about russia's nuclear capability and later in our spotlight on podcasts, gideon rachman talks about his podcast and the latest developments in the russian invasion of ukraine. ♪ the white house plans to impose sanctions and nato leaders said more troops would be employed. the president has announced his pick for the supreme court and the cdc has announced new guidance on masking. asking your thoughts and opinions. republicans can call (202)

748-8000, democrats (202) 748-8001 and independents (202) 748-8002. be sure to send us your name and where you are texting us from. we are on twitter and instagram. http://twitter.com/cspanwj. this is from the new york times. ukrainians have reinforced kyiv. after a day in which the military blew up a bridge and slowly advanced.

the nation's leaders warned residents that russia wanted to bring the capital to its knees. the state department spokesman was asked by a reporter about talks between russia and ukraine. >> a secretary spoke, what is your thinking about the efficacy of such talks? >> you have heard to say before leading up to the events happening in ukraine. moscow engaged in a pretense of diplomacy. that was before the invasion started. now we see russia suggesting

moscow take place at the barrel of a gun. this is not real diplomacy. those are not the conditions of real diplomacy. we and our allies have called for a real, diplomatic solution from day one. president zelensky has repeatedly reached out to president putin with his outstretched hand was met not only by violence, but bombs. he should immediately stop the bombing of civilians, ordered the withdrawal of his forces from ukraine and indicate very clearly to the world that moscow is prepared to de-escalate. we have not seen any indication that president putin is prepared

to de-escalate. host: that was ned price at the state department. let us go to calls now. this is from the democrat line. caller: president putin is killing innocent people. he is a warm -- war criminal. a lot of innocent people are going to die, we are talking about civilians. mothers, kids and he needs to be stopped at once. some other countries need to help ukraine.

he is a madman. host: thank you for calling. next call is in illinois. caller: my name is freddie. can you hear me? joe biden needs to step putin in his tracks. i am a vietnam vet and we do not like it. host: what do you suggest? caller: i think he should since him troops and their navy seals and wipeout president putin like they did the other person. host: you wouldn't mind seeing u.s. troops on the ground? caller: they need to get read --

rid of president putin. host: next on the democrats line. caller: i am calling in regards to my feelings about the president. i think he could be doing more. everything in general, i can't understand why he is not at the white house. this is so serious, people are dying. he decides to go away. i am so distraught. i can't explain myself at this time. i really hope that things turn around. the thought of so many people being killed.

i wish the president would do more. host: glenn is: guess from illinois. caller: good morning. president biden is doing everything he can do without getting us involved. what really perturbed to me as of these republicans that go to this conference they have and they talk about russia and have the crowd fired up. they should be kicked out of the usa. goodbye. host: the wall street journal, ukrainian troops battle to save kyiv. russian forces close in on kyiv attacking by land and air while

civilians defend the capital. ukrainian troops blew up several bridges leading into kyiv from the northwest to slow the progress. bill is calling us from new mexico. caller: since they seized the assets from putin we can use those assets for humanitarian aid in ukraine. based on the second amendment, we have a registration for the draft of the militia based on the registration of the weapons for ak-47s.

we have the right to use the regulated militia to go to war, since they are training in the woods for war. now it is time to go to war militia. host: we are going to continue to take your calls. but first, we are going to take a quick pause and talk about the other story from washington which is the supreme court nomination of can todd g -- ketanji brown jackson. [video clip] cause you look for someone like

justin briar, someone who understands that the constitution is a resilient charter. it protects certain unalienable rights. one that protects the most fundamental freedoms. one with extraordinary character who will bring to the supreme court and independent mind, and a strong moral compass and the kurds to stand up for what she thinks is right. for too long, our government and courts have not looked like america. i believe it is time that we have a court that reflects the full talents and greatness of our nation with the nominee of extraordinary qualification. we can aspire all young people about they can serve our nation at its highest level.

today, i am pleased to introduce to the american people a candidate who continues in this great tradition. host: joining me now to discuss this is reporter kimberly robinson. your reaction to the choice, were you surprised? >> she had appeared as the front runners since justice breyer announced he would set down. i was not surprised. host: what do you think about her brought ground that set her apart from other candidates?

>> it is the breath of her experience. she went to harvard, underground loss goal -- undergrad law school. she worked in a number of law schools. something that sets her apart and her resume is the fact that she was a public defender working on appeals for indigent criminal defendants and that is something we have not seen before since thurgood marshall. she worked hard to remove the disparities between crack and cocaine. when you look across all of the justices on the bench, that is unique perspective. host: she clerked for justice

breyer, how similar and any differences there? >> she has been on the bench for nearly a decade, mostly as a trial judge which is different from his work on the supreme court. she will have a pragmatic approach. someone who was not bound by hardline rules. one thing i think is significant is that he has often been on his republican colleagues on criminal colleagues and that will be one area that will be changed. host: are there any significant rulings that matt -- might come up in the hearings?

>> one thing that might come up is her highest profile case dealing with white house partner john mcgann who she ruled had to testify against donald trump. she had a line in there about how presidents were not kings. a lot of senators deployed that opinion. i think we have a good idea from that confirmation hearing what kind of questions she will have and that will be one of them. host: what has been the reaction so far from capitol hill? >> she is widely praised.

the first time having four women on the bench will be historic. some republicans, it has been a mixed bag. a lot of republicans have made connections with her who are praising her nomination. she has gotten support from the fraternal order of police. we do see some criticism, not so much of her but republicans were pushing for a different nominee. to keep one thing in the back of our minds, this will not change the etiological balance of the courts. host: i want to read you a statement from senator mcconnell and get your reaction to it. he said i voted against confirming judge jackson, i

understand that she has turned into opinions. one of them was reversed. judge jackson was the favored choice of far left dark money groups. with that said, i look forward to carefully reviewing her nomination during the thorough senate process the american people deserve. >> yes it is a criticism that she has been on the senate court and has not produced a lot. but that is sometimes how the cases come out. whether or not you think it is helpful, when you look at

jackson's overall record, she has a low reversal rate. republicans are trying to muster up the criticisms that they can whether or not that will misdirect her nomination i don't think so. we heard from senator schumer that he is looking at the timeline from amy coney barrett's nomination which was very quick. that is the timeline they are looking at and they want to get it done before easter break. the democrats know they have a fragile 50-50 with the vice president as a tiebreaker. the senator out of new mexico

had a health issue. that reinforce that democrats want to get this done as soon as possible. host: thank you so much for joining us this morning. just a reminder, we will have full coverage of the nomination hearing all the way through the final votes when it gets underway. we are continuing your calls on the russian invasion of ukraine. we will continue those calls to the top of the hour. republicans (202) 748-8000, democrats (202) 748-8001 and independents (202) 748-8002. caller: good morning c-span. thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

i want to say that vladimir putin is behaving like a bully and a tyrant in his invasion of ukraine. he has a larger country attacking the democratic country that has a democratically elected president and now they are attacking them, murdering them and killing their people. i think we should not support this tyrant in this bully. i am very disappointed in the republican median that is supporting the tyrant and believe that vladimir putin is an everyone knows that the only way to stop a bully, it does not

know if it -- it does not matter if it is in the schoolyard or the workplace, the only way to stop a bully is to stand up to him. you are almost always afraid, it can be bloody. you have to fight, it is easy for meetup or kremlin -- it is easy for me to proclaim this. i believe that the people who supported the attack on the capital were wrong. i think supporting president putin is the biggest mistake they can make. host: how do you think republicans are supporting president putin? caller: are we going to put the

soviet union back together? host: you feel that republicans are supporting putin? caller: the comments of donald trump. i believe that donald trump has displayed and shown tyrannical behavior before. kim jong-un and other tyrants. the bullying behavior of trunk. he always attacks weaker people. he always attacks people when they are down. host: thank you for calling. matthew is from ohio.

go ahead. caller: i just wanted to say good morning and i am not going to make any kind of dig. i don't support either side, just the american people. we the people, we as americans, we defend the defenseless. that is what we need to do. i do agree with what the guy said about him being a bully. until you stand up to them, they will keep going. he is not going to stop. he is not going to just take over ukraine and collett today. -- and call it a day.

host: let's take a look at the social media messages coming in. it says the world has let ukraine down. i have never seen such brave people fighting for freedom. how can the world just watch president putin? that is from joan in minnesota. this is from stephen, ukraine needs to keep fighting. keep sending weapons. nobody wants to live under putin's rules. thoughts and prayers are useful but they need boots on the ground. these sanctions are a joke. let's take a call from virginia.

caller: good morning. first off, biden is our president. he is not the person i want in charge when we go to war. we have to be very careful going to war. it is all good until you put your child over there and they have to fight or something and they move -- they may lose their life. we have to be careful with this situation. host: robert is in florida. caller: everybody can go against

that guy. going after him is ridiculous. i would like to get in the ring with that guy. host: what are you suggesting then? caller: everybody get together and go against this guy. he is a coward, he is a punk. everybody knows that. he is a bully. it is people -- people - evil. i hope they beat him. that is the worst thing you could ever do.

biden is going to delaware while this is going on. i was in the war, my father was in the war. this has got to stop. host: let's go next to new york. caller: the ukrainians are incredibly brave. i thought the man from texas spoke eloquently. i am also distressed to see the republicans in congress, they have not condemned donald trump. thank god he is not the president.

he would've turned ukraine over to putin. putin needs to be taken out. the republicans need to say they would not put donald trump in. they have been incredibly cowardly. if they do not speak up now, please vote them out. host: here is the new york times, russian fighters close in on three cities. this tree fighting has flared in key. video shows a residential building being hit. president zelensky saying that he is here. we are not putting down arms.

caller: good morning, i want to say a few things. president zelensky is an ukraine right now. he is not running, he is fighting for his country. and what is joe biden doing? he is in delaware. we are helping biden -- putin. we can open up our pipeline. if donald trump was in office this would not have happened. you democrats need to wake up. host: thomas is calling us from

ohio. caller: thank you for taking my call. the caller's need to understand who joe biden is. hunter took 3.5 million dollars from the mayor of moscow. i warned people in 2020 if you vote for joe biden he will help china fulfill their mission statement. host: we are going to stay on the russian invasion of ukraine. let's go to don on the democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call.

