and our series "talking with ..." features extensive conversations with historians about their lives and work. you can find them all on the c-span now mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more. including midco. midco supports c-span as a public service along with these other service providers. giving you a front-row seat to democracy. >> ambassador kurt volker served at the special representative for ukrainian negotiations.

he now serves as a distinguished fellow at the center for european policy analysis, ambassador vogel, welcome to the program. as far as the current peace talks going on, what is the significance of those talks? it is important to have a channel open so if there is a way to have a conflict, it can be done. ukrainians are asking the russians to initiate a cease-fire. the russians are having a harder time in invading ukraine is -- than expected. they are blocking their way through. ukrainians -- we will see this continue for longer. host: is there value to what is going on? guest: there is always a reason to have a channel open for dialogue. let the russians communicate and the ukrainians communicate. if there is a point where russia

decides that the invasion is not working and wants to end it, it is good to have a channel like this. host: when it comes to nato, for everything that is taking --ta m -- taycan, where can they go from here? work in to go as far as the best responding to this -- where can nato go as far as responding to this? guest: -- we will give them supplies and and munition so they can fight for themselves but there are not any natal troops and natal has put their own -- nato has put their own forces. host: as -- when it comes to the systems of ukraine, how can -- how much further can nato go? guest: we have provided about a

billion dollars of military equipment to help the ukrainians get what they need to defend themselves. this includes antitank's missiles and antiaircraft missiles and there needs to be more of that. munitions. there are so much more they need and this will be a grinding war for them. they are only so big and there are only so many. they have done an extraordinary job defending their cities but it will be difficult. host: as far as nato itself, what is the purpose of the united states as far as further action and how is president biden doing? guest: natal has been -- natal has been unified. -- it was originally just a

handful of countries that agreed to support ukraine military. canada also helped. now we see the belgians coming up with equipment and the germans and the sweets who are not even nato members so the lever -- level of support from ukraine has escalated significantly. host: how much influence has president biden have own -- had on that? guest: showing that we are in support of ukraine and announcing that we will have does -- devastating sanctions if the russians ukraine and supplies ukraine -- that sense -- send a signals -- to others. i want to say -- the european

union sanctions are probably the most significant things. these hit the russian economy and they hit them directly. host: the discussion as far as sanctions was sanctioning directly. so that come into play? guest: this was one of the frustrations i had. i am happier that we see sanctions but we cannot leave things off the table on purpose and that will lose ukrainian lives. we need to do everything to stop food. host: our guest is with us. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 four democrats. (202) 748-8002 four independents . guest: i was being distracted.

host: if you could quickly talk about -- guest: my job was to pull the allies together. everyone on the same page so that we could support ukraine. russia had attacked ukraine in 2014. the idea was to unit ghost -- negotiate with russia an end to the conflict. we never got it done. we spent two years building the pressure on russia to get them to that point. just as we were making headway, we looked at the arms ban on ukraine. we increased sanctions on russia but as we were making some headway, the impeachment thing broke out and it made ukraine a political football in the u.s.

that it was a serious national security policy. host: one of the things that was brought up from the previous administration were missiles going to the country per only used as a political deterrent. guest: with the javelins, they are meant to be a defensive weapon. if the tanks are coming, you use them. we were not arming ukraine with javelins in order for them to retake the territory by force that russia had occupied. that was understood by the ukrainians in the u.s.. arm them so russians wouldn't advance further. as term -- in terms of security, it was a mistake to suspend -- that we would know longer supply security assistance and get that reverse from 6-8 weeks.

