the war on the rocks podcast shares his thoughts on the russian invasion and foreign affairs. join us with your calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: good morning. it is saturday, march 5, 2022. the russian invasion of ukraine continues into its second week. over one million people have fled their homes and over 330 civilians have been killed. ukrainian firefighters put out a blaze at europe's largest nuclear power plant yesterday that had been sparked by a russian projectile. the latest developments are that russia declared a partial cease-fire and two humanitarian

corridors to evacuate the cities of ukraine. that doesn't seem to be going well. shelling continues according to reports. we want to hear your opinions on that and the thoughts on the war in ukraine. democrats can join us at (202) 748-8000. republicans can join us at (202) 748-8001. independents, the number is (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. tell us your first name and your city and state. we are on facebook.com/c-span and twitter and instagram at c-spanwj. here is the article from the associated press. russia reports a cease-fire into ukraine areas for evacuations. it says that russian defense officials announced a temporary cease-fire into ukrainian's

abilities to allow civilians to evacuate. a local official reported shelling continued in his area despite the deal. a sign of the fragility of efforts to stop fighting across the country. also, the washington post has this as their headline. one of the cities stopped evacuations and says russia is still shelling despite the cease-fire. ukrainian officials accused -- less than three hours after both sides announced a temporary truce, the city council in mar you pull -- mariupol had held drivers to evacuate, saying fill the vehicles as much as

possible. the officials sharply pivoted, urging people to hunker down and accusing russia of continuing to shout the city and a peaceful exit route. what are your thoughts and opinions on that? we have people ready to weigh in on the republican line, gary is in corpus christi, texas. caller: i am having a difficult under -- difficult time understanding why america and nato are accepting being blackmailed by putin. i don't understand that. is our president so weak, biden, that he just can't understand what to do about putin? host: don't think he would

nuclear weapons, you think it is a bluff or a hoax? caller: i don't care if it is a bluff or not. if he wants to do that, go for it. host: steve is next in philadelphia, pennsylvania, on the democrats line. hi. caller: good morning. i would like to say that the president of ukraine asked for a no-fly zone. that can never happen. it would start a nuclear war and it would start something so catastrophic that you don't want to talk about it. now, he has to stop saying that he needs a fly zone from nato and us. we will supply him all of the arms, all of the tanks and all of the rifles and armor to fight the russians. but as for us going in there,

that's not going to happen. because if it does, that means the world as we know it will not exist. so, we will give you the planes, the fighter jets, we will train your men and we will not get involved unless russia steps one foot into the baltics or nato and attacks that part of europe. host: steve, here is what the washington post said about that. nato and u.s. see darker days ahead in ukraine but rule out a no-fly zone. it says that the war in ukraine will probably be more punishing for civilians as russians employ brutal tactics that they have used to deadly effects in other conflicts. the secretary of site -- secretary of state ruled out the establishment of a no-fly zone.

secretary of state blinken was with reporters yesterday and was asked about the comments. >> we heard the situation will get worse before it gets better. what do you know that we don't? was it night -- naive of you to trust putin? >> when we say it is likely to get worse, unfortunately, based on everything we know about president putin's message when it comes to seeking to subjugate another country to his will or another region to his will. we have seen it in syria. we saw it in 2014, in ukraine.

what we are seeing on the battlefield is russian forces seeking to encircle the major cities, including kyiv. we are seeing them use increasingly brutal methods, including going at civilians and civilian populations. i think the terrible expectation is that the suffering is likely to get worse before it gets better. for as long as russia pursues these methods. that is, unfortunately, more likely than not. although, we are doing everything we can to try to move this to a different track. with regard to the no-fly zone, i think you heard nato's

secretary speak to this. one of the responsibilities we have, even as we are doing everything we can to give the ukrainian people the means to defend themselves effectively against russia, we have a responsibility as the secretary said, to ensure that the war does not spill beyond ukraine. again, because i think he put it so well, as he noted, the only way to implement something like a no-fly zone is to send nato planes into the ukrainian airspace and shoot down russian planes. that could lead to a full-fledged war. president biden has been clear that we will not get into a war with russia. but, we are going to tremendous lengths with allies and partners to provide ukrainians with the means to effectively defend themselves.

we are seeing every single day, there extraordinary cash -- their extraordinary heroism as well as results in what they are doing to achieve that. host: that was secretary of state tony blinken in brussels, talking about not instituting a no-fly zone. president zelensky of ukraine responded. he said friday's summit was a weak and confused summit. nato gave the green light for further bombing of ukrainian towns and villages, refusing to make a no-fly zone. you could have closed the sky. we believe nato countries have created a narrative that closing the skies over ukraine would provoke russia's direct aggression against nato. all the people who will die from this day will also die because of you, because of your weakness, because of your

disunity. this is the self hypnosis of those who are weak, insecure inside, despite the fact they possess weapons many times stronger than we have. some very strong words from president zelensky. very passionate. i want to know what you think, taking your calls this morning until the top of the hour. russ is calling us on the republican line. caller: thank you. i would like to talk about the evacuation of mariupol in ukraine. russia opened up an evacuation corridor because it does not look good for russians to be killing lots of civilians. ukrainian authorities urged everyone to leave and gas up their cars and get out. all of a sudden, they turned 180 degrees and switched it. everyone must stay in mariupol because shots are being fired. i think these ukrainian authorities are using civilians as human shields because there

is no ukrainian military. they want us to come over there and fight their battle and that first caller wanted everyone to die, he exemplifies what is going on in this country. thank you very much. host: russ, if you are still there, are you saying the shelling is not continuing? i think we lost russ. let's go to shirley in meridian, mississippi, on the democrats line. shirley? caller: yes? host: hi, go ahead. you are on the air. caller: ok. they say putin is the most richest man in the world and why can't they just put a bounty on his head and give someone at least $100 million to kill putin and pay them with putin's own money. i think a lot of his own people

would do good to turn him in. host: all right. shirley in mississippi. next, in ridgefield, connecticut on the republican line, john. caller: hi, thanks for taking my call. first of all, i would like to agree with the first caller. president biden is beneath weakness. there are a couple of things that we talked about. we have the putin grievance from 1994 to protect ukraine against such an attack. nobody talks about that. number two, biden is making iran great again with the meetings he

is having, taking up sanctions from iran. people should call their senators as i did and get the policy changed so we can support the people of ukraine. host: john in connecticut. in tucker, georgia, jim is calling us on the democrats line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call and thank you for c-span. my disappointment is not with president biden, but with the democratic leadership in the house. they are the ones who are supposed to declare war. i don't hear app out of nancy pelosi, except for let's not import any oil or let's give some aid to ukraine. i think that would be -- that should be explored a lot further.

when we deliver the aid to ukraine, the second any russian soldier or aircraft or whatever attempts to block back, we need to just roll over them and take them out. this is not going to stop. host: you want a declaration of war from congress? or what are you looking for from nancy pelosi? caller: yeah. absolutely. that is what they are supposed to be doing and they are not even debating it. they are not talking about that. putin is not going to stop. host: you would encourage american troops on the ground in ukraine, fighting directly with russian troops? caller: yeah. somebody has to stop this putin fellow. if the russian people aren't going to do something about it, he has such a -- he is like little stalin. he has all of the people of

russia scared to death to do anything. that is unfortunate. but, you know, somebody has to stop this madman. host: next up is david in florida on the independents line. hi, david. caller: hello, how are you doing this morning? host: good. caller: good. i am wondering when the world will grow a backbone, myself. this guy is over there killing children and women, what are they going to do with these millions of people who are displaced? where will they live? where will they go to? it seems like nobody cares. they have to tell putin we have had enough and all of the guns of the world and all of the missiles of the world are pointed right at him if you want to start something nuclear. that's all i've got to say. host: all right, david. next in new jersey, lewis on the

republican line. caller: good morning. the very first caller, that guy is whack. it is a little too wait to send weapons in. why do we keep purchasing oil from the russians and now they want us to purchase fuel? from iran? it is so reversed. maybe they should look at the reason why we keep buying oil from russian oligarchs, who gave biden's sons $5 million. caller: we will talk about the energy situation and russian oil in the next hour. at 8:00 eastern time, so i hope you will stay tuned. host: next up is harvey in

portsmouth, virginia. caller: i thank you for taking my call. i served in the military for 24 years and 25 days. i hear callers talking about nato and no-fly zones and starting nuclear war, supporting ukraine with weapons. 70% to 90% of those people have never served. they don't have any idea what is going on with nato and the united states and it is really sad that we have that many americans that are just idiots. it makes no sense. i would ask people this, investigate nato and the united states agreement with countries not in nato. they are signing their sons and daughters to go to a war that we

would never win. host: let's go to jonathan in canton, ohio, on the democrats line. jonathan, it looks like we may have lost jonathan. barry is up next in tennessee, on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have quite a different take on the whole thing. i really believe that the blame lies with the western nations, canada, united states, england, nato, and the agenda we are pushing in the countries surrounding russia. and i think putin sees the writing on the wall and he will not sit there and allow a takeover of the kind of ideology that has taken over the western countries. he can't survive it.

he's not going to step back. that is why he has threatened to go all the way nuclear. he doesn't have a choice. i think it is our fault. i think ukraine became what ukraine is during the obama administration. host: tell me more about why you think it is our fault. what did the united states do? caller: when you look at what happened, what has happened in canada, the fascism that is taking place there and what they suppress. information they suppress, protests. you look at the same thing happening in the united states. the same agendas that came along with covid-19, all of those things represent a type of governing that is fascist.

