the allegations of war crimes against russia, and the prosecution process. you can join the conversation by phone, text message or leave a comment on facebook or twitter. ♪ host: russian forces continue to make gains in key areas of ukraine. the cabbie the coastal city and continue to advance on and shall kyiv. overnight, russian rockets set fire to part of a major nuclear power plant. all of this as the russians and ukrainians have reportedly agreed to a peaceful passage of refugees out of ukraine. good morning, it is march 4, 2022. welcome to "washington journal." we will continue our discussion with you and hear your thoughts on the war in ukraine. one line for democrats, one for

republicans, one for independents and others. we welcome your comments by text as well. tell us your name and where you are texting from. we are on facebook and welcome your posts on twitter and instagram. that is@cspanwj. overnight, attacks at a nuclear power plant caused a fire. the latest reporting, that fire is out according to "the associated press." they say the ukrainian firefighters extinguished a place to europe's is nuclear power plant that was ignited by a russian attack. no radiation was released as russian forces pressed their campaign to cripple the country despite global condemnation.

the ap writes that the head of the united nations atomic energy agency says a russian projectile hit a training center at the plant. ukrainian officials said russian troops ttok -- took control but staff are continuing operations. an agency director said russian forces were at the plant but ukrainians were in control. half an hour ago, the u.s. embassy in kyiv had this to say about that attack at the nuclear power plant. the embassy tweeting, it is a war crime to attack a nuclear power plant. putin's shelling of europe's largest nuclear power plant takes his reign of terror one step further. the secretary of state, antony blinken's overseas meeting with nato ministers. he is in brussels and this morning, spoke about the continuing war in ukraine. [video clip] >> simply put, in the wake of

russia's unprovoked premeditated aggression against ukraine, this alliance came together with speed, unity, determination. immediately launching the rapid response task force, putting in place the graduated plans to continue to bolster natives security forces. every ally is coming to ukraine's assistance. every ally, in one way or another, is helping strengthen nato itself. as the secretary general, ours is a defensive line. we seek no conflict but of conflict comes to us, we are ready for and we will defend every inch of nato territory. at the same time, we are preparing for nato's future. the events of the last few weeks, as they continue, will further informed that future, particularly going into the nato summit in a few months, and the

writing of the new strategic concepts. all. the single, denominator that we've -- the single, denominator that we found is the unity of this alliance. it has been on display and will remain on full display going forward. i look forward to consulting with p.m.'s about the steps we are going to take next. host: the secretary state this morning at nato headquarters in brussels. asking you this morning to weigh in on the continued war in ukraine. one line for democrats, one for republicans, and one for all others. "the washington times," their front page "corridors will open for eight and a skip -- escape -- aid and escape."

they write "russia's military pushed deeper into ukraine battling to control a key electricity producing hub in the south and gaining ground toward severing the country's access to the black sea. they write that the u.s. was widening the number of russian oligarchs to sanction. he said he was working with european and other allies around the world to freeze the assets of a growing circle of wealthy russian elites with ties to russian president vladimir putin." lots of bipartisan unanimity at tuesday night's state of the an address for president biden's comments about ukraine, but there are differing opinions. a couple of those here within the gop conference in the house. this is adam kinzinger, republican from illinois saying, this is a good moment to renew my call for a no-fly zone. at the invitation of the ukraine government.

i fear if this continues, we will have to intervene in a bigger way. warren davidson, republican from ohio says, not a good moment and not a good idea. whose war is unjust. ukraine's self-defense is just. this work could have been prevented, but it must not expand. both congressman davidson and congressman kinsinger are military veterans. we will go to dallas, texas and hear from leon on the democrats line, first up. caller: good morning. i would like to ask questions about the psychological tactics that are used against the foot soldiers. there used to be a time in war when -- word dropped on an opposing army and asked them if they were aware they were fighting their own brothers.

why are they fighting a war for a leader who is not taking any chances? what can be done in this aspect to try to affect the morale of the russian troops? host: what do you think can be done? caller: i think that leaflets can be dropped. there used to be a thing called radio free europe where they would broadcast radio programs toward opposing forces. i don't know whether these tactics have even been considered, but you just don't have to reinvent the wheel if you can still get it to roll. host: "the washington post," -- thanks for that comment. they are writing about that this morning in this piece. they say that "posts of dead held russians a risky tactic. a deceased ukraine has adopted a gruesome tactic in hopes of

stoking antigovernment rage within europe. posted videos and photos of russian soldiers on the web for anyone to see. ukraine's ministry of internal affairs has posted a constant stream of extremely graphic images showcasing the horrors of war and inviting russians to examine them to determine whether the images feature a missing loved one. many soldiers corpses can be seen burned or abandoned in snow. their faces are featured in bloody close-ups." the administration's approach has been to mount new sanctions against russia and russian businessmen and oligarchs. president biden spoke about that yesterday at the white house. [video clip] >> severe economic sanctions on putin and all the folks around him, choking off access to

technology as well as cutting off access to the global financial system. this has had a profound impact already. the goal was to maximize the impact on putin and russia and minimize the harm on us and our allies and friends around the world. our interest is to maintain the strongest unified economic cam plane -- campaign on putin and all history. i think we are well on the way to doing that. in the state of union address, i announce the department of justice is going to have to announce the crimes of russian oligarchs who line their pockets with russian people's money while ukraine and the people are hiding in subways from missiles that are being fired indiscriminately in russian cities. today, i am announcing we are adding dozens of names to the list, including one of russia's rest -- wealthiest billionaires.

i am banning travel to america by more than 50 russian oligarchs, their families and close associates. we are going to continue to support ukrainian people with direct assistance. i had a meeting this morning with the quartet down in southeast asia, including india and japan. we are going to continue to support the people with direct assistance. on tuesday night, at the capital, we saw america united in the supportive ukraine and in our work to hold putin accountable. host: and on with your calls. california next, todd on the independent line. caller: good morning. first of all, if trump was still in office, putin would never have tried this, and biden should be impeached. we need to stop buying russian oil and be energy independent

because the whole climate change thing is nonsense. as far as militarily, i think we need to just send a bunch of united states attack jets over there and just start shooting russian craft out of the sky, military craft. that 40 mile long convoy, we need to bomb them and get it up and over with because it is horrible sitting by watching innocent people get slaughtered by a madman, who reminds me of stalin and hitler. host: what do you think about biden and the nato treaty were prohibited from doing that. ukraine is not a nato member. what should we do about that? caller: those in the middle east, they are not nato members. that does not mean anything.

we have the right to help a country that is being attacked by a madman. host: let's hear from joel in arkansas. republican line. caller: good morning. i agree with the caller from california. in less than 18 months, this administration has destroyed everything that trump accomplished. if you remember during the campaigns, trump said, they are coming after you. they are not coming after me. i would just like to say, we had a pipeline that was pumping more than 100,000 barrels of oil a day, and now, we are buying $70 million of oil from russia. i don't understand why the far left wants to destroy our country. we have got coal and oil. we did not need all these

problems. in closing, i would just like to say, biden has committed 14,000 troops over there. how long is their tour going to be? they are separated from their family also. and also, he put a stop on the troops from leaving germany to come home. are we really happy with what president biden has done for the country? and another thing, putin has seen how we are unable to load ships. we can't secure our borders, and our prices are increasing. when gas goes to seven dollars a gallon, that is going to hit everybody. thank you for taking my call today. host: next up is timothy in crystal lake. democrats line. caller: i think with the media

with more russian voices that can give us a better perspective. we are almost prohibited from hearing the other side. we call them all one putin. no, there are 145 million russians. most of them support. why are they doing this? if you don't know, how can you ever resolve the conflict? i think we should hear from the other side and at least hear them out and give them a chance to explain themselves. that's it. thank you. host: one of the voices in the u.s. seen is going away and that is rt. this is the headline from axios. "already america to cease production. -- rt america to cease production. under pressure to respond to russian state medias role in

spreading disinformation about russia's war with ukraine, american tv distributors have begun to drop the network. directv said monday it plans to drop rt from the lineup. roku removed rt from its channels. directv rival dish said earlier this week, it is closely monitoring the situation." in michigan, we hear from arthur. independent line. caller: i think they ought to look at ukraine as israel. how would it be if people are dying over there for us because we are buying their gas? i had enough of that in world war ii. they said the psychiatrist in the v.a. did a lobotomy on him and he could have been one of the guys that made these --

today. that is all i have to say. host: several callers have talked about this, moves to ban gas and oil imports from russia gains steam. they write that a proposal for the u.s. to be the import of russian oil and gas gained traction thursday as a bipartisan chorus of lawmakers backed the idea and speaker nancy pelosi gave her support. 18 republicans and democrats propose legislation in both chambers to block imports of gas and oil from russia in response to its attack on ukraine. here is what jen psaki had to say when asked about the issue. [video clip] >> i wanted to ask about oil prices. plus he has come out also in support of banning russian oil. -- with the argument that putin is going to knock that from oil?

>> i think i do know what you are trying to say. our objective, and the president's objective has been to maximize impact on president putin and russia while minimizing impact to us and our allies and partners. i know you have heard me say this a few times before, but we don't have a strategic interest in reducing the global supply of energy. that would raise prices at the gas pump for the american people around the world because it would reduce the supply available. it is as simple as less supply raises prices. that is certainly a big factor for the president at this moment. it also has the potential to pad the pockets of president putin, which is exactly what we are not trying to do. as the president has said, we carved out payments for energy, trade and transport from our financial sectors. sanctions with that in mind. i would also note that we have

been taking steps to degrade russia's status as a leading energy supplier over time. that includes shutting down nord stream 2 or preventing nord stream 2 from operating. that is why we are searching lng to europe to help accelerate its diversification. i think you have also seen european leaders talk about the need to reduce their reliance and to diversify. we are continuing to look at other options to cut u.s. consumption of russian energy. for us, if you look at publicly available data, it is only about 10% of our imports. reducing the supply out there would have an impact on prices and prices at the gas pump. host: just an update from "the new york times" and their online map, starting with the nuclear power plant. you can see the advance and the

fire that was caused by the shelving last night. the russians have captured a port city on the black sea. as you can see, getting very close to the capital of kyiv, in addition to other friends in the fight in ukraine. back to calls. in oklahoma city, this is stephanie on the independent line. caller: hi, good morning. can you hear me ok? host: yep. caller: great. the first point is that i am really impressed with the eu and nato coming together as quickly as they have. this is something that biden is good at. he is a diplomat all the way. he is able to bring people around the world together. i fully support every single sanction and stuff they have taken against putin, the oligarchs and any russian businesses. at the same time, i am really concerned we are not doing enough, and i know it is

complicated, but we are not doing enough to keep kyiv and president zelensky and his family safe. if kyiv falls, we all fall, we all fail. those troops will then hit the borders of nato and it will be an all-out war. i know it is complicated. i would encourage any of your caller to search online to see how many trips we have. we have thousands of troops spread around the world. everybody blames whatever president it is, whether it is trapped, biden, obama, whoever before, where we have troops. it does not matter who was president. we have a military force around the world for specific reasons. we are the number one military in the world and our job is to try to keep peace as best we can. i know it is complicated and confusing. i wish we could do a no-fly zone likens eager -- adam kinzinger

is supporting. a group from russia past the border last night, a special forces group and they are deadly. it would be like us sending our top professionals into do covert operations. we need to do something. and something fast that is all i have to say this morning. host: she mentioned the eu. one of the countries adjacent to ukraine and receiving a lot of the refugees, although the -- moldova officially applies for eu membership. russia's invasion of ukraine has triggered fears in many former soviet countries that they may be next. caller: you displayed jen psaki -- just played jen psaki under channel. i still don't know what she said. she is going around in circles. ask her to check the price of gas. it jumped $.15 yesterday.