host: when it comes to the threat that russia talked about as of yesterday, of its new era posture, how serious should that be taken and what does that mean? guest: it is hard to know. one thing is that putin is losing. the armed forces of russia are having a harder time so he is brandishing a nuclear threat to scared europeans and met -- americans. he is trying to make sure that he is still seen in the dominant position trying to play with ukrainian psyche, don't resist or we will use nuclear weapons against you and finally, it is also a means of trying to shore up the position in russia. i think a lot of people in russia, the public and people in the intelligence and military

community are questioning the judgment. why is he doing this and killing all these ukrainians? there are a lot of people questioning the judgment so escalating, he is trying to show that he is in charge. host: is de-escalation possible at this point? guest: it requires putin to decide that this is not working or for others in russia to put food in a site this is not working -- putin aside and say this is not working. they have a lot of forces in ukraine that they have not used. they have brought in these weapons that are like a fire over this evening. they are escalating dramatically but it is up to the russians. they can stop at any time. host: john in salem oregon. thanks for calling.

caller: thank you. i have a very specific question about the italians -- the far right neo-nazi group that is embedded in the ukrainian national guard. in how much american taxpayer money is funding this organization? guest: to clarify, the battalion was in 2014 when russia attacked the first time. ukrainian military was in terrible shape. several private militias formed and it had very far right elements in it. they did well in defending the territory but there were far-right groups.

the ukrainian military absorbed these private militias as a way up preventing them from acting in -- independently and they rotated personnel through them in order to diminish these far right tendencies and side of the military. -- inside the military. these have been a much as nights -- homogenized. host: diane in arkansas. republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i will like to say we are looking very weak in the world and when we are strong, the world is safe and we were energy independent. biden close the -- closed the

pipeline and taxes went up. -- gases went up. we get some of our gas from russia. it should not be that way. if we were drilling, that would cripple his economy. if we were drilling. that what cripple iran's economy. we have raised taxes on corporate, operations are not going to get -- back in america. we have to lower taxes and stop funneling money. afghanistan was the laughingstock of the whole world. it was awful how we left them. host: ok. guest: the point you are making -- putin perceived weakness in the west.

a lack of willingness to use force. focus on domestic issues. weakness on nato. he saw the withdrawal from afghanistan, which was catastrophic and i think he felt that this is the moment where the west is weak. it will not be support for ukraine and ukrainians will not defend themselves that is one of the things that entered his decision-making. another factor is his own self driven effort to rebuild the russian empire. he thinks that the collapse of the soviet union was one of the greatest tragedies and he saw the soviet leaders as failures for losing lance and he is going on a mission to recover territories that were under the

soviet union and he is doing it on this 100 anniversary year on the founding of the soviet union. he has had this vision in his mind to expand the russian empire. host: in writing about that, you wrote this, saying " coming to grips with this reality -- " what does that mean? guest: corporate take -- protecting nato members, whoever it may be. we are facing a aggressive military threat from russia, which is the kind that we only saw from the soviet union.

even ringing up the issue of nuclear weapons. we have led our military forces and our readiness go down over the next 30 years -- last 30 years because of the russian threat disappeared and we have dramatically cut defense spending, troop deployment, number of forces in europe. everything is lower than 30 years ago. we have to begin to reverse that and bring ourselves to a more capable level, given the threat that russia is conducting. host: germany announced recently that they were going to increase their military spending. guest: we have been pushing germany under multiple administration. i joined the foreign service during the reagan administration and we were pushing germany to spend defense. we never really got the germans there but this weekend, they

announced that they will be increasing their defense spending. this is a positive step and this is a perverse consequence on what putin has done. the second point -- our countries in europe that want to live in peace and freedom and have their own democracies and to be safe and secure for the future. ukraine is one of them. exactly what is happening to them now is what they were afraid of. now, they are seeing the results of not being a member of nato, not being protected by the rest of europe and there are a couple of countries. there is georgia and ukraine and moldova and we need to have a serious and urgent conversation with the conflict is over, how do we protect these other countries? we should not be weak and we

should not be late and see puts an attack other countries. host: our guest is with the center of your premium policy analysis -- european policy analysis. what is the purpose of that group? guest: it started -- it spent -- expanded to be transatlantic focus. it has young researchers and a lot of think tanks. i do not know all the financial backing. you have to as the organization itself and the leaders trip there. -- leadership there. host: democratic line. caller: my comment is i know the buck stops with our president. this is the first time in

