like the strength of the former soviet union. we are talking about the risk for russia of escalation into a major missile conflict, air conflict and potentially escalation even to a nuclear conflict. putin has to be a very careful player in pushing nato too far. he is exploiting one of the key weaknesses in the structure of european security, and at has to be stressed the ukraine is not a member of nato. but even this invasion itself may revitalize many aspects of the nato alliance.

and if that happens, nato will facing much stronger deterrent -- face a much stronger deterrent. this is a key issue, not everything leads to war. a strong defense posture, a posture that makes risks too high for russia to bear, a stro ng nato is the best way of avoiding a war when you face a leader like putin. host: out of ohio, joe on the line for independents. caller: a couple questions. i was wondering if anybody found out what the discussion between trump and putin had a win they had their private meeting. or why the other countries around ukraine do not have military to help back them up in case russia decides to attack them or take them over?

why don't they show them military outposts? host: go ahead. guest: i cannot comment on how much of the dialogue between president trump and putin has become public. that's an issue i think will have to be left. but one has to be careful, the weaknesses in the powers around the ukraine are weaknesses they inherited in leaving a soviet union which exploited and used them as pawns in the former soviet union's confrontation with western europe and. the united state. many have been reorganized and reshaped.

and all of the equipment that they inherited was equipment that was essentially russian. they lack both of the resources to fully modernize and any clear access to modern combat equipment at a time when, at least for a long period, it seemed that basically russia had turned away from the kind of hard line effort to expand its power. from roughly 1991 to 2014, people were talking about globalism, a global village, a world where we would put an end to confrontations and conflicts that history has made all too common.

well, there has been some improvement since 2014. and i would not underestimate the eastern european countries. i would say they have maintained a reasonably large forces and force numbers, even if they have not been able to modernize. and a lot of the problems at that have emerged have emerged because it took a long time for the u.s. and the rest of europe to react to the fact that russia was changing its behavior. host: in brooklyn, edgar on the independent line. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: earlier you mentioned what happened with iraq. you said misinformation, that was misinformation. i want to know what went wrong with that? what i am hearing now, 20 years later, it seems like it is the

same people. back then, nothing happened. in my opinion they lied. and i do not, i am very worried about this. it seems deliberate, it seems like the same more industry, all the same stuff. how do you think that happened in 2002 / 2003? is it totally different from now or related? guest: all good questions. it would take a long time to answer them. you had basically the intelligence system bypassed in many ways and politicized by people who felt strongly the united states should not have

fought in the first gulf war. and basically, we faced a situation where we had to depose sue dom hussein. -- saddam hussein. we did not use the normal intelligence channels. they drew on as many sources as they could find, regardless of their credibility, to basically highlight risks that iraq was going on with its biological programs. and with events support to -- even support to terrorism and nuclear forces. the new jew on sources outside of the normal intelligence channels -- they drew on sources outside of the normal intelligence channels and gave them credibility that they should have never given. this was done, at least with

well-intentioned reasons, but it was a dangerous way to bypass our normal checks and balances in defense planning and intelligence announcements. and it was made possible in many ways because when you look back at the indicators, they were so technically complex and new and hard to with our normal intelligence assets, that you could to some extent hide the lack of hard data. remember, what you are seeing now is not a matter of subtle intelligence analysis. you are seeing it televised. you are seeing that satellite photos from commercial sources. it's not the u.s. that's doing this, it is countries that have very different views of the

threat and military forces. in the process, you are also seeing coverage of rail shipments and movements that are from independent news sources. this is how intelligence normally is generated and confirmed. you can provide a special edge, special knowledge without revealing sources and methods for the intelligence community. you can provide data in a crisis at that you would not normally provide. just think of how much material you can see in the global meeting, just turn to the bbc and do not trust the american media, or look at coverage coming out of france, germany or any other countries that are covering this story and you will see how broadly confirmed the

nature of these threats are. host: i know that we are running short on time, but in the final minute here, with russia and in the u.s. and nato have been involved in major conflicts recently come afghanistan for the u.s., syria for russia. what should russia and the ukraine take as lessons from those conflicts as they they tried to prepare for whatever might be ahead? guest: remember that none of the conflicts we are talking about were major conflicts between modern armed forces. we had a monopoly of power in afghanistan, as did our allies. russia has had the ability to dominate air power in the modernization in the military

operations in syria. this it is basically something that could easily turn into a major conventional war and even escalate to long-range missile conflict. so one of the lessons here is we need to focus on the threats that actually exist come russia to the ukraine and to nato. we need to look at a different level of weapons technology and war fighting and realize how quickly new technologies are coming into the use of advanced military forces, not only here but in dealing with china. we face major new strategic threats. and the lessons of cases like syria and afghanistan in many ways are not applicable.