this is making no sense. we are buying gas and oil from russia. people are dying. it makes no sense to me. i don't know. maybe i don't have it figured out. host: hank, are you comfortable with the fact of the likelihood that if we cut off gas and oil from russia, the further price increases what happened at the gas pump? caller: it is already skyhigh. you know, it is going to go up either way. anyway, it is going up. host: what are you paying for a gallon of gas in south carolina these days? caller: yesterday, i saw it was $3.81. usually, we have pretty cheap gas. host: go ahead, finish up your thought. caller: i think it is going to

come to a no-fly zone because people are going to get tired of seeing babies and women and children getting killed every night on television. a no-fly zone is coming. we need something to stop this slaughter. host: on the oil issue, there is a bipartisan proposal, 18 republicans and democrats pushing to cut off oil supplies from russia. here is senator thune on the for the senate yesterday. [video clip] >> he seems to think he can hurry along the clean energy future he dreams of by discouraging oil and natural gas production here at home. but he can't. as i said, clean energy sources are simply not at the point where they can solely power american homes or our economy. the only effect of curbing

conventional energy production would be to force americans to rely more on foreign sources of oil and natural gas. that, mr. president, is a big problem. it is a big problem. it is a problem because the more we rely on foreign sources of energy, the more vulnerable americans are to energy price spikes and global shortages. it is a problem because relying on foreign sources of energy often means relying on energy from tyrannical governments in volatile areas of the world. u.s. imports of russian energy have spiked during the biden administration. the current conflict in ukraine is a reminder of just how big of a problem that is. in the first place, the dollars we or other nations spend importing energy from russia are dollars russia is free to use to prosecute its unjustified invasion of ukraine and any other country decides to attack.

in the second place, when you rely on another country for your energy needs, you end up beholden to that country. while we have imposed heavy sanctions on russia, we have yet to directly sanction russia's energy sector. other countries have also held back on sanctioning russian energy. there is little question this reluctance stems from both fears of price hikes as a result of sanctions and for fears of lessening the availability of russian energy supplies. the truth is, we should be sanctioning russia's energy sector. energy production is the lifeblood of the russian economy. sanctioning russian energy would be one of the most effective ways of halting putin's imperial ambitions. and it is unfortunate that the president has not put our nation on a stronger footing energy

wise so that we could more easily whether these challenging times. mr. president, the only acceptable american energy policy is and all of the above energy policy that them but -- invest in both clean energy technologies and conventional energy sources. host: other moves by the administration here tweeted by jenny gomez, congressman from california, saying, the biden administration will designate temporary protection status and special student relief for ukrainians of following a letter i sent with 98 of my colleagues. the decision will provide vital life-saving protections to ukrainians in the u.s.. further views from viewers and listeners. five administration and the u.s. and ministration are sitting on their hands and doing nothing while poop does what he wants with ukraine. caller leon is right, we have seen this before. lizzy says, i don't know what to

be done. all i know is putin has got to be stopped. only one has to look at what happened at the nuclear site to know that he has to be stopped. in missouri, james on the democrat line. caller: hello. the stuff about the oil, this is getting out of hand. this is all about money. my whole point is, as far as i know, all of these people who sit there and drill and do all of this, all of those are caps off wells -- capped off wells. as for the weapons he is using, putin is using, these are all crimes against humanity. what are they going to do -- what is he going to do after you kill them all off and all of these kids are still -- they are going to grow up and hate russians, hate americans and everything because we have not done a damned thing.

they were supposed to be shipments of stingers and javelins. that is all. and then, they are late. now, they came across the border, 190% of all the troops that were there, 190,000, when does this end? people, their kids are starving, the troops are starving. medicine. name it, and they can't get any of it. when is he going to stop? is he going to go into poland? i mean, he is not going to stop. no one is saying a damn thing about it. host: next up is frank in birmingham.

caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm trying to understand the mindset of america. it seems an oxymoron. i'd never seen democrats and republicans so hawkish. the gentleman just got through talking about the children and appropriations. mr. biden talked about $30 billion for the students in america and all this. let me share this. the other morning on a talk show, "face the nation," the united states ambassador to the u.n., she asked a question about black children, dark skinned people in ukraine. ms. greenfield did not have a clue. when you look at dark skinned people, over in the ukraine, and you look at the haitians and you

want to talk about oil, one of the greatest ways to help america is to allow 85 miles up the coast to develop. they say that they have more oil, and please don't cut me off. i want to introduce a scenario of how america needs to get the most out of how it is treating people in alabama. excludes me, please. in birmingham, alabama. we had five high school students killed in three weeks in birmingham. we have had almost 20 in birmingham in less than 20 days. i have mothers and fathers, activists in birmingham. they talk about black babies over there. the children over there. i watch black babies in the ghettos of birmingham. triple homicides. we had two-year-olds, three-year-olds, we have almost gunshots. ak-47s. you talk about ar rifles. these people in the birmingham ghettos of america are -- last

year, we had 135 homicides. 30% of them were young children. so i'm just saying, if we can develop oil because america doesn't want to come and as they say, venezuela, they have lots of oil, and haiti has a rhythm. we will not allow them to develop 85 miles off of our coast. we will develop and invest in the ghettos of america. and on and on this -- and then on this, your president is acting like this. yesterday, they are disguised by all white folks, almost. liberation. he said, sooner or later, vladimir putin is going to have to understand what the reparation word is, one black people talk about reparations. , harris won't respond.

--, let harris will not respond. -- kamala harris will not respond. obama, all of these presidents, --. >> left let you go. surely, the democrat line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i may be a little slow, but i hope i can get a couple of things in. first i want to say that people seem to be forgetting that the war between ukraine and boudin, that has been going on for a while. -- vladimir putin, that is been going on for a while. it started when biden got into office come and why people want to blame him for this, i just don't understand. furthermore, you know, as far as sending out troops to fight in

other peoples problems, i just don't see what we should be doing that. we just got out of a 20 year war. they didn't even do anything when the country fell. so, we can help ukrainians and everyone feel sorry. everyone feel sorry. everyone does. but we cannot send troops to be slaughtered because the mothers over here have hearts too. they need to be saved for us. for when we need them. we can help other countries --. host: here is something said by lindsey graham with sean hannity. he tweeted out as well. he tweeted this. is there a brutus and russia? is there a more successful colonel in the russian military? the only way this ends is for

someone in russia to take this guy out. meaning vladimir putin. you would be doing your country in the world a great service. front page this morning of washington post. russia sends fomite into ukraine. it has sent all of its assemble, power into the ukraine, and unleashed some of the most intense fighting since the invasion began. local officials are pleading for help as ground troops were seized or circle strategically important southern cities. russian president vladimir putin says the mission is going according to plan and in full compliance with the timetable, despite widespread agreement among western people that the invasion has slowed the resistance. new york, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i grew up a post-world war ii baby, and my whole life, all i

have seen more and more war. what we have now is a planet that is fold of -- full of abandoned and sunken ships. old, resting military equipment, even down to the pacific islands. a big mess. when you make a mess, you clean it up. what we need to do is clean up all of the mess from all of the wars and build where there could be farms. it is ridiculous. we are headed for extinction. we have messed up our planet, and its balance to such an extent that i think we are hitting the end of the road. i am sick of it. we need to be like the people on the airplane the all jumped. the guy who is trying to bring the airplane down and jumped. the guy who is trying to kill everyone on the train. we have every single one of us to stop this. see the stewards of the planet,

and fix it for all the past wars and the messes we have around. that is what i have to say. host: this is from the guardian. quote, might feature is taken from me. russians try to escape the consequences of moscow's war. one man said he had to get out once he looked at his phone on the morning of russians invasion into ukraine. i checked my news in disbelief, and i had to leave as soon as i could. he said that the man who runs a school in moscow bought a ticket to sri lanka the same day. it was clear to me that this will change russia forever, he said. a growing number of russians have decided to leave their country following vladimir putin's decision to invade the ukraine. there are economic and political consequences that move will have. that on top of that ukrainians who have fled, according to news

reports since the beginning of the war. the u.s. administration, samantha power spoke about that, and the humanitarian crisis that it has cost. >> there is a figure of one million, what i was there, which was just three days ago. three under 60,000 was the figure. to give you a sense of the scale of flow, and that is accelerating every day. some of the towns that are being ceased, it becomes possible to be evacuated, which is something that is being spoken about. they want to make that happen. you can imagine the numbers are going to go up even more. what i will say is, i commend the neighboring states for opening their borders and welcoming people with these great needs.

it is just that there are very few questions being asked. names are being taken and registered. to come into the european union countries, and not expected to be a major source recipient of refugees, and more than 100,000. they expected to move on. to germany, or elsewhere in europe, and yet about half the people are choosing to stay. they are hoping that this thing will resolve itself and it will end, and they will stay close to it and go back to their homes because no one was to leave their homes. with that generosity, there have been incidents, and harassment or being pushed to the back of the line, and it is really important that the polish government in the ukrainian government and everyone has come out condemning that, and i think

for all of the chaos of the first few days, there is much more orderly process. remotely, if any incident is a terrible incident, and something to be -- a poured. -- a poured -- abhored. but this is a very widespread phenomenon, and the government and so forth, and i can tell you that we first are those reports in response to the ukrainian authorities, and it was getting [indiscernible] is important as well. host: comments on twitter. i agree. we should stop buying russian oil. why is joe biden finding someone

else's war with our tax dollars. martin in california. what a bunch of whining babies about gas. we need to stop taking oil from russia and drive less. we can buy electric cars. and steve in florida. please show this. the veil has been lifted. the accomplices are revealed. politicians and those who have tried to appease. they have left us unprepared. the environmentalists and all those who consider themselves victims of a racist nation, they have empowered evil empires to grow by their greed and blindness. in lakeland, florida on the independent line, this is sean. hello. caller: wow, what a start. i see things a lot different i guess because in my opinion, both parties are screwed up. i think nobody is looking at this the way i am looking at it.

you have countries all over the world going against things the united states has done. for decades now, korea has been doing it this. north korea has been shooting off missiles against the united states, and i think this is a worldwide thing were there is definitely defined the u.s. to show people that the united states are allied with. look. they said they would come and protect you, and they haven't done anything. south korea. we are shooting missiles off right now, and they think they are going to protect you, but they didn't do anything. why are we talking about nato. didn't we find a budapest meta-random -- memorandum, that we would deal with ukraine aggression. why is this not a violation.

nato had to say the united states put a signature on the paperwork. that should be there word going into the same thing i'm saying again. now, you have russia violating agreements with the united states. and united states has done nothing again. what are you doing? this is lipservice. this whole thing is a bunch of, you know, as my spider sense going off because this doesn't sound right. it's like they're sitting back and waiting on nato to do what when they are violating your agreement. they are violating your contract, america. they didn't violate a nato contract. host: mike is next from the republican line. caller: hello? host: future volume and leave a comment.