american history that i have never seen a american president meets with an enemy. -- it comes out, no one is there in the meeting but americans come out and say on national tv, he takes enemy word over the cia word. he is receiving love letter -- letters from korea. -- ex military and i cannot tell you how that made me feel when i heard that. host: lynn from georgia. mr. ambassador. guest: i think that episode was unfortunate. i think that saying that we trust putin's judgment over

intelligence forces is not -- should be the case. losing came into power in 2000. i think we need to meet with the russian leader but i think what is important is the message that we get. we need to show one of strength and resolve and even during the trump administration, and i was a part of the effort in the increases of sanctions on russia. we closed down some of their intelligence operations and we -- despite what you say, we were able to move that forward and that has continued and expanded under the biden administration. host: what do you think from the treasures it -- from the acquisitiveness from -- from the criticism trump hazardous -- received from -- that putin --

guest: if you want to assess it that way but what he is doing his people and we shouldn't be using the positive ways of appraising what he is doing. he is attacking another country unprovoked and whether you think his tactics are good or bad, it is a terrible thing to do. host: here is kathleen. in massachusetts. independent line. caller: i would like to know what you think about current sentiment about the condensation president trump had with -- which led to his impeachment that was the quid pro quo and over the phone, he -- the

interpreter and he was the one that -- i am nervous and i watched your testimony and i watch everyone's testimony so i would like to hear what you think about the colonel who was demonized as a whistleblower china writing out -- trying to >> out president trump --rat out president trump. guest: i would not like to talk about the impeachment process. it is very unfortunate that we have a national policy interest in the united states in seeing ukraine being successful and that emplacement -- impeachment process distracted us. we have not had a replacement

for me as a u.s. representative. the focus on ukraine was this law -- dislodged. we need to keep the focus on the national security interest of the ukrainian people. host: dominic in new york. republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for your service. you said earlier you expect the crisis in ukraine to be a grinding war. i would like you to expand on that and integrate how that looks like in terms of time -- weeks, months? and how military psychological operations and sanctions can be

used during this time? guest: excellent question because that's what we will be following and watching over the next couple weeks to months. where do we stand? the russians have amassed 190,000 to 200,000 forces in and around ukraine. they have gone in, in a largely sloppy way. they have lost over 3000 soldiers, probably 4000 by this morning. they have lost tanks, aircraft and helicopters. ukrainians are fighting very hard to defend their cities. they have done remarkably well, even though their equipment may not be as good as the russian equipment. but the russians can come in with wave after wave of troops. we can bring in new types of

weapons and have not yet brought in. and ukrainians are the same ukrainians who are defending their cities. so this is going to be very hard, very long for the ukrainians. it will be difficult. they do not have the depth, they are not as big of a country as russia is. they do not have as big of an armed force that's ready come although they have reserves an they have -- they have reserves and have armed their citizens. ukrainians will not give up. they ultimately will prevail in my view, because it is their country. the russian soldiers do not fully understand where they are or what they are doing, they have not been fully informed. and i think the russian people are kind of shocked when they realize they are killing ukrainians. so i think that this will drag out for a while. then we have the separate dynamic of the sanctions and the political pressure against

russia itself, which are being noticed. for instance, from little things like the swedish national football team refusing to go to russia to play, to all flights from russia being banned from the european union. to the economic sanctions, where russian banks are being banned from the international transfer system. assets will be frozen. these will have an impact on the russian economy and the people will notice that. that is both a direct impact as well as a psychological impact on russia. and i hope it causes people in russia to begin to question putin's leadership, that he has dragged them into something that is damaging for russia, and the only threat to russia is actually his leadership. on top of that, i do not see the u.s. or nato allies directly intervening to defend ukraine, even though there's things i