host: a call to not fight the last war? guest: yes, one of the key lessons is if you fight the last war you tend to lose. host: anthony cordesman with the center for strategic & international studies, we always appreciate your time. guest: my pleasure. host: next, we will turn our attention to the rise is open you -- opioid overdose deaths caused by synthetic drugs. we will be joined by bryce pardo with the rand corporation. we'll be right back. ♪ announcer: six presidents recorded conversations a while in office. here the conversations on a new podcast, presidential

recordings. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the civil rights act, the gulf of tonkin incident, the march on selma and of the war in vietnam. not everyone knew that they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing the conversations. they were the ones that make sure the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open-door between his office and theirs. >> you will also hear blunt talk. >> i want a report of the number of people assigned to kennedy in the day he died, and the number assigned to me. if i have to go to the bathroom, i will not go anywhere, i will stand right behind here. >> presidential recordings, find

it on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> i can report to the nation, america is on the move again. announcer: live on tuesday, march 1, the state of the union. the president addresses the nation, reflecting on his first year in office and elaine out the -- laying out his plan. the state of the union will be live, march 1, on c-span, c-span.org or on the safe and now video app. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: a discussion on efforts to battle the crisis of synthetic opioids. bryce pardo works at the drug policy research center at the rand corporation, serves as a staff member of the commission

on combating opioid trafficking. some background on the commission, when and why was it started? guest: it was passed into law in 2019 as part of the national defense reauthorization act. part of the duties were to look at the mounting overdose death crisis related to synthetic opioids, the supply mechanisms involved in how the drugs are arriving into the united states and how they are diffused domestically into drug markets, and trying to figure out solutions to resolve the issue. and one guiding point was to reduce the overdose death burden in the u.s., as well as to figure out ways to disrupt the flow of the drugs. host: it has reached a what levels? guest: in 2021,

what is happening today is these are illegally manufactured chemicals, in the case of fentanyl these are chemical

inputs manufactured in china, imported illegally into mexico and synthesized into fentanyl. the difference being fentanyl is very potent, a very small quantity can replace a large amount of heroin. fentanyl's potency is about 20 times more than heroin. you need less to have the desired effect. the drawback is the dosing margin of error is very tiny. if you are off by a few milligrams, that can result in an overdose that could be lethal. some of these are physiological effects of fentanyl. the reason why people are dying is because the potency is so great it is used to substitute for heroin and some dealers are cutting their heroin with fentanyl, resulting in greater overdose risks, not telling the users it contains fentanyl but

also putting it into counterfeit tablets made to look like genuine pharmaceutical grade medications. it is leading individuals into thinking they're taking something else when they're taking fentanyl. host: let me invite viewers to join in the conversation. phone lines are split regionally. if you're the eastern or central time zones, (202) 748-8000. mount up specific -- mountain or pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. and a special line for those experienced with synthetic opioids, (202) 748-8003. a line for you to tell your stories or ask your questions. go ahead and start calling now. bryce pardo, you talked a little bit about the manufacturing, that less is needed of this to create more.

why is this so hard to catch in anti-trafficking efforts? guest: it has always been difficult to the availability of drugs. we have been doing that for decades. it may have effects but traffickers find routes around that. what is different about fentanyl in particular, the potency is what matters. prior to 2019, these chemicals were openly available online and some of the open surface webspace. you would find a vendor in china who would sell you a small quantity of fentanyl and have it shipped directly to your house. that is one reason this problem is different. the ability with which anybody can obtain a sizable amount of fentanyl and distribute that downstream is new. that is one factor. the other is because of its

potency, you can replace a lot. think about it being 25 times more potent than heroin, you need to increase her trafficking loads by a factor of 25. one kilogram can substitute for 25 kilograms of heroin. that reduces the costs and risks to traffickers. they can move smaller loads. it made the already difficult job much more difficult. host: we are talking about the opioid crisis. one million overdose deaths since 1999. 100,000 between june 2020 and may 2021. two thirds of those involved synthetic opioids. the commission trying to help fight that crisis. recommendations from the commission on combating synthetic opioid trafficking elevating the drugs are to a cabinet level position, increase

target oversight and enforcement to disrupt the drug supply. make a public health demand reduction approach. collaborate with other countries , and then improving surveillance and data analysis. run through a couple of those for us. approach. collaborate with otherguest: the inputs being used to manufacture synthetic opioids are coming from sectors in asia. these are legal sectors. china and india are the world's largest sources of many pharmaceuticals we consume. many other chemicals we consume in our day-to-day lives. the industry is spottily regulated. the enforcement mechanisms in china are limited. they do not do enough unannounced inspections. some of the recommendations be two ways in which the united states and other diplomatic

efforts can be used to encourage china to do a better job in overseeing the sectors to limit the availability of the necessary precursors used to manufacture fentanyl. other things the commission recognizes, this is going to be a more difficult challenge when it comes to looking at this through only a supply-side lens. that means we need to put greater efforts on demand reduction but also other public health intervention aimed at reducing overdoses or preventing overdoses. things like increasing the availability of medications we know work for the opioid use disorder, methadone is used in united states, but there are many barriers to access to those medications through traditional insurance policies or other regulations involved with dispensing administration of those drugs. trying to reduce those barriers and increase access to individuals who have a substance use disorder will be lifesaving. some of these people can leave the markets.

those are policies we put forward. in addition to that, the other overdose prevention mechanisms like looking at some of the innovative harm reduction interventions other countries have put forward, test strips of something this administration has thought to expand and use more. these are a dollar a piece test strips that allow you to determine if fentanyl is present in your drugs. other things we were looking at have to do with increasing the surveillance and monitoring of drug markets. fentanyl caught a lot of us off guard. very few drug policy researchers have heard of fentanyl in the illegal market until recently.