nobody has talked about the nuclear arsenal or the atomic weapons that russia has an putin could use those weapons at any time. can you imagine what the radiation fallout would be? nobody talks about that possibility. host: we are going to talk about it. we have a guest coming on at 8:00 to talk about that. anything else he wanted to say? caller: we have to look at what russia could possibly do and if we do not stop them now, we may open up a whole can of worms that nobody wants to see happen. host: take a look at the associated press about america's role in the russia and ukraine situation. most americans are paying attention between the tension

between russia and ukraine. they believe that it should be a minor role rather than a major role. only four out of 10 approve of how biden is taking it. let's go back to the calls now. jerry on the republican line. caller: i adopted two kids out of russia in 1995. my wife spent three months there getting the children out and she nearly started world war iii. host: how did she nearly start a war? caller: the red tape that was

involved. host: so what do you think of the russian invasion? caller: i have not slept in three days because i feel so sorry for these people. we met so many kind, wonderful folks over there and we got to know them going through the process. we watched ukrainians line up on trucks to get milk and get a loaf of bread. my children now, one graduated from auburn with a degree in engineering and mathematics. the oldest one is getting his

phd at the university of georgia. host: thank you for calling. let's go to georgia on the republican line. caller: i wanted to say that none of this had to happen. if you look at the perspective of president putin and government. there are spaces -- speeches out there and a documentary called ukraine on fire. nikita khrushchev gave crimea to the russians.

when they took crimea back, it was already a russian territory. it does not really involve america. why does the united states have to be involved in that? host: you don't think that if putin takes ukraine he can continue on to other countries and they can spill over? caller: it will only spill over because nato keeps encroaching. we would not want nuclear weapons pointed at us. they don't want missiles pointed at them. they have a right to defend themselves.

rather than listening to fake news saying that president putin is crazy. they are trying to get people involved in a war that doesn't involve the american people. take a look at a map here from the west -- washington post. this is the russian the salt coming into belarus. here is russia and crimea. just to give you some perspective. let's go to doug from south dakota. caller: good morning. president putin is a big boy. he is trying to accomplish what he has had an this mind a long time ago.

we need to send along the weapons that can knock him out of the air. if we don't do it soon there will no longer be a president of the ukraine much longer. any free world country should be hitting them as long as they can. we need to -- host: you mentioned cyber attacks, there has been talk that we have been attacked by cyber attacks? caller: the whole world should be doing it to them and make it

so bad for russia that they go against putin. everyone have a good day. host: robert in connecticut. caller: what i am still trying to get my arms around is why this is happening. the gentleman earlier explained the possibility of nato, ukraine joining nato. if i was a russian, of getting surrounded. i saw perspective from a polish farmer and he was asked what do you think about the russian invasion of ukraine? and he said i don't care, the

ukrainians are worse than the russians. we just need to stay out of it. host: we will go now to mark on the republican line. caller: elections have consequences. we in america are dealing with the ramifications of the 2020 election. we have never seen anything like this. he has done nothing but damage our country and it is bleeding into ukraine. there is no way putin would invaded ukraine with trump in office. for every body who voted for joe biden, this is on you. i know you don't want to hear

it. this is on you. ukraine, all of the economic problems we are having. if you voted for joe biden, look at yourself in the mirror. we have three more years of this disaster. host: this is from axios the u.s. joins the eu in u.k. to impose sanctions. putin, sergey lavrov are sanctioned. this is a defective severing of relations between the u.s. and russia. host: --

caller: putin looks like satan right now and satan never wins. the world is sanctioning russia right now. they will go after putin and they need to add this was. and for the republican support ing, you are called traders. i can't stand to see another war. we don't need to go over there and put boots on the ground. you need to look at the real news. the russians are protesting. to protest like they are now,

putin will have to answer to his own people. republicans right now are rooting for putin. host: jimmy from new york. caller: when hillary did the reset, she built a silicone valley for russia. they also sold high-powered weapons down in mexico. khrushchev was not a president, he was the dictator of the soviet union and participated in the murder of millions of people.

he starved people in ukraine. just like antifa and the democrats call people fashions. -- fascists. putin is a nationalist. there are a lot of people in russia who do not approve of it. we have to hope there are people like that all over the place. and for republicans saying they have never seen people join together like this. they need to go to a trump rally.

the american people, the ukrainian people have to unite. they need to stop this war. and anyone who think president putin is a victim? putin is helping build nuclear weapons for iran. people have to wake up, whether you are a liberal, conservative, democrat. america is like a ship. our ship is vulnerable. if we do not have the people in ukraine, it will spread. hopefully, the ukrainian people in the russian people can solve their long history of animosity,

various countries can work together. host: by the way, former secretary of state mike pompeo reference the russian invasion. [video clip] collects the russian tanks moving across ukraine. i was a no border unit and that was the last time we had american troops standing face-to-face with russia. how did we prevail? for four years in the trump administration we put america first and we told people around the world, you cannot shred on us. -- tread on us. host: donald trump will be on

cpac tonight. as this is day three of cpac, ohio congressman will be on at 3:15 eastern and former president donald trump. caller: good morning. i wanted to say that it is not a republican or democrat thing. what it comes down to is the base of human beings in general and being so focused on their party or their race or whatever it is -- the simple thing is,

with this war it makes no sense. there is no reason why the ukrainians need to fight back because what putin is looking to do is he is looking to reunite the soviet union. he is not looking to take over the world. he is not looking to do anything that what we do here in the united states. host: you are saying there is no reason for the ukrainians to fight back? caller: yes. host: you suggest that they let putin take over their country? caller: it would be much better

for them to let putin take over their country and become part of russia or part of the old ussr. and let's focus more on the continent of america. everybody is talking about the people trying to come in and people trying to breach our borders. we are not working with south america, mexico. host: take a look at this. you say that ukrainians should not put up a fight but they are putting up a fight. ukrainian forces desperately put

up a fight on friday. they fought u.s. missiles as russian missiles rain down on population centers including key as moscow's vastly superior troops ran down. as moscow's vastly superior air, novel and ground forces dug deeper into the country. new video from president zelensky in front of the presidential residence's saying that there is new saying that we should put down arms, here's how it is i am not saying to put down any arms.

was going to republican line. caller: i am of ukrainian descent. it is hard for me to see what is going on. it was down to who has nuclear weapons and who does not. budapest gave up all of their weapons for sovereign borders and russia did not. everyone stayed quiet. my father fought in world war ii and president putin had a fight on his hands. there will be bloodshed everywhere. the feeling of the ukrainians is

that it is better to fight standing up the live on your knees. host: that was walter from florida. jen psaki was asked about new sanctions on president putin and other sages being considered. [video clip] what change from yesterday to today? >> it is been on the table for some time and as i just conveyed, the president's strong view from the beginning of the conflict has been to take actions and step in alignment with our partners. >> what does sanctioning putin to during this. ? >> i know you are not asking me

about financial aspect. this step that we are doing in alignment and in coordination with europeans to send a clear message of the strength to putin of his actions. >> the italian said they would not veto a removal from the sanctions, would you believe that would be another productive tool or an important measure? >> again, the presidents

principal is taking steps in alignment. we are stronger together as we stand in the face of the russians military action. there will be ongoing discussions about that and this is a messaging service that connects 11,000 banks and there are ways that the russian leadership could get around that over the course of time but it remains an option on the table. host: that is jen psaki at the white house. the washington post has said the computer chip industry began halting deliveries to russia among sanctions. tsmc is suspending sales to

russia. let's take a call from california. caller: you are a wonderful addition to the washington journal. i have a visceral hatred for both political parties. pool ocn mcconnell should have retired years ago. -- i can only think that putin is a criminal that runs a gas station and not a nation. he has killed other people on foreign soil, like england. let's not who we are dealing with.

i have a profound respect for the protesting russians and the ukrainian people, they have earned my respect. i wish to remind all of the colors -- callers. blaming joe biden for the behavior of putin is like blaming fdr for the behavior of hitler's. . putin has set himself up for the world to take retribution upon him. what we need to focus on right now is getting as much assistance to the ukrainian people. as the ukrainian president said, i do not need a ride, i need bullets.

that is a call that he needs money and support. what happens in ukraine will influence what china doesn't taiwan. host: don from indiana. caller: these people that keep calling in with revisionist history. you have trunk calling him a genius. mike pompeo saying the same thing. it is just ridiculous. for president putin to do what he is doing, this is the reason.

it is not biden's fault. the reason why he wants to do something is that his fellow russians want their freedoms. they want to do that. the ukrainian people are having a good time. they have democracy they can go where they want. which is great. now the russian people want the same thing. now what does putin do? he is going in there. it is just make-believe. he wanted to do this to keep his people in line.

now these other people are calling in. there are all kind of people to support putin. they have already said it. if you read the comments section, it is either a troll farm. you have four or five people that don't know what they are talking about. host: here is the headline from politico. the first time the treaty response has been used for collective security. let's go to steve in florida. caller: good morning.

a lot of people are calling in and not seem to be privy that this is a dangerous situation that is going on. we need to give the ukrainian people with what they need. if you hurt all of his money sources, the tanks and airplanes. they could have wargames off the coast of alaska and tried to defend themselves because this is just ridiculous. if you think joe biden has anything to do with this then you are totally controlled by donald's colt. host: that was steve from florida. tim is our last caller. caller: good morning.

i have heard some strange things about people's response to what is going on in ukraine. one person called about hunter biden from ukraine. i remember when donald trump junior said we get all of our money from russia. some people are trying to blame joe biden for what is happening in ukraine. let me were vines and people -- remind some people. donald trump had oligarchs in his office and had private meetings with them. donald trump had private meetings with president putin a number of times when nobody was around from his administration

and he did not even have an interpreter. what was going on at these private meetings? my guess is what now in ukraine. and, one last thing. this was going on in ukraine and it will go on throughout the biden administration and will probably be talked about in 2024 when you run for the next president, thank you for taking my call. host: that is it for the calls for this segment on "washington journal." do not go anywhere because coming up we will take a look at russia's nuclear capability with darrell kill -- with daryl kimball and then gideon rachman joins us to talk about his podcast and his take on the crisis unfolding in ukraine. ♪