it is almost hitler's ask -- hitleresque. host: how would you describe president putin? caller: how did america become what it has become? how did nato become what it has become? how did ukraine become what it has become? it was an inside takeover by the left, where they used every means imaginable to gain control of the country. zelinski, if you look at his background, you will be embarrassed to see who he really is. host: i appreciate the call. here is the headline from reuters, russia declares limited cease-fire in two ukrainian cities to allow civilians to

sleep. however, reports are showing that the shelling by russians is continuing. phil is in hawaii, on the independents line. phil, what time is it in hawaii? caller: it is to: 20 in the morning. -- 2:20 in the morning. i have to give my dog something for his thyroid's. i don't understand why all the free countries around the world can't send a voluntary army to help fight. you would not be putting nato in there to fight so that putin has an excuse to attack any nato country for nuclear war. it would seem to me like i saw lots of voluntary people come from the u.s. who were fighting

alongside of them. i don't see why businesses couldn't donate money to help support this from all over the world. australia, japan, canada, europe. any country that feels like they want to fight for freedom, they couldn't send volunteers to go to ukraine and help fight putin. that way, it would put a wall to putin that says you don't just get to run over any country. and then all of these people who want to go and fight, it gives them a chance to go fight for freedom. it gets the democrats and the republicans out of a mess. host: we will take a pause from calls. if you are on the lines, stay on. i will get back to you. we will go to richard in zoar -- enzor. he is on the line with us from

ukraine. richard, welcome to washington journal. guest: thank you. host: telus -- tell us about what is happening and what are you seeing on the ground? guest: on the western side of the country, many people are fleeing in the millions, this part of the country. it represents sanctuary and safety. the polish border, in what is usually a short drive away, 80 kilometers. that will take you more than a day with all of the traffic that is backed up. that is nato territory. for many people, this is the way out of the war. it is all happening here. this is the central point of the war.

even if there are no shots being fired here as of now. host: we were talking about the partial cease fire that was announced and the two humanitarian corridors and we are getting reports that shelling is continuing and evacuation is not happening safely. what are you hearing? anything new? guest: they are praying for news that suggests a way out of this war. unfortunately, it is a cease fire in name only. mariupol, which was supposed to have a cease fire, has told

civilians to return because the russians have continued. the humanitarian corridors are not safe places for ukrainians to be. what looks like a glimmer of hope for peace around the corner is only a mirage. host: what are the conditions, how long does it take once they get to love people -- laviv for them to get to poland? guest: it depends. you are seeing thousands of people, trying to get on these trains. not just women, but women with children. other people need to wait for a very long time. people in cars are being backed up for hours and hours. some people are running out of gas on the highway, halfway to safety. this is one of five countries

that borders ukraine on the western side of the country. people are sharing information on social media. there are google docs being updated in real time for the fastest way to get out of this war. these are the kinds of scrambles that have been taking place in the past week and the kinds of scrambles that will get more fierce as the numbers pile up. host: what support do those people have that are waiting and trying to get across the border? guest: this has been a great moment for solidarity and bravery and charity from ukrainians to each other and from people in the european union and around the world to ukrainians. there are people coming with blankets and mattresses and resources for refugees. some of them are here in the western part of ukraine.

in some of these towns, it is becoming a circus like atmosphere with media and ngos and vigilante volunteerism on the ground. it is something that is very chaotic. but hopefully doing a lot of good for a lot of people. 1.2 million refugees have gone onto european union territory. those numbers will only increase. -- go up. host: about the residence, how are they handling and reacting to this, given that they are -- residents, how are they handling this and reacting to this, given that there is potential for military activity? guest: the people don't feel safe. they know that putin wants to take all of ukraine. they seat weapons flying,

helping the ukrainian army, coming across the polish border, not far away and she liked the -- that part of the country could be a target. some people have decided now is a good time to flee. also, there is bravery and determination. people reopening cafes and going and opening stores, bringing in supplies and being part of a nationwide attempt to help fight a war they hoped they would never have to fight but now they are absolutely determined to win. host: what is the biggest need for the residents and those who are trying to get to a different country? guest: people talk about food.

the ukrainian space has been functioning well. people still have money. there are some shortages of gasoline and some shortages of food here and there but these things are being replenished. the longest line of all is at the shooting range where people are buying guns. we are seeing the need for patients but not necessarily the need to panic. host: how long are you staying? will you stay to the bitter end or what is your plan, personally? guest: my plan is to stay in ukraine. this is a historic moment for everyone. we need journalists on the ground to report what is happening and provide a window for ukrainians as they go through something every european hopes they never have to go

through. an invasion in the style of 19th century in perverse. -- emperors. host: richard, the ukraine correspondent for the economist, thank you for joining us this morning. guest: thank you. host: we will go back to your calls this morning on washington journal. we are talking about the war in ukraine. feel free to give us a call on any of the numbers, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8003. --(202) 748-8002. let's go to david in fort lauderdale, florida, on the independents line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to bring up the

narrative in last night's nuclear incident in ukraine. it is a cause for concern that we don't have an answer for what occurred. it doesn't really add up that russia being in control of the power plant, holding operators at gunpoint and not allowing them to leave, within essentially -- would then essentially attack itself and fight its way back into its own plant. the people who saw the footage -- it is a curious thing,

especially given the neo-nazi groups's presence within that ukrainian army. i just want to know what everyone thought about that. host: that is david in fort lauderdale, floated. darlene is next. on the democrats line. caller: i just want to mention and remind folks that it was the last administration that withheld the funds from ukraine and the weapons that were promised to them by the obama administration and the congress there. that whole thing that happened, supposedly with biden's son, stirred up a big mess. and that administration was blackmailing the ukrainian people to get the weapons they

need today. host: we have a couple of tweets to share with you. this one says russians are shelling those areas, according to reports. another one says don't trust them, about the russians. david is in charleston, west virginia, on the democrats line. hi, david. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i have a question. since the rabbit is out of the hat with the nuclear threats, what is going to happen with iran and north korea and anybody else who wants to threaten the free world? i mean, our politicians and our diplomats have caused this damn mess. if they had listened to patton in world war ii, we wouldn't be having this mess. host: listened to him in what sense? caller: he wanted to take russia. he knew we would have to fight

them one day, anyway. you walk softly and carry a big stick. if you are not going to use the stick and don't carry the stick. -- then don't carry the stick. you have people so close to nuclear bombs and stuff that it is unreal. we have shown our true colors. we won't do a dam thing -- a damn thing about it but let them blow the world up. host: here is the front page of the washington post, bleak conditions of spread in ukraine. the top u.s. officials said a russian assault at a major ukrainian facility had nearly caused devastating consequences for the world. even as the mayor of mariupol warned the city was on the verge of a humanitarian catastrophe. kiersten -- kherson is the first

major city to fall to russian forces. kharkiv is ukrainian's second largest city. tom is in michigan on the democrats line. good morning, tom. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. are you there? host: yes, i am. go ahead. caller: my concern is after this is over, i am sorry for the people who have to go through this war. will the coalition hold together? when money starts running the game, when europeans and the rest of the world want the metals that country have's -- has and turkey wants --

will everyone go look the other way and return to business as usual? we are the world's leading weapon selling country, we should have given them some stingers or whatever they needed to protect themselves before this. it is too late-night -- too late now. we are worried about gas prices and it is ridiculous because we are selling our fuel to other countries. people, they don't follow the money. i think, unfortunately, we will go back to dealing with the russians like we do every other country that we fight. and it becomes a matter of economics. we don't really stand for them and take a beating economically. food and fuel and metals are war weapons now. and we don't seem to use them. we are a consumptive country and we don't seem to use that right. we have all of this offshore

from other countries. then we switch on communistic china and we don't seem to want to bite the bullet and make our own things and help people when we need to help them. that is all i have to say. host: speaking of fuel, the headline from the hill is about reducing russian oil imports and jen psaki was with reporters yesterday and she was asked about reducing russia's oil imports. here it is. [speaking foreign language] -- [video clip] >> if you reduce supply in local market rates, you will raise gas prices and the price of oil. that is something the president is mindful of and focused on. >> there is a review of options

that would allow you to cut consumption that would maintain market stability, can you outline any of those options that are under review? >> there are international and domestic options. i won't get into too much needed -- detail because our focus is on discussing what is possible and what will have the maximum impact and not put anything at risk. what we are trying to do internationally is have conversations as we have been for weeks with global suppliers about meeting the needs, the supply needs in the marketplace. the reduction of supplies, the reduction of oil would raise prices, right? that is one of the things we have been focused on. we have talked a little bit about engagements. these are ongoing discussions. there is not a day or even an hour that goes by, probably, where members of our national

security and economics teams are not communicating with their counterparts around the world about it exactly -- about exactly this issue. the president released a strategic release on the petroleum reserve. host: that was jen psaki at the white house, yesterday. we have a text from william in middletown, connecticut. he says this. who stopped hitler? same stupid scenario. we are still giving them money from oil. ironic how weak politicians are. another text from dave in orlando, people want to be free. the callers live in america ridicule and complain. we are blessed.