this was something that caught us off guard. we speak about synthetic opioids, that is a broad term. these are chemicals that act on the brain that are not derived from poppy. these can raise from fennel to other families of drugs that are not fentanyl related. we need to do a better job of monitoring the markets. for the last 20 years we have had a difficult time trying to measure the actual population of heroin users. the national household surveys that try to capture those numbers underestimate that. ways in which we can improve our assessment of these markets and of the user base to better determine the capacity -- the scope of this problem as well as what chemicals are coming in or exiting these markets. ways in which we can use dated to give us a better idea for how

to respond. there are 70 recommendations or actions. things like governance and policy, supply reduction, demand reduction, data, and surveillance. host: let's take a few colors. richard out of minneapolis. good morning. caller: good morning. i heard on a recent news report that the seizure of fentanyl at the border is up 1066% and what is happening is the drug runners are getting the families across the border patrol is busy at the headquarters taking care of the families, so the drug runners are free to bring the fentanyl across without any objection. why doesn't the administration

put sanctions on china for manufacturing this junk? the need to put sanctions on mexico. this is another failure of the bided administration, failure after failure. guest: with regards to the increasing seizures on the border, that is true that the numbers have increased in terms of the frequency and the total weight. there are couple of things we need to be careful about. one is that the seizures from south of the border are highly them your. -- are highly impure. these are tablets that contain 1% to 2%. we have a kilogram seizure, talking about 1% to 2% of that. closer to the ballpark of 10 grams of pure fennel. it is not that high. both numbers have increased. to your point in terms of not being able to -- we only measure

what we sees. what is being reported on the border -- we only measure what we seize. to say this is a failure of interdiction would be counterintuitive because we are measuring what we are seizing, so we are doing a better job of seizing on the border but we notice the flows are increasing. some things have had some impact of what we think is closing those flows. the border restrictions are changing the way traffickers are moving things like cars, moving by pedestrians, moving strategies and tactics. with regard to sanctions, sanctions is something that is a bludgeon. these are large trading partners sewed be very difficult to put sanctions on some of this. the trump administration did work with china to encourage them to control fentanyl, to put a blanket generic control on all fentanyl structures in 2019.

that was done and that may have shifted some of the market some way. reducers no longer offer fentanyl but now they are moving to precursors that are uncontrolled and selling those to drug trafficking organizations in mexico. to say nothing has happened is limited, there have been some things. some policies have butted place to reduce access in china as well as in mexico. there are many complicating factors that limit the availability to stop the flow. at the end of the day it will be difficult to stop the flow of the stop. -- of the stuff. host: joan in texas. good morning. caller: are they making the connection between the human trafficking and the entry into this country by way of that with the fentanyl? the second part would be how

would a layperson recognize how it is packaged and what does it look like so it is spilled out, what does it look like? guest: i will start with the second question. that is interesting. it depends on what formulation it has been created. with regard to what is coming across the border from mexico, which is now the largest single source of fentanyl, these are tablets many times. to be able to tell the difference would be impossible. these look very much like the real thing, they have the same markings and coloring agents. they look almost like the real product. it is very hard to tell the difference. there also powder that comes across the border. that is being used to mix into other things. the concern about touching fentanyl, i know there is concern about that. some of that is legitimate but a lot of it is overblown. fentanyl, you cannot get a dose

of fentanyl by touching it. you need to touch it and touch your eye or your nose, membrane to get into your bloodstream. dutch -- just touching fentanyl will not kill you but you should wash your hands if you see white powder vining around. -- white powder lining around. the commission did not look into this, but this was something discussed by customs and border protection when we did interviews with them. it has to do with the fact there is limited availability of agents to juggle both competing challenges. it is not so much the traffickers are using the migrants themselves to smuggle, it that in some cases you of migrant populations that are moving and that creates the limited availability with which border patrol agents can deal with one problem and then traffickers will use that opportunity to move drugs across the border. they are somewhat linked but not directly.

this bunts into other problems and challenging with having to deal with the immigration policy. this is something the commission did not look at but was brought up in some of the interviews. it is not that they are using migrants, it is that it creates a competing challenge law enforcement has to respond to. host: steve on twitter saying you listed possible solutions. no mention of treatment. we've been focusing on the supply side. what about the demand-side question mark what about treatment on demand? guest: the commission does talk about recommendations towards reducing barriers to access. this is being able to plug people into a treatment provision will be crucial. some states are taking innovative approaches. when an individual shows up at an emergency department because of an overdose, they get basically inducted into a treatment then and there. in some cases they referred to treatment.

those are ways in which people can get access to treatment providers that can be lifesaving. there are other limitations. some of these populations are very hard to reach so reducing the stigma is crucial in trying to -- these populations -- trying to reach some of these populations that have been using opioids chronically. counterfeit tablets, some individuals may not have an opioid use disorder, they may be casual drug users who may obtain what they think is a legitimate divergent medication when it contains no oxycodone, three milligrams of fentanyl, they take it thinking it is a medication, it is regulated. they take it and they die because it does not contain the active ingredient, it contains fentanyl. that population does not treatment, they do not want treatment.

we will need to apply some policies directed at those individuals as well because they are coming into contact with bagnall and overdosing and dying. that is something we also need to consider. host: keith in travelers rest, south carolina. you are on. caller: good morning. can you hear me ok? consider. host:i am a physician and i tral six states in the southeast. when i go to west virginia, it is a beautiful place, but they are suffering tremendously. i like the question about treatment. i will go further. 180 degrees away from interdiction and about jobs and giving people hope and faith so we do not have this problem. we fought alcoholism in the 1920's and all we did was create i am a physiciancorruption. mexico and those other states and central america are destroyed by our drug needs.