-- mute your volume and leave a comment. caller: i think china is coming out for putin. i don't think it is oil, and nato and everything, but china, i think russia looks around it, and china and america, biden is paid for, they are bought and paid for by china, and big tech's. russia sees this. they are the number one hackers. they know this. they are being surrounded by china, and if and do something, they will be swallowed up by china as well. i believe china has the biggest reason for attacking. we could have a world war with china, and you can get russia to stop this, but russia is pulling the strings. vladimir putin is afraid. he is scared of china taking over. they are mortal enemies. russia and china are mortal,

nice -- mortal enemies. host: what you make of the fact that vladimir putin went to china for the olympics? was that for show? caller: absolutely. china holds the strings of the world. we know this. everyone knows this. they own hunter biden, they own the bidens. russia is afraid for the first time in his life, he is definitely afraid. china is taking over and he knows this. it was just a show. you can see was going on now. it was a show. i think if everyone got together, china, and look to china to stop this, they would do it. if china told russia, they would leave them alone. they would knock it off. i believe that china is circling russia. if they don't come out, and do something, there will be no russia. host: this is from the drive.

they are reporting on the war zone. the headline is that the ukrainian navy flagship appears to have been scuttled. a picture of that ship here online at the drive.com. they write about that as russia continues its advance on ukraine, and the black sea, and it appears as though the navy is taking no chances in providing a major trophy. a reflexive of the best a flagship of the fleet, and i will mispronounce it, but the image of the ship has submerged on its side, and it appeared on social media on march 3. it seems to have been met with some thing on purpose. if was to avoid falling into enemy hands. this was due to russian action, but that seems unlikely at this time. the 3100 ton displacement class frigate offers little

significant combat capabilities to the russian navies black sea fleet, it's seizure would be a propaganda wind that could act as a symbolic ground boost for russian forces. bill is up next from kansas city. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a very few points to make. news programs and people call in, and a little over a month ago, biden invited them to go in. he said it was ok if they go in and take a little bit of it. another point i want to make, if president trump was in there, this would not have happened. just before biden got in there, a year, our gas was for 90 89. a lot of the pipelines, they cut

the tree really out, and we were selling oil. now we are buying it? give me a break. you know? host: the senator from texas was on the floor, talking about what he called information -- misinformation camp pain on fracking from russian media. he called on the administration's energy policy. here he is. >> one of the criminals favorite tools is intentional propaganda known as rt, formally known as russia today. according to the report, they ran anti-fracking programming in the united states at -- that highlighted environmental and public health concerns. that is right. propaganda arm of the russian federation. rt was running anti-fracking programming in the united states. and you might ask yourself, for what purpose? well, the director of national

intelligence reported in 2017 that this was likely reflective of the russian government's concerns about the impact of fracking. it is a device to release natural gas from shale. reports said this is likely reflective of the russian government's concern about the impact of fracking in u.s. natural gas production on a global energy market. the potential challenges to gas pumps and the profitability. the gas problem being the russian federation's company. in short, all of this propaganda on russia today was in the opposition to fracking that they were encouraging would be good for the sale of russian gas. as opposed to natural gas produced here in the united states.

russia cannot seem to dominate the global energy market on its own, so it tries to take down the competition. it is not just a matter of dollars and cents. it is a matter of geopolitical power. this is not a far-fetched conspiracy theory that was crafted to combat the green new deal. as i said, it comes from an unclassified report from a director of national intelligence. five years ago. 2017. knowledge of this practice likely predates that report by a number of years. reporting indicates that even hillary clinton spoke about those activities in her speech. she warned about what she called phony environmental groups that were funded by the russians. russia is no stranger. in fact, they are experts at

disinformation campaigns. it does not abide by the same ethical codes as the rest of the world. the past several days have shown a light on how far putin is willing to go to increase his own power. i am not suggesting that all environments are funded by the russian government, not in the slightest. but we need to be clear on it. about russia's effort to shape u.s. policies and european policies for their own benefit. host: bacteria calls on the war in ukraine. kevin on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'd a few points to make. i went to expert -- echo something that's on the screen from senator graham. i think the best offense to the russian invasion of ukraine is that vladimir putin is the victim of a coup d'etat.

i want to be clear about how the russian federation government works, but there are some factions within his government. they understand the global realism of the situation. i think that if they take him out, then this could be a de-escalation of the conflict in ukraine, and russia has a long history of our place at the highest levels of their government, so that is certainly not out of the question. a lot of things that we are looking at here in the world today, and it is extremely dreadful. the soviet union's invasion of hungary in the 1950's, and the cuban missile crisis along the way. except, with some differences. in the 50's and 60's, the soviet realist premieres which were pulling the strings on their military actions. like the cuban missile crisis,

nikita khrushchev, they said american missiles were taken out of turkey, and they were trying to blackmail the united states by putting missiles in cuba, but one of the things that americans fail to understand, just like they fail to understand today, is that the united states and nato cannot just attack russia. because of their aggression, because russia is a nuclear power. there is a no-fly zone because there is eventually helicopter getting shut down, and that could start a nuclear holocaust. my last comment, i think, this invasion by putin is being done to weaken the biden administration and distract the biden administration from america's domestic roles. -- woes. host: a number of callers have said this would not have happened if donald trump was president. we lost our caller there. thank you for your comments.

california, independent line. caller: good morning. this is a head scratcher. i've listened to the other callers and they all have valid points. i was listen to the gentleman who is very passionate about what is going on at home. definitely. and, that is another thing. whatever happened to hugo chavez back in the time when they were having the u.n. meeting and he said to george bush, he said i smell sulfur, or something like that. something i recall. back in my memory. venezuela had a lot of oil. they have a lot of oil. we could have had something -- some type of arrangement with them, as well as, and i didn't know this from alabama, but some

oil or whatever they produce from haiti. i'm not quite sure, but why can't something be done in some agreement with that, instead of putting all of the exit one basket to get all of the oil from russia, and also, if america already had some type of contract with oil and with the russians, i don't know, it seems like when trump was in office, it seems like there was an agreement being made, even with south korea and chinese, and you know, even the way they exited with that going to happen from afghanistan. it seems like things were being done, and more orderly. and, all of a sudden, everything was haphazard, and crazy.

so, maybe it is just to look at these things and in a sense, look at it as, well, what about venezuela and what the gentleman said about haiti. but also, think about the developing clean energy because humankind is destroying itself. maybe we could get some more clean energy going on. electric cars, but so far, we know, we could develop that, but we could have some type of clean energy going on. but what vladimir putin is doing, it seems like he is just, to me, just once, i think they are the same. ukrainians and russians. they are the same people. it seems like he just wants to have his area back. that was russia before. or something like that.

host: do you think vladimir putin would've done this, regardless of who is president? donald trump or joe biden? his underlying view is that ukraine is historically part of russia. caller: yes. i think he would've done that. because, it is historically part of russia. it is. i don't know -- i don't know why , ok. america and biden, they are sitting on these guns, and the poor kid over there, what is his name? the president. yes. he is doing the best he can, but putin is just going to -- this

is a land. this is our land. host: thank you for your input. we will go out to the olympic and insula and hear from douglas in washington. in morning. caller: i just want to say, excuse me, our gas is $4.49. as gone up $.70 in the last three days. the reason -- i don't think putin would've done this if trump was in office. mainly because we were energy independent. we were not buying oil from him. and, we also have the nord stream 2 blocked off back then. he's hurting himself anyways, because they look like nazi germans in my opinion. it's kind of scary because they are destroying the country, and

once they do it, who knows what is going to happen if they tried to invade, and we will have to respond to that. it will be a shame. but we do need to cut off the oil. i don't care for goes up to $10 a gallon. it needs to be stopped. i can't afford that, but i just won't drive. i feel sorry for the people who have to go to work and stuff. not everyone can buy an electric car. you can't afford it. i can't afford one. i know a lot of people that can, but we could it back to the independence of oil and stuff. there is no reason we can't. we know why. everyone has to be honest. i know why we aren't. because biden stopped it all, and it is about time for a week president. there areas. that's just the way it is. host: democrats line.

caller: [indiscernible] speaking about things that don't matter. as a country all over the world, governments are corrupt. presidents are corrupt. when we speak about what we need to do to get better, that is it,. every country in the government. america. crooked, and name any country. everyone is crooked. and we keep going on about republicans and democrats, both crooked. stop it. you all have to --. host: we will continue our discussion on washington journal this morning. next will be joined by a professor of post-soviet foreign policy at columbia university and author of the book weak strong men the limits of power

in putin's russia. we'll take a look at what constitutes a war crime with david bosco, an expert in national justice in indiana university. >> former national security advisor john bolton talks about the russian invasion of ukraine. america's response. how president biden is handling the crisis. watch at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org, or c-span now. >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books at noon eastern on in-depth, and journalist will be our guest taking called on

immigration issues and the drug epidemic in the united states. his works include dreamland and most recently the least of us about the neuroscience of addiction and the impact of synthetic drugs. at 10:00 on afterwords reporting on the rise of conspiracy theories disseminated through online platforms. she is the author of off the edge, flat thirst, conspiracy theories, and why people will believe anything. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on the program guide or watch online any time at a tv.org. ♪ >> american history tv, saturday on c-span2 exploring the people

and events that tell the american story at 2:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, part one of our eight part series. first lady's: in their own words. their time in the white house, family issues important to them. we will feature lady bird johnson. >> a little breathless. there was too much looking down and i think it was a little too fast. >> as president biden names judge jackson as his nominee for the next supreme court justice we will look back at then senator biden's time on the senate judiciary committee with highlights during his questioning during several confirmation hearings including justice breyer, ginsburg, and john roberts. watch american history tv on saturday on c-span two and find a full schedule on your program

guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> washington journal continues. host: we are joined by timothy fry, a professor of post-soviet foreign policy at columbia university in new york city and the author of several books on russia and russian leadership. his most recent is weak strongmen: the limits of power in putin's russia. you have been studying vladimir putin for some time. how would you characterize his current leadership? guest: the invasion of ukraine marks a very different strategy for president putin. in past conflicts around crimea, georgia, syria he had been much more driven by events. he was much more opportunistic taking advantages of what the situation would give him.