if you don't want to be free, move to china or russia. so sad to hear such hypocrites. let's move to gary on the independents line. caller: good morning and thank you for answering my call. host: you are welcome. go ahead. caller: in 1936 and 1931 and 1936, it seemed like there was another dictator who was doing the same thing. he annexed countries and then he went into poland and did the same thing. his name was hitler. we should have stopped him then. we are doing the same thing. look at what that cost us. world war ii. how many millions died?

putin is the same animal and he will do the same thing. host: so you recommend american troops to ukraine? caller: i wouldn't to what we should have put american troops and nato troops in their to begin with to -- in there to begin with to prevent him from coming. -- he would not have gone in there. same difference happened here. same mentality, putin will go where he wants. if you appease him, he will take over one of nato's countries and then you will be forced to do it. a no-fly zone could be done

without jets going in there. it could be done without the aircraft. that will stop him a little bit. host: all right, gary. let's go to norcross, georgia, on the independents line. harry. caller: good morning. my suggestion would be -- and i hope that this will happen -- is that american politicians all read machiavelli. they know how it used to be done in the old days. the closest analogy to the way russians run this is the mafia model. so, that is the old italian way where you incentivize the people closest to putin to take him out and then have them go forward in such a way that they don't kill people, wholesale. that is the obvious solution. i just hope someone takes it. thank you.

host: betty is in chico, california, on the republican line. good morning, betty. caller: nice to meet you. i don't think any of this would have happened under trump, because trump would have talked them down like he did in israel. why doesn't the media ask him what he would have done? i don't think they want to know. host: thank you, betty. she was calling us from chico, california. let's go to fred in annapolis, maryland, on the independents line.

caller: when you listen to the argument, putin has won the war because america is stupid. you have one clinical party who the nra, all these people are taking money from russia. but now, all of a sudden, the same people are saying oh my god, he is addict tater. the last caller, trump has convinced people that this would not be going on if he was president. you think about hitler, it is the same playbook. it is convincing people to not believe their eyes. this country is lost. putin has won the war because he has fooled america. you know what i'm saying? you have people who will say oh my gosh, putin is so nice and good and then flip it and say he is killing people. these same people built the nra. our people not looking at what is reality here? this stuff is crazy. it is like you have people who believe anything these days.

we have already lost this war with putin. already lost it. host: all right, fred. speaking of former president trump, his former national security advisor, john bolton, yesterday, was at an event with the washington post. he was asked about the russian invasion of ukraine. >> there were two problems to the deterrence the biden administration undertook. it lacked credibility and it was insufficient. it lacked credibility in putin's mind because he had seen the consequences when he invaded georgia in 2008 and almost nothing happened. when he invaded ukraine for the first time and annexed crimea and in certain -- inserted russian forces, almost nothing happened. he saw america withdraw from afghanistan which was a catastrophic strategic mistake.

he judged the threats of future punishment were not credible. more important than the lack of credible ability is that we can see the threats were not sufficient and it did not change putin's cost-benefit analysis. i said at the time and others did as well but you had to begin imposing costs on putin before he went in. here, i would highlight a phrase that the administration was proud of. they used it over and over again. they patted themselves on the back for it. they said if there is a further invasion, note the word further invasion, then bad things will happen. that was one of the linguistic problems, a fundamental and conceptual flaw of the way they approach the crisis. it was the earlier invasion of ukraine that needed to be rolled back as well as preventing another one. i would have imposed costs on russia in real time until they withdrew from crimea.

i would have cut nord stream off earlier. i would have begun sanctions because of the threat they were posing. people say that would provoke him to invade. well, guess what? he invaded. it seems to me that by not being tough enough earlier, including as you showed in the clip i said before, that i think some kind of american presence was needed. i understand how controversial that is. let me say that obviously, everyone understands the difference between the obligations of the nato treaty, an attack on one is an attack on all. our relationship with ukraine is not a treaty relationship. but, the nato treaty itself contemplates that a threat to a non-nato member can constitute a threat to nato itself. that is what the baltic republics have been saying when they asked for consultations under article four.

they, poland and others in eastern and central europe recognize the tragedy in ukraine is a threat to them too. host: that was john bolton, speaking yesterday. let's go to the phones. edward is in clinton, maryland, on the democrats line. good morning, edward. caller: good morning and thank you, c-span for the work that you have done and are doing. i thoughts and prayers are out to the ukrainian people. i would like to say, my thoughts are -- how much is america willing to stand? i know we have the midterms coming up. we have the elections in 2024. how much is america willing to take in support of ukrainian people? if we go into a no-fly zone and

create a situation with russia that would lead to something more catastrophic than what it is now, are we willing to put up -- if the prices of oil go up to $15, are we willing to put up with that? how much are we willing to sacrifice ourselves to help the ukrainian people? i hear talk from the republicans, let's go in and kick thereabouts -- their butts. what we should have done and didn't do is not now. how much of a sacrifice are we willing to make to aid the ukrainian people? i am a military guy and i lived

in that part of the world and i was in the military during the russian cold war era. we can talk democrats, republicans, and independents can talk about what we will and won't do. but what are we as americans willing to sacrifice to help the ukrainian people? host: all right, edward. let's take a call from henry in beachwood, ohio, on the democrats line. caller: hi. i would like to clarify, shaker heights. i don't know where to start exactly because i have written about this for some time. in 1964, i avoided the draft. i have actually sworn to defend the constitution of my country. i am appalled by the idea that we had a russian asset in the oval office to talk about what we should be doing when he

should have been doing something. on january 5, 2017, the national security agencies reported in an unclassified report that russia was conducting a cyber war against the united states, which constituted an invasion. there is a tremendous lack of courage in this country to step up to the line, to confront russia. it has been going on for decades. when you have the nra taking in $30 million from oligarchs and wheeling that into a campaign for the presidency, an attack on the election, there is something wrong when we don't step up to the line to confront that by invoking article three section three, which is treason. very clear. there was the attack on the u.s. capitol, which was the insurgency, and attempt to overthrow the government. host: i have a question.

what do you think we should be doing right now? caller: there are a lot of self-fulfilling processes -- prophecies. regardless of article five or whatever it is, there is no reason to not exercise a no-fly zone. no reason i can think of. host: the reason being given is it would cause an escalation and it would put american troops in direct conflict with russian troops. what do you think? caller: we could use drones, nato could do this. the bottom line is if we are supplying them with aircraft weapons and all kinds of other weapons on the ground right now, there is very little difference between that and exercising a no-fly zone. when they announced a mandated no-fly zone, russia is not have to go into that airspace. host: what if they do? caller: they could decide not to

do that. casper off said this is -- casparov said this is a world war. they are flying at supersonic speed, faster than the speed of sound. how long would it take them to get to these countries? minutes. let's say a bomb there -- bomber decides to go over the border and bombed the hell out of something. putin will say it was a mistake. right now, all of the nato countries are at risk. europe is at risk. they are maybe 15 minutes from bombing whatever they want to bomb. i see no reason except all of the self-fulfilling prophecies which must be considered an excuse. i am not comparing putin to hitler necessarily. we have reports that putin is

nuts. -- not nuts. a sociopath, yes. but maybe not nuts. maybe putin wants to go and reestablish what he thinks russia's role in the world ought to be. host: let's take another call. john is in ohio on the republican line. hi, john. caller: good morning. i was wondering during world war ii, we had the war with japan. they had these p4 to fighter planes and they were bombing china and they were americans.

destroy the heck out of them. host: here is the headline from the associated press. russian cease fire in ukraine, in peril amid more shelling's. what looked like a cease fire quickly fell apart as ukrainian officials said shelling's head halted the work to remove civilians hours after russia announced the deal. the russian defense ministry earlier said it had agreed on evacuation routes with ukrainian forces for mariupol. and for an eastern city. the statement did not make clear how long the routes would remain open. the shelling continues. let's go back to the calls. andy is in seminole, florida, on the democrats line. host: hello and good morning. -- caller: hello and good morning.

i am 62 years old. i was not old enough to realize what was happening in october of 1962. we put ships in cuba because we observed there were nuclear missiles in cuba and we had a blockade with russia and interacted with russian troops. we did it again in 1983 because of a mistaken tape being loaded. so please, if you think we should interact in very direct ways with the russian troops, such that we shoot down russian planes, even if we are using remote sensors and integrating them, if we shoot down russian planes and they can trace it back to us, putin is not like khrushchev.

this will not be like khrushchev in 1962. this is putin. further, the turkish are sending over drones. we are sending in planes. we are sending in planes. they will fly and i hope they can bomb these sites for us. but if we get into this, this is what putin wants. he will level their cities and he will kill many people and he will set up escape routes and he will shove them down. do not be surprised. that is just how this is going to play out. i am sorry. we are trying to pour in as many weapons as we can. but if we get into a shooting war with the russians, they have two missiles pointed in the general direction of every area of the united states. they will sending multiple reentry vehicles from each

missile and each major city. i am talking about more cities than you could possibly imagine. each major city will receive two of those vehicles. they are nuclear weapons. they will knock out our electronic grade. -- grade -- grid. host: all right. we will take one last call from lawrence in st. paul, minnesota, on the independents line. hi, lawrence. caller: a quick comment on the term boots on the ground. we should challenge ourselves with respect to is that really the line in the sand for engagement? we are already engaged. we are engaged with intelligence and cyber spying and food, weapons, etc.