>> american history tv, exporting the people and events that tell the american story. peggy noonan commemorates the former president's february 6 birthday during an event at his presidential library. and then on conversations with historians, we bring you part one of a sig sauer conversation with douglas brinkley who talks about his education looking at used book and record stars -- record stores with figures like little richard. watch american history tv every weekend and find the full schedule or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. ♪ look tv every sunday -- book tv

features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8:00 p.m. eastern the reverend al sharpton and how they impacted the movement in " righteous troublemakers: unsold -- untold stories of the social justice movement." and a critical look at the black lives matter movement and its leaders as the author of "blm: the making of a new marxist revolution." watch every sunday on c-span2, or watch any line at booktv.org. >> c-span's new american presidents website is our one stock guide to the nation's commanders in chief. find short biographies, video resources, life facts and rich

images that tell the stories of their lives and presidencies. all in one easy to browse website. visit c-span.org/presidents to begin exploring this rich catalog of c-span resources today. pres. biden: i can report to the nation that america is on the move again. >> live tuesday, the state of the union. president biden addresses a joint session reflecting on his first year in office and laying out his agenda for the year ahead. live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern followed by the republican response and we will take your phone calls and social media reaction. the state of the union address live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org or the c-span video app. ♪

>> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feat -- feast. you will find people who explore our nation's past. on sundays, book tv rings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. learn, discover, and explore, weekends on c-span2. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: welcome back, i am here with daryl kimball, executive director of the arms control association talking about russia's nuclear capabilities. remind us about what the arms control association is and what the mission is. guest: is an independent, nongovernmental independent research and advocacy commission. we were established in the midst of the cold war to try and reduce the risk posed by nuclear weapons, and we provide information and ideas about how to reduce the risks and move closer to a world without nuclear weapons. and, i am looking forward to this very timely and important conversation this morning. host: it is certainly timely because the war is raging between russia and ukraine. russia as a nuclear armed power has the most nuclear warheads in the country. what is your level of concern as

far as miscalculation or escalation? guest: my concern is high, because not only has president putin chosen the path of destruction over diplomacy, invading another independent country, a democratic country. but as the war rages on we have to remember that there are going to be risks involved with titan the posture of russian military forces, nato forces that are becoming more capable as concerns about russia's intentions grow, there are risks of military to military encounters that could lead to shooting between nato and russian forces. whenever that happens, there can be miscalculation and miscommunication. because both sides are nuclear armed, there is the small, perhaps, but still very consequential risk that it could

escalate. so, these are very critical times in both sides. nato forces, the united states forces and russian forces need to be cognizant of the risks and the leaders and military commanders need to make sure that they are not taking actions that increase the risk of a direct conflict. host: viewers can give us a call to ask any questions and talk about comments on this topic. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. you can also send us a tweet or a text. so, what is russia's nuclear capability and range? guest: russia has a very large nuclear force, the united states and russia combined have 95% of the world's 13,000 nuclear

weapons. right now as we speak, the united states and russia have about 1400 nuclear warheads on long-range systems, land-based and sea-based missiles on submarines and on long-range bombers. russia also has a force of approximately estimated to be about 1000 shorter range nuclear warheads. these are sometimes called battlefield or tactical nuclear weapons. they are extremely destructive in terms of the size and any one of these weapons are enough to destroy a city as in hiroshima or nagasaki. the united states has about 250 of these shorter ranged weapons, 160 or so of which are stored in five nato bases. and so, that has been the condition for the last several

years, but as large as those arsenals are, they are lower than they were during the height of the cold war in the mid-1980's. united states and russia had a combined force of about 70,000 nuclear weapons, not all of those deployed. so true nuclear arms control and reduction agreements that republican and democratic presidents have negotiated, those stockpiles were verifiably reduced, that is the right direction to go in. this conflict is not only creating a horrible war affecting millions of civilians, innocent people in ukraine, that it is going to create fraught relations between russia, europe, and the united states for years to come and it will derail for some time the efforts to reduce nuclear risk and massive and access nuclear stockpiles. host: here is a visual of what

daryl was talking about. you can see the number for russia, and the number for the united states. we have some callers that want to talk to you. let us go to marion in georgia on the democrats line. caller: good morning, and welcome to c-span. thank you for taking my call. i want to know and i have been reading and keeping up with this , every detail of this for days. and i am very concerned that putin has been using right-wing tucker carlsen, trump and pompeo , their videos of praising putin to help his people in russia think that this is a good idea to invade ukraine. how dangerous is it that fox news is propagating all of this?

isn't this a time when all of us should say hey, this is putin doing this, this is not biden, this is putin. i agree with the man in california who is -- who said it is like blaming fdr for hitler's. this is a time to come together, it really is because europe is really our main ally that shares our western values, and whatever happens in ukraine could happen, it weakens all of us, am i not correct? host: what do you think? guest: my personal view and i think it is important to step back from our domestic political debates in the united states and we need to take a look at this as an affront by a nuclear armed country against a nonnuclear armed country, an affront against a democratically elected government, and in independent

people, and that should concern everybody. in my analysis of russia, it does not have territorial aims does -- beyond ukraine right now but putin is showing he is an extreme risk taker, and there is a risk as i said before for miscalculation in the days and weeks ahead. we will have tensions in the years ahead. that could -- that should concern everyone and that will create a situation that is not good for any of us whether we are republicans, democrats, or independents and it does not use much good for -- to use us as a proxy war for our domestic political debates. need to look at it as americans concerned about fellow people in a democratic nation and as a sober new chapter in global affairs that is going to affect us for many years. host: explain the current arms

control agreement between the two countries. what is going on and who is enforcing it? guest: right now, there is only one remaining agreement that regulates the u.s. and russian nuclear arsenals, that is called the new strategic arms reduction treaty which was negotiated in 2009 and 2010. it was extended just a year ago by another five years to last until 2026, february 2026. it caps the total number of deployed warheads on long-range delivery systems, in other words the land-based missiles, sea-based missiles and long-range bombers and creates a verification system to make sure that each side is abiding by restrictions. it has been working very well without hitch, despite the tensions between the u.s. and russia over the last decade plus. it is going to expire.

and unless the two governments get back to the negotiating table, and we will not do that anytime soon. we heard from undersecretary -- deference -- deputy secretary of state at the strategic stability dialogue that had been going on before the war started, that is being suspended for obvious reasons during this conflict. unless they get back to the negotiating table and come up with a new agreement or agreements to replace that, after 2026 we will not have any limits on the two sides and the risk of an all-out nuclear arms race both in terms of the quality and the types of weapons in the quantities will be much higher risk for that kind of arms race. there are other weapon systems, nuclear weapon systems that were under restriction before, but the agreements that regulated those systems are now gone. there was a treaty negotiated by ronald reagan, the 1987 an

immediate nuclear forces treaty that eliminated an entire class of intermediate range ripens -- weapons that threatened europe and russia. that was eliminated in -- two years ago, over a compliance dispute. russia was violating that agreement with some tests of a an intermediate range listing missile. we only have one treaty left and at some point the two governments need to and will get back to the negotiating table because it is in the interest of both countries despite the many differences over many issues to make sure that we do not have an unregulated, unrestrained nuclear competition that could lead to very unstable situations down the road. the next conflict would be much riskier, without these arms control agreements. host: let us hear from al in

virginia on the independent line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call and welcome to c-span. i am aim retired military army, 20 years and i was in the biochemical field during the cold war. i have a couple of questions in the comment. what are the current u.s. policies on nuclear and biological chemicals? how big is the russian arsenal of cam and bio weapons? this is something i have not heard as discussed as well. as far as the missiles, where are they targeted to hit if putin would be stupid enough to go ahead and fire off missiles? and, a comment. if people want to know what the results of a nuclear war would be, i urge them to watch the film "the day after." it is a very devastating film. thank you for taking my call. you have a nice day. guest: thank you for those

questions, let me try to answer at least some of them and maybe we can talk about a little bit later what a nuclear conflagration would look like. if i recall the questions from the caller, russia does not have a chemical weapons arsenal as it did during the cold war, but they do have chemical weapons capabilities and we do know that they have used certain kinds of deadly chemical agents for assassinations. and this has been the subject of criticism of russia now for several years. so, the threat of chemical weapons i think is extremely low from russia right now because of another treaty, the chemical weapons convention of 1997 which eliminated virtually all of the world's chemical weapons

arsenals. russia does have medium-range missiles in leningrad -- kalin ingrad, which is the russian enclave south of poland, which is an area of concern for nato because russia has capabilities there that could threaten the nato members in that area. but, one of the things that russia is also concerned about is the possibility that the united states will deploy intermediate range missiles against russia. and so one of the interesting things about the diplomatic exchanges between russia and the united states in the weeks leading up to the war is that both sides wanted to discuss an agreement to ban any intermediate range missiles from

europe and western russia that might threaten the other. so a replacement of that intermediate range nuclear forces treaty from the cold war. that was something that could have addressed mr. putin's and our concerns. we need to get back to that kind of discussion. host: i want to ask you about the weapons -- nuclear weapons that ukraine used to have during the soviet union. the new york -- "the new york times" says this, ukraine gave up a giant you nuclear arsenal 30 years ago and today there are regrets. "when the soviet union collapsed ukraine turned over caught -- nuclear weapons in exchange for security did that shirt security guarantees." they are saying if we were a nuclear power, this would not be happening to us. guest: so, background on that agreement and what the war tells us about this experience.

so, ukraine became independent in 1991, and at the time there were 1900 soviet era nuclear warheads on a large number of long-range ballistic missiles. what the ukrainians agreed to do was to return the warheads back to russia and to eliminate the long-range missiles that had carried them, and to become a nonnuclear weapon state member of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. that was really important. it was something that helped end the cold war, reduced tensions at the time and it made russia safer, ukraine safer in the world safer. as the new york times story says the united states, the u.k., and russia extended security guarantees. russia has obviously violated

those security guarantees and violated this agreement. and this is another way in which putin's actions have struck a blow to global efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons and stop their spread. you know, there are some in ukraine who say that they regret the decision that we should have held onto the weapons. reality was that ukraine was not in a position to maintain the weapons. they did not have the control over use of weapons at the time. they were still controlled by moscow, even if they were in ukrainian territory. today, i do not think they would be an independent state if they decided to hold onto the weapons because at the time russia would not have -- would not have allowed that. we also remember, two countries are in a conflict and they are nuclear armed. it does not prevent war, it increases the risk of any such

war. because once a nuclear weapon is used in a conflict between nuclear armed states there is no guarantee that nuclear weapons are not going to be exchanged back and forth until both sides are completely annihilated. this is an important chapter in history, it is important thing to remember and another reason why putin's actions are a violation of international norms and law. host: gene from park ridge, illinois. on the republican line. caller: good morning. as a marine, vietnam combat, watching the tank drive over that car, with innocent people from the ukraine was heartbreaking. everything is off of the table right now with what we are dealing with. this guy putin is a madman.

all of your treaties are on hold , it is called stand fast, everybody is in place. until we can get this thing under control. sad to say, i believe mr. putin will go after the old soviet states. this is just phase one. i am concerned for our young kids being posted in and around ukraine, and i am afraid to tell you that it is a mean, dark street right now. guest: sir, i do not disagree. i think you are -- your call is an important reminder as we have this conversation that there are millions of innocent ukrainians who are at risk, who are fearing for their lives, these are families, men, women and children who do not deserve this. and there are soldiers at risk.