there was always a precipitating event that led him to introduce troops. this isn't to invade ukraine, it is far different. there is no precipitating event. the action was planned and telegraphed much in advance. the scope and scale of the actions is so much greater than his past behavior. we can look at the decision to use force in ukraine really is a departure from past practice. host: given vladimir putin's view on ukraine, we've talked about this with our viewers a number of times, was it faded to have happened? did it matter if president biden was in there or president trump? was this a piece of vladimir putin's foreign policy he needed to accomplish? guest: i think that when historians write this conflict and political scientists analyze it they will overestimate the

extent to which this was inevitable. much seems inevitable in retrospect. at the same time i think that we are all surprised by the invasion. certainly many russians are shocked by the invasion. they didn't expect this. putin did not expect ukrainian resistance to be so strong. he was surprised by how the west reacted. i think we need to recognize that this was a voluntary decision by a single individual taken with consultation from likely a subset of the dozen or so people on the security council in russia. we should also remember that the reason that politicians give for why they do things are often not the real reason. part of the reason why putin has made this claim that ukrainians and russians are one people is because i think he does believe

that. it is not a view that is widely held by russians and certainly not by ukrainians, but it is also an instrumental view that he tries to use, because he thinks that politically it is palatable. the western alliances have always been strong, even under president trump. there would be great consequences of the foreign invasion of ukraine. this is more driven by single individual and domestic politics in russia than by the west's actions. host: knowing what you know about vladimir putin and his history, do you think that he has gamed this out beyond potential, eventual conquest of ukraine? guest: leaders are often quite optimistic about what they can accomplish during war. this is not unique to putin. i think that the russia-kyiv strategy, he was very confident.

they didn't introduce their full set of troops the way they might have if they expected greater resistance. i think he is very surprised by the government in kyiv, that they didn't flee, they decided to stand and fight. he seems to have this odd notion that there is a -- a dis column in ukraine waiting to be liberated. i think that he has misread the situation and part of that is general optimism that politicians have when they go to war. part of it is also likely due to the fact that he is very isolated. he sees a very small number of people on a regular basis. for people outside of that inner circle, they have to wait for 14 days in quarantine to meet with

him due to his fear of catching covid. all of these reasons suggest president putin has really misread the ukrainian situation. host: i want to invite our listeners and viewers in on the conversation with timothy fry will stop the line for democrats is (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. as you dewpoint your interest to a recent piece by our guest at foreignaffairs.com, the headline is putin's war at home, how conflict in ukraine complicates his balancing act. you wrote, "for almost two decades putin deftly balanced the dual threats that confront all autocrats, coups from other elites and protests from the masses. a booming economy in the first half of the century allowed him to consolidate power and his successful annexation of crimea

in 2014 insured his place in russian history. yet as the warm glow of his crimea success faded, putin has struggled to find a narrative to legitimate his rule." what do you mean by "warm glow?" guest: after the annexation of prime you president putin -- annexation of crimea president putin's approval ratings jumped. this allowed him a four-year period -- he relied on oppression, certainly, but he could also rely on the genuine support of a large section of the population. what has changed his economic growth has been stagnant for a decade. the foreign policy success of the annexation of crimea at home has worn off. there is a great deal of food and fatigue within russia. he has been in power for 22 years and people don't expect

great initiatives or a new direction for the country from him. propaganda doesn't seem to be working as well as many russians are going away from state television towards social media to get their news. in the last three years putin has had to rely heavily on oppression. the role of security services at home and abroad have increased dramatically. even among the foreign policy elite i don't think that there is a lot of support for this invasion of ukraine. i want to emphasize that this is a decision taken by a small group in russia, but when you have an autocratic regime around an individual that is how foreign policy decisions of this magnitude are made. host: biden imposes new sanctions on oligarchs. who are these oligarchs, and why

are they important in vladimir putin's rule? guest: the oligarchs come in a variety of flavors. that is not a very precise term. there are the business oligarchs, like the one who owns the chelsea football club, or alexey who runs a steel company. they have taken advantage of their proximity to the kremlin to tilt the playing field in their favor and to grow rich. there are other oligarchs who run state companies who are appointed by putin in the gas sector, energy sector, banking sector. those economic set of elites have been gradually pushed out over the last eight years. elites that are really making the call on national security and foreign policy are a small group of elites who have been under sanctions for some time,

including the head of the security services, the defense minister, the head of the security council, and the head of foreign intelligence. that is pretty much putin's war cabinet. the sanctions for them have a somewhat different effect. they have no expectation that they will ever be accepted in western society the way that his economic elites have been. it looks like they are willing to really tie their fate to putin's decision to invade ukraine, and it would be very difficult to peel them off. host: to reiterate what you just said in your piece you said this about sanctions. they will stoke broader economic uncertainty potentially erasing one of putin's greatest achievements. the real damage to the russian economy will come less from sanctions and the entrenchment in power of those who resist modernization and it will widen

the gap between those who want to bring the russian economy into the 21st century and those who do not. i've heard russia's economy, size-wise, compared to italy. no knock on italy, but why does vladimir putin not when they broader global economy for russia? guest: the inner circle on which he relies and the elites on which he relies benefit from slow growth in russia, even as the country as a whole grows slowly the profits that they are able to gain from their monopolistic positions within russia and their business transactions abroad backed by the kremlin allow them to grow fantastically rich. and buy apartments in new york, milan, london, have super yachts that are being gradually seized

across the world. putin's balancing act in the economy is that he allows enough corruption to permit his inner circle to grow fantastically wealthy. he has to be careful that the corruption does not become so large that the economy completely tanks. then he invites the possibility of mass mobilization as you saw in belarus and kazakhstan recently. it is not outside the realm of possibility. one thing that would be interesting to watch is if the russian public, who have just seen their currency declined by 40%, experiencing bank runs, and the economy has ground to a halt for the near future, whether the public blames vladimir putin for inviting the sanctions or whether he blames the west for levying sanctions. host: one of the super yachts that you mentioned is this

solarist owned by a russian oligarch in barcelona, one of several yachts docked in barcelona. one click question before calls, what do you make of russia's vladimir putin's closer ties with xi jinping, with china? guest: it is a complex, multifaceted relationship. russia is a natural resource-rich country and china needs natural resources. they form natural trading partners. there is also a great deal of skepticism between the elites in both countries about the true intentions on the others. they share a long border. they compete for influences in various parts of the world. at the same time, the

relationship is closer than it has been, xi jinping and vitamin putin have a good personal relationship, security ties have increased somewhat, and they continue to view each other as in cooperation and also being competitors. a good friend in the russian foreign policy establishment explains that for china and russia the motto is not always with each other, because they do have different interests. for example, china is ukraine's biggest trading partner. china and russia are not always with each other, but they are never against each other. the idea that neither will stab each other in the back even if they have disagreements. host: let's hear from alan in fayetteville, north carolina. caller: good morning, sir. it is almost sickening to hear these republicans call in and

voice their opinion of anything about this war. look at the cpac convention they had last week. you understand? i invite them to watch john bolton's segment you have going on at 11:00. he totally dismantles everything that the republicans are saying. it is sickening. it is. now they want to voice their opinion on this war? give me a break. look at what they left the white house. i can't even talk about it. host: that part of vladimir putin's strategy, counting on political disagreements in the united states? guest: that is a small part of the problem. if anything, the one issue that brings democrats and republicans together is the strategy towards ukraine and russia.

there is the trumpian wing of the republican party has advocated for closer personal ties with vladimir putin and less willing to criticize him, but if we look over the larger arc certainly republicans and democrats in congress are much closer to each other on their positions towards russia than they are on just about any other issue. host: from alabama on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, don. caller: why can't presidential leaders of all countries get together like the un does and resolve all these problems in the world? russia claims eight years ago

about the donbass situation that it was the ukrainians and it was terrorist groups within the ukrainian army that was causing problems with russia. this is a big deal when it comes between russia and ukrainian about who start on each other's territory. if russia keeps losing along the ukrainian land, you know, they talk about the borders of ukrainian and russian being a problem, but if they keep moving westward it would be a bigger problem between russia and nato. so, i would like to get some clarification of what each country is actually trying to do. host: professor frye?

guest: thank you for the question. i think that vladimir putin is driven by the idea that ukrainians, russians, and belarusians are one people. if you are one people you should have one government. this is a very 19th-century view of how ethnicity and nationality relates. most states are multiethnic. if you look at african countries, for example, they are very ethically heterogeneous in the united states is very heterogeneous. the idea that there should be one relationship between a majority ethnicity and statehood is a strange view to hold in the modern world. the important thing to remember

is that territorial sovereignty and the recognition of international borders are bedrock ideas of the international system. once those ideas are violated, if the border and national sovereignty becomes up for grabs , we really invite countries to take matters into their own hands and resolve their political differences using military force. i think that is why you have seen countries like switzerland, which is the paragon of neutrality, deciding that they want to step in on the ukrainian side. these principles are so important to the security of every country. host: an associated press article, reading putin, unbalanced or praying on west's fears.

what are your views? guest: i'm skeptical of the view that putin has somehow, after being this calculated, crafty leader has somehow now lost his rationality and has gone crazy. he is certainly frustrated that the war -- at least acquiesce to them. that hasn't happened. i think to me the only way that this makes sense for putin is if in some long-run historical narrative in 20 or 25 years when

the slavic nation has been consolidated, in his view, which i don't think that it will be, i think that this is his vision, that we -- that he would have corrected and in his own mind a historical injustice of the separation of the ukrainian and russian people. it is not a view that i hold or that many russians hold, but it seems to be an important factor to why vladimir putin is doing what he's doing. host: paul in cedar hill, texas on the democrats line. caller: i would like to thank you, for being there, for explaining that this is the act of one person and one person only regardless of who the president of the united states is. two, russia, if i'm not mistaken, in 2018-2019 put a bounty on u.s. soldiers' heads.

i have a statement than a question. there is a russian minister that is shown on tv, is that the same person introduced at the white house? the ukrainians show a lot of sovereignty. they come together and are fighting putin unlike the u.s.. we are so divided and they are working as one. guest: three great comments. there is a lot of debate about the veracity of the stories of the bounty that russia put on american soldiers. i am not -- i would not -- i have a very uncertain mind about that. i don't know how to weigh that kind of evidence. your question i think about foreign minister sergei lavrov, russia's foreign minister. he meets regularly with foreign officials.

he is the one that trump had the famous meeting with in the white house. minister lavrov has been around for more than 20 years and meets with democrats and republican presidents. it is not unusual. recently he gave a speech in europe to a multinational forum. the delegates for the european states completely walked out on him. i think that his credibility abroad is in tatters. at home he is not a big player in russian policy. he is often the last person to know about russia's foreign policy intentions because most decisions are made by small group of individuals. host: darrell in idaho, independent line. caller: yes, how are you doing mr. frye?

you are from columbia university and i studied the scriptures. the scriptures have tons of warnings about human beings. one of them being about professing themselves to be wise they become fools. here i am watching dish -- dish has right now taken rt off of the air this morning. i am thinking, everyone is talking about putin and black lives matter and all these things, yet in reality we should be happy we are alive. you only get -- one third of your existence is sleeping so when you are 90 you only been awake for 50 years. we are all trying to figure things out and the scripture says eventually, because we have nuclear weapons, humanity is going to be stupid enough to use them. host: on the point of rt they have shut down operations apparently in the united states.