anytime you have a conflict like that, we should stop making ourselves feel good by saying there are no boots on the ground. putin will say you are providing weapons, you are involved. you are providing intelligence, you are involved. you are involved in cyber security you are involved. i will end the hour by saying let's challenge ourselves. host: thank you to everybody who called during our first segment. next, a saturday roundtable discussion on u.s. energy policy in wake -- in the wake of the russian invasion of ukraine. we will be joined by charles hernick and christy goldfish. later, it is our podcast.

ryan evans will join us to discuss the russian invasion of ukraine and >> this week features lady bird johnson.

watch american history tv on c-span.org tv on c-span two authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. sam will be our guest, taking calls on immigration issues and the drug epidemic in the united states. his works include true tales from another mexico, dreamland and the least of us, about the neuroscience of addiction and the deadly impact of synthetic drugs. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, kelly wild reports on the rise of the

flat earth movement and other conspiracies. she is the author of off the edge. conspiracy culture and why people will believe anything. she is interviewed by jesse walker. watch book tv. every sunday on c-span2. or, watch online, any time at book tv. work. -- book tv.org. >> next week, both the house and senate are in washington, d.c., to work on passing a bill to fund the government before friday's midnight deadline to avert a shutdown. and consider the nomination of sheriff at gonzales. on tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, directors of the top u.s. intelligence agencies

testify before the house committee on current security threats, facing the united states and its allies. at 3:00 p.m. on c-span3, the senate foreign relations committee discusses russia's invasion of ukraine and the u.s. and international response. c-span.org and on c-span now, our free video app, testimony continues as the intelligence community appears before the senate intelligence committee about national and global security threats. watch next week, live on the c-span networks or on c-span now. also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information. or, live or on-demand, anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> washington journal continues. journal continues.

host: she is in energy and environmental policy vice president and charles hernick for the citizen for american progress solutions, policy and advocacy vice president. welcome to both of you. kristi, can you tell us about the center for american progress and your role? guest: absolutely. thank you for having me. the center for american progress is a nonprofit think tank in washington, d.c. working on the immigration and environment and energy issues. we do a lot of work on climate change, obviously, and looking at the role of renewables in our energy mix and then traditional developments of fossil fuels as well. host: charles, can you tell us

about the citizens for responsible energy solutions and your mission? guest: thank you for having me this morning. citizens for responsible energy solutions focuses on all of the above, clean energy strategies we can deploy using the free market and making that transition to clean energy as quickly as possible and reducing greenhouse gas emissions not just within the united states, but globally. host: christy, senator manchin tweeted that we need to stop allowing vladimir putin to use energy as a weapon. do you agree? what is your reaction? >> the concern is that we see so much volatility that it will cause a pretty dramatic spike in costs. while i think that d.c. and everyone, bipartisan democrats and republicans are rallying

around the idea, it will take a little time to figure out how to implement that in a way that it has the least amount of impacts on consumers in the united states. we've already heard from developers in the united states, like pioneer natural resources, their ceo was very clear that producers are not going to be able to fill that gap right away. it will send prices pretty dramatically higher. to take a step like that we have to do it responsibly and understand the implications. host: charles, your thoughts? has energy become a weapon in this war? what do you think is the best way to move forward? guest: it absolutely has. for all of my career i worked on energy and clean energy as a tool for creating prosperity, not just within the united states but around the world. it can be a tool for peace. but we are seeing the weaponization of energy and we

need to cut off prudence source of power specifically. -- putin's source of power specifically. i agree with those who propose the shutoff of russian gas. we need a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen national security at home. we can do both. that has been lacking but we need to confront this issue head-on. the markets are responding and not receiving russian gas and oil shipments because the private sector views it as too risky. i think that is constructive and i'm happy that there is a group of american politicians willing to follow the lead of those corporate's, but there is more that can be done. -- corporates, but there is more that can be done. host: viewers, you can weigh in and ask our panelists questions. call in at (202) 748-8000 for republicans, (202) 748-8001.

independents, (202) 748-8002. charles, can you explain why gas prices have gone up as a result of the war in ukraine? guest: gas prices have gone up because throughout the entire supply chain there is added risk. you've saw gas prices go up even before the conflict happens. we are likely to see gas prices continue to increase. there is some release of strategic petroleum reserves, an important band-aid, but we need to focus on getting production back to pre-pandemic levels for oil and gas and take pride in the fact that the united states produces oil and gas to a higher environmental standard than almost anywhere else in the world and that we can export liquid bio natural gas. last year we increased liquid

bio natural gas by 60%. there has been more gas for our allies in europe at a vital time in their history, but also we've sent gas to folks in asia who are switching from coal to natural gas. it is an important tool for peace and for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. host: senator murkowski on thursday joined a bipartisan group of members supporting legislation to ban russian energy. here is a portion. [video clip] sen. murkowski: putin is not afraid to weaponize energy. we have seen it into this lead up. there has been an approach and policy from this administration that says we don't want to put that on the table. i'm sorry, sir. it is on the table and has been put on the table by putin. what can we do to respond? our message should be pretty clear and simple.

no more russian energy should come into the united states for the duration of this bloody, horrifying, unprovoked war against ukraine. this measure is in direct response to what russia is doing with the bombing of the schools and hospitals and apartment buildings. forcing the ukrainians to flee their country, killing the innocent who remain, and using some of the worst weapons in the world indiscriminately to do it. these are not just acts of war, they are war crimes. there should not be a single additional american dollar allowed to find -- allowed to finance these atrocities. the president said i will use every tool in the toolbox. mr. president, this is a tool. the one tool that might just force vladimir putin to pursue

peace here. host: that was senator lisa murkowski speaking about energy and russia, that is what we are talking about this hour. we will take your calls. we will start with mode -- with malik in arlington, texas. caller: i would like to inform the panel that the united states does not produce any energy. we pump and refine it. energy is produced by millions of fossils that takes millions of years to be created. fossilized things over millions of years. if we had pushed for the green new deal renewable energy such as hydroelectric energy, we wouldn't be relying on foreign supplements to supplement our energy crisis in the united states. opec sets the oil prices. we have from supporters claiming we were energy independent, that

is propaganda. we have to understand that the united states has only built one new oil refinery in the past 10 years and that is in louisiana. i know a little about the industry and i know it is very much automated. oil and natural gas is a derivative from fossilized things that takes millions of years to be created. this idea that we produce energy, we do not. we pump it and then refine it. those are two different things. i want the public to know that it takes millions of years to create fossilized fuel. host: christy, a response? charles? guest: i think real energy security is going to take a lot of renewable energy in the united states. what we are seeing, as senator murkowski referenced, is vladimir putin is using fossil fuels and energy as a weapon

against the west. until we get to a place where we are really not dependent on fossil fuels we are going to be at the whims of any kind of autocratic leader who wants to use fossil fuels as a weapon. i really think we have to look at this issue both as the short-term needs of our allies and how do we make sure that europeans can get through this winter and have the energy that they need, and what are the longer-term needs of the united states? how are we going to get to a place over the next 10 years where we are using less and less fossil fuels and we have built up clear, cheaper, renewable energies in the united states? even when it comes to fossil fuel you cannot flip a switch and have rigs put online. we have to be serious about what steps will be taken if we are going to be investing money in producing energy in the united states. what is the right path forward and where are we putting our

money so that we are actually addressing climate change at the same time that we are seeking real energy security for the united states? host: bernie and howard beach, new york on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. it is my feeling that the united states and the rest of the world is already in a state of war with russia. it is a different kind of war, but it is a war that, if we are going to be lucky, will be a war of attrition. please, make it a war of attrition rather than kinetic, guns against guns and nuclear weapons against nuclear weapons. that is the philosophy that we've had now, to put all of these sanctions on. and these sanctions should stay on, not for a month or two months or one day the russians

capture or leave ukraine, but they should stay on until -- host: bernie, do you have a question about energy? caller: yeah, the point that i'm making is that i'm willing to accept $10 per gallon oil rather than have my son killed. i accept $10 a gallon. especially if it means that russia starves to death. increasing inflation if it has to be. if we can avoid it, fine, but i'm willing to pay more. host: charles, your comments? guest: where bernie is heading is that we are in a long-term power struggle with russia. we have been for many decades and will continue to be. we need to find a way to have a

commonsense climate policy that strengthens our national security. russia is asserting itself in war right now. it is little surprise to many ukrainians who remember in 2006 their gas being shut off in the middle of winter. that was an act of terrorism then and something that folks who have been tracking russia's actions understand that there are adversaries and they are utilizing weaponizing energy now. we need a strategy that strengthens national security and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. global fossil fuel consumption is expected to increase over 25% over the next three decades. the united states needs to exert itself in a position to be able to supply the world with that energy. if we back away we are simply enriching russia and other geopolitical adversaries who do not have our democratic interests in mind and frankly do not have peace in mind.

it is an area that the united states needs to continue as part of the all of the above approach to tackle the climate problem. host: we heard from senator murkowski on the legislation to ban russian energy. let's hear now from the white house press secretary who was with reporters yesterday on friday and was asked about reducing russian oil imports. [video clip] >> options we can take now to cut u.s. consumption of energy, we are focused on minimizing the impacts to families. if you reduced in the global market price you will raise gas prices, you will raise the price of oil. that is something that the president is very mindful of and focused on. >> there is a review of options that would allow you to cut consumption but maintain market stability and supply.

