court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit to succeed retiring justice stephen bier on the support -- pwrao*euer. if confirm she'll become the first african-american woman to serve on the nation's highest court. follow this historic process from the announcement all wait through the confirmation process. on c-span. c-span.org, or by downloading the free c-span now app. ♪ operation.

"washington journal" continues. host: john herbst was the former ambassador to ukraine from 2000 and-2006. -- from 2000 to 2006. thank you for doing this. you have heard about the ukrainian people and their ability to push back on russia, how long is that sustainable for them to do so? guest: forever. if you want, i will explain. look, the kremlin has either the second or third most powerful conventional forces in the world. the ukrainian military is strong, but not in comparison to that. while moscow is having troubles but not against the new offensive, if they bring all their military might to bear

they may be able to capture several ukrainian cities, they may be able to establish a corridor down to crimea, maybe even onto odessa. but if they do that, or even if they were able to somehow decapitate the current ukrainian government, there will still be a military that will fight for the ukrainian people. there will be a resistance that moscow will be unable to deal with. and i have no doubt if they were to take kyiv, which if they want, they will still have ukrainians fighting. and they cannot occupy the whole country without facing that resistance, and ultimately the resistance will defeat them. host: to have the military to do

that, what is their capability? guest: resistance, as we saw against the nazis, his resistance of the people who are conquered and occupied, yet they still have small arms, they still have explosives, they still have a will to fight and resist. the russian people do not want to be in a war against the ukrainian population. if the military offensive was successful, putin would still face this. host: as far as the support you have seen from other countries in the european union, from nato itself, what else can be done as far as that support? guest: we need to send as many relevant weapons as possible, most especially javelins which killed tanks and stingers, which kill aircraft. and predator drones, the type that the turks sold to the

ukrainians. those things will make it hard for the russians to amass forces in a way that could bring a victory. we need to make sure arms continue to get there. host: you were quoted in a newsweek story talking about the lead up to this as far as the biden administration is concerned, as far as weapons that were sent and i think you had criticism of that. go ahead. guest: you are absolutely right. the biden team laid out a three-part approach to this crisis, more arms to ukraine, upping nato defenses in big sanctions on moscow. but because of a certain illusion about having better relations with moscow, which was a pipe dream, they held back. we should have sensitive get weapons to ukraine after the russians threatened this in a

year ago in 2021. in this crisis, the administration only sent additional weapons in late january, way too late. we should have sent stingers. having said that, the old world policy is a solid but this is a serious weakness and ukrainians are paying for it with their lives. host: as far as additional weapons, are there avenues to get them into ukraine or will they be blocked by russia and other forces? guest: we can no longer ship than by air, which is easier. but we can still send it over land through poland and through romania. i would suggest we call on the old trail to send weapons. host: john herbst, the former ambassador to ukraine joining us on the conversation.

if you want to ask him about events in ukraine, you can do so. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents can call 202-748-8002. the president of ukraine has called on the biden administration and nato to set up a no-fly zone, what is the feasibility of that? guest: i am very sympathetic to the situation in ukraine which led the president to make that request, but i do not think it will happen because the way we establish no-fly zones is we make the airspace completely safe for our planes we. -- we have to attack preemptively the russian systems and russia itself, and they may consider that an act of war so i do not see us doing that. look, i mentioned the the biden

administration regarding arms. there's also protecting american citizens in ukraine and ascending humanitarian assistance to ukraine. we did this in georgia in 2008. we should announce to moscow that we are sending a cargo plane to kyiv with humanitarian aid and of american citizens. also, we should announce we are sending navy ships to odessa with humanitarian aid and also to pull out americans. this is a way you can provide humanitarian aid, it will be a shot in the arm for ukrainians, and c, it complicates russian military planning. host: as far as the refugees, as we have been hearing about, that is one portion of the story.