we have to focus on giving people hope and faith. we need jobs and jobs and jobs. is that something you can push with your agenda? guest: i like the way you are framing this. the report does talk about this problem being a problem that is very much a national security problem, but at the same time it is more than that. we have had a long-standing problem with addiction in the united states. that has to deal with things like lack of purpose, joblessness, homelessness. it is a confluence of all these different problems. i think covid-19 has shown us that things have gotten worse with drug use. many people who've had an opioid use disorder that were in and out of treatment, were in recovery, covid comes along and

knocks them off their game, they no longer have a job to go to where they may no longer have the day-to-day routine. covid taking that away from them puts higher stress demands on them, induces more in zaidi, you hear stories -- induces more anxiety, you hear people about -- you hear stories about people who relapse during covid, they buy a counterfeit fentanyl tablet, they take it and they take it in the overdose and die. that has to deal with what you are talking about. the social pressure, the lack of a future, the lack of meaningfulness in one's life, these are all important things we do hear about the despair. west virginia is case in point. high unemployment. nothing to do so people just consume drugs. the story is a compelling story and are ways in which we can do more. the report we talk about, the report does make some recommendations unemployment recovery workforces, so making

sure employers are aware of individuals coming back to the workforce that may have a substance use disorder that are in recovery, giving them the time in the state in which to be a part of that kind of workforce community while allowing them to go to their meetings, allowing them to get the methadone, being aware and mindful of those things is an important component of this. reducing stigma is also important thing. stigma does kill. getting people recognize that, maybe i'm having anxiety, instead of going on and buying what i think is a divergent medication that is actually a counterfeit, may be to somebody about it, these are things we need to start discussing in society. i like the way you frame it. it is much more than a surprise i'd problem. there are there social drivers that make a complex issue. host: important to talk about elevated the drugs are to our

cabinet level position. -- the drug czar to a cabinet level position. what difference would that make? guest: it used to be a cabinet level position in the late 1980's and the late 1990's and will remain there until the obama administration. the report goes into some of the limitations of not having it in the cabinet level position. the office has the clout of being in the white house -- seeing the problem with the executive level capacity that needs to be done. there are some challenges with the way in which our drug policy apparatus is developed and designed. we have competing agencies -- having ondcp sit on top of that

to direct traffic would be helpful, and giving it more with elevating its status so people realize this is a serious problem. after covid this is the number one public health issue facing americans today. it is the number one driver of deaths for those individuals age 18 to 45. it is now the number one cause up her venable injury deaths in the united states. it is an important problem we need to resolve. elevating from where it is now to a cabinet level but help direct some of the largest federal agencies that deal with this issues. host: we have a line for those web experience with synthetic opioids, family member, friend, themselves, it is (202) 748-80 2 3. wade calling in from south carolina on that line. guest: -- caller: my experience

has not been the illegal drugs, the legal drugs. my wife has had two hip surgeries in the last eight months and they put her on oxycontin and something else. my problem is trying to get her off of it once they put her on it. they put her on it, they do not try to get her off of it they are continuing to give it to her because she is asking for it. she has become addicted to this stuff. i tried to get them to take her off it and i had to call her doctor and plead with him and he said she is not going to like it, i said i do not care if she does not like it. the alternative is will never get her off the stuff if we do not try. he did cut her back on it. she came out of the hospital and had to go to rehab for her hip and wind up being there seven weeks, most of it because they would not take her off the rest

of the pain medicine, which was some other kind of oxycontin. iweeks, most was telling them tr off of it. finally after five weeks of being there i said take her off of it or i'm coming to get her. if i have to come get her to get her off of it and bring her home i will do it. finally that day i said you can get her off of it i am coming to get her. they call the doctor and said we will take her off of it, we will give her tylenol if she asks for pain medicine. i said that is because she became addicted to it. the doctor is prescribing it and it was trying to help her get off. i finally got her off a bit. she stayed in rehab about four more weeks. i have had to take off work and be with her night and day. now what i am suffering is her cognitively, she is losing touch with reality although she has been off of it for six weeks. not all the time but it is periodically throughout the week this happens. this morning she got up and

thought she was somewhere else, did not have an idea where she was at. it is not only the legal drugs, it is the way the doctors prescribed these things during surgeries and after surgery they offer no help once they get addicted to it to get them off. that needs to be addressed. host: thanks for sharing your story. guest: this is one of these typical stories. i am sorry to hear that. as i mentioned earlier we aggressively treat pain. pain became a fifth vital sign around paul's -- around pulse. pain, you cannot measure it like a pulse. when we allow for paid to be treated as a fifth vital sign it reoriented the way health systems dealt with pain. because of the health care system we have, viz. largely for-profit, private, everything

was how to address pain. everything focused on that, which resulted in individuals that should not have been exposed to prescription opioids being exposed to them because doctors were treating pain -- ways we can reorient our health system so we treat pain on the incentive and the outset. when they have pain, offering that individual other non-formal logical ways to address the pain would be better, other things like reducing access to prescription opioids for certain therapeutic aims. postoperative surgery, it is fine. for chronic pain, chronic pain is tricky to treat using opioids. there are some patients who do benefit from opioids in perpetuity, that is fine.