, soldiers who are getting killed on both sides. this is going to create a chill that is going to last for years, and as i said the agreements that helped win the peace after the end of the first cold war, these are -- they have been disintegrating for several years through neglect, noncompliance, and negligence. it will be a while before the two countries get back to the table to deal with the threat that could kill us all, which is nuclear weapons. eventually i think this is important that they do that. in the meantime we have to deal with a dangerous situation and avoid the kinds of direct conflicts that could lead to the escalation that could lead to a wider war beyond ukraine. host: john from germantown,

maryland on the independence line. caller: hello. well, you were talking about the agreement to disarm the ukraine, and so i guess that is just the paper tiger agreement because russia, the u.s., and the u.k. agreed to it. what exactly where the details of that? what was their guarantee of independence, and he was it given by? and what exactly was it? was it just a paper tiger? guest: it was written on a piece of paper, but it was a solemn agreement by the leaders of russia, the united kingdom, the united states, and ukraine at the time. there is some information on our website that goes into detail about the past memorandum. -- the budapest memorandum.

at the moment this is effectively null and void because president putin in 2014 seized the crimean territory on the crimean peninsula and took a step forward with his massive and violent invasion. the reality is that the international system legally binding agreements and politically binding agreements, they do not work unless they are complied with and enforced, and some agreements are difficult to enforce and this certainly was one of them. host: in plain view, new york on the republican line. caller: good morning. mr. campbell -- kimball mutually assured destruction prevented a war between the u.s. and the soviet union. ideally, it would be wonderful if the world could disarm, but i

do not see it happening. xi said he would attack japan with nuclear weapons. putin said he would use tactical nukes, so what we are saying is that large countries can have nukes, and then pick on their neighbors and the neighbors cannot have nukes because they are small and weak. the u.s. has become an unreliable ally. ukraine asked for weapons, and obama and biden provided blankets, and ready-to-eat meals. so, i do not see how this is going to work, particularly when i ran is going nuclear. all of these other countries are going to want to go nuclear. you tell me how they are going to disarm? host: what do you think? guest: let us take a step back

about some of the things that the caller said. first of all the united states and the soviet union and now russia for many years have had massive numbers of nuclear weapons and we have all been living under the condition of mutual a sword destruction -- assured destruction meaning that if the united states and russia were to get into a war and one side was on the verge of losing or thought they were losing began to use nuclear weapons to try and tip the balance in their favor, we could see each side using nuclear weapons leading to all-out nuclear war. that is not something that anybody wants. what this situation shows an i said this -- and i said this before, the possession of nuclear weapons by the great powers so to speak does not prevent war. it has provided food and

tragically with the cover to act in ukraine. one reason why the united states and nato are not directly engaging in this conflict with our soldiers and forces is because there is the risk that we could get into that kind of escalatory situation with russian forces, and it would risk all of us in the united states, our allies in europe, and -- to a russian attack. so, right now it does not look very good. and, right now we are going through a dark period where we are likely to see rising tensions, each side trying to harm themselves against -- arm themselves against one another.

we have to avoid getting into an arms race. we know that in the past we have been through this kind of situation with the old soviet union. we have pursued and used diplomacy to manage the competition and to reduce the risk and number of nuclear weapons and the risk of nuclear war. we need to get back on that path because that is in all of our interests. even if the realization of a world without nuclear weapons looks like a distant dream, the pursuit of that vision is very important to our security, russia's security and the security of the world, that is my take on it based upon a look back at the history of nuclear weapons, and what deterrence has and has not achieved. i offer those thoughts for you to consider. host: in "the new york times" it says that putin set -- spends

conspiracy theory that ukraine is on the path of nuclear weapons. "usually hey has made those before but as asides but not as the justification for our urgent action in ukraine." guest: putin's speech on monday night and he has repeated this again that one of the threats that ukraine poses to russia is that it might pursue nuclear weapons is complete fiction. the ukrainians had a nuclear arsenal that they inherited from the soviet union before. they have missile technology, but they are nowhere close to having the capability right now, nor do they have an interest in building nuclear weapons. this is an example of vladimir putin trying to hype a ukrainian

threat to russia in order to justify to his own people his rationale for sending in russian soldiers to fight their brotherly ukrainian fellow people. so, it is -- that is a fiction, and we need to understand it as such. host: let us talk to john in illinois on the democrats line. caller: hello, i was curious about a couple of quick things as far as maintenance and security. how old are some of these weapons? how reliable are they to go off correctly? let us say you could fire one off and it could go up for five seconds and blow up with collateral damage, and then i am also curious about security in that how are they handling it?

is it more geared toward cybersecurity, or geared toward old-fashioned sabotage? that is all. guest: some of the answers depend on whether we are talking about russia or you -- or the united states. generally speaking the and russia spend a lot of time and money to maintain the warheads, the explosive package of the bomb. that is on the missiles and the bombers. they maintain them at a very high level of reliability. the nonnuclear parts are regularly replaced. russia has a different approach to maintaining its warheads in the united states, somewhat. but, there is a low risk that there is going to be an accidental detonation. but, there are other risks. the two sides have an elaborate

command-and-control system by which each president has the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. one very disconcerting thing is that vladimir putin and joe biden as the leaders of their country have the sole authority to order the launch of nuclear weapons. no one can really veto them unless military personnel in the chain of command somehow defy orders and are not replaced. and so, this elaborate command-and-control system is vulnerable, potentially to cyberattack, and the u.s. strategic command spends a lot of time working to harden the u.s. command-and-control system as do the russians, but i am not completely assured. there are always vulnerabilities. it is important going towards the future neither russia nor the united states try to interfere with the other's

nuclear command-and-control through cyber attacks or through sending signals that can confuse the enemy, because that could lead to the kind of miscalculation on one side or the other to attack when there is absolutely no justification for doing so. we have risks in the future that relate to cyber more than physical security of these nuclear weapons. host: let us take another call. ray and delaware -- in delaware on the republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have two questions. how do we actually know how many nuclear weapons russia has? are we going by what putin is telling us? could he possibly have more weapons than what he says he has, first of all. the second is, once he takes ukraine, and keep in mind the

nord stream 2 line into germany, if he shuts off the fuel going to europe and says the only way you are getting it is through nord stream, they will have to take it, they do not have a choice. i would like to know how we keep track of how many nuclear weapons that russia really has. guest: that is a great question. first of all, one of the values of the nuclear arms control agreements through the decades is -- that the united states and russia has struck is that they each are mandated to provide detailed information about the nature of their arsenals, so that allows each side to check that through on-site inspections. we have american technical experts visiting russian nuclear facilities to ensure that the russian record -- the russian reporting is accurate and they

are not taking actions to try and hide anything. and vice versa. in addition, the united states and russia have at this stage very sophisticated national means of intelligence. satellites and more to make sure that we understand very well where each others nuclear weapons and delivery systems are. in real time. we do not have 100% knowledge it is very good. that is basically how the united states and russia understand the size and composition of each other's forces. we also have a growing number of open source intelligence experts who can independently verify that based upon commercial satellite imagery, and there are some colleagues of mine at the federation of american scientists who have made it their business to carefully track u.s., russian, indian,

pakistani, israeli, british, chinese, french, and north korean arsenals. we have a good idea of how many are out there, and the problem is making sure that these things are not used and that we do move in the direction of eliminating them and perlin -- and preventing proliferation. on nord stream, that might be a question for another expert on another c-span segment. but, there are a lot of and just a reminder that there are a lot of complex issues that the united states and our european allies will have to deal with not just in the coming days but in the weeks, months, and years ahead. host: dayton ohio. lewis is on the independent line. hello. caller: hello, first time caller, did not think i would get through, thank you for taking my call. host: you got through. caller: yes.

retired army officer, more than 20 years. it is evidence to me that putin is in the best of terms unstable. that being said, is it possible that with his actions and his threats he believes that he could withstand a nuclear exchange? second question. what about biological weapons? could you discuss just briefly what systems russia would have? and then, last question. what is the employment --

authorities for the tactical nukes that russia has? is it the 2006, 2008, 2007, and so on. thank you and have a great day. guest: thank you for your service and for two questions. so, on biological weapons, there is another agreement, the convention that prohibits the possession of biological weapons. we do not unfortunately have a verification system for this treaty. but, we have to remember that biological weapons are not particularly useful as nila terry instruments. we have seen from covid-19 that biological weapons are very indiscriminate and -- in terms of their effects.

i do not see that as a particular danger from russia and we will move on to your other questions. so vladimir putin, i am not a psychologist, i have not examined this guy. but, he might be doing things that are terrible, that are mad, that i do not think he is clinically crazy. he has a very calculating, rational person, and i would say that he understands as does joe biden that a nuclear war cannot be won. they have actually issued a statement that a nuclear war cannot be won and it cannot ever be fought. both men understand what the catastrophic risk would be. each knows that neither country could withstand a nuclear attack.