were they really an arm, a propaganda arm of the kremlin? guest: yes, explicitly so. president putin had made it clear that rt, previously russia today, was created to balance what he saw as biased news coverage from the west funded by the russian state. people study the content on rt. it has documented so many biases. they have so little credibility. i was occasionally asked to appear on rt, and i have never done that for that reason. i think the more important issue on the closing of the press is in russia, the very few independent voices, tv and the

radio station and several newspapers were closed yesterday. the information space in russia is even more dominated by the state now. russians will have difficulty getting news from russian sources that are independent from the state. that doesn't mean that russians are cut off from the world. they watch youtube, they are active on social media, they have friends, family, relatives in ukraine with whom they may be in contact. we live in a world where information is hard to contain. even as the russian government tries to censor what is available to most russians, i think that will be a difficult task. russians who actually want to know what is going on in the outside world, with some effort,

should be able to do so. host: what is the significance of vladimir putin putting russia's nuclear forces on heightened alert? guest: people debate the extent of the seriousness of this threat. given the consequences i think that it is important to take it seriously. most military people who i have heard on this topic suggest that this is still early days. we haven't reach the point yet where nuclear weapons are part of the bargaining strategy of either side. we will have to wait and see. this is an advantage that the kremlin has. there military power in the region. they also want to use their

threat of nuclear weapons to try to keep nato guessing and to keep nato at bay. i don't think that putin's mention of the possibility of the conflict going nuclear is really what is driving nato's strategy at the moment. i think the strategy is driven by the facts on the ground in ukraine. host: our guest is timothy frye, columbia university professor of post-soviet foreign policy. among his books is weak strongman: the limits of power in putin's russia. about 15 more minutes with timothy frye. welcome your comments at (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001, that's republicans. for all others, (202) 748-8002. we will go to the independent line next and hear from baltimore. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i am really concerned about what is going on between russia and ukraine. saying everything he can say about the situation, but he is skipping the main point. that is nato's expansion. nato expansion is the cause of all this problem. nato and the west have refused to take into consideration russia's security concerns. should ukraine become part of nato, you would have nuclear weapons that threaten russia. you don't expect russia to take that. russia has to take action to protect itself. ukraine should be a neutral ground, not only to the west, to russia. we refuse to accept this. your guest will never admit to this. he is giving you all the reasons , the same stuff we heard about gadhafi, saddam hussein, assad.

we are partially responsible for this problem with our foreign policy. host: we will hear from professor frye. guest: thank you. this is the position of the russian government for in part why they are doing what they are doing. there are some minority scholars have blamed nato expansion for russia's action. i think the argument is flawed. i don't think that is what is going on. if we look at the way president putin talks about ukraine, he does not talk about it so much as a national security problem that could be resolved by leaders sitting around a table, as they do all the time, and reaching agreements about limitations on troop movements

or arms control agreements. he has done everything he can to delegitimize the idea that ukraine deserves to be a state and that russia has the right, the authority to decide for ukraine what its foreign policy should be. i think it is important that ukraine has been recognized by the international community. it is a founding member of the united nations. russia has signed treaties with ukraine. it has recognized ukrainian state sovereignty for 30 years. the notion that ukraine was ever going to join nato in the near future seems far-fetched actually. i think even the russian foreign policy establishment recognized ukraine was very far from the criteria that would be needed to get into nato.

i think what putin was more worried about is not ukraine joining nato, but that military relations between nato and ukraine would build stronger and ukraine would be a force that would be more difficult to deal with. the problem was not so much ukraine and nato. it was nato in ukraine. i think most people don't think the nato expansion, which this is a region of the world where the two bloodiest wars of the last century were fought. we also need to recognize that the security of poland, hungary, the czech republic, the baltics is also at risk. one way to think about nato expansion, this was a way to guarantee the security of many countries within eastern europe.

also, the idea that countries should be able to choose which military alliances they would like to join, i think is a principal that is worth upholding. if we look at the united nations vote from earlier this week where only five states decided to vote against the condemnation of russia's invasion of ukraine, i think that suggests that the blame really lies on russia. the west has made mistakes. there is no doubt about that. i think most of the blame has to lie in russia. host: what do you read into moldova's request yesterday to join the eu? guest: the eu is a different organization. it does not have a military component. ukraine and moldova are far from the normal criteria that would

knowingly be associated with granting a country -- would normally be associated with granting a country eu status. i think the eu will look favorably to begin the process. this is more of a saul pollock -- more of a symbolic move to show solidarity with ukraine and moldova. with the war taking place, before anything resembling eu membership becomes part of the conversation. host: next is vicki in north carolina on the democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i wondered where you think our tipping point will be in terms of the growing nuclear threat. i say this based on the rhetoric shortly after the invasion of ukraine, the fact that there has been a fight and fire in a

nuclear plant in the last 24 hours with the takeover by russia in a nuclear power plant, and the fact that, at least my belief, that engaging diplomacy with russia has been totally disingenuous. i know we have sanctions in place, and we need to see how far they go. at what point do you think there is a tipping point where we have to take nuclear threat seriously? guest: i don't think anyone is talking about the west, the u.s., the u.k. using nuclear weapons in this conflict. remember, the west, nato has decided against introducing troops on the ground into ukraine, in part for fear of sparking a broader escalation.

i think that would be a much more pressing concern in the short run is the possibility that as nato begins to arm a ukrainian insurgency by transporting weapons from, say, poland, will the russians allow that to happen, particularly if the staging areas are in poland and the weapons are being brought across the border, would vladimir putin justify an attack on poland for their support of ukrainian insurgents, that could really spark a much broader conflict given that nato countries are obligated to come to defense of each other.

that is an article that binds nader together. it has only been used once after the 9/11 attack on the twin towers in the united states. i think that is a scenario that worries many people. the other two scenarios that worry military planners, one is accidents. a russian plane flies over nato airspace or vice versa as a mistake and gets shot down. vladimir putin has other cards to play. we have not seen the effects of a cyber campaign by russia against the u.s. financial system. many people are worried about that as well. there are a lot of things to worry about, including the possibility of a nuclear escalation, but i think that is a less pressing concern than

these other factors. host: the headline on that nuclear plant in southern ukraine that russians are in control of, but it is operating, fire out at key ukraine nuclear plant. no radiation detected. let's go to evansville, indiana. keith is on the republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i actually believe putin has got a bluff on his nuclear threat because he had no other reason to go down to china other than to find a place to do his grocery shopping because he knew all the countries was going to turn against him. he is using that as a bluff. we need to get our gas and oil going again this country. i don't know what is wrong with biden. i cannot figure that guy out. we need to get our gas going again. host: how much does the u.s.

rely on russian gas and oil? guest: it is a very small percentage great it does not rely on russian oil at all. it buys some oil from russia, about 3%. it is a very minor -- in fact europe relies much more heavily on russian gas. europe has frantically sought alternative sources. i think one consequence of this crisis will be that russia's ability to ship energy to europe will be greatly degraded as europe recognizes russia as an unreliable trading partner, and the collapse of the nord stream 2 pipeline deal, which the biden administration had worked hard

to convince the germans to shut down, i think is a stunning turnaround. germany has great historical responsibility in this region given its role in world war i and world war ii, particularly the social democratic party in germany which is in power now which has advocated a softer line towards russia. for germany to turn around and cancel nord stream 2, to increase defense spending to 2% of gdp, to increase military spending by $100 billion, is one of the most dramatic events on a diplomatic front that has taken place in this crisis. i'm sure for vladimir putin, remember, he was stationed in germany. he speaks german. he thinks there is some kind of special relationship between germany and russia. i think the government in

germany has taught him that is not the case. host: you have a degree in russian literature and language. you have studied it. what are your feelings about the russian people and what this event will do to their society and culture? guest: it is a great question. i am glad you asked. i am getting texts from my ukrainian colleagues. i do research in ukraine as well. i am getting texts from my ukrainian colleagues. i am making sure they are still alive. i am in contact with my russian colleagues. i am worried for their safety. there has been a crackdown within russia on anyone who expresses any kind of opposition to the war, people who have signed collective letters denouncing the war. i worry for russia's future. there is a whole generation of russians who have grown up in a stable russia, who have taken

advantage of the opportunities offered by globalization to study in the west and to return to their country to try to make it a better place. i think this war will fracture russian society. i think russians have no idea of the international blowback that they are going to face from this crisis. they will be far more isolated than they can imagine. if you look at the international companies and organizations that have cut ties to russia, you know, russia will not play in the world cup. all of these ways russia was tied to the outside world have evaporated. this is an incredible tragedy for ukraine. my heart goes out to them. i think this is also a disaster for russian society. i think -- there will be

russians who support this action. during a crisis, people tend to rally around the government. putin has been a relatively popular politician. he does not need 50% plus one. he just needs a portion of the population to go along with him to stay in power. i think the consequences for russia are great. host: timothy frye's most recent book is weak strongman. thanks for being with us this morning. guest: thank you. i appreciate the questions. host: after the break, we will take a closer look at what constitutes a war crime in this war and historically with david bosco. he is an expert on international

justice from indiana university. that is coming up. ♪ >> the under secretary of state testifies about russia's invasion of ukraine and the u.s. response. watch live coverage tuesday at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3, online at c-span.org, or on our free video app c-span now. >> sunday on q&a, speechwriter donna rubin talks about the speaking wall female speech bank to preserve speeches by women that in her opinion have been overlooked or forgotten. the archive includes speeches by queen elizabeth the second and phyllis schlafly. >> it is only in very recent times that we have credited and

paid attention to what women had to say. we have an assumption, a cultural assumption, that women were not the best speakers, that women were not speaking. in general, it is true women did not speak as much as men for a variety of reasons. women have been speaking, hundreds of them, thousands of them. we have not had access to their words. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now at. -- now app. >> the book hitler's american gamble recounts the five days that upended everything. those days include december 7 through the 11th 1941 from

japan's attack on pearl harbor to hitler's declaration of war on the u.s., tracing development in real-time. british historians reveal how america's engagement was far from inevitable. professor sims and letterman quote martin gilbert as saying hitler's decision to declare war on the united states was arguably his single greatest mistake of the war. >> british historians brandon sims and charlie letterman on this episode of book notes plus. it is available wherever you get your podcasts. "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by david bosco, international studies associate professor at indiana university in bloomington. he is an expert on the

international criminal court and author of the book rough justice : the international court. let's start with the historical concept of where war crimes began. guest: it has been something that has been pretty well established for a number of centuries. it has taken different forms. the idea is that even in conflicts there should be limits on what it has done and where people are treated. it is in the 19th century that we start to get multilateral agreements and treaties that layout certain rules for how conflicts are to be waged. it was during the u.s. civil war that one of the most influential codes of conduct for warfare was elaborated. that was by france's labor, u.s.