what we care about is an individual can have a quality of life -- that is where they're going to become exposed to an unknown amount for some new chemical that could cause an overdose. in the case of wade and other patients who have lived through something similar, it has been unfortunate that we overexpose people and then we quickly turn off the tap. that is a gut reaction we did. we put into place too many restrictions when you already have these chronic pain patients, and when you do not taper that individual off, withdrawal is extremely painful, and then the motivating factor becomes had do i avoid withdrawal. individuals who have an opioid abuse disorder will go to great lengths to avoid withdrawal pains and they will trade down to the illicit market because they can find heroin there, they

can find medications, now they are becoming exposed to vent all, that is the policy considered cash exposed to fentanyl. that is the policy consideration we have. we have a large population of individuals who have an opioid use disorder because they were exposed to pharmaceutical grade medications, we need to slowly turn off that cap so we are not reflect that population and taking those individuals making sure they have quality care for treatment for those of an opioid use disorder so you're not pushing them to illegal markets because they're becoming exposed to fentanyl. the report does discuss some of the different mechanisms and the ways in which we can do this. to wade's point, it is challenging to address this from the onset because nobody should suffer. we need to think about this more holistically, more long-term as the doctors writing prescription after prescription to reduce availability for those who do

not need prescription opioids. at the same time, taking steps to avoid cutting somebody off such that they are motivated to go to the legal market. host: i should note this report we've been talking about is available at rand.org. the commissioners -- a bipartisan group of members of congress. what is your sense these recommendations from the commission are going to be taken up by congress into some sort of bill passed and signed by the president? guest: that is a good question. we provided the analytical backstop of research for the commission. this was a bipartisan commission. members from both houses of the legislative branch consisted of individuals from the executive agencies. the department of state, department of defense, dea, as

well as other outside experts appointed by the legislative leadership. we at rand served as the backdrop for the commission. we discussed some of the policy recommendations aimed at congress, so new legislation as well as executive agencies. this is a commission, there is no legal binding for agencies to take on these recommendations are for congress to pass a law, but we hope some of these things are actionable and we hope congress does take some of these recommendations into consideration and does issue legislation to put things forward. the commission was cochaired by very skilled legislators, senator cotton and david truax and from maryland, both of -- david trone from maryland, both of whom are interested in the issue and engaged on this. it is up to leadership and who

can make things work and who can start to pull the levers in the right places. there is generally bipartisan consensus on many of these things. this is a consensus document trying to agree to strategy going forward across these areas. it is going to be up to leadership to push this through. this is something that is largely bipartisan. host: about 10 minutes left in the segment. phone line split regionally in the special line set aside for those with experience in illegal synthetic opioids (202) 748-8002 is that number. eric from hopewell junction, new york. the morning. -- good morning. caller: good morning. we are talking about pain and the desire to stop pain. the universal desire to stop pain and how it is hard to measure somebody else's pain.

the last guest talked about china's ascension, and you picked up on china's role in fentanyl being shipped to mexico and made into counterfeit tablets. and shoveled across the border. if you've known anybody with addiction, and by the way thank you for devoting yourself to this field, because it is an insidious thing in our country. i think everyone knows someone who is struggling with addiction problems. what it does to the families, even if the person does not die. it is hobbling. it takes a lot of energy that could be devoted to more

productive things and worrying about where is your son tonight and wondering where the money went, etc. etc. it strikes me that if 100,000 people died from overdoses last year in china is what proportion of that? that is a hell of a win for china. to expand a tiny bit -- guest: host: -- host: let me let bryce pardo pick up on that. guest: the report does mention this is a national security issue. when you have 100,000 people dying, people in the prime of their lives, 18 to 45 or 55, thinking about what effect that has not just on the 100,000 who

lost lives, but we are talking about people with families, with children, the so the second and third order effects of kids growing up without their parents , with parents growing up without their kids, that is going to have effects that are far-reaching and we fully have not recognized or really understood. the report does cite some of the economic impact this is having and some estimates are upwards of $700 billion a year in costs associated with opioid use disorder and early death. this is not a small issue. those costs are little bit -- those are less productivity over the expected years remaining at other premature deaths. this is something that is tearing at the well-being of our -- the social and economic well-being of this country. the report does look at what china's role is in this dust cloud china directly for doing a

very bad job or not doing its job when it comes to overseeing large industries. it is not like they are actively engaged in manufacturing this and sending it to the united states. what seems to be the case is they do not care about consumer product safety. we have heard about lead paint in children's toys, antifreeze and toothpaste manufactured in china. dog food killing american pets manufactured in china. this problem is related to that. it is now spilling into the american drug crisis. what seems to be happening as you have producers in china who are -- there is no oversight were very limited oversight. in some cases there in bed with local provincial administrators in local provinces. there is no incentive for everybody to crackdown and apply the rules. it seems to be the case that they are manufacturing these precursors, either knowingly or turning a blind eye, and then

exporting it. they do not care what harm it is doing or what damage it is doing. they do not care. that is the problem. we talked about ways of trying to get china to do a better job with larger industries to make sure people are not been in the rules or breaking the rules is key. china does not have this type of domestic drug problem. they have other drug problems that they take care of those more severely when they come up. trying to get trying to recognize that if it wants to be a global player and a steward of the international community it needs to do better job of making sure it is not a source of precursor chemicals being used to manufacture all sorts of drugs, not just synthetic opioids but methamphetamines, ketamine, some of the reagents used to manufacture cocaine. this is a large chemical and pharmaceutical industry that is unregulated and does not have

the oversight capacity to make sure people are doing the right thing. china needs to do a better job of cleaning up that act if it wants to be seen respectfully in the international community and not be a narco state. host: let me had back to california. this is john. good morning. caller: i wonder how much would it curtail the import of fennel if -- of fentanyl if we had a secure border, if we went back to the trump policy of state in mexico, if we completed the wall and the border was secure. i wonder how much difference does your person think that would make? would it not make any or you think it would make a lot? host: thanks for the question. guest: we do have some experiments to show. to answer it shortly would have very little effect.