and so that does not mean, however that with the best intentions of avoiding nuclear war that we can avoid nuclear war, especially in the decades ahead. you know, it is my view that as so long as these weapons exist that they pose an existential threat. if we look at the history of the cold war, there were several times, any times where nuclear weapons use was quite possible, it was contemplated, we have the cuban missile crisis. there have been other incidents where each side came very close to ordering the launch of nuclear weapons due to false alarms. that is my take on those questions. on the command-and-control of russian tactical nuclear weapons, my understanding it is similar to the command and control of the strategic nuclear

weapons and long way long-range weapons. but a mere putin or joe biden would have to order the use of those weapons. host: the ukrainian foreign minister actually just tweeted about half an hour ago saying that russian propaganda has gone off of the rails and speculates that ukraine might be preparing to drop a dirty bomb on the russian territory. this is a fake. ukraine does not have nuclear weapons and does not conduct work to create them. we are a responsible member of the nonproliferation treaty. strong words. let us take stan in odessa, texas. go ahead. caller: yes, a couple of questions. i know this might sound way out in space, but i do believe we need to put more pressure on putin. i think with the protesting

going on, the sanction is -- the sanction starting to take hold i think this is the only scary part of this, the nuclear part. i think we should start going in there because there have been some terrible -- terrible tactical mistakes he has done. this seems like something like in vietnam, he has those -- so exposed with his troops driving to kyiv and other places. i think we need to think about that, we might never get a chance. this is a no win situation, but i don't think we will ever get a chance to catch him when he is weak right now. the russian economy and i understand the ruble has crashed and they will have a lot problems on his hands. host: thank you. any last comments as we wrap up.

guest: i would agree with the caller in the sense that we need to isolate russia and punish vladimir putin. the sanctions are -- they need to be implemented, they need to be strong, but it will take time as president biden has said for these to take effect in trying to alter putin's behavior. as for nato assistance, i think i have been trying to get across that we can and should support the ukrainian people, we can provide defensive military assistance to the zelensky government in kyiv. help with a humanitarian disaster that might be ahead, but we need to avoid a direct military conflict between nato and russian forces. and putin understands that and

part of the reason is that it could lead to a nuclear exchange which would threaten everyone, so this is a dangerous situation. we need to navigate through this in the next few days, weeks, and months and find ways to reduce the tensions that will grow and the nuclear dangers are too high to make all of us safe. host: daryl kimball, arms control association, thank you for joining us. next, more of your calls, it will be open for them. if you did not get in on any of the other calls, please do call us for open forum. you can start calling now on any public policy topic. we can talk about the war in ukraine, the new supreme court nominee, the new cdc guidelines on masking. calling now, our phone lines are

republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. and independents, 202-748-8002. you can contact us on social media as well. later, gideon rachman, chief for -- chief foreign affairs columnist from the "financial times" talks about his podcast and his take on the events unfolding in ukraine. >> american history tv, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. on the presidency, peggy noonan commemorates the former president's february 6 -- birthday. and then on conversations with historians, we bring you part one of a six hour conversation with douglas brinkley talking about his education working at used book in record stores and

musical figures. exploring the american story, watch american history tv every weekend and find the full schedule or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8:00 p.m. eastern rev. al sharpton profiles lesser-known civil rights activists and how they impacted the movement in his book "righteous troublemakers." at 9:00 p.m. eastern, the senior fellow of the heritage foundation takes a critical look at the black lives matter movement and its leaders and is the author of "blm: the making of a new marxist revolution." watch every sunday on c-span2, find a full schedule on the program guide or watch any time

attv.org. >> c-span's new american presidents website is your one-stop guide to our nation's commanders in chief from george washington to joe biden. find short biographies, video resources, and rich images that tell the story of their life and presidencies, all in one easy to browse c-span website, visit c-span.org/presidents to begin exploring this rich catalog of resources today. pres. biden: i can report to the nation america is on the move again. >> live tuesday, the state of the union, president biden addresses a joint cytosine -- session of congress and the nation and lays out his agenda for the year ahead. the president speaks at 9:00 followed by the republican response and we will take your

phone calls and social media reaction. the state of the union address live tuesday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org or the c-span now video app. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back, it is open forum, anything you would like to weigh in on, give us a call. we can talk about russia's war

on ukraine, the cdc masking guidelines, the new supreme court pig. before we do that i want to show you something that the nato secretary-general said on why the alliance chose to deploy its rapid response force for the first time in history. [video clip] >> there is a full-fledged invasion of a partner, a country that borders several nato allied countries. this is the most serious security crisis that we have faced in europe for decades, then taught -- therefore we have the nato response force, and that is the reason we are deploying it, again to prevent any miscalculation or misunderstanding that we are not ready to protect and defend our allies. of course, this is something that all allies have agreed to do, 30 have agreed. but especially those in the

eastern part of the alliance are concerned. they are close to this fighting in ukraine, and they are also bordering russia and they have seen that -- not only the military buildup and the ongoing war in ukraine, but they have also seen the threatening rhetoric because this goes far beyond ukraine, this is about how russia is challenging and contesting core values of our security, and demanding that nato should withdraw all forces and infrastructure from almost half of our members. and they said if they do not do that and do not meet their demands there will bully -- they will be consequences, so we have to take this seriously, which is why we are now deploying the nato response force for the first time in a collective defense context, and we speak

about thousands of troops, and we speak about air and maritime capabilities, and they are all actually part of the standing nato groups. we have many planes operating in the eastern part of the alliance, and then several allies have the assigned troops for the native response force. we have nato elements led by france. we have the united states which is assigned thousands of troops for the nato response troops. these will be in different places. [end video clip] host: that was a secretary-general of nato. we will take your calls in the open forum. jerry is first in winchester,

virginia on the republican line. go ahead. caller: yes. i just want to ask what the people think about everyone saying that they are backing the u.k. up. it seems like the longer we wait the worse that is happening over there and the more people are dying, and everyone needs to get together and do something now. host: lewis is also in virginia on the democrats' line. caller: hello, thank you for having me. my concern is that the bombs are dropping and people are being hunted by a demon named boudin, and i am wondering why, and i have not heard a specific answer to the reason why ukraine did not become part of nato. i understand that there was some

fear that russia would have some difficulties back in 2014. i believe that is correct, i am not sure when they wanted to apply. so we have the slaughtering of our human brothers in ukraine who are showing such great courage. and, it is heartbreaking to see them leave a democracy. united states believes in democracy, and yet this democratic society is falling apart under the bombs of the putin regime. we are somewhat bound in shame, as i watch this democracy fall apart. what -- why hasn't the united states on the humanitarian end provide the borders with food for these hundreds of thousands of people? that are fleeing the country that they love so much?

my concerns are for the democratic society of ukraine being devastated, and no help imminent because the sanctions, as you well know and as i have heard take years to have any impact on the countries. we have had other sanctions on other countries, and if you take a look at those they have taken years, and those that trump have gone in -- have put in have not gone into effect. that takes years to occur. i think the immediacy is necessary to help ukraine in other ways, other than sanctions. host: thank you for calling. the ukrainian president tweeted just a little while ago. i want to show you that. it says "i think my friend, mr. president of turkey, erdogan and

the people of turkey. the ban on the passage of russian warships in the black sea and significant support are extremely support and today. the people of ukraine will never forget that." ned in annapolis, maryland on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. like so many other people, i am upset by this war in ukraine and this invasion by russia. the previous two pub callers -- two callers brought up good points and i should sue them for copyright violations, they took my questions. with these threats that putin is making, is he actually in a weaker position than we think he is, because it seems that this is the action of someone pretty desperate. it seems like i suspect it wishful thinking on my part. host: why do you think it seems

desperate? caller: i mean, it seems like sitting there and saying to finland and sweden you are going to face military consequences if you do something and then sort of referring implicitly to the use of nuclear weapons, these are really drastic, and -- host: when he said that the west would face something they had never seen before? caller: i think that is what most people are taking as implicitly saying, i am going to use nuclear weapons if you try to mess with me. and it sounds like such a drastic thing to say intentionally. host: do you think that he could have been talking about a massive cyberattack and not nuclear weapons? caller: that is not something i had thought of. it could be that, and that could be almost as devastating from what i understand.

if it shuts down our power grid in this kind of stuff, that could be bad. it is just these drastic threats, it just seems drastic. host: jamaal is calling us on the republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i think we need to put this in a real perspective. this is all financial, and this is about oil or putin. they were planning on doing a land pipeline directly connected to germany and a water pipeline, so two pipelines. i think the u.s. should allow other countries to make their money and be economically sound. let's put it in real perspective. if there was a war in the united states, and let's say texas decided to say, we are going to

become our own country, and the united states -- texas has been a part of the united states as long as the u.s. has been the u.s., well, if we decided to go back into texas and retreated and take it over, would we be wrong for doing that? absolutely not because the same way with ukraine, their whole foundation comes from the ussr. i do not know if people can remember, but turn noble in 19 -- but turn noble in 1986 was a part of russia. host: the ukrainians would take to differ and say they were not always -- they are not part of russia but an independent country with their own language and history. what do you think of that? caller: i was born in 1974, so i was about 12 years old. i was probably in the sixth

grade when chernobyl erupted. what i can remember, that was considered the soviet union and so because that was considered the soviet union, that infrastructure has always been a part, and that is how it was established, the same way in texas if they said we are independent now. no. the u.s. government created infrastructure for texas, the same way ukraine was created by russia. that is their land. host: we will go to cynthia next in franklin, virginia, on the independent line. hello, are you there? caller: yes. can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead, cynthia. caller: sorry. thank you very much. i cannot believe i got through. thank you, first of all, c-span, for being a source of truth and

discernment for us as citizens because it is hard to find on journalism today. number one, my heart is totally breaking for the ukrainian people. i adopted two people in 2001. i have been there, i have been greeted and hosted by the ukrainian people. they are so gracious and so loving and give more than they have got. i know they are very poor, but they chose to gave feasts to us while we were there for two weeks when we adopted. i want to say this as an american viewer. when we watch the syrian people, for example, get slaughtered, i

do not -- i speak for myself -- have the visceral and tearful response that i have now watching the ukrainians because i have been there, and i know those people. for that, on a side note, for us, as a country so isolated from the rest of the world that travel is very important for us to understand, to be able to connect to people around the world and understand what they're going through. ok. host: cynthia in franklin, virginia. the pentagon press secretary john kirby friday talked about nato's deployment of the rapid response force, which u.s. will be a part of. here it is. [video clip] >> this is the first time the alliance has deployed high readiness forces and eight deterrence and defense role, so it is not an insignificant move by the alliance. it serves as an additional notice or warning order, as you

are familiar with, for the allies who contribute to the nato response force. i am not going to have specifics for you today on units, timelines, schedules as nato communicates what it is going to need from the united states, just like it will for other nations, and as they do that, we will be able to acknowledge and announce those units who will be going specifically as designated to support the nato mission and response force. now, as we have also announced previously, the department has placed a range of multimission units in the united states and europe on the heightened preparedness to deploy, which increases i readiness to provide for the u.s. contributions to the nrs on a shorter tether than what we could do before. with today's activation notice by general walters, we stand

ready if called upon by nato to support the alliance and will absolutely do that. [end video clip] host: that was john kirby at the pentagon. we are taking your calls on open forum. feel free to give us a call. we are talking about anything you would like to talk about through the war in ukraine, supreme court nominee, other stories in washington. let's go now to pacific washington, on the democratic line. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: yes. i have been talking to my 31-year-old son and his friends while they are drinking about history. they are not getting what is going on in the world and trying to bring them forward. host: what are they not getting? caller: nothing, what is going on in the world and why nato is

important, and why i tried to explain to them how the rotation of the nato presidency came to this russian person and why this is happening now, and why he has a veto power. and what i have been through in my own life and why this is wrong. host: that is a call from washington state. let's go to colorado, joe is a republican. caller: thank you. welcome to c-span. host: thank you. caller: i think you should go back to a true open forum where you are not recording beforehand and then playing later.