professor. then you get things like the st. petersburg declaration. moving on, you get the hague declaration. after world war ii, you get the geneva conventions, which are the modern basis for the laws governing armed conflict. host: the geneva convention after world war ii, those were meant to apply to any future conflicts. this seems in every conflict since that claims of violations of the geneva convention have come even from nations that signed that invention. guest: one of the notable features of the geneva conventions is they have been universally ratified. russia is a member. ukraine is a member. there are additional agreements after the geneva conventions that not all countries have

signed. the basic agreements have been signed by all countries. in almost every conflict, there are allegations of violations. it is clear that whenever there is fighting, there are going to be allegations of violations. i think that is because violence and warfare are so hard to control. part of the -- what is being attempted here is to control and put limits on violence. that is hard to do. i don't think we should say that the geneva conventions are the rules or the rules more broadly are meaningless. we are somewhere in that world between the rules not being perfectly enforced and not always being complied with and them being meaningless. i think we are in the middle of that spectrum. host: it is worth pointing out what that geneva convention's,

the highlights of what the geneva conventions prohibits, including willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injuries to body or health, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power, willfully depriving a pow of rights of a fair and regular trial, the unlawful deportation or transfer and the taking of hostages. who enforces this? this is the convention. how does this get enforced? guest: this was an important question and one of the main dilemmas when you talk about international law is who does

the enforcing. the basic idea of the geneva conventions is it is supposed to be based on reciprocity. all countries are supposed to have an interest because they don't want their civilians to be targeted. they don't want their pows to be mistreated. the idea is all the parties are going to have an incentive to abide by them. that obviously does not always work. for that reason, there has been movement in recent years to set up judicial mechanisms to prosecute war crimes. we have the international criminal court. the prosecutor of the international criminal court announced he was going to be starting a full investigation of what is going on in ukraine. in the last few decades, the

world has moved more towards having international tribunals and courts with the ability to prosecute violations. historically, that idea was jumpstarted by the nuremberg trials and tokyo tribunals. it is not until the 1990's that we got started with having regular international tribunals that could prosecute violations. host: david bosco, associate professor at indiana university, his law degree from harvard law. we welcome your comments. the topic is the international criminal court. we are talking about possible war crimes in ukraine. the lines are (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents and all others (202) 748-8002.

the u.s. senate is moving towards passing a resolution supporting and international criminal court investigation against vladimir putin. let's take a listen. i will ask your thoughts on what senator graham had to say. [video clip] >> i think the entire world, those who believe in the rule of need to speak on behalf of this complaint. we are not prejudging the outcome. we are saying this is a good thing to be doing. this is a legitimate complaint in our eyes and would ask the icc to investigate. i want to let the russian federals no -- generals know you follow the orders of prudent at your own peril. you could find yourself in the hague if you have a scorched earth policy to get the ukrainian people to submit to your will. the world is watching you, not just putin.

i will do anything in my power, as long as it takes, to be a voice for justice of the ukrainian people. to hold one of the most vicious people on the planet accountable, putin and all of his cronies. enough of the murder, enough of destruction and carnage on your behalf. host: david bosco, you had mentioned the nuremberg trials after world war ii, which largely targeted the generals. do these prosecutions also aim for the common soldier, sailor? guest: no, if you look at the treaty that created the international criminal court, there is talk about holding responsible those who have most responsibility. that has been the practice of the international criminal court so far, it has been to go for commanders and potentially

political leaders who are deemed responsible. for example, the former president of sudan, the former defense minister of sudan, those people were charged for atrocities in the darfur region of sudan. i think the icc is going to be looking at how high can they go when it comes to the russian military and political leadership. in response to senator graham's comments, there is a deep irony in the u.s. now supporting the investigation of russia at the international criminal court because the united states has had the view across several administrations that the icc does not have the ability to go after and prosecute non-members of the icc because there was concern about icc prosecutions of u.s. personnel, specifically

in afghanistan. what is happening is not surprising, which is that u.s. leadership sees targeting russia as something good and just but still has deep doubts about the international criminal court's ability to investigate the u.s. host: where is the icc based, and how is it funded? guest: it is based in the hague. that is why you have seen images of ukraine roadsigns with all directions pointing to the hague. it is funded by the countries that have joined the icc. more than 120 countries have joined the icc. they pay annual dues to keep the court running. the u.s. is not a member. rush is not a member. china is not a member. india is not a member. some of the bigger countries in the world are not members of the

court. host: let's get to calls. mike in michigan. caller: hello. considering that putin helped -- in his campaign against, for lack of a better word, insurgents in his own country, and there was no pushback there, i feel putin has just been emboldened. when you hear people talking about stability, i don't think that is the case. i think he knows just what he was doing all along. he has never received any pushback. i think he is just going to keep going as far as he can until somebody steps up and says enough is enough. anybody that is willing to

poison or imprison, shoot opposition or throw them out a window, is to give into a mere negotiation. i think a good weight to start would be to revoke russian passports, locke up assets that did with iran, send them back to russia and let the russian people decide whether they want to live like that for step up and have another revolution and say we have had enough of you. now he has the ability to stay in power until 2036 is what i have heard.

host: thanks for the comment. david bosco? guest: there has been a history here if weight talk about behavior of the russian regime and he was referencing what happened in syria and russian support for the syrian government. there were very serious allegations of war crimes committed by the syrian government including these of chemical and other atrocities there. one of the points from a legal standpoint that is important is that the international criminal court did not have jurisdiction over the situation in syria because syria is not a member country and syria had not given the court jurisdiction. there is a different situation in ukraine because ukraine while not a member has several years

ago given the court jurisdiction. that means from the icp standpoint, they have a free hand to investigate in ukraine and the way they did and in syria. the quest of is a possible interrogation going to deter someone like putin. you heard from senator graham's comments that it is not just to get put thinking about the process -- the possibility but to get commanders thinking and if you can start to drive some kind of wedge there that if putin or the defense orders you to do something, you should think about that because there may be a pressure occasion for you. host: up is dave in northport new york, independent line. caller: more is horrible and there should be an enormous

amount of war crimes but the significant amount of hypocrisy in this discussion because in america we just spent 20 years in afghanistan dropping bob's and in iraq we had to deceive the american people and the shotgun off we watched and applauded it. but prior to the iraq war we had a 10 year embargo on the iraqi people and state sponsored terrorism and violence we as the embargo and starvation and child mortality onto the civilian population to put pressure on the government.

now we are doing the same thing in afghanistan because the taliban took control and we have further embargoes and sanctions against the people using starvation and human suffering. back to ukraine, the president in ukraine who used to be an actor, he played the actor -- present as an actor and now he is the president. what kind of lies did the bureaucrats in nato tell him? what kind of promises did they make him? because if we allow this situation to happen. if you want to talk about war crimes, i'm talking about stupid premises and putting people -- ideas in people's head. host: a lot of things.

guest: there is a lot in there. but the initial point about hypocrisy is a serious one. not only do we have the issue of the united states essentially rejecting the international criminal court investigation of personnel that there have been questions raised about u.s. conduct in various conflicts. i do think it is important to say there are differences and if we look at russian net tactics i think russian tactics are quite different than u.s. tactics have often been. there's also a big difference in terms of the discipline of the armed forces. u.s. military gets a lot of training and now there are certainly instances where you can question that and there are serious questions about violations like some of the interrogation and torture that went on after the 9/11 attacks. i think the question about

hypocrisy israel but i would go back to the original point that we shouldn't therefore go to the position that the rules are meaningless and that everybody violates them in the same way because i don't think that's accurate at all. the other point he was making go more to the political realm and the question of whether there was a reckless policy vis-a-vis ukraine. i think that is more in the political realm and less in the legal realm. the 1.i might make here is that there is a question of oppression itself and the launching of an illegal war and whether someone could be prosecuted for that. that is the easiest thing that could be prosecuted for would be the crime of a crescent. otherwise if you are talking about -- would be the crime of

aggression. you could say he ordered war and it was illegal. the problem is the icc because of the way things are structured cannot prosecute russian leaders for aggression. there is talk about with you could convene a special tribunal by perhaps some of the european countries but in a sense easiest thing to pin on putin is something the icc itself can't get him for. host: next up is joe in pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: i was wondering if david bosco agrees with the recent clip you showed of senator cotton saying there was a strong

washing propaganda and disinformation campaign in america. host: that is tom cotton from arkansas. guest: it is outside my area of expertise. i think it is well established the russian government and those affiliated have been working in various ways to championship influence u.s. public opinion through social media and other mechanisms reflect beyond that, certainly my impression is on the social media publicity front ukraine is winning that war hands down. i'm not sure i would want to comment beyond that because it goes beyond my area of specialization. host: usa says russia use may use each tactic and may have civilian deaths and heavy damage. how do they distinguish between

civilian casualties, targets and combatants? guest: it is a fundamental principle of the geneva convention that you should be distinguishing between combatants and civilians. you should not be intentionally targeting civilians or civilian installations and building. but then we get into a gray area which is, what if you are going after a military target and you have military personnel near a civilian population or near a civilian building and to go after that military target? then you get into hard questions about what was the value of the military target and was it proportional -- was going after that military target proportional to the amount of civilian damage you are going to inflict? that is a judgment call in

geneva convention doesn't provide a simple equation. i do think there is plenty of caselaw that if you are basically firing indiscriminately or that you are taking no precautions whatsoever about civilian damage than that is going to be likely deemed a war crime. that is something that international lawyers and the icc prosecutor's office will be keeping a close eye on. the other thing people are talking about is prisoners of war because it looks like both sides have taken prisoners of war and there are very specific rules in the geneva convention about how they are supposed to be treated. that is something else everybody will be looking at. host: you mentioned case law. so when it is brought in front of the icc, what caselaw do they

use? guest: the icc now has a record of trials it has conducted. it is not a lot but there are trials that have been conducted and there are rulings from the judges and that becomes an important source of case law could you also have other international tribunals. there was a big international tribunal to deal with the former yugoslavia. that was dozens and dozens of cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity. there was a tribunal set up to deal with rwanda and the genocide there. all of that together plus as you mentioned there are national cases about this, national prosecutions that have gone on for war crimes. the icc is building on all of that as well as the text of the geneva convention and statute

created the icc and that will be important in determining legal standard. host: have you ever sat in on a court case at the icc? guest: i have. it is interesting. it is very important court in a quiet area of the hague and very modern. you have judges from all different countries and it is kind of moving in a sense in that it is the international community attempt to enforce basic standards of humanity, even in very dire conflict situations. host: we are talking about potential war crimes in ukraine with david bosco. has vladimir putin committed war crimes in ukraine? we will go to maureen calling from toms river, new jersey, independent line. caller: i have a question.

i agree with the gentleman who said the hypocrisy across the board in regard to policy. there were some articles recently regarding the international space station with russia not providing things on that line. i was wondering whether that was going in from of the icc and other war crimes. it is something that has no precedent from before. i was wondering your opinion. guest: that is an interesting question, the international space station. there are special rules that apply to international territory. but i am not 100% sure if it is

russian registered or if we are talking about it being flagged by a certain country and the rules would apply to that country. but the international space station is something i would need to think a little about. on the broader point about hypocrisy and double standards, it is important to recognize while we talk about the geneva convention, the united states is a signatory member and russia and ukraine and we are talking about a situation where all countries have agreed to certain standards during warfare. it is correct that the united states has not joined the international criminal court and that russia has not. host: next up is rick in florida on the republican line. caller: good morning.