before 2019 fentanyl was coming into this country by mail from china direct. to say we had a wall there would of had very little effects. the beginning of 2020 when covid was put into place, we did see a severe border asked -- quarter restriction. the amount of vehicles that pass from mexico to the united states dropped by 50%. if you have reduction by 50% in the same amount of agents, you double your divorcement capacity, imagine if we hire twice as many staff in the field . we did see a change in the volume affect no across the border -- we did see a change in the volume of fentanyl across the border, it continued to go up. we saw moving things by foot traffic. you do not need a lot of it. it will be easier to conceal fentanyl over a year, over

vehicles or by pedestrians. there are other innovative ways of getting stuff across the border. you can go under the border through tunnels, you can go over the border. to say the hard border -- it would have very little effect in terms of the overall amount. our appetite for opioids is increasing in drug trafficking organizations are very creative in the ways they can get stuff into the space. host: charles on twitter wants to know why there's been no mention of cannabis treatment. guest: i did not quite understand the question. i am guessing he is referring to cannabis to treat pain rather than opioids? there has been limited evidence to show cannabis can be used to treat chronic pain. certain types of chronic pain, some skeletal muscle pain more so than nerve pain. there is some evidence there. the national academy of sciences did look at cannabis to be used

as an alternative pain medication. some of the population level studies looking at states that had early medical marijuana laws predating the opioid epidemic were never exposed to higher amounts of prescription opioids. these are ecological studies so it is hard to say what is happening. there are other studies looking at the patient level showing individuals with opioid use disorder that use cannabis may end up using more opioids to maybe be complementary. there could be a synergistic effect in the brain with cannabis and opioids. it is a complex phenomenon. it is tricky. it is possible cannabis could be used as a preventative measure for individuals with chronic pain. all things being equal treating chronic pain with cannabis is less harmful than with opioids. it is tricky to say getting individuals who already have an opioid use disorder to switch to

cannabis is probably unwise as a policy. we already have medications to treat opioid use disorder. getting individuals who already have an opioid use disorder to manage with other tribes is probably preferable than switching to cannabis. i hope that answers this question. host: let me try to get water disco vinyl calls. york city on the -- the me try to get one or two final calls. new york city. go ahead with your comment or question for bryce pardo. caller: my name is gail and i'm calling from new york city. four months ago i lost my son joshua to fennel. -- to fentanyl. over the years i knew my son had a drug problem and he tried to get off a bit. like you said, there is so much

stigma. this is one area we have to really educate the entire population of the united states and around the world. i think education should start in the schools about drug use, about the stigma of drug use. everybody has been talking for years and years. we did not only lose family members which are american citizens in the year 2021, we have been losing them for the past years. i think laws need to be implemented to go after the drug dealers. do not call it overdose. it is murder. for the past years. i think laws need to be it is a poison. everybody is saying -- i know senator kotten is doing a good job. he is a hard-working man trying to stop the invasion of fentanyl

into our country. he cannot do it alone. it has to take every one of us, every american household. every one of us needs to get together because we do not know which other family, which other home will lose a family member. it can happen to anyone. it happened to my family. our lives will never be the same. host: i'm sorry for your loss and i appreciate you sharing the story. guest: i sympathize with you. that is very tragic. this is happening everywhere across the united states. stigma does kill. individuals do use drugs. that is a conversation we need to start having because trying to change the prevention messaging around drug use can

help, so individuals who use drugs, be careful. it is a very difficult time to be buying from illegal markets. the illegal market is increasingly contaminated with fentanyl showing up in counterfeit tablets made to look like oxycodone. it is misleading individuals. it is showing up in non-opioid formulation. tablets made to look like xanax. that is very dangerous. it showing up in cocaine. individuals who do not have any history of using opioids, buys cocaine and does light and overdoses because of a little bit of fentanyl. it is a dangerous time to be using sources from the illegal markets. changing the message around how and why americans use drugs can help so we can start having a discussion of if you're going to use drugs, do not crush and snort your tablet, make sure

you're taking preventative measures such that cases contaminated with fentanyl, you are prepared. having that conversation is difficult and in some cases clinically unsavory, but it is what we need to start having because the sigma -- the statement in the silence puts people at risk. we end up with individuals of people who did not have any history of using drugs chronically or have a problem with drugs that comes into contact with fentanyl and overdoses in the family were not aware. talking about how is we are dealing with and managing our stress in our depression is important because these things result in people seeking out drugs to deal with that stress, especially with covid. fortunately -- unfortunately the drug market being what it is, increasingly harmful because of the emergence of fentanyl. host: one last call.

i appreciate you sticking around for a few more calls. caller: what problems to medical scientists phase that prevents them from formulating a nonaddictive pain reliever as effective as sexy codon? -- as effective as oxycodone? guest: very good question. the national institute on drug abuse is figuring out ways in which we can design an opioid that does not produce these other effects like euphoria, other things that result in the positive reward mechanisms associated with addiction on substance use. it has been challenging. there been some advances here and there. it is something that has never occurred. going back through our history, this is something that is not new to us in the sense americans have a long-standing addiction

problem going back to when we had laudanum in the 19th century. then we discovered morphine, then we discovered heroin, which was seen as an arctic -- as an alternative to morphine because it was not as addiction causing, then it turns out it was addictive, we've been constantly chasing your tail with this. talking about pain is tricky because it is -- as an alternative to morphine because it was objective. it also has to do with our health care system being fractured in treating pain very quickly rather than comprehensively. getting a prescription filled, rather than a doctor sitting down and discussing ways in which individuals with nonpharmacological pain families like physical therapy, these are things that take time and are more difficult and challenging. those conversations are harder to have. your doctor saying maybe the way you should -- you should change the way your eating, the systems