think we could do. we'll be providing the supplies. more and more countries will provide supplies. and ukrainians will hang on, but it will take a long time. i suspect he will see heavy fighting probably through another -- we'll see heavy fighting probably through another week or two. then i think it will stabilize into a standoff, continuing conflict unresolved, but a standoff after that. host: a no fly zone is part of this discussion, do you think it is an option? guest: i think it is essential. russia is using missiles the bomb civilian populations. they are targeting nuclear facilities. they are targeting nuclear waste storage facilities to it that low-level radiation out there. this is horrendous. and i think when we go back and

examine everything we will find it was crimes against humanity. we could be preventing some of this if we did a no-fly zone over kyiv. we could at least prevent some of these attacks in kyiv. we could also create a secure corridor for the transport of security assistance from nato countries to ukraine, so we do not run the risk of russia taking out the supplies or making attacks on the ukrainian-polish border. host: this is jeremy in charlotte on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. i want to make a statement and get a reaction from your guest. i would like to say that the american people have been kept in the dark as to what the u.s. and nato have been doing over the last eight years. nobody knows in the states that the u.s.-backed coup in 2014 to

replace the democratically elected viktor yanukovych, and they replaced him with a puppet. ever since then the russian speaking areas in knew ukraine have been bombarded and attacked. this is all a long-term plan. they have been at russia's doorstep. and they have been doing it to get their reaction. the whole idea was the bomb russia down, and then to be able to sanction, basically cancel their nord stream 2 pipeline, which was delivering natural gas to germany because this is a great threat to the u.s. market. and they are using the worst people. they are backing and sending arms to militias in ukraine,

such as the -- military brigade. they have been ruthless. host: ok, we will let our guest respond. guest: everything the caller said is false, everything from there being a coup to an puppet government, the last two presidents elected by the people with a peaceful transfer of power. russia conducting a war in ukraine for eight years. we tried to help strengthen ukraine over that time, and they have actually done better as a country economically and politically, and they have improved their security forces. nobody wanted russia to attack ukraine. russia did this out of its own volition. the biden administration bent over backwards not to sanction the nord stream 2 pipeline. it has only been sanctioned because of russia's invasion now. host: we have a viewer on twitter who asked about the

peace talks, saying, "is it too late for ukraine not to seek membership in nato in exchange for russia agreed to withdraw from ukraine? if so, what will happen to d onetsk and luhansk?" guest: let's not be outside powers making the decision for an outside country, ukraine needs to do what is in their interest. if they seek to join nato, we should take that seriously, especially in the face of the obvious security threats they face. we should be thinking hard about whether they should not be a member of nato. maybe they should be, maybe we should help them. maybe it would've prevented the war we are seeing. it's something on the table and we have to hear from ukrainians and other nato allies. in terms of luhansk and donetsk,

they have been occupied by russia for eight years. they are part of ukraine. the former secretary general of nato had publicly come out with a formula about states with occupied territories. that if you allow the fact of some territory being occupied to be an obstacle to that country becoming a needle, you create in -- to that country becoming a member of nato -- he said we should find a formula where we apply article v to the unoccupied parts of a country's territory. and make a commitment, a legal commitment, with that country that there will be no effort to retake those territories by force. we recognize their territorial integrity as a legal matter, but only support peaceful reintegration of those territories and not the use of

force to do so. that would then level the playing field and give us the opportunity to give fair consideration as to whether those countries it should be members or not, without the occupied territories being a fundamental obstacle. host: from sheldon in south carolina coming right next. -- carolina, you are next. caller: good morning. i was overseas at a base. we had our weapons in the old soviet union and all. i believe it is the biggest card putin has in his debt. and -- deck. and i do not think he will use it because of mutually assured destruction. i think it is a bluff. guest: i hope you are right. i think it probably is a bluff, but what putin is doing right