can you outline any of those options in detail? >> there are both international and domestic options. i won't get into too much detail because our focus is on discussing what is possible, what will have the maximum impact and not putting any of them at risk. oddly speaking what we are trying to do internationally is have -- broadly speaking, what we are trying to do internationally is have conversations with oil suppliers about meeting the supply needs in the marketplace. the reduction of supply, the reduction of oil would raise prices, right? that is one of the things that we have been focused on. we talked a little about engagements, ongoing discussions , there is not a day or an hour that goes by where members of our national security and economic teams are not communicating with their counterparts around the world about this issue. there are also domestic options

out there. the president announced the release from the strategic petroleum reserves. that is something where the process is just getting going now. it takes a little bit to get that going. and then he will consider and continue to discuss with his team other steps that we can take domestically. host: let's go next to brooklyn park, minnesota on the independents line. caller: good morning. i lived in russia for five years. i've been all over ukraine. there are a lot of things that goes into the situation. i believe that the u.s. government has been trying to separate ukraine from russia since joseph stalin died. as a black man it is only one part of those two countries and

that was in the western part of ukraine. i think energy is a small part of this, but i do believe that the sanctions and the hardening of parts -- hardening of hearts is the wrong thing. i know russians, they will not back down. what you do not hear on the media as the ukrainians for years were siphoning gas and oil from the transit pipelines that go from russia to western europe and selling it back to western european countries on the black market and also demanding lower

than below-market prices for gas from the russian federation. host: let's get a response. phil brings up europe and the pipelines going to europe. they are more dependent on russian gas and oil men we are. what are your thoughts? -- oil than we are. what are your thoughts? guest: that was one of the announcements why germany's decision to end the relationship with russia was dramatic and even putin didn't expected germany to come out so forcefully. we are seeing is a commitment to clean energy really expedited their approach to renewables over the past several years. they have their own green new deal that they are implementing. you have that near-term versus long-term challenge. what europe is going to do as they try as hard as they

possibly can to wean themselves off of whatever energy sources that they get from russia, they are going to invest billions of dollars in their clean energy resources and look for alternatives in the short-term that can bridge that gap. with liquefied natural gas is one of the options, but again that takes years to build export terminals, years to figure out how you will store it in europe. if you are trying to figure out are you going to take that time to invest in the renewable resources that you have on the continent in your country, or are you going to invest in more fossil fuel infrastructure that just continues to make you dependent on authoritarian leaders around the world? the option seems fairly easy in the long-term. it is the short-term questions that you heard jen psaki walking through. there are limited options for filling that gap in the short

term without pretty powerful price shocks for consumers and families. host: paul in lexington, kentucky on the democrats line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i have several comments. first of all i am going to recognize that i am on the democratic line and i am a strong democrat and i think that we need to stay with that. i think our senator from west virginia, joe manchin, i understand that he wants to represent west virginia. fossil fuel is not the way to go. i know the only real product that they have is colin a little bit of oil. i live -- is coal and a little bit of oil. i live in kentucky. we abandoned c in -- coal in kentucky and west virginia should too.

i am all for going green, but with us not in our current situation i think that we need to put an amnesty on our oil production and let them get back to refining and taking care of our oil here that we can drill and refine. now, with that said, i think that people have a misconception of the keystone pipeline. that wasn't going to produce more oil in the united states. we were going to be exporting almost everything that we piped down. people get upset about the pipeline being closed. that is not a big deal. host: let's get a reaction. charles, he mentioned the keystone pipeline.

guest: i think that is a big deal. the keystone pipeline and the uncertainty that investors face due to the back and forth between administration to administration to approve the pipeline. the pipeline is a great disservice to tackling climate change and energy security at the same time. not having the keystone pipeline doesn't stop canada from producing oil and asked from its resources. instead it needs to have a higher environmental footprint to send that resource by truck over land or by rail at a higher environmental risk. i want to offer the audience one statistic. you can go to my organization's website, we released a white paper on thursday that breaks

down the numbers and illustrates that u.s.-produced liquefied natural gas -- pipeline oil shipped in from russia. they can do a great step and check russia's power by turning on more u.s. natural gas, liquefied natural gas that we can and should be shipping more of tim mead that energy need right now. host: christy, your reaction? remind viewers what president biden did on his first day in office regarding the keystone pipeline. guest: he did announce early on that we would be rejoining the paris agreement and putting the united states back in the game of leadership when it comes to climate change, and he announced that he was not going to continue the permit with the keystone xl pipeline.only 8% of the pipeline has been built now. yes, it is a question of years, not a couple of months in terms

of the situation in ukraine and russia. it is worth talking about what it is given the current situation. it is not realistic to say that we will immediately send a bunch of liquefied natural gas to europe. it's not how the market works. we have contracts elsewhere around the world. that is a long-term, not a short-term answer to the situation we are facing. the keystone xl pipeline has been a hot button issue for a long time. even the supreme court, this conservative supreme court, will not hear the next case so the pipeline is not going to happen. as much as people like to debate it, this has been asked and answered and we need to look at other options for developing resources here in the united states. again, we want to be in a situation where we are not subject to the whims of

autocratic leaders who view fossil fuels as a weapon. we need to look at that long-term mix and invest in clean, renewable forms of energy in the united states to get us out of this game of every single decade having prices go through the roof and consumers and families not know what to expect because we are subject to the whim of the market of fossil fuels. host: joe is in alabama. caller: good morning. i am not willing to spend $.10 more per gallon until this administration decides to put their effort into getting more oil. they are doing everything that they can to make it hard on anyone who wants fossil fuel. the secretary of energy didn't even know how many barrels of oil the country uses in one day.

she also had stock in batteries, a company for batteries for electric cars. they are trying to force everybody to go this green route . until this administration starts trying to pump enough oil for everybody i don't want to pay another dime. host: charles? we are back to what we pay at the pumps. guest: i am super sympathetic to joe's concerns. we have all felt the pension our wallets, and the unfortunate thing is that we will continue to feel that for a long time. not just at the pump but probably through food products. ukraine is a major exporter of food products to europe to the extent that that needs to be made up to help feed our allies and friends in europe. it is going to cause more

shortages in the supply chain in other areas. i think that the point that joe really hammers on is that we need to assure that we have the appropriate supply for demand. right now there is a lot of fossil fuel consuming vehicles on the road. we need a policy on all the above approach that can meet we need to invest more renewables, more in innovation, in energy storage. we need a and all of the above approach and that does include energy efficiency because it means we'll we will be able to export more energy resources. it is one where the market needs to be able to supply more oil and gas. cjristy is right about the pipe -- christy is right about the pipeline. these were in the works over a decade and it is a challenge

because had that pipeline had the consistency envisioned that was needed a decade ago it would have been built by now. we would have had more well produced oil and gas from our allies in canada and we could have been a bigger part of the solution. unfortunately, due to decisions that were made a decade ago, we are not in that position. host: here are the numbers on u.s. imports from russia for 2021. 245 million barrels of crude and petroleum products came in and nearly 8% of all u.s. crude oil imports coming from russia. martin in dayton, ohio on the independents line. caller: how are you doing? americans are doing the right thing after that existed all other alternatives. hopefully we are smarter now.

no one is to blame for this. not trump, not biden, just one man, putin. there has been a sea change in terms of energy. i always voted democratic but i am independent if you are going to label me. i think trump is the worst president mostly because of composure. the thing is i think biden should go on with manchin immediately and say drill, baby, drill. we are going to need fossil fuels and bridge energies to help europe. we are not in as bad of shape when george w. bush said we are addicted to oil. we are better off than we were then. the problem is europe. they are getting 40% of their energy from putin. that was never going -- why did

they think that was a good solution? that is the problem and we are going to need -- they need to find energy from a different place. this war is on everyone's iphone and people are not good to stand for it. host: christy, what is your action? guest: i do not think the president has the power to say drill, baby, drill. 9000 unused permits, six times the amount we needed the last several years. wall street has made very clear the investors in domestic oil and gas companies what they want is buying down dividends. they are not interested in producing more. ceo after ceo has been on television and tell investors they are not going to change their plans for the coming year no matter how high the price. they are raking in profits they have not seen in a decade and they are very happy with that.

if the companies are not going to produce more, there is nothing the president can do currently that is going to produce more energy in the u.s. for europe. these companies have to figure out our investors going to loosen the grip on what needs to happen with these record high profits? are they going to change plans? with that it is going to take months to get any new production online. drill, baby, drill just means we lock it in more fossil fuel infrastructure for the future. the tools, the leases, the permits are in the hands of companies. if we are going to focus on real energy security for the future, it is not about drill, baby, drill. it is about a clean energy future that gets us out of these swings in the energy market and allows us to truly be in control of our energy resources. host: currently, our prices at

the pump going to go up and stay up as long as the war continues? guest: charles said it as well. i think that is what we are looking at. i do expect we are going to see a bipartisan effort to ban russian crude oil from the united states and that will send prices higher. we have to do what we can with the tools available and be honest about who can contribute more and where the bottleneck is. yes, as long as there is this disruption in the world that is with the oil markets respond to and we will see the price go higher as a result of vladimir putin and have to be clear about who is responsible. host: i wonder what impact that will have on russia. can't they just take that and sell it elsewhere? china, india, other places? guest: it is a global market so yes, they will be able to sell

it elsewhere in the world, but this is one of the core commodities standing up the russian economy. the harder it is for them to sell their product, the more impact you will have inside the country. already given the impact of the sanctions the ruble crash, their stock market has stopped trading. whether it gets vladimir putin to change his way is unknown. he made clear in his conversation with macron from france he will go with this war until he gets everything he wants out of this mission. unfortunately, if he continues with that, all of the rest of us here in the united states are going to suffer the consequences of his actions in our food prices, at the pump, and we see fossil fuels and energy are used as a weapon. host: let's talk to james in

ohio on the democrats line. caller: how are you doing? host: good. caller: i have been watching this horrific thing in the soviet union and putin has always been a bully. donald trump was doing clinton's work -- putin's work by trying to weaken nato. this has been planned for a long time. now we are caught in the quagmire. it is awful to see little babies running for their lives. if we steal a loaf of bread, we go to jail for it. putin is killing innocent people, innocent people, that did nothing to nobody.