that is just my opinion. now, the democrat party has tooted itself to be a party of pedophilia. they have legalized the rape and sodomy of children in california. host: how are you arriving at that, joe? caller:caller: because -- caller: because they passed a law to do that. host: which law? caller: i cannot quote the specific law, but if someone is 21 and he rapes or sodomize his child, it is legalized in california. i wish you had commented on the man who falsified history and to texas was always part of the united states. it was not. what we have today is a progressive liberal colt that does not -- cult that does not handle facts well. everything becomes distorted and twisted. most americans realize it and

have critical thinking skills are sick and tired. we really are. it is not just because i am a republican. i am sick of rhinos. i am sick of people like mcconnell who are not really conservative people. they are just as dirty as the others. host: all right, joe, in colorado. the cdc has released new mask guidelines. if you look here, the cdc changed the metrics it uses ss covid-19 risks by county across the u.s. risk will be assessed on three factors, new covid-19 cases per 100,000 residents the past seven days, new covid-19 related hospital admissions, and the percentage of hospital beds occupied by covid-19 patients. a lot of people will no longer need to wear masks inside.

i wonder what you think about that. let's go to pete in phoenix, arizona, republican line. hi, pete. caller: good morning. i think we made a couple of strategic errors that got us into this situation in the first place. first, we were involved in the revolution through the elected pro-russian government. and i think we should have an investigation into whether we had the right to go over there and overthrow this government without approval of the congress. we made a mistake by arming the separatists to fight, arming the ukrainians to fight the russian separatists that wanted to stay with russia. it was a losing battle. the war has gone operate years. it is a matter of time until russians got involved. with the extent of giving military aid, we should have given them economic aid so they would not be a prosperous

country today and they would not have a fight with russia. now i think we have two choices. one is either to conduct a guerrilla warfare against russia like the conservatives want to do, or we can try to have a truce and get this over with as quick as possible. i think we would be better off to get the truce as quick as possible. that is basically all i have to say. thank you. host: maurice is in lawrence, michigan, independent line. caller: good morning. i have been listening to the program a couple of years, and i am amazed at how many people really do not know what they are talking about. i guess that is normal. i was thinking about the gentleman or the gentle people

who are always criticizing our former president. he is the only one who actually understood how the economy works. i am 86 years old, and that is the first president in my lifetime who knew how the economy worked, and he proved it. there is so much misinformation that is allowed, but we put up with it. host: what is the misinformation? caller: the misinformation is one of your previous callers, talking about the state of texas and the misinformation was allowed until -- host: other callers corrected him, yes, i know. caller: this is typical in the united states. we don't understand history, never learned it, and we cannot

remember it. host: thanks for calling in, maurice. joe is in indiana on the republican line. caller: thank you. i was calling in with a local paper a while back, they put it in about the elections. [indiscernible] when police catch a person, they put a bunch of politicians to talk about the elections being stolen. [indiscernible] host: sorry, joe, did you have something else to say? caller: i was going to say about the oil, too. they let a bunch of immigrants in, so more oils are being used daily because we have an immigration problem. also, i have seen one of the articles on my cell phone.

a young girl got killed by a drunken, illegal immigrant. we don't care who we are letting in evidently. putin invaded a country, it is the battle of biden letting a lot of people in to vote for him, just costing me money and everybody else. host: let's go to bridgeport, connecticut, the independent line. dan. caller: hi. just want to make a quick comment on putin. it appears he has trapped himself in a no-win situation. whatever decision he makes will not give him the appearance of victory. host: do you want to elaborate? caller: well, he is going to look bad whatever he does, and this is not going to help him with the situation in russia. it seems like a youth over there

is not happy with what he is doing and certainly stifled any chance of real information getting out there, but it will get around anyway. anyway, this is going to hurt him in the long run, and maybe he will not be there in the short time. host: mickey is calling us from louisa, virginia, the democrat line -- ricky is calling us from louisa, virginia, the democrat line. caller: i want to know if we sent troops over there. host: sorry, i am having trouble hearing you. how we sent u.s. troops over there? is that what you are asking? caller:caller: yes. host: no, there are no troops in ukraine, but there are troops in poland and around ukraine to bolster nato forces. caller: how do you know how many nuclear warheads they have over there? host: you mean russia?

caller: right. host: we had a conversation a segment before about those nuclear weapons. it will be on our website, c-span.org, so you can take a look at that. coming up, gideon rachman, chief foreign affairs talks about his take on the crisis unfolding in ukraine. you will have a chance to call in and talk with him, and so. stay with us. ♪ >> american history tv, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. on the presidency, a former speechwriter for ronald reagan commemorates the former president's february 6 birthday during an event at his residential -- presidential library. and then on conversations with

historians, part one of a six-hour conversation with douglas brinkley, who talks about his education, working at used book and record stores, and little richard. exploring the american story, watch american history tv every weekend, and find a full schedule or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at eight :00 p.m. eastern, rev. al sharpton profiles lesser-known civil rights activists in his book "righteous troublemakers: untold stories of the just a social movement in america." at 9:00 p.m. eastern, we take a critical look at the black lives matter movement and its leaders with the author of

"blm." watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule of the program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> c-span's new american president's website is your one-stop guide to our nation's commanders and chiefs, from george washington to joe biden. find short while re-freeze, video resources, -- find short biographies, video resources, and the stories of their lives in presidency, on the always easy to browse c-span website. visit c-span.org/presidents to begin exporting the rich catalog of c-span resources today. >> i can report to the nation, america is on the move again. >> on tuesday, the state of the union. president biden addresses a joint session of congress on the

nation, reflecting on his first year in office and laying out his your head. he speaks at 9:00, followed by the republican response. we will take your social media reaction and phone calls per the state of the union live tuesday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org, or the c-span now video app. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back with gideon

rachman, the chief foreign affairs columnist for "the financial times." he is the host of rachman review. welcome to "washington journal." guest: thanks very much. good to be with you. host: before we talk about your podcast, i want to ask about the munich conference. that was last week and you were there. can you tell us your impressions? guest: it was one of the most of the most a sore neck conferences i have been to. a lot of people knew we were on the brink of this in carbo conflict, and -- incredible conflict, and a lot of important decision-makers were there. it was a matter of record. you had the heads of the u.k. intelligence, antony blinken, the u.s. secretary of state, vice president harris, and also president zelensky of ukraine. it was probably that time last week where i was sitting in the audience watching him speaking.

somebody said to him effectively, are you afraid? and he said, no, i am going back to kyiv tonight to have dinner there. he was angry. he did feel the west had not supported him as much as he would like. i remember saying afterwards to someone next to me in the audience, you know, he could be dead within the week. they said, come on, you know? but it shows us within a few days, the russians had begun. although the british and the americans were very certain that war was going to start, and soon, a lot of europeans were much more skeptical, quitting people who really know russia. i was talking to a guy who had come from moscow, senior diplomat, and he did not think so. host: that is interesting to read what do you think the reason is for that -- that is interesting. what do you think the reason is for that?

as you said, american intelligence was sure this was going to happen. guest: i think a couple of things. firstly, i think that american and british intelligence lost credibility over the years because of the failure to predict the followed kabul, so a lot of people's reaction was, well, just because these intelligence services say it does not mean it is true. another thing is people looked at putin's record, and they said he has never rolled the dice like this. this guy has been around 20 years. it is mostly a pressure tactic. we don't believe he will really do this. i think thirdly, the british and americans were giving people the assessment based on intelligence but not showing how they got to it. everybody could see the photos of all the russian forces around ukraine. i think the anglosphere in

addition to that was more detailed intelligence and maybe signaled intelligence showing that order had gone out. host: just a reminder that viewers can call and ask questions of our guest, gideon rachman. the lines are republican, (202)-748-8001. if you are a democrat, you can call us on (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002. let's talk about your podcast. tell us why you started it, when you started it, and what is your mission? guest: the original idea was that -- my main job is writing a newspaper column. in the course, i talked to loads of people. we thought it would be interesting sometimes to record conversations that are interesting and put them on a podcast. we started doing that two or

three years ago. the first one waited, which went well, was in moscow with a guy called theodore, who was one of russia's leading foreign policy intellectuals close to putin. speaks excellent english. quite smart. i thought it was interesting for westerners to get that view undiluted, let him talk, a style interview that is not super confrontational. i hope i ask intelligent questions and push people but i don't cap them. i want to let them talk. i have done that all over the world, certainly before the pandemic when i had to switch to zoom, but i had done podcasts with chinese foreign policy people, russians, africans, resilience, you name it. the last weeks, we have been focused on the war in ukraine or the run-up to the war in

ukraine, but i try to have an array of voices, russians from moscow, americans on the dovish wing with the rand corporation, and more hawkish voices, as well. i want to give people a sense of the debates at their, and access to the kind of people i talked through -- i talked to do my job and get a sense of how the world works. host: have you been able to talk to people inside moscow, inside kyiv after the invasion? i wonder what they are telling you. guest: we began on thursday, and the invasion started thursday. normally record two or three days ahead of time, and we recorded on wednesday, but that was with a colleague of mine in kyiv, awaiting the invasion. and then of course, we had a

foreign policy analyst who left moscow a day before, who i think was very interesting on how the mood shifted during the week they were in moscow and how people had that similar sense of incredulity i did not think putin would do it -- incredulity and did nothing putin would do it. she talked about, for example, not just the kind of policy people, but a friend of hers who decided she had to get her russian kid, boy, out of the country because she realized they were was coming and that he might be drafted. host: we have some people who want to talk to gideon, so let's go to larry in rochester, vermont, democrat line. caller: hi. my name is larry creach. kind of a student of history. i am quite surprised that people have not and do not understand history, you know, when hitler

took over lance, everybody wanted to appease him. now we have a guy, putin and power for 20 years, who has taken over crimea, georgia, and other entities that he wants to bring back the old russia. i am surprised we have not set up a no-fly zone over at least kyiv in parts of western ukraine so we can resupply the poor people who are giving their lives just to save their country . we also should think about the fact that nato should enroll sweden and finland so that we can have a consolidated block against this dictator who would like to take over most of eastern europe. i think he has designs of the old russia.