are very complex. these are individuals who are suffering with all sorts of different problems. treating their pain may limit the ability with which we can treat the broader individuals so they are eating right, they are exercising, thereby happy outlook and rewarding job to go to end of family life, all of those things can result in addiction. it is not just the medication. it is the environmental bundling. all of those things are in the background of what is happening now, which is dealers making the choice to substitute fentanyl for heroin and killing a lot of folks who already have an opioid use disorder, are already addicted to medications that are just now coming into contact with fentanyl. those are separate issues, but your question on non-addicting medications, it has been a long-standing challenge and

billions marble probably be spent. report does mention those recommendations, trying to advance more in that space. it is a constant challenge and has been one since we've been treating pain as humans. host: that report available at rand.org. that is what looks like on your screen if you want to check it out and read more. bryce pardo, staff member on the commission, associate director of drug policy research center at the rand corporation. appreciate the time. please come back and chat with us again. guest: thank you. host: 20 minutes left. we will turn the show over to you. any public policy or political issue, if you want to continue to talk about russia and ukraine. start calling in. phone lines are on your screen

for republicans, democrats, independents and we will get your calls right after the break. ♪ on your screen for republicans, >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there's something for every c-span fan. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> following president biden's pick for the next supreme court justice all the way through the process on c-span, c-span.org, or downloading the free c-span app.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: is our open forum for the remainder of the program. any issue you want to talk about. republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, and independents, (202) 748-8002. bringing you the latest from ukraine-russia crisis. the associated press noting

germany has suspended the approval process for the nord stream 2 gas pipeline in response to the moscow recognition of the separatist regions in ukraine, those regions vladimir putin yesterday ordered his troops into those regions for "peacekeeping purposes." more international moves in the wake of the white house yesterday releasing an executive order targeting businesses in those breakaway regions. this from britain, the story noting britain on tuesday slapped sanctions on russian billionaires with close links to vladimir putin after the kremlin chief ordered the deployment of troops into the breakaway regions. boris johnson said russia was heading towards pariah status in the world must now brace for the next stage of vladimir putin's plans, saying the kremlin was laying the grounds for a full-scale invasion of ukraine.

this is some of the reaction from numbers of congress to increasing international sanctions on russia. congresswoman carol miller from west virginia saying that policy has bad consequences. germany just now pausing nord stream 2 will not end russia's corruption or aggression. germany needs to dismantle the nord stream 2 pipeline and find cleaner solutions of energy like u.s. natural gas. this from the republican from arkansas saying the german announcement is welcome development but one that was long overdue. the biden administration and our allies need to implement comprehensive sanctions on vladimir putin now. democratic senator ron white saint russia must face aggressive sanctions from the united states and our allies in response to blatant violation of ukraine territory. unless by mere food troops from ukraine he is condemning russia to exist as an international pariah. one more.

saying vladimir putin clearly violated international law and calling on president biden and united states to act swiftly to impose crippling sanctions on russia and ensure vladimir putin understands there will be severe consequences for his invasion of ukraine. we are expecting more from the white house today in the wake of those target sanctions announced yesterday. we are expecting a white house briefing at 2:00 p.m. today and to hear from the president around 3:30 p.m. he has an event that have already been scheduled but likely to get questions from reporters at that event. perhaps much more to come throughout the day. that is it from washington today. tell us what you want to talk about in our open phone segments. this is kent out of arizona, independent. good morning. caller: i am a retired law enforcement officer and i spent

some time on the southern border , so i wanted to talk a little bit about that. having our border open the way it is is killing a lot of americans with fentanyl and other drugs. the border needs to be closed, we need to change our immigration laws, whatever it takes. the cartels and whoever is sending the fentanyl over here is killing our people. host: how long were you in law enforcement? caller: 23 years. host: has this problem, how has it developed over the course of that 23 years? what was it like in the beginning of your service and at the end? caller: i served on the arizona-mexico border in the 1990's. fact then -- back then, we have

always had a drug problem. i was involved in the seizure of 2400 pounds of cocaine that came across on horseback. you cannot say a wall would not stop horses from coming across. it was wide open then and it has only gotten worse. in the last couple of years the border has been left open in the border patrol is tied up with immigration. they cannot control any of the drugs coming across illegally. i can guarantee you it is not coming through the port of entry. drugs -- different cartels have different trails all across the southern border where drugs are being smuggled. host: thanks for the call from arizona. this is mike out of west springfield, massachusetts. democrat. caller: good morning.

it has been a long time. i would like to talk about the drug epidemic we were talking about earlier. i found the greatest thing that ever happened to me was i got into physical fitness. it changed my life so completely. i realized what the party life was doing to the people, so many i grew up with and what it led to for many if not all. people today that i relate to, the brotherhood and sisterhood that exists with us at the gym, and what it does for you, we are here in our 70's, some in our 80's, and one or in their 90's. the people that were into the drug scene in 30's, 40's, and 50's left us. i would highly recommend to achieve a natural high, that

people would just consider exercise, even if you can only do it at home, if you can walk around the block, if you can swim a little bit, there is no end to where you can go. there are people today 100 years old that made the world news that bench pass 165 pounds and do dead lift weights. a lady started at 97-year-old. age cannot necessarily be a barrier that wanted to recommend it on the show today. host: thanks for that. out of massachusetts this is -- this is calvin from alabama. what is on your mind? caller: referring to fentanyl and the problem with opioids. back in 1975 iata -- i had a bad car accident, compound fractures . a lot of internal injuries.