we are helping but is it enough? host: but what do you think about energy policy? do you think we should do anything about that? caller: yes. i think the energy we get from the soviets, we should cut it out. i know it is going to increase our prices for gasoline but it is a price we have to pay for making mistakes we have made. someone on c-span earlier said we have nuclear weapons in russia. no, they have more than we have. i thought we had more but we don't. it breaks my heart to see these little babies -- i fought in vietnam and i fought against

tyranny like this. i can't believe our representatives in washington, d.c. are playing to putin. that is treason to me. host: we are talking about the impact on russia if we were to cut off imports from russia. what kind of lasting impact do you think this would have on russia's energy sector? guest: hard to predict how it will affect russia's energy sector but i want to echo what james said. it is horrific. i think there is a real human tragedy not just in ukraine but for a lot of innocent russians that did not want this from the leadership, that don't want war. there are peace loving folk in russia and my heart breaks for the damage being done in their country. my hope is this is a big wake-up call for putin and that u.s. leaders have the moral strength to follow through on what james is talking about, standing up to putin and having the moral

strength to stand up to an authoritarian dictator who was willing to do anything to grow his sphere of power and make a land grab out of ukraine. it is that simple. that is where we need to back up u.s. policy. u.s. leaders need to say, we are going to take a position and fight against what is morally wrong. there will be pain at the pump but by taking swift action now we can reduce that pain. over the long-term be able to make the types of investments we need to reduce our dependency on russian oil and gas. i think what you will see is russia's economy will need to shift and adjust their almost exclusive dependence on gas for earnings. there is also a lot of critical minerals and mining and heavy industrial activities that support their economy. there is going to be a real

adjustment for russia to remake its economy. i think it is too early to say what that will look like but it will probably depend on who is in charge and what the power of free markets will have, or not, in terms of being able to reshape russia after all this is done. host: let's talk to randy in new port richey, florida on the independence line. good morning. caller: good morning, america. thank you, c-span, for having a platform without rhetoric or censorship. i have a couple of statements and then a question for the energy people. the pipeline in alaska has been there for decades and there is no real strong impact with that old technology. i don't see a problem with the keystone pipeline. second of all, the gas prices affect us but if we went to

clean energy, it would take even longer to fill our tanks, our batteries. i can fill my tank in three minutes. it takes 40 minutes to fill up my car and not everybody has a house to be able to charge their vehicle. that is a problem. but the question i have is when the strategic oil supply has opened up who gets that oil and do they pay for it? how does that work? host: ok. which one of you would like to take that question? guest: charles, do you want to take it? guest: in terms of who pays, the u.s. government buys when prices are low and that is the best bet to fill the petroleum reserves.

it is the american taxpayer who essentially holds onto oil for exact moments like this when there is a strategic problem or crisis to be able to relieve pressure. it is the right thing to do to release that oil from the strategic reserve. but it is a band-aid not a long-term solution and that is where we need consistent policy and vision for how we can return and have investment in the united states, not just in oil and gas, but also in renewables, in electric vehicles, so that we can reduce the charging time needed for electric vehicles and see a clean energy future and lower dependency on other countries not just for oil and gas but critical minerals and other elements that are important to maintaining a robust and growing economy at home. host: next up is ron in johnstown, pennsylvania on the

democrats line. . caller: good morning. there is information about the xl pipeline. the supreme court confirmed the keystone pipeline cannot be built with the legal battles and losses going on. president biden then killed the project. but there is misinformation about the number of jobs. you hear the number 10,000. there was only 600 jobs involved and they were the same 600 you were going to build the pipeline all the way down. to houston when it was built more jobs would be created. the tar sands has a toxic component that would've ruined the pipes anyway. the canadians are building a pipeline over to the west coast of canada. they will be pumping and transporting. right now it is transported by

rail. it is still being moved some way, somehow but thank goodness. that pipeline would have gone through the aquifers in the united states which would have ruined a lot of water in the area it would be covering. and that area at one time had one of the worst earthquakes in modern history and even changed the course of the mississippi river. that is a bad place to build a pipeline. that is about all i can say. groups like sierra club in defense of the natural life for filing lawsuits along with native tribes. this thing would have been going on for many years. only 8% of the pipeline as actually built. thank you. host: thank you, ron. christy, your response to ron on

environmental impact. guest: yes, ron is right. that is the concern with pipelines, keystone or otherwise. there are lots of leaks, impacts on communities, that is why we see such vehement resistance for building new pipelines. but the reason we are where we are with keystone xl pipeline is it became an incredibly dramatic and hot button issue across the country. the communities in north dakota and elsewhere were so concerned about their aquifers and were able to make the case ron is making. but this is what we are looking at when we are talking about more fossil fuel development. there is no way to do it. we do it in the united states but it is still a dirty business. you look at the air pollution that is caused as a result of

all types of refining and drilling. i mean, the impact is really huge on our environment, not to mention what happens when we consume and use the fossil fuels and add to the climate change around the world. it is absolutely a dirty, dirty fuel that we have to get ourselves off of. we have to break our addiction. not only because the impacts it is having around the world and on our environment but also because of the tool and weapon it is for authoritarian dictators like the vladimir putin. we just cannot continue to think that we can have energy security while we are still dependent on fossil fuels. i go back to that in this whole conversation. we are not seeing honest arguments from the other side about the role fossil fuels should play right now and in the

future if we want to have real energy security in the united states. host: charles, do you have reaction before we take the next call? guest: i think it is important -- there is no free lunch when it comes to any sort of energy development. christy is right. there are pollution challenges with oil and gas development. the question is whether or not we can apply the highest environmental safeguards, retain control. we want to build in our backyard instead of saying, not in my back yard to every energy project. it is a real challenge. solar panels have a lower environmental impact when they are on the ground in the desert but the amount of mining and environmental impact that is put into creating those xls is substantial. some of those minerals come from china, they come from drc where it is child labor being

utilized, or slave labor, being utilized to put those components together or pull out the resources for those components. the question is not is one technology better than the other? we need an all above approach. we need to minimize the impact on every front. you see the oil and gas sector from exxon mobil to shell interested in reducing their footprints from their direct operations to the electricity they are purchasing. but also reducing emissions and products they sell. that will be a big point. capture carbon dioxide, sequester it underground, these are important tools that can clean up and reduce the impact of fossil fuels. we have so much of the infrastructure built already. so much of the global economy is dependent on it.

if we are serious about reducing emissions quickly, we need not to take that option off the table. we need a clear view to make these investments, clean up fossil fuels, and reduce vladimir putin's power, cut off his financing because if we can do that, we will live in a more peaceful and prosperous world. host: let's talk to richard on the republican line calling from athens, tennessee. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. i live in rural america and i'm going to say an overwhelming majority of the people when they go to turn the light switch on they are not thinking about where it is coming from, they are looking at efficiency of product. the gentleman said the magic words, all of the above. i don't think the people in the beltway actually understand that not everybody lives where there

is mass transit or something like that. a lot of people around me, they still drive 20-year-old cars. if we go all electric, which we don't have the infrastructure for right now, and i live in southeast tennessee where we maxed out our hydroelectric facilities. we cannot put any more dams on the rivers. we can build nuclear power but where is all this energy going to come from from green energy? that is the question. how are we going to produce all of the screen electricity -- green electricity to supply everyone? that is the question. host: christy, what do you think? he wants an all of the above energy policy. guest: his last question of how are we going to produce all the energy we need is what i think is top of mind for many americans and that is why we are looking at this decade as a time of transformation.