and we don't stand up to him, it is going to be another world war ii. host: larry, let's get a response. interested to see what you think about the analogies, gideon, between hitler and putin. guest: like a lot of people, i would have dismissed them a few years ago, but i think the caller has a point that some of this is reminiscent. i think we have all learned to be a bit resistant with the munich analogy because it was used so many times, in the vietnam war, but there are analogies here in the sense that putin, with ukraine, is making similar arguments to the one hitler made in 1938 that there are people who should be in his country, who are trapped in the wrong country, and i have to defend them, and that land should really be part of russia, and the use of transparent

pretexts for flight operations and all of that. but, obviously, it is a matter of practical facts and differences. we live in a different technological age. although there was talk of a no-fly zone, i did hear some people advocate that in munich, the head of the british parliament defense committee, was saying that, that we should have a no-fly zone over the ukraine, but most people know. he was reckless and too dangerous because russia is a nuclear power and that we would end up at war with russia, we have never been at war with the country with nuclear weapons. if you look to the cold war, which is perhaps more similar to the adversaries based, which i nuclear weapons, when they rolled tanks into hungary in 1956, we did not react actually because of nuclear war, and

eisenhower was heavily criticized in 1956 for not doing anything, but he did not. he decided to advocate because the risks of war at a nuclear age are that much higher. host: let's talk to samuel in chippewa falls, wisconsin, independently. caller: good morning. my question is posed to you. i heard on news reports that president zelensky of ukraine was praising prime minister erdogan of turkey or his assistance in the black sea during this crisis. is not turkey a member of nato, and could that involve article v if anything happens there? guest: really good point. i was just checking twitter before i came on because i only saw that half an hour ago. and it was a brussels correspondent who covers nato and is a former moscow correspondent who made the point you made that it is a striking

act of solidarity, but it is a risk because putin has said he would take on any third country that impedes theirturkey is a mo if the russian navy tries to bust through the turkish navy, and go through the black sea, then they could be at war with a nato country and the need to get into article five territory, yes, this is a danger cold moment. -- dangerous moment. host: your recent column is called putin's war will shake the world, can you explain what you mean? guest: there are some anyways it will shake the world but let us start with the fact that this is already probably the biggest land war in europe since 1945. the u.k. prime minister boris was saying in november that the era of tank war in europe is over. apparently not.

there is also the kinds of risk that we have been talking about, a confrontation between a country although its economy is not much to write home about. the russian economy is the size of spain even though it is 150 million people compared to 45 million in spain. it is not like china. it is certainly a military that have myth -- behemeth. it pours money into the military, it is physically a huge country, the largest in the world, and it is now the biggest and most dangerous confrontation in the west since the end of the cold war and the cuban missile crisis. that is big. you then look at the economic consequences. we are imposing sanctions on russia. they may well retaliate restricting the supply of gas to europe. well, why should that matter? the german economy, 40% of its

energy comes from russian gas. the germans are looking at power shortages, factories running short of electricity and homes not being warmed. and a lot of people will say that is the price we should be prepared to pay, but if it tips germany into a recession, germany is the most important economy in the european union and that will be inflation and there will have political consequences. there is a french presidential election coming up soon and those are things to worry about, and then there are the risks that although nato has said repeatedly that it will not go to war with russia over this that this conflict could spiral in an unpredictable way, and we talked about one of them, what if russia tries to blake the turkish naval blockade and another that you might see, the russian air force chases the ukrainian air force over into

the airspace of the baltic space or poland, and there air force goes into the air and you get a tax between nato and the russian air forces. a lot of these are consequences for russia, and it is likely, i think that russia, the last vestiges of political freedom in russia, there were some, it was a country that we visited a fair amount. it is a freer place than china. there is some independent media, and intellectuals will be prepared to say things that they would not in china. i think those days of relative freedom will come to a close. navalny this time last year and there have been demonstrations in russia, however. that is one of the big unknowns. one of the callers misjudged the russian youth and he may have. what happens there. will he simply be able to

oppress that? i suspect he well, but it is a risk. the other thing he has misjudged is ukrainian nationalism. a lot of people say unfortunately, putin believes his own propaganda, that he might believe that this really is a nazi regime imposed on ukraine and that ukrainians will welcome a russian invasion and he has discovering that that is not the case. the russians might be locked into an insurgency and on the question arises does the west support the insurgents, and what does that do to relations with russia and saving ukraine. doesn't turn it into a long civil civil war like syria? these are huge questions which lie just around the corner. host: let us go to montana and talk to jim on the democrats line. caller: good morning. it is cairo, missouri. host: sorry. caller: my point would be war is

obsolete in a global economy. germans with their gas and russia needing customers, how can you build a war with somebody and disrupt the world peace, and then want them as your customer? another point that has long been a tradition not to take out the leaders of an aggressive state or just the other side. and yet the president of ukraine is under personal threats. he says i am number one. the number one target for russia. if they take out the president of ukraine, can we take out putin? guest: well, both very good questions. on the economic front, you are

right, this will be a disaster for the russian economy but i do not think putin really cares. i was talking to a russian friend who had been meeting -- would been in a meeting with putin a couple of years ago when people were talking about the problems of the russian economy and how it could be improved and he said that putin was visibly bored, he was not interested in the economics and the military question came up and he perked up and he talked about minute detail about military operations. i suppose that he can afford not to be interested in the economy, he personally is an extremely rich man even if his assets are frozen. he will not go hungry, nor are the people around him. the ordinary people of russia could suffer badly as our economy slumps. it is a mentality. we went through a period when economics was king after the fall of the berlin wall when leaders really thought in terms

of globalization and market share. sadly we seem to be going back to an era of armies and nationalization and putin exemplifies that. then, what was the second question? can you perhaps remind me? host: i wanted to ask you about sanctions. how excessive do you think sanctions are going to be? what will it take to tip the balance, and convince putin that this is a bad idea? guest: if you are trying to reverse this policy i do not think sanctions will do it, to be honest. but, i think that now really sanctions are about punishment and sending a message. maybe not to putin, but to others that might be thinking of doing something like this. it is isolating you so that your economy will suffer and made

into an international pariah. but for the reasons i explained, i do not think to himself will turn away now. he might be overthrown which brings us back to the question about which i had to remember, but that will be a little way down the road. i do not think economic sanctions will change his mind. but, i think that western leaders want to be seen to do something and sanctions, if you do not want to go to war, you try economic warfare. the previous caller was also talking about the targeting of zelensky and he is right. normally people do not actually trying kill the leader of the country that they are in -- they are at war with. but, i think the russians see this as -- the russians are obsessed by the iraq war and

say that they are not the rule breakers and they will point to the killing of saddam hussein. i think they see in a twisted sort of way that zelensky as their saddam hussein. so they will try and take him out. as for whether we could kill putin, i think we would not, because we get back to the question of nuclear weapons. but if you take out the head of state of russia, that is going to war with russia, and so i do not know. host: let us talk to brenda in pennsylvania, on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: how are you? host: i am good, i think you need to mute your tv. caller: ok, hold on a minute.

can you hear me now? host: that is much better, go ahead. caller: i am calling you that it is a shame that all of those neighboring countries around the ukraine will not help those people and everybody has their own voice of opinion about this war. i am going to tell you something. 10 and trump put their heads together on something but the west has too much to digest. thanks you very much. host: what do you think? there is the school of thought that this would've never happened under trump. and that putin has taken advantage of a weak u.s. president. what do you think of that? guest: i do not buy it. it might not have happened under trump but not because trump was stronger than biden, but because trump was an enemy of nato.