the countries they are fleeing to, what do you think about the ability of these countries to take care of them? guest: it looks like that is happening. obviously, that is a very good thing. it's unfortunate you do not see a similar willingness in europe to accept refugees from the middle east. host: when it comes to the recent comments or the increase of nuclear posture by vladimir putin, how should the u.s. and nato except -- accept that? guest: here is where we need statesmanship. what putin did the other day, talking about raising the alert status of nuclear forces, is not new. he likes to show off his nuclear strength in order to intimidate other nations, but he took it to a another level by raising the alert of all -- alert level.

our response was mild. there was a condemnation, but they should have reminded putin that we have nuclear weapons too and we will not be intimidated. host: so you think it will stay a threat or is this an actionable thing on putin's part ? guest: you cannot say it is impossible, but it makes zero sense in terms of russia's interest actually use nuclear weapons because we have them, too. i also think that if he was to give such an order, it's not certain it would be carried out. we saw over the past eight days, how senior russian security officials are deeply uncomfortable, first with the war in ukraine and second with a nuclear alert. on sunday, when he made the announcement, he had the defense minister with him and his chief soldier, and they were clearly

uncomfortable as putin was speaking along these lines. host: our first call is from texas, the democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning. this war that russia put on ukraine is something that has been in the works since president obama, and we before than. -- then. he should been sending that nation weapons way before russia invaded. and i'm -- my personal opinion, because i am a stupid person, i think that biden had this plan. they get money from over there and they open up the russia pipeline -- yeah, they had this plan.

and they are right along with him. he's for it, he is not against it. the democratic government, that is what they are for. you want to protect the borders, which i am glad they are giving them weapons, but they are not doing anything to help them because they are part of the situation, not part of the solution. host: tiny in texas. go. guest: and that was from a democratic line. i agree that obama should have sent weapons, and i made that case in 2015. i agree with you that we should be sending weapons sooner. and i also agree that i think that our energy policies, in shutting down our oil and gas gives russia greater strength to use energy as a weapon in europe. having said that, you have to credit in the biden administration with an energetic approach to this crisis.

i have to give them credit, because this is the best we have seen from any american president dealing with moscow's aggression towards ukraine. there's flaws, but you have to credit them over all for something that is not bad at all. host: how do you view what made them come together on this, other countries as well? guest: i would give the biden team credit for that because they worked very hard at strengthening the nato bonds, strengthening our partnership with the eu, and it has paid off big time. more important than the administration's efforts, even though they are very good, is europe awakening to the reality of what putin is. everybody has been glued to the television watching ukraine, the horrors putin has unleashed. putin is five days succeeded in

what six or seven american presidents could not succeed, persuading germany to spend enough money on its own defense. that -- that's remarkable achievement. host: a caller on the independent line. caller: good morning. it's very interesting listening to the dialogue, but everything really began in 2010, when ukraine's parliament voted to never become part of nato. and that is the central point of the conflict. in 2014, america did to ukraine what it did to iran in 1953. you assisted in a coup, and installed anti-russian leadership. and that is problematic. they began -- citizens, even to the point of threatening to ban the language.

it's very divisive in the media. america does not have the right to choose a nation's government. this began a long time ago. max blumenthal, an independent investigative journalist, documents the u.s. supporting neo-nazi elements in ukraine. also harassing the africans who are trying to evacuate ukraine. this is a farce. i do not believe that this will end like it did with gaddafi being drug through the streets. host: that is ezekiel. guest: almost everything you say is factually wrong. the united states did not conduct a coup in ukraine. what happened is essentially this. the ukrainian government, under previous president yana covid, the leader who won the 2010

election, was working on a trade agreement with the european union and they were just about to conclude that when russia said no. yana covid -- yanakovtich did not obey the order and many started protesting. then, the ukrainian president unleashed his police on them, it was a nasty crackdown, as a result of which it did not succeed. a day or so later there were hundreds of thousands of people in the streets of kyiv protesting not just the trade agreement, but on the authoritarian regime in power. and those demonstrations lasted for several months, until a very ugly week in late february of 2014, when snipers either permitted by the ukrainian president or ordered by him,