i am trying to understand this. so everybody talks about charging putin with war crimes and finding him guilty. how will that be carried out? how will they go in and say you are guilty and we are going to lock you up if nato can't even go in and assist ukraine because you have the nuclear threat. how are you supposed to grab putin and say you are guilty, we are taking you to jail. how does that work? guest: that is a great question. the answer is basically there is not a weight right now if putin were to be charged, it doesn't mean that anybody is going to be able to go get him. a couple things to keep in mind. first of all, it means no travel to any icc member state because any state that is a member of

the icc has a legal obligation to arrest somebody who comes onto their territory who has been charged with crimes. for russian commanders, ministers, putin himself, that is something that is serious. the other thing that is important to mention is that people don't always stay in power forever. and so for example the president of sudan, the former president of sudan, is now out of power and there are talks on whether he would be sent from sudan to the international criminal court. so you might find yourself in a situation if you are vladimir putin where a couple months or years down the road you're out of power and then you become vulnerable because it could be that folks in russia have incentive to send you to the hague. that is the way various people have come before the icc in the past. but you are absolutely right

that there's nothing magic that happens if you are charged in terms of the ability to get you into court. and i should also say that the caller is right that you cannot have a trial of a russian commander or political leader without them being present in the hague. there is no provision and there is not allowed heaven in absentia trial so you have to get people there if you are going to have a trial. it could be years down the road before somebody actually makes their way to the hague. host: who is the highest country official held accountable by the icc or some other international tribunal? guest: the former president of serbia, below savage -- was in front of the icc for trial he

died before the trial was over. the sitting president of kenya was charged by the icc, although actually that case fell apart and he was ultimately -- the charges were dropped against him. you have several sitting heads of state who have been charged in some who have actually gone to international court. there is precedent for that. host: we will go to stephen in woodstock, virginia, independent line. caller: i have a question about the treatment of prisoners of war. in particular there have been well-publicized reports that ukrainian leaders issuing essentially an order for certain artillerymen which i assume they will be summarily executed. i am wondering if there is exposure for ukrainian leadership because of that similar orders and whether there is a principle of international law that might provide dissent

for them given the ultimate nature of the conflict. guest: that is a great question. i saw that and a couple other things where people pointed out photographs taken of russian pows, which you are not supposed to be abusing or using pows as propaganda. if we look at the icc's's history, they do try to investigate all sides. they would not just be looking at russian conduct but could also be looking at ukrainian conduct. if that order were carried about giving no order, that would certainly be a war crime. it is no doubt about that. and the icc will be looking at conduct on all sides good the question about whether there could be defense based on the fact they are engaged in a

defensive war is an interesting one and something that resonate with a lot of people's moral instinct. if you're attacked, why should you defending your homeland be subject to the same standards of the aggressor and that seems kind of wrong to people. that is the basis of the geneva convention and international law when it comes to armed conflict is we are never going to agree on who the just party is, so we need to have a set of rules that applies to all parties. i don't think ukraine would be able to say, we are defending ourselves and therefore these provisions of the geneva convention don't apply. i think based on what we have seen so far it seems likely the icc is going to focus a lot of its attention on russia, but the caller is right that ukraine's

conduct will be subject to examination as well. host: we will hear from jan in dover plains, new york, democrats line. caller: i am nervous about this because i am not mic savvy. i have extended family in ukraine. ice to be married to someone from ukraine. to my daughter and son are half ukrainian. especially my daughter has been in communication with cousins over there, one of whom left last summer and because he couldn't get a regular visa? to paris to join his wife, he ended up walking there and camping over the course of three months. since this bombardment has started, she hasn't been able to

reach any of her cousins. they have disappeared. she doesn't know if they are refugees. they lived mostly around kyiv. i find it extremely disheartening that people call in and say that ukraine is part of russia. no they aren't. day are fiercely independent and have been decades -- have been for decades. i used to paint their houses in a ukrainian neighborhood in the catskills and if i called them russian, i would be chastised completely. so i am really somewhat remotely involved with all of these people who are going through this and i support them definitely, but as far as war crimes are concerned, i think that putin has been absolutely

committing crimes against many, many people for decades since he has been in power. he is x kgb -- ex-kgb and i know it would be difficult to get him into the war crimes court because he is surrounded by an army of buddy guards. i am not surprised. i have been expecting it. i know a young man who was an intern in the american embassy in moscow. when putin -- moscow when putin came to power and i asked him, what is your description of this man? and he said he is a snake. he is ex-kgb and will stop at nothing, and he was right there

he said he is a reptile. this is very disheartening for me to see what is going on. host: thank you for sharing your story. guest: we are hearing a lot of stories like that of course. the question about vladimir putin and his potential legal exposure is a really interesting but also difficult one legally, because if we are talking about the shelling in kyiv or the nuclear plant we witnessed over the last few hours, the question in terms of actually holding putin legally accountable, you have to be able to prove the case in court. you have to be able to connect what happened on the ground with

orders that were given at the higher levels. and people who have experienced international prosecution will tell you it is not an easy thing to do, because people at the higher levels will often try to make sure they are being somewhat ambiguous in what they say or it will be hard to find records. so the prosecutors will be looking at this and a whole range of different information. ice and they will be trying to get medications -- get communications intercept between commanders on the ground and higher ups. they will be documents they will try to find and that will be very hard to do. so when they talk about holding somebody like putin or his senior ministers accountable, you have to be accountable of what is required to what is

proving a legal case. prosecutors will not want to file charges unless they feel the charges could stand up in court. you can be sure it putin or one of the senior russian administers gets to the hague by some set of events in the future, they will have good goat representation who will try to poke holes in the chain of evidence connecting them to actual crimes on the ground. host: that collar -- that caller also mentioned refugees. what does the icc say about the treatment of people fleeing a war scene? guest: people fleeing a war scene would be -- i mean they are civilians presumably, so they are protected by virtue of being civilians. they are fleeing, they are going to be attracted by the geneva convention. it is heartening to see there seems to have been some pain of

mechanism constructed for trying to get people and allow people to get out of the situation here at one of the complexities i think we are going to run into is that line between civilian and a combatant, because ukraine has talked about essentially handing out arms to anyone who is willing to fight. presumably a lot of these people won't be wearing no forms. -- wearing uniforms. what about somebody who is a civilian but going up weapons or is providing direct assistance to the military effort? so people who are taking up arms need to be aware that then they are going to be treated as combatants. so the fact that one is a civilian gives you a protection in the geneva conventions that

if you pick up arms you will become a combatant and a different set of rules apply. the humanitarian corridors and those kinds of things as a tactical and humanitarian mechanism, i hope those work out. host: let's hear from brian in east sandwich, massachusetts, republican line. caller: i would just like to talk about history for a moment, the way i understand it was that khrushchev, if he wasn't ukrainian was close and was married to a ukrainian. this discussion of what appears to be revenge through possible war crimes bothers me, because if it is an eye for an eye, we would all be blind. we hear about from people that

the ukrainian people's militia and the police auxiliary participators, did we get all of those? if we keep looking for revenge through war crime trials, it is just going to create hard feelings to eternity. host: thank you. guest: that is an interesting point that some people have raised about war crimes prosecutions and do we just keep all of the animosity festering and do we actually do a disservice to the peace process that is going to be eventually necessary that having trials that might extend for years and years after the conflict? one point that is important pron

believe contrary to what they caller suggested that we can actually deal with some of the demands for justice and retribution in a sense through the legal process rather than by having people decide, i have to take vengeance on the russians and take some kind of physical action down the road. and so the idea is we need to move this into the realm of law where we can adjudicate this rather than having these hostilities and the resentment and the anger come out in other ways. i don't know what the answer is on that. and there has been a lot of scholars who have tried to understand what the effects of war crimes trials are in the long run. but the other important point here is that we should not just

be thinking about war crimes and prosecutions here as a matter of russia and ukraine because there is also something going on here which is we are trying to underline standards for other countries and other actors around the world. so in that sense, by saying this is under optimal behavior and we are going to show -- this is unacceptable behavior and we are going to show you, it is saying to russians and other people around the world who could be in conflict situations in the future. i think that is a powerful point about international justice that is not always recognized. yeah, we do care about what the impact is in this particular situation, but we also care about underlining and reinforcing these basic norms of how people should act in a global sense. host: one of david bosco's books

is about the international court in the world of politics. we appreciate you being on with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: we will spend the rest of the program hearing from you in our open forum, your chance to weigh in on the russia and ukraine war or political stories you are following. we will look at the february jobs number in a moment. the numbers are still the same. mike ross, (202) 748-8000 -- democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. ♪ >> intelligence community leaders released their annual report on security threats facing the u.s. and our allies. the house committee on

intelligence gets a chance to ask questions tuesday live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three, online at c-span.org, or watch free coverage on our video app c-span now. >> i am pleased to nominate judge jackson, who brings extraordinary qualifications, deep experience and intellect, and a rigorous judicial record to the court. >> i am truly humbled by the extraordinary honor of this nomination. i am especially grateful for the care that you have taken, charging your constitutional duty, service of our democracy with all that is going on in the world today. >> president biden nominate judge jackson of the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit to succeed retiring justice stephen breyer to the court. if confirmed, judge jackson would be the first african-american woman to serve on the nation's highest court.

follow this historic process and the announcement all the way through to the confirmation process on c-span, c-span.org, or by downloading the free c-span now app. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with humans from the u.s. congress, white house events, campaigns, and more, all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio and podcasts. c-span now available at the apple store and google play. download it for free. c-span now, your front road to washington anytime, -- row to

washington, anytime, anywhere. >> c-span's online store. our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our operation. shop anytime at c-span.org/shop. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it is open forum until 10:00 eastern, your chance to weigh in on the day's news item or public policy issue you are following, including the russia-ukraine war and more. the jobless numbers out for the month of february. 3.8%, the unemployment rate falling to 3.8%. 678,000 jobs added for the month. the headline in "the wall street

journal," the u.s. added 678,000 jobs in february. just to let you know before we get to your calls momentarily about our coverage plans on c-span. coming up at 11:00 eastern this morning, for my national security advisor john bolton will be talking about -- former national security advisor john bolton will be talking about russia and ukraine situation. live on c-span, c-span.org, and you can follow it with our c-span now mobile app. to susan, first up on the independent line. it is open forum. good morning. caller: yes. good morning. thanks for taking my call. i hope you would let me finish because i was born into world war ii. the american public fortunately does not understand what that is really like. ok? but moving up to present day, england, great britain, when

they separated, when they decided to do the brexit, i really think putin's kgb tactics were at play. i really do believe that, and i wish someone would check into that. as far as ukraine goes, you know what i think? i think i feel sorry for all the civilians. civilians always suffer. it is the hierarchy, the bosses, and everything who are always safe. i have nothing against the russian people. they don't make decisions. and perhaps if they decided to stick together and russian military -- together, the russian military would see what is going on. perhaps they need to develop a coup and go from there because

the russian people, the everyday person needs the same freedom. they suffer, too. the same thing goes with china. i knew that russia was not going to attack or do anything until the olympics were over. i even said that to my girlfriend, and i am surprised nobody ever mentioned that. yeah. i just think that it is a sad situation. and unfortunately, people are not going to learn. people do not understand history. they are not being taught history. i know i sound old-fashioned. but the three r's. the same thing with all of this anti-semitism. we have tons of anti-semitism here. it is disgusting. host: to darlene in washington, republican line. darlene, go ahead. caller: morning.