and i think that putin had reason to hope that in a second trump term, because of his relationships with trump and trump's view of nato that there certainly would not be any admission of ukraine to nato. but that he might to dismantle nato and the alliance. that he would do things that putin is demanding. when biden came to office you had a traditional approach to american foreign policy. biden actually when he was running for president said that america's main adversary was russia and called putin a killer. so putin knew that he would not get anything via a diplomatic route. and then i think what is possible is that the chaotic withdrawal from afghanistan sent a message that american was -- america was getting out of military commitments and eight message of perhaps, lack of resolve. it is around then that serious

planning for the invasion of ukraine looks like it began, but it probably began that there were before. were maneuvers in the spring before the american withdrawal from afghanistan. he may see a certain weak ness, but not just the president or afghanistan. a lot of foreigners look at january the sixth and the storming of the capital and they say this is a country on the brink of a civil war. it is not the america that we knew. it is not the strong, confident, stable country. and that is really not to do with biden, it is to do with the internal politics of the united states. i am sure that putin made a calculation and he might have even been a bit surprised by how committed america has been to try to push back. but i do not think it is solely to do with biden. i think it is to do with the state of the united states in general. host: let us talk to felicia in

des moines, iowa. are you there? caller: yes. good morning. so, my question, he was kind of just answering my question. because trump tried to disrupt nato, and wanted to put russia back in the g7. trump has always been on the side of russia, and i just wonder if when they said sanctions are not going to deter putin from doing what he is doing because he was prepared for this. so if he was prepared to go to war, no one prepares to go to war and -- in nine months or whoever along biden has been in office. this has been something he has been preparing for since he made his way into crimea, and i think the fact that we have said we are not going to go to war with them at all to do anything to

help the ukrainian people, it is just -- it just hurts my heart because we took their weapons away from them with the thought that we would protect them with nato, and i just feel like americans are on the wrong side -- republican americans are on the wrong side of history here, and doesn't it give putin more ability to attack when americans like our last president are honoring him and saying that he is a genius? host: let us get a response. go ahead. guest: there is a lot in what you said, and i think you make a lot of interesting points. i think that trump's praise of putin, and as you said just

recently in the last couple of days calling him a genius. that is part of russia's view of the world. they see america as very divided, not just america, europe is very divided. putin knows there is a consent she would see in the european continent and the united states that look at the kind of thing that tucker carlsen has said that sees him as an ally in the cultural war. he is a macho guy not interested in getting it -- and gay rights are women's rights or whatever. he is a traditional christian, as he would say, but he makes a lot of his christianity. and so, he can play those divisions in the west. as to the point of how we let ukraine down? we will be arguing about this for a long time. let us look at two things. you said that we guaranteed

them, we did and we did not. what is true is that when ukraine got rid of its nuclear ripens -- weapons there was the budapest memorandum signed in which the united states, russia, the u.k., and france guaranteed ukraine's borders and returns for them getting rid of nato -- nuclear weapons. this was brought up in the mute -- munich security conference. the current mayor of kyiv is a former heavyweight boxing champion, so she is a physically imposing specimen to which the legalistic response was that it was a guarantee, but it was not a guarantee to fight for ukraine. it was a sort of we all accept this. ukraine never was a nato and nato is the thing that guarantees the defense or if you are invaded. we can get out of it legally because we can say we never

promised a fight for you. i think the ukrainians feel that there was a moral statement of support that we have not lived up to. and the other thing which is this question of where we correct to say we were not going to fight russia over ukraine? i was talking to a prominent former western leader yesterday was lamenting the way this was handled and said that is a big mistake and was a big mistake. we should have said nothing is off of the table. i could understand why the current generation of leaders did not say that because i did not want to frighten the public. nobody wants nuclear war. if they had said nothing is off the table which implied that you might go to war with russia over ukraine you would have had peace marches and people would've gotten scared. in the ways of reassuring the public they felt it was the right thing to say. on the other hand it sends a signal to putin, the only thing you will faces economic sanctions and he has already had

a round in 2014. i was looking back at what angela merkel said when sanctions were imposed after the annexation of crimea and he said -- and she said we are -- he is crazy to do this and we will cripple the russian economy. and four years later russia held the world cup. putin has written that through, so he felt that he has seen what we have got and it was not that impressive. host: we have one more thing, which is the swiss banking system. explain what -- the swift banking system. explain what that is because president biden is under criticism for not cutting russia off from that. guest: that may change because the european opposition to that is crumbling as we speak. let us back up and explain what it is. when you transfer money internationally, and that is whether it is you or me as an

individual or if you are a business transferring hundreds of millions, you do it via an interbank system called swift, which is based in belgium. and we discovered when we sanctioned iran that you can really damage a country's economy by cutting them out of the swift system because suddenly they cannot do international trade. i cannot make international financial transactions. if you cannot pay your counterparty you are really in trouble. at that time i remember saying swift is not an american organization and it has russians on the board but it is nongovernmental. i was saying to people why did you go along with the sanctions and basically it was because america said if you do not do this the entire board of swift will be liable to arrest if they ever come to the united states. if you are in the international financial business it is

unconscionable that you cannot travel to america so they folded. it was an effective sanction on iran. there is, however hesitancy to applying this to russia. i remember writing at this as the surest way to get russia's attention, financial sanctions. the concern is that we need to do trade with russia, the germans and the italians do. as i mentioned earlier they get 45% of their gas to cut -- to power their economy from russia. the people opposing the swift saying are the germans in particular because they are worried that the first thing you -- that will happen is if they cut russia out of swift's that the russians will say i am sorry but you cannot pay for the gas so no more gas for you and then they will have an economic crisis and that is the argument going on. i was talking to an italian government member this morning and he said look, we do not like it but we can see the way it is

going in europe. opposition to the imposition is crumbling and it will probably happen. if it happens we will just have to find energy sources elsewhere. you were saying that they were going to restart coal-fired power plants and try to import liquid national gas from qatar and we might have to ration. host: rick in missouri on the independent line. good morning. caller: thank you for having me. i wanted to call in and talk about trump but with semi people questioning him i have to say a couple of points. trump made his money as a businessman, dealing with russia and countries across the world and joe biden has made a lot of money by using our political influence. i think trump was alien and from the standpoint of when we were in iraq, take the oil, so we go in there and we are spending all of the money on war and we did

not take control of the oil. as far as geopolitical powers and this was before he was in office. china wanted -- trump wanted nato members to pay their fair share. i do not realize he was trying to destroy nato. but, for your guest today, i would like to move over to wiki, and i see that he has written a book that deals with the asian century, so western domination is ending and china is rising. so, how do you feel and what do you think china is doing now? how does this with the turmoil that we have in the ukraine, what is their game in the long run? guest: that is a great question. i should say the comment i made at trump wanting to destroy nato, that was a bit controversial. he said things that hinted at that and european officials i know where very concerned that

something -- that that was something he would do but it is not totally on the record that that was going to happen. it was an inference. coming to china, look, i think -- a lot of people debate and their arguments about this and some people were saying that china will be uncomfortable about this because they do not like violation of sovereignty, they are very big on this. i do not believe that and i am of a different view which overall, china is ok with this because china has a similar worldview to the russians in the sense that they do not like a world dominated by american power. they also have territorial ambitions on taiwan. if russia gets away with invading ukraine, and effectively manages it and manages the aftermath, then i think the chinese will feel like ok, our time is coming and we can invade taiwan.

because they too have to deal with the question of american power. maybe that tells you something about what they do with china attacked taiwan. even if russia gets bogged down, that is not so bad for china because what you see is an increasing american focus to try to rebuild their position in europe, and that is good for china because they want continuity between -- the odd continuity between trump and biden's foreign policy is that they wanted to concentrate on china, and that is not great for china if american power is focusing on beijing. if america pulls back towards europe that students china. it is interesting that at the un security council everybody was looking to see what would china do on this vote to condemn russia, nobody thought that they would join the vote to condemn russia and some people they thought they might vote

alongside the russians. they abstain. i think that would've been a great disappointment in moscow. putin and xi had a long meeting during the winter olympics and they have a close relationship. i think even the chinese may have been taken by surprise by the extent of the russian invasion. and they are probably watching to see what happens. i do not think they want to be go -- they want to go all in with russia if putin miscalculated. if we are starting a new cold war as some call it with russia, complete with all economic sanctions if china goes out there and says we are russia's ally, that drags them into it and they become a target for secondary economic sanctions. the moment, if the chinese are sympathetic to the russians they do not want to find their relationship with america dictated to by russia. they do not want to be used as

the tale of the dog, and finding that they are having their relationship with america dictated by crazy things that putin has done so they are keeping a bit of distance for now. host: richard in kansas city, kansas on the democrat line. caller: well, i am struck by the fact that putin referred to neo-nazis and my people came from that area as a group in the 1880's and settled in kansas, western kansas in a little town called chinchin, and i give a shout out to all of my old relations, if i have any left. host: your people came from ukraine? caller: right along the volga

river. i read a deal on this some years back they were show -- sold land along a river called the little smoky which does not exist anymore, and you can see the sequence of the villages that were created here in kansas like -- they all have german names and they are in the same sequence as the villages they were brought from on the volga river, and as you go up the smoky river, you will see that these same towns are duplicated over here in kansas. host: so, let us get a response because we are running low on time, gideon, the remark by putin calling the ukrainians neo-nazis, where did that come from? guest: it is a part of russian

out of -- ideology although putin's ideology which goes back to the second world war. because of the hideous treatment of ukraine in the 1930's under the soviet union, there was a massive famine, millions died. when the nazis invaded, some ukrainians, nationalists and people who hated stalin and the treatment of the ukrainians fought with the nazis against the soviet army. and what putin argues is that current stain -- day ukrainian nationalists are the heirs to the people who fought with the nazis against the soviet union. however, i think that is a deeply unfair slur. that was almost a century ago. ukraine has plenty of reasons to want to be an independent state now that have no connection to that. and indeed, you have to give --

the biggest push for the idea that neo-nazis, the current president of ukraine is jewish. what kind of neo-nazi state would have a jewish president? host: about the reaction is -- in the u.k., is there any daylight between boris johnson's views on this and president biden's views, are they really in sync? guest: they are. the british have been hardline on russia for reasons that you can go back to the 19th centuries and certainly the cold war. relations have been bad because they attempted to murder a person in britain and there was the expulsion of diplomats and we are not as economically dependent. so for all of the reasons the british have been with america, and we have a similar view of what was about to happen because

there was a special intelligence sharing relationship between the u.s., u.k., australia, and canada. so they are pretty close. on this policy and actually, you know, the europeans are beginning to move closer to where the white house is. a lot of the divergence before was because of a difference in analysis. they did not believe would do this. i do not think you can underestimate the normative sense of shock. if you are in berlin, you are closer to western ukraine and paris. this is not that far from them. they are pretty warned by what is happening. host: thank you so much for joining us on "washington journal." that is it for today's " washington journal." join us tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern.

have a great saturday. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think this is a just -- just a community center, it is more than that. >> comcast is partnering to enable wi-fi for students from poor families to get everything that they need. >> comcast support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> today is day three of the

conservative political action conference. our coverage begins with ohio congressman jim jordan at 3:15 p.m. eastern. former president donald trump addresses the group at 7:00 p.m. watch live on c-span, c-span.org or full coverage on our video app, c-span now. pres. biden: i can report to the nation america is on the move again. >> live tuesday, the state of the union. president biden addresses a joint session of congress and the nation reflecting on his first year in office and laying out his agenda ahead. live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern. the president speaks at 9:00 and then we will take action in the republican response and we will take your phone calls. the state of the union address live at 8:00 p.m. eastern, c-span.com or on the video app.