murdered people protesting. then the people of ukraine said this president must go, and he fled. as a result of that, the kremlin seized crimea and then began the war in donbass. you need a wider source of information there max blumenthal, who is very one-sided. as do tune into the atlantic council, we have a blog, we have a ukraine alert, you will get real information. host: the economic sanctions being placed on russia, could that stop efforts by vladimir putin? guest: uh, i do not think that the sanctions by themselves will stop putin's war on ukraine. with they will do is it they will severely weaken the russian economy, which overtime will weaken russia's military establishments. it will cause a sharp drop in

russians' standard of living. the russian people do not want to this war in ukraine, polls have shown that. the impact of all this will be to weaken putin, as will the casualties of russian soldiers coming home dead from ukraine. for that matter, ukrainian civilian casualties. but putin has just delivered a major blow to his own economy which will weaken his leadership and automatically could lead to his departure sooner than we expect. host: mike and long beach on the democrats -- in long beach on the democrats line. caller: i have a simple question. did biden ahead of time send in weapons, say last year, could he not be accused by putin and the media here for actually instigating the war?

guest: well, you are absolutely right that the russians would've accused him of instigating the war, but they are accusing him now of instigating the war. we need to understand putin's objectives. they are to make sure he has control of ukraine, but beyond that have control of all of the countries that emerged from the dissolution of the soviet union and influence in the countries at that used to be part of the warsaw pact, countries like poland, romania, hungary and the czech republic. that is -- the defeat boudin is to defeat him in ukraine. -- putin is to defeat him in ukraine. we have greatly weakened to position and will probably, over

the course of time, persuade russia to pursue a nonaggressive foreign policy. host: alexander vindman, the director of the european affairs for the national security council, has an op-ed, "how to up our game in ukraine." he says the partnership could be grounded into the existing nato commission, the decision-making body responsible for the relationship and other existing institutions. a cornerstone of the approach would be a new version of the marshall plan to rebuild ukraine's economy and a 21st century of the lend lease act. it goes on, but what do you think about it? guest: he's a creative guy. and i think that i'm glad to see this in the public arena. i do not know if lend lease makes sense right now.

steve wiseman advocating -- has been advocating for that for several years now. it's not a bad way to strengthen ukraine's morale and to tell putin it will only get worse, so he better back away. when i look at it that way i think it is a sensible approach. as for the marshall plan, i would be surprised if there is not kind of marshall plan once russian troops leave ukraine because the sympathy for ukraine and recognition of the importance of ukraine is at an all-time high. but that does not belong in nato, that is something we would do with the eu. host: our guest was a foreign service officer for over 30 years. john herbst is joining us for this conversation. dave in florida on the independent line. caller: good morning. i sent emails to senator scott

and senator rubio and i never got an answer. before this conflict started, i asked why did we not invite russia to join nato? and the second thing is that, because we are in this situation now, why don't we ask ukraine and russia to do a conditional surrender before they destroy kyiv? because if they have not really destroyed the city yet, and if they do a conditional surrender whereby the ukrainian government stays in place and keeps as much as they can possible, then maybe things that go to the outside conditions, conditions and they do on the outside, is something they can run from russia before they approved things outside the country.

those are my two things. because if we throw more ammunitions into that conflict, we are just throwing gas on a fire and it will get really bad over there. i am retired military. i understand about throwing gas on the firing. and i am sure that i do not want any of my brothers hurt. and i think that is the quickest way to solve the poem. guest: thank you for your -- of the problem. guest: thank you for your service. back in the 1990's, there was some talk about russia joining nato. and, i mean, talk with the russians. it could not go anywhere because essentially moscow would have wanted a veto over nato policies, which we and other nato members were not willing to give. so those talks, those talks were

very short. but we did establish a counsel to enhance cooperation. so there were efforts taken. but as to your other idea about ending the current conflict, what you have essentially outlined is what putin wants. he wants to be able to determine ukraine's national security policy. and the ukrainians want to be a fully sovereign country which develops close relations with the eu and with nato, and they should have that right. and when you say that we should send no weapons, you are saying we should allow russia to conquer ukraine and i do not think that is either morally right or in our interest. putin's objectives go well beyond ukraine. in a speech he gave last week, when he basically said he was going to war, he said he should have a controlling interest in