in the bipartisan infrastructure bill that passed there was a huge amount of money for building out charging infrastructure across the united states. we will need to have more innovation in technology to get where we need to go in terms of clean energy, but it is going to take knowing that is where we are headed, setting those targets, and understanding how much renewable energy we have to build year after year in order to get to that goal. it is not going to happen overnight. just as richard said, there are all kinds of internal combustion engine vehicles on the road and it takes a very long time for people to turn over their cars. are there incentives that can make it cheaper to get electric vehicles for those who drive and are in a position to be able to purchase one? can we make it cheaper than an internal combustion engine vehicle? this is one of the proposals put forward in the house and has been discussed and passed

through one of the committees in the senate, to really look at super sizing investments when it comes to electric vehicles. because, at the end of the day, if we are not going to pump gas into our cars, that is how we shield ourselves from the pain at the pump, by not using the pump. but it is going to take a huge buildout of renewable energy and i want to agree with what charles was commenting on earlier about the amount of materials, critical minerals, in the real focus we are going to have to have as a world on where those come from. i think one of the most heartening things out of this conflict is how you have seen democratic nations really come together to work together to figure out what are the tools they have available to really isolate russia? while russia is using energy as a weapon those allies can also figure out how to support each

other in terms of the advancement of technology we will need to make this transition, support each other in really whether you are looking at trade or how we account for carbon in a global society. there are like-minded nations who have the same in mind when it comes to energy that can support each other. because it is going to take a huge transition and we are looking at that for at least this decade and beyond to switch the scales so we have far more renewable energy and get to the middle of the century where we are close to almost all of our energy coming from clean sources. that is what the science tells us we need to do when we are looking at how are we going to address climate change? then you bring into the mix geopolitical unrest and it becomes an even bigger accelerant for us to make the switch. and for the world and countries really serious about tackling

climate change this is even greater motivation to get ourselves off oil and gas and look at how we are going to have enough electricity to power everybody's homes and the growing population of the world. host: we will stay in tennessee this time to nashville. richard is on the independent line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i can remember as a child growing up the russians. i remember what crude told us when i was little boy, they are coming. either they are coming loudly like they are in the ukraine or silently. but when it comes to the oil, have you ever been to beaumont, texas, houston, texas, louisiana? go to long beach, california outside l.a. and look at the refineries. oil, we think of it and most americans think of it as we use

it in our cars. we might use it in our housing to heat our homes. but let's talk about what oil really is, it is a petroleum product. what do we get from petroleum? oil. we paid our roads. all that blacktop is made from petroleum, certain medicines, certain foods, a lot is made from petroleum that you cannot cut off overnight. when we look at changing the oil situation, let's just stop using oil, don't import nothing, i think the problem -- host: charles, do you want to respond to that? guest: sure. i think the caller is right. there are some bad guys out there in the world and they do not have our best interest in mind. we need to have the strength to call out the bad actors and do what it takes to make folks believe and understand the united states will be a leader in energy security and reducing

greenhouse gas emissions, and re-create the feeling of american exceptionalism and win over hearts and minds by standing strongly in strong opposition to authoritarians like vladimir putin and others around the world. and do the investments it takes to reduce emissions from oil and gas, from the electric power sector. there is no shortage of opportunity. we need the all of the above approach. government should not be in the position of picking winners and losers. we need to empower the marketplace to be able to make those decisions. christy flagged important market trends and where folks are headed but we also need those trends to not be clouded by the regulatory regime and how it might change from administration to administration, but to have congress step up and send clear signals the united states will

innovate and create opportunities for american businessmen and women to make money and export their technologies abroad to provide energy security, reduce greenhouse gases. we can do both at the same time. host: that will be the last word . charles hernick and christy goldfuss, thank you for joining us today. guest: thank you for having me. guest: thank you. host: up next, more of your calls on open forum. we take your calls for 15 minutes and then we will have our spotlight saturday on podcasts. it is "war on the rocks" host ryan evans to discuss the invasion of ukraine and his podcast on strategy, defense and foreign affairs. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ announcer: sunday on q&a, speechwriter donna rubin talks

about the speech bank, an online archive to preserve speeches by women that, in her opinion, have been overlooked or forgotten. the archive includes those by queen elizabeth ii, barbara jordan. >> it is only in recent times we have credited at all or paid attention to what women had to say and we have a large general cultural assumption women were not the best speakers, that women were not speaking, that women were silent. in general, it is true that women did not speak as much as men for a variety of reasons but it is not true they were not speaking. in fact, women have been speaking, hundreds of them, thousands of them, but we have not had access to their words. announcer: donna rubin sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our

♪ >> the book, "hitler's american gamble" describes five days that upended everything including december 7 through december 11, 1941 from the attack on pearl harbor to the declaration of war on the united states. tracing development in real-time, historians reveal how america's engagement was far from inevitable. the professors quote the late church biographer martin gilbert saying "hitler's decision to declare war on the united states was "arguably its single greatest mistake of the war." >> british historians brendan sims and charlie lederman on this episode of book notes plus, available on the free c-span now

app or wherever you get your podcast. ♪ c-span offers a variety of podcasts and something for every listener. washington today gives you the latest from the nation's capital and every week, book notes plus has in-depth interviews with writers about their latest works , while the weekly uses audio from our archive to look at how issues of the day developed over the years. talking with experience -- features conversations with historians in their work. any television programs are available as podcasts on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you got your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to "washington journal," open forum for about 15 minutes. we will take your phone calls on

anything public policy wise you want to weigh in on. the war in ukraine husband going on at also the jobs number came out -- has been going on and also the jobs numbers came out. the economy making post-pandemic pivots, employers added 678,000 workers to their payrolls in february, the biggest gain in seven months. that's out from the labor department yesterday. the jobless rate fell from 3.8% -- to 3.8% from 4%, edging closer to the 50 year low of 3.5% it just before the pandemic. also, "the washington post" talks about the jobs recovery in sight and says -- "the u.s. economy created a blockbuster

$678,000 -- thousand dollar josh jobs in -- also in the news is the ongoing war in ukraine. here is "the wall street journal." this headline is "ukraine's special forces stymie russia on keeps front lines are come -- kyiv's front lines are come russian forces have tried to fight their way through kyiv to reach the capital and every day ukrainian forces have caused them to retreat. the quote is from a member of the special forces to -- team -- we go out to serve -- search and hunt them. they didn't expect that we know how to fight. your views on that, democrats can call us on (202) 748-8000.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents (202) 748-8002. john is in euclid, ohio, the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was kind of hoping that those two people were still on the energy thing. i'd like to say that to look for the root causes of our energy problem, it's -- if biden did not touch anything that had to do with what was going on at the time, we would have been still energy independent to this point. now understanding that to go green is going to take years, is going to take years and years to convert to electric. which is ok, but in the meantime, if we were energy

independent we wouldn't have this problem with buying oil from russia or anywhere else. so my feeling is biden really screwed up. host: here's my question. you said it's going to take years and years to have green energy so shouldn't we start now? caller: well, listen, he already started. they have already started with the windmills and all of these things. how long will it take to put 150,000 electric stations throughout the united states? it is just no way. this was a big mistake from the start. nothing you can do about -- but what you can do about it now is turn on the oil. turn on our oil, get it going. the keystone pipeline, there's

all this controversy but -- by the way, the 9000 and the federal lands that they say that the companies aren't doing anything -- the leases on the land. well, there's no incentive. there's a lot of what do you call them, i don't know what you call them. all i can say is he should have left it alone. his executive orders to cut all this out started this problem. has nothing to do with russia, nothing to do with ukraine. they should have just left it alone and we wouldn't have had this energy problem today. and just continue doing the green thing. keep our energy that we have. frankly, i don't think that that green energy, i don't think those windmills and all that other stuff is going to cause a

lot of problems. host: allen in wisconsin on the democrats line. what do you think? caller: a comment, i did want to thank c-span. i was going to speak to jen psaki and the people making decisions for us. i think she said the other day that the reason she and the government thinks they didn't want to shut off oil and gas from russia was because it would hurt the american people. but i think on day one, the president hurt the american people by shutting off the canadian pipeline.

that's my comment. thank you, ma'am. have a good day. host: we have some breaking news to share with you from "the wall street journal" -- ukraine/russia agreement on evacuating civilians collapses. the agreement between russia and ukraine on evacuating civilians from the besieged cities collapsed on saturday -- today -- as kyiv accused moscow of violating the agreements cease-fire and resuming attacks on residential areas. some 200,000 civilians were expected to start leaving and 15,000 from eastern ukraine at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. the deal was overseen by the international community of the red cross but at 11:45, russia resumed shelling with heavy weapons while also continuing

military operations on the route leading out of the city according to ukraine's deputy prime minister. laura in austin, texas, on the independent line. caller: good morning. i want to immediately give a shout out to to the ukrainian people. i am a descendant of czechoslovakian immigrants to this country and what is going on in ukraine has hit me very hard because my family left czechoslovakia to get away from garbage like this. i feel for the ukrainian people. i just am devastated by the pictures i see on the media. first of all, diplomacy is not going to work on putin. pruden is a sociopath and may even be a psychopath. as such, he does not care how

many people he kills to get what he wants and what he wants is access to black sea oil reserves. he wants to take ukraine back, doesn't care how many people he has to kill or if he starts world war iii. the only way to hit him where he lives is to fast-track lisa murkowski's bill, as a democrat who leans independent i am behind her 100%. jen psaki can suck it. host: you don't think it would be a big deal for us to pay more at the pump? you are willing to make that sacrifice? caller: a percent of our energy reserves, and if american taxpayer dollars go to fund the russian incursion into ukraine, it needs to stop right now. host: rich in marion, ohio, on the republican line. caller: a lot of good opinions.