now in ukraine is the rational. -- is irrational. it is the actions of a madman who is trying to achieve a fantasy everybody in the russian empire. the methods he is using of killing innocent civilians in taking over a foreign country, these are the actions of a madman so this makes me concerned he may not be thinking rationally about nuclear weapons. but i hope it is a bluff. and i hope our government makes a strong statement today that we will not tolerate any use of nuclear weapons, period. host: how do you factor china into what is going on? guest: at the china is uncomfortable with this. they signed an agreement about a month ago during the olympics with putin, where they said they reject western hegemony. china does not like the u.s. preside -- the u.s. presence in asia. they do aim to take over taiwan,

so they are a risk for us, but they see themselves as more sophisticated and more patient, and a rising power. and they look at russia as brutal, vulgar and a declining power. and they do not like the idea of attacking a different sovereign state, especially the means the russians are using. i think the chinese are uncomfortable with this. at the u.n. over the weekend, there was a call for a special session, which will take place today, a discussion on ukraine. the chinese did not vote with russia, they abstained. they did not but with the other 13 members to call for this either, they did not want to go against russia. at the same time, i do not think they are comfortable with where russia is. host: in austin, texas on the republican line. caller: good morning, hope everyone is having a great day. i want to say one thing. i get tired of everybody beating up on trump.

there's the saying, you keep your friends close and enemies closer. trump did a good job of keeping his enemies close. as far as his comments about putin being smart, there is not anyone out there that has a purse and they may not have liked, they did not trust in them, but they agreed that they were smart. and i agree with trump, the leaders on our side have been slow to go. and what nobody else is commenting on is right after trump said our leaders are not smart, he made the comment that was happening over there was a horrible humanitarian crisis. so i do not know why everybody wants to beat up on trump when biden has gotten us where we are now. why can't we keep our focus on this groups biden has done? guest: no real comment. i think you make a good point. host: jeff is in indianapolis.

caller: it's interesting to hear the republicans, especially the last caller. the idea that the ukrainian government is being run by drug addicts, when the leader of ukrainian cell -- when the leader of ukraine itself is jewish. and that guy saying that trump is irrational, you may need -- is rational, you may need therapy. they are playing fox news on russian propaganda with tucker carlsen basically praising mr. pompeo, pleasing putin and trump as well. host: what is your question or comment for our guest? caller: i think the republican party is enabling putin.

the republican party should never be back in power after january 6. host: jeff, that is a little off of our conversation. guest: he identified a couple people who are speaking out, and have spoken in support of putin, but i would not characterize that as the republican party because i happen to be visiting my parents this we can and they had fox news on and i saw steve hadley there, senator lindsey graham, former senior director abrams -- all taking tough positions against the russian invasion of ukraine. these are people i worked with in a previous administration so that is not quite accurate. host: for the long-term, what does this mean for the u.s., not only the direct conflict going now, but as far as the long-term? guest: we have the very immediate problem of an authoritarian russia under putin that's acting against other countries, its neighbors, in an

effort to rebuild the russian empire. this could be a direct threat to nato allies, the baltic states or norway or poland. it could be a threat to the united states and we have to do with this immediately. we have to build up our defenses to take a position of strength, to make clear to russia that any attack will be met with the full force of the nato alliance. and event to try to help these countries caught in between, like ukraine, georgia and moldova. and then we also have to be looking further down the road to try to make sure that we do not end up in a conflict with china. we have to show strength there, preemptively, so we do not get into a hot conflict, as we are seeing from russia right now. host: one more call. bill from albany, new york. make it fast. caller: i was wondering if the ambassador would --or thinks

republicans and democrats can put their hypocrisy down and work together? is it possible that they can do that or are we far to gone on that? do you think the invasion is a diversion? i know you talked about china, but does china somehow get involved with this by knowing about it? host: i apologize, we will have to leave it there. guest: on the china question, i think that china is more likely not to go to aggressively against taiwan right now. it does not want to be seen in the same league as russia. in terms of bipartisanship in the u.s., i have to say that there is very strong bipartisan support for ukraine, sanctions against russia, military support for ukraine. and i think that that is only increasing. host: ambassador kurt volker, from the center of european policy now, former special representative for ukrainian