all the countries at that emerged from the soviet union and substantial influence in the ex-warsaw pact states. why in the world should he have that? that directly challenges vital american interests. we need to stop putin in ukraine and i think we are doing that right now pretty well. host: margaret in north dakota, hi. caller: hi. i'm calling about -- i'm kind of nervous, i have never been on the air before. guest: relax, i am nervous too. caller: why can't they arrest putin and this would all be over, for war crimes? they do not talk about that. what are we doing about de-escalating the nuclear threat? i'm so frightened right now. guest: look, they will not

arrest putin because he happens to be the president of russia. as far as we know there is nobody in russia with sufficient authority or force to arrest him. but your point has merit because, one, this is putin's war. even his national security team is uncomfortable with this. and you are right, too, that this decision is not popular among the elites or the people of russia. and eventually those facts will influence defense in russia. two, russia has apparently committed war crimes now. the rocket fire, which it destroyed a bunch of apartment buildings in kharkiv, a russian-speaking city in ukraine, is a war crime. the ukrainian ambassador said yesterday the russians used a

thermo barrack bomb, which sucks the oxygen out of an area. if that is confirmed by our forces, i would suspect they will be because she is a meticulous lady, the ambassador, that is also a war crime. so there is a request by the ukrainian authorities now to the international court of justice to begin an investigation of russian war crimes, and i would hope that the biden administration would support that. host: politico is reporting that belarus has joined the russian invasion, the country's troops entering the region of northern ukraine. how does that change what goes on? guest: obviously it adds to the threat to ukraine that additional forces from another country are entering. it also demonstrates how the president of belarus is completely under the thumb of putin, because he never contemplated something like this

before. i'm not certain that belarus's forces are all that competent. nonetheless, it adds to ukraine's problems. host: can you expand on his competency? guest: they are not first-rate troops. host: bob in wisconsin on the democrats line. caller: listen, i cannot pronounce your last name. the host keeps saying ambassador. guest: calmly john, -- call me john. caller: i want to know your opinion. i will give you my opinion first, then you can give me your opinion. then you could cut me off the air. they say that biden is weak. that man is over 70 years old.

he gave us health care. he gave us rusty pipes being fixed. he got nato together. and he helped those with the pandemic. i would like your opinion. to me, whose ex-wife and son died, that is a strong man to me. and i would like to know your opinion and it c-span could cut me off the air right now. host: ok, we will leave it there. thank you for calling. guest: luke, biden has had a very distinguished career in in the upper reaches of the american government, now including the presidency, and that merits a great deal of respect. i have a soft spot for him because in 2015, i was eight

among a group of people in the think tank world who were arguing strongly to arm ukraine with defensive lethal weapons. and obama made the wrong decision not to provide that, but our group spent about two and a half hours with the vice president at's residence -- at is residence at that time. besides being charming and smart, he made it clear he agreed with us, but unfortunately obama had a different view. again, i think that your tribute to president biden is a worthy one, even if i disagree with some elements of his policy on ukraine and russia. host: as far as some people have called on this in the last few weeks, why now, why launch of these attacks now, is it because of who is in the white house? guest: i think that partisan politics will always be part of a foreign policy process, so i can understand why for partisan

reasons the republicans want to make that charge. and i agree with some of them criticisms -- their criticisms, including his decisions around nord stream 2 last year and the cyber attacks. having said that, biden has always demonstrated an understanding of of nasty things that putin is up to. and i think that the russians recognize that. so i suspect they chose to strike now because, one, they thought that the west was divided and not unified. we saw that in the very -- i criticized biden for nord stream 2, but i also criticized the germans -- they saw weakness in

the west and they got they could get away with more aggression, the way that they got away with it in georgia in 2008 and in ukraine in 2014. they underestimated biden, i think. host: we will go to michigan, the republican line. chuck, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to go back into history a while, when the john kennedy administration dealt with putting missiles in c >> you can watch the rest of this "washington journal" segment on c-span now video app. as part of our more than 40 year commitment to live gavel to gavel coverage, we take you live to the u.s. capitol where the house will begin work on legislation dealing with disability and health benefits for veterans.