a life or death matter. was in a coma for over two months. coming out of all of that and the doctors were throwing pills at me left and right, just anything. basically i adjusted my life, i am sure i have become an addict. it was justified. it was either take the medication and be addicted to it, i would have withdrawal from it, but at the same type of quit taking the medication the pain would be so great that i contemplated suicide. it was a constant war back-and-forth trying to decide which was best, which was worse. then the modern age, i had a doctor for year, stayed with the same doctors, they retired.

i was only 17 at the time of the accident. they retired and i had to go to new doctors. all of the new doctors at the time were against any opioid use, period. they did not seem to care because at the time this started was in the late 1990's. for me it started. they cannot find my medical records from 1975. all that i it kept with me to show them and it did not matter. they are pushing people to go. i did not but i was tempted to go look for something illegal. something off of the street i could buy to stop the hurting. i have heard the cdc is wanting to relax some of those restrictions now.

i hope they do. we need to get back to our family doctors, people we would see all the time, let them help us, let them make the choices as to what is best for us and get the federal government off of our backs in everything that we do. host: thank you for sharing your story. just a few moments left. this is yvonne out of roswell, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i am doing well, thanks for asking. caller: i have a comment i woke up to in listening to the news this morning. i am troubled about what is going on in ukraine and i'm trouble i did not see a lot of reporting about how ukrainians are fighting back but also troubled about how it will affect our gas prices. as an american hard worker, the cost of gas affect me directly. i do not understand why our president is not opening up our

pipelines here in the states to undersell opec and drive prices down? i am perplexed. host: did you have something else you wanted to add? caller: i was hoping you would have something to say. host:'s are open forum, the chance to let you have something to say as we often do in this program. this is jacob out of the hawkeye state. good morning. independent. good morning. caller: i just wanted to call in and comment on the situation in ukraine. we hear a lot out of washington about vladimir putin's war of aggression but i think that is a complete fabrication. it is put out by the western media. if you look at the region that vladimir putin is sending troops into, 60% to 70% of the people in those regions voted for

candidates who are essentially russophiles and they support the kremlin and vladimir putin's policies. it -- if you look at the east of ukraine, there are years of election data that show that area supports kremlin backed positivity 60% to 80% in terms of the percentage of the vote. i do not see why any of our many uniform or any man in uniform in europe should die to stop an invasion which is not an invasion at all. host: how do you feel about nato, about the u.s. commitment to nato, the concern that a lot of folks, including one of our

guest this morning was saying that if this happens in ukraine and let him your boot moves in, he could cast aside to the baltic state members of ukraine, and other area vladimir putin wants to bring back into the russian fold. caller: i think that is an important question. what i would say is going back to the 1980's and the early 1990's, mikhail gorbachev was given the guarantee by united states president at the time, both bush and reagan, more so reagan, that data would not expand eastward towards russia. right now nato is that russia's doorstep and ukraine, the far right government in ukraine, wants to join nato. i think russia has been backed into a corner and they've essentially been bullied into

the position they are now in. when you've been backed into a corner for so long he will fight back eventually. host: more headlines from around the globe this morning in the wake of the move yesterday by vladimir putin to recognize those breakaway ukrainian regions. this is the times of india, ukraine crisis come india calls for restraint and diplomatic dialogue. from other papers around the world, this is the morocco world news, morocco ask citizens to leave ukraine amid the threat of war. one more, this from the china daily, efforts to avert war amidst rising tensions, some of how it is playing around the globe in various papers. we have shown you several from this morning. here is one from the washington times today. the banner headline.

europe on brink of war as "peacekeepers" are deployed. this is kimberly in arizona. republican. good morning. caller: i live in arizona stop i know border patrol agents. the cartel is running the border. they have no power. it is like they have to stand there and watch them walk across with all of these drugs and illegal immigrants. at what point does this administration or anyone not see the corruption within our country, from our administration? this is insane to me. mayorkas lies to congress when he was testifying regarding the border. he is not securing it. any other normal person in that position would've been fired and put in prison for lying to congress. host: that is from this morning.

this is from new york. anthony. about one minute left in our program. caller: thank you for the opportunity. i would like to respectfully request that you perhaps ask professor swain or professor brian lamb to revisit the at&t lawsuit that was wiped clean by president barack obama, that was his first act when he came into office was to wipe away a standing lawsuit that basically undid pfizer and allow the collusion with big tech and government agencies to spy on americans. now you see what they did, the been spied on the president. i think this topic needs to be revisited. how can one man come to office and basically wipe clean the redressed the american people had expected? at&t, verizon, all of the big companies were spying on americans since 1985, and with

each investment in technology they've have gone so far. they are reading our minds, basically through big tech. if they are spying on the president to undermine a president, how far has it from? i think that topic needs to be looked host: we always appreciate the recommendations for the program and we are waiting for a live event on ukraine and russia from the carnegie endowment for international peace. we will show it immediately after this program. waiting for them to start. it will be airing on c-span.org and the free video mobile app c-span now. irene from pennsylvania, republican, go ahead with your call.

caller: i have a comment about the ukraine. earlier several people spoke about our lady of fatima and divine mercy -- host: i apologize because the event is now starting. please do call in again. we will be back tomorrow morning . now we take you to the carnegie endowment for international peace for a, on russia and ukraine. >> currently had of the moscow center. welcome. >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure to be on the show. >> i am not sure but i think i can say with some authority that since march of 20