i was hoping you could find some more information because i trust you guys. i watch news all day long. i am retired. different sources out there. here and everybody. yesterday after they got out of their cabinet meeting, this is what came on one of our television stations here. i had heard mentions that they were going to do something with iran. yesterday, they said in order to do that, which they are going to do, they will be under the nuclear treaty. even though iran is this close to a nuclear warhead. we know they will aim it towards israel. and they are paying $11 billion for four hostage prisoners. i was really hoping you could find some information and let us know if this is what our government is going to do.

go to the evil monsters who hate us, let them do their nuclear thing, and pay them $11 billion for four hostages, which we said we would never duplicate thank you. host: to the caller from el paso, texas, democrats line. caller: i love my c-span. good morning, america. i think as laypeople, we don't get it when it comes to weapons. i went to the missile museum in arizona just outside of tucson. when you walk in there, you get to see the pictures, read history. they take you outside and show you the doors and the mechanisms. you go through these catwalks. you see where these guys live and how they live and how they eat. and then you get to see the missile. it is massive, man. it is nuts. it goes stories above you. i don't know how many stories

above you. [laughter] it is terrifying. and then you go to the control room and they simulate a countdown. this is no joke. this is not a joke. we have 5500 of them here in america. and of course, the titan two, it does not work. i think unless you see it up close, you are looking at maps, and we are looking at numbers, right? unless you see this up close, you don't really get the problem that we are facing, that we might be facing here. and i think that our military is the best military in the history of the world, right? we have to trust them. we have to trust our government. everybody is steps ahead of civilians. we just have to trust that this

mechanism we have created is going to work for america. that is what i wanted to say. bless you. good night. host: thanks for calling. now to lorren in ohio on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. first off, as a veteran, i cannot believe we are standing back and not doing more than what we are already doing against russia. if you look back, very similar to world war ii, how it began. hitler started and then japan jumped in basically on the other side. now we have putin on one side and china ready to go against taiwan. is this going to be a repeat? we learned back then or i thought we learned back then you don't just turn your back on a belief. that is what i feel like we are

doing right now. we are all right with the bully as long as he does not swing at us to beat up the other person. that does not work at all. how would we feel that's russia's excuse is ukraine belongs -- russia's excuse is ukraine belongs to russia. how would we feel? we would not tolerate it. thank you. host: a caller asked about the iran nuclear deal. iran is making news. this is the jerusalem post this morning. will there be a new deal? what is next? at this point, there are no measures left short of freezing out the process that the west can accept. weather this week is the final stretch as all parties have said or whether nuclear negotiations with iran might be drawn out to

the iaea board of governors meeting, which is set for march 7 through 11 next week, one thing is certain, a decision is imminent. it is james up next in newark, new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: getting to the point, i see the cowards. i say that because the president of ukraine is begging to be part of nato. am i correct? the president of ukraine is begging to be part of nato. host: yes. caller: ukraine being destroyed, entertainment. what do i know about russia? i go back with russia to 1956.

this president, putin, is a criminal. it is obvious. they want to watch entertainment instead. sad. host: we will go to mike in missouri, republican line. hello there, mike. caller: i am just wondering if anybody can clarify what the definition of a combatant is? for instance, in ukraine, if citizens pick up arms to defend themselves, are they not combatants also? host: good point. thanks for making it. linda in michigan, it is the republican line next. go ahead. caller: yes. i just am calling about what i am witnessing on tv, which is really terrible. at first, i thought, i don't think our soldiers should go in.

but i am at a point where, how long is this going to continue? i know biden is really strong on not sending them over, which i appreciate. but i think we are past the point of no return and that our soldiers ought to go in, take volunteers first. but since when does president biden follow the rules? all now he is going to follow the rules and not get involved as far as our soldiers are concerned. put this man out. he has been a problem for how many years? nobody once to deal with him. the mafia is involved. this is ridiculous. this is all i have to say. host: some of the reporting from various news sources, russian

forces seize the nuclear plant. they seized a nuclear power plant early friday, today, as the conflict enters its second week, and troops close in on the ukrainian capital of kyiv. as of now, a city is back under ukrainian control after it was taken over by russians. jay is calling from pennsylvania on the independent line. good morning. caller: hi. good morning. i agree with the woman that just called forget putin is -- called. putin is out of control. nato or no nato, this is a battle of him versus the west and we need to rise to the occasion and stop him right now with whatever means we have to do. host: to carl on the independent line in chicago. go ahead, carl. caller: this is carl. as a former military veteran, people need to realize ukraine

not being a member of nato, we really cannot use any part of our military as far as our equipment with planes and all of that to help give air superiority. we need to realize that when jen psaki is saying our oil prices cannot be calmed down, they are being controlled by oil companies, when we went to iraq and afghanistan both times and bombing oil wells in kuwait, gas prices did not jump up like this. they stayed at a reasonable rate. i think our leaders are lying for their own profits. we need to realize biden's son hunter has had ties to the pipeline running through ukraine. they don't want to force it, but we also need to take out venezuela as far as buying oil from them. my theory is if you are not with

nato and the e.u. taking over ukraine, why are we still buying oil from them when we have our own oil supply in the united states? you need to go back to exporting that. host: let's hear from monte from providence, kentucky. go ahead. it is open forum. caller: yes. president putin is a friend of donald trump's. donald trump is a good friend of his. i am appalled by this, some of the people in ukraine, the black people, the dark people, how they are treating them over there. it is just like that in kentucky and all over the united states, how we are second-class citizens. and i am tired of how they are treating all the black people all over the world. trump aide to china -- trump hated china because they are dark skin. i might have it wrong.

i love everybody. but this is trump and racism all over the world. stop the hate. host: this is a headline. legislation passed yesterday until hassey. a 15 week abortion been sent to governor ron desantis with no exception for rape or incensed. governor desantis expected to sign that bill. in florida in tampa, mark is on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: i think joe biden is doing the best job he could be doing right now. i think he is doing a good job with the sanctions. all of these republicans trying to criticize him, what is their plan? because if we try to go in and assist any way militarily ourselves, that will be world

war iii. people might even think about what they are talking about when they say that kind of stuff. as far as trump, he was so weak against putin from day one. when he got elected, he was trying to lift sanctions on russia. putin even picked out all of our u.s. diplomats. trump went on tv and thanked putin for doing that. he is praising him now, saying he is smart and savvy. there was a quote from him. he said he is taking over a country, a great piece of land with a lot of people. he thinks that is brilliant. if you think that is the kind of guy that was going to stop putin, i think he would want to join putin. host: thank you. let's hear from don on the

republican line. caller: hey, how are you doing? my biggest thing is with energy. i do not agree with the policy right now. sanctions are the safest option. i want to get involved in a war, fight for democracy, fight around the world. that is not the best way to go. why can't we re-invoke production here in the united states and export it? i heard that from some else as well and have been thinking the same thing. so we can help our nato allies instead of having to buy from other countries to potentially have conflict in the future. host: to anita in missouri on the independent line in open forum. caller: hi. host: hey. caller: i have heard an awful lot of trump supporters call in

today. they would tout he has done some good things. i am sure putin has done some good things for russia, but i sure would not want him for our president. for the trump supporters, if they are willing to give up our democratic republic and send their children and grandchildren to a fraudulent trump university or donate to the fraudulent trump charity that bought portrait of himself, be willing to accept the debt of trillions of dollars when he gave tax relief to the 1%, or when it was found that the post office was being dismantled and still is.

everything about this former president was fraudulent, including when he was putting things down the toilet and ripping up papers. he did that with putin before when he met with putin and sent our people who were supposed to be making the record out of the room. he destroyed records before they could even be made, which is a fraudulent thing for a president to do. and that border wall that he was supposed to have made. we have about 4000 miles of border because of the rio de janeiro river. only less than 1% of it did he put a wall on. if you watched jimmy kimmel last night, he mentioned it has already been abridged tens of

thousands of times. that again is a fraudulent thing, including how he had it built. everything about him is fraudulent. host: this is a story from the washington times this morning. american accused of violating russian oligarchs tensions. federal prosecutors announced chargers thursday against an american they say violated u.s. sanctions by working for a russian oligarchs, calling the case that a russian oligarch -- a russian oligarch, calling the case an example. someone was tensioned by the u.s. government in 2014 for promoting pro-russian separatism in the region of eastern ukraine. the charges come as the u.s. has imposed a new, deeper round of sanctions against russian government officials and top money men in an attempt to

punish president putin for the attack on ukraine. in massachusetts, we hear from barbara on the democrats line. caller: hello. first-time caller. hello? host: welcome. caller: hi. i am calling about the oil, this problem we are having. do republicans understand that once the oil comes out of the ground, it belongs to the oil companies, not to us anymore? thank you. host: thanks for calling, barbara. glad you got through. kenneth is in missouri, republican line. caller: good morning. thanks for having me on. i get tired to listening -- tired of listening to all of the democrat lies. they cannot prove one thing they said. one thing they did not realize,

we did not get any wars. putin was not about to do anything as long as trump was president. this november, all you democrats are going to be in the minority because we will take over the house of representatives. and joe biden will be a lame-duck for the last two years. you will never get nothing through after this november. thank you very much. host: we will hear from richard in missouri, democrats line. caller: yeah. yeah. now i know how them people felt. yeah. you know, we got all of the big cities for putin so there is very little he can do. maybe the people in russia will take care of this guy.

i don't think they have the guts enough to do that over there. host: we will hear from barbara in oklahoma on the independent line. caller: yes. i have been listening to these people talking about trump. i am not a republican. i am not a democrat. i would vote for anybody who i thought was good. but they are always talking about trump talking to putin. putin, everybody knows, is an idiot. i always thought a president was supposed to talk to everybody. biden gave all of that money to whoever it was. he owes taxes on $13 million. he has three mansions. you are not going to tell me he did all that just on his salary. i know he has been in there a long time, but nobody seems to know that or nobody cares. nobody has looked at his taxes. i mean, and his kids, oh my god.

he is something else. at least trump's kids worked. every one of them worked. they did not depend on their dad. i don't understand what this is. sure, he is a big mouth. i know that. everybody knows that. but you knew where he stood. thank you. host: thanks for the call. that will do it for this morning's program. thanks for all your calls and comments and we are back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern. hope you are too. have a great weekend. [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] ♪ ♪

>> coming up today, former national security advisor john bolton discusses russia's invasion of ukraine and america's response to the crisis. live coverage is scheduled for 11:00 eastern time. on 11:30 a.m., the u.n. security council holds a meeting about russia's invasion of ukraine. the white house press secretary will brief reporters on topics of the day, including the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine. we will have live coverage of all of these events on c-span. you can watch online at c-span.org or our free video app, c-span now. pres. biden: the russian