it seems like it is a really complicated problem we've gotten ourselves into. luckily, some countries are trying it out, the green new deal. germany gave up their atomic power plants and are trying windmills and things like that and are putting themselves in jeopardy of russian taking them over. -- russia taking them over. we fought 40 years to be energy independent when saudi arabia shut us off. we learned we have to be energy independent. we had the means to get their year ago and we lost it within 12 months, which is reality of these countries, why energy independence isn't just paying another dollar for gas. it's not having to put up with dictators and buy stuff from them which we get sucked into every time. name a country they are trying to jacked us up over the oil. the other problem we have this

up until 9/11, two countries would pick that they didn't want to go to war because they would blow each other up, the u.s. and russia, and we both agreed. we had the same country that not because they liked us, they wanted retaliation. it is not just going to be one country, it is going to be thousands of these countries that are going to do this stuff. we have to figure out a way to handle dictators because when they get in power and we give them war, it makes them more alike because they are getting what they want. the deal with china and russia was that we would help them get technologically smart, but for that, they had to go by certain rules. both countries ignored the rules . these rules are really important. they say, that's fine, we want

to do this, but don't throw us out of the wto. it doesn't go that way and when we put up with it, this is the result we get. the only way to solve this is to help all the countries get rid of their dictators. i don't know how we do that. host: we will take another call from ohio, poppy on the democrats line. caller: hello. listen, i'm not against green energy but i think i have an idea that would help this country a lot. i think what we ought to do is people are talking about drilling on federal lands. pick certain areas where it is not heavily populated with people, tourists, etc., but the government own the oil, the people, us, not the oil companies which will take over,

pay maybe a little lease fee and then gouge us all over again. why don't we just own it ourselves? don't let exxon mobil gouge us like they are doing right now. another thing, you people ought to understand one thing. jen psaki is a messenger. why are you attacking her? she's just a messenger. so anyway that's how i feel. host: our last call for this segment is janice in the louisiana on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think russia's gas and oil situation is separate from the ukraine's situation. europe and the united states

need -- it's convenient to have russian gas and oil at this time. but also we need to consider climate change. all of us on earth have to care for each other. not only for gas and oil, but our air and water. i have different comments i'd like to make about the ukraine and russia situation but i don't know if you want to hear that. host: you can quickly. if you can be brief. caller: ukraine somehow left russia after world war ii when russia lost over 20 million people. and formed a separate country. russia didn't do anything -- who was in charge? i don't remember.

this reminds me of our civil war when the south of america withdrew from the union. it was the south against the north and russia now is the east against the west. we should stay out and just watch if they don't attack our allies in nato. now russia is having a civil war. just help with the refugees trying to leave. that's all i have to say. host: we appreciate everybody that called in. up next in our weekly spotlight on podcast segment, we will be talking about war on the rocks. ryan evans will join us to discuss the russian invasion of ukraine and his podcast on strategy, defense, and foreign affairs. we will be right back. ♪ >> next week on the c-span

networks, the house and senate are in washington, d.c. to work on passing a bill to fund the government for friday's midnight deadline. the senate plans to vote on a postal reform bill and consider the nomination of texas sheriff and gonzales as director of u.s. immigrations and custard enforcement -- customs enforcement. on c-span3, the top agents of the u.s. intelligence on the threats facing the u.s. and its allies. the senate foreign relations committee joins to meet russia and ukraine and the international response. on the c-span.org, and c-span now, our app, testimony continues before the senate intelligence community about national and global threats.

watch on c-span networks, c-span now, or c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. president biden: the russian military has begun a brutal assault on the people of ukraine without provocation, without justification, without necessity . this is a premeditated attack. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, bringing you the latest from the president and white house officials, the pentagon and state department, as well as congress. we have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders. all on the c-span networks, online at c-span.org, or on the free c-span now mobile video app.

♪ >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up at the biggest events. white house events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. to help you stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and scheduling of tv networks and radio, plus compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play free. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. ♪ >> c-span's new american president's new american presidents website is your one-stop guide to our nations commanders in chief, from george washington to joe biden. find short biographies, video

references, and facts that tell the stories of their lives and presidency. visit c-span.org/presidents to begin exploring this rich catalog of c-span resources today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. it's our saturday spotlight on podcast segment and i'm joined by ryan evans, the founder and ceo of war on the rocks and host on the podcast. guest: thanks so much for having me. host: the podcast is called war on the rocks. is there a story behind that name? guest: there is. this is in late 2011, i got back from afghanistan where i worked as a dod civilian and i found i wasn't learning as much online with what i was reading.

this is in the middle of the click bait revolution, a lot of content but not particularly good so i felt like i wasn't learning as much. at the same time, i was learning a lot from friends and mentors in the military, doing important work in academia, over conversations and drinks. i thought it would be nice to bring those conversations to a wider audience. my friend came up with it, someone i worked with in afghanistan so i/o him that eternally. i owe him that eternally. disenchantment over the state of american politics at the time. host: who are the type of guests you have? guest: we are trying to provoke a smarter conversation about the state of american society,

everyone from veterans to american leaders, a secretary of defense, chairman of the joint chiefs, service chief, a commandant of the marine corps, thought leaders, people who have done or researched things that are important we feel is important for our audience to see. we try to record these conversations in person usually with a beverage in hand although that became tougher over covid. host: you are in afghanistan as a civilian and your quote is that your time and afghanistan "made me a lot more modest about what american power can accomplish in the world." guest: in terms of reshaping afghan society and any country, i was left disillusioned.

a lot of hard-working people, soldiers, marines, sailors even in the desert with us, people from different countries. i was embedded with the british and danish regrade -- brigade. we are working to make things better but we could not reshape the society. we went in with naive assumptions about how the world works. we have this view if we give people democracy and stuff the problems melt away but they don't. that's the way i view the world and our role in it. it's important for america to be modest before getting involved and intervening militarily, which isn't to say we shouldn't do it. host: viewers can join us and ask questions for our guest. (202) 748-8000 democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002

. what's your opinion on the idea of nato imposing a no-fly zone? guest: it's very risky. i understand the emotional drive behind it and i sympathize. i'm watching videos of suffering ukrainians and what they are going through in cities across ukraine. and i understand where the impulse comes from two want to extend -- help those people. a no-fly zone, as two authors commented yesterday in our papers, one retired and the other active-duty air force, a no-fly zone is not a military -- it is a combat mission that involves blowing things up, not just keeping planes away from people on the ground but involves targeting things on the ground that can threaten aircraft. i don't think a lot of people understand who might be advocating this, for understandable reasons, that this risks a severe escalation

with a nuclear armed power. getting involved militarily and ukraine would come with tremendous risks and i don't think it is an exaggeration for people all over the world. host: james in georgia on the democrats line. caller: yes, i think that the united states shouldn't get involved deeply in that conflict over there because we don't need another war. we have got afghanistan and we don't need to get involved in another war right now. host: can you mute your tv? we are getting some feedback. caller: ok. and then we just left afghanistan and lost 13 people

and they were all shook up about that. imagine if we go to war how many people we are going to lose with russia. i think they need to get the priorities straight. we don't need to get into another war right now. it's something we shouldn't do. host: i take it you agree? guest: i sympathize with that point and thanks for making it. there's a natural assumption, i do believe america is a force for good in the world and there is a natural assumption among people that getting involved militarily will alleviate suffering immediately or quickly. the fact of the matter is war is ugly even when we are fighting it. this would lead to more human suffering rather than less. host: i just want to remind people what ukrainian president zelensky said in response to the news about there would be no no-fly zone over ukraine. friday's nato summit was a weak

summit, confused summit that shows not everyone considers the struggle for freedom to be europe's number one goal. nato gave the green light for former dust further bombing of ukrainian towns and villages, refusing a new fly zone. we believe nato countries created a narrative that closing the skies would provoke direct aggression against nato. all of the people who will die from this day will die because of you, your weakness, your disunity. this is the hypnosis of those who were insecure, weak, and despite the fact that they possess weapons many times stronger than we have. that was president zelensky responding to that. what do you think? guest: i have a lot of admiration for president zelensky's role as a wartime leader and there's a lot of thoughts that comment provokes but now is not the time to criticize linsky because he's

playing an important role -- zelensky because he's playing an important role to keep his country together and fight the invading russian military. i support that and hope prevails and i understand why he is saying those things. it is his job to try to drag a stronger power into fight russia and i get it. this would potentially lead to world war iii, and that's not an exaggeration. i wish president zelensky was as good of a peacetime leader as a wartime leader. when he became president he ran on a platform of negotiations with russia and due to a variety of weaknesses in his coalition was unable to engage in such negotiations that would have involved possibly some concessions. russia is not a good faith most of the time. zelensky's weaknesses before the war helped create the situation and that's regrettable but those are things we should mostly discuss when this war ends and

hopefully it does soon. host: waterford, maine, independent line, leonard. leonard, are you there? caller: yes, i'm here. host: go right ahead. caller: good morning and good morning, mr. evans. i haven't listened to your podcast but i am an avid podcast listener. the one i've been listening to regularly is called congressional dish and jennifer briney created that 10 years ago. she saw a number of great -- a number of great podcasts on ukraine. what she's pointed out in her deep dive, and it shows the bias and propaganda of mainstream media that two important things, the buildup of nato surrounding russia over the past 30 years has certainly been a provocation. 2014 to -- coup orchestrated

under obama-biden was another provocation. we don't see any context or background over the situations and when they it wrapped like it has, and i -- iraq like it has -- e rupp -- erupt like it has the mainstream media ignores the context and goes into propaganda mode. do we forget almost exactly 19 years ago we invaded a country that didn't involve pretenses and caused all kinds of this placement and death and destruction and in the media, there was no discussion or focus on the iraqi people. probably a million people died. host: let's get a reaction. guest: you made three points. one, i take issue -- and this is

where i disagree most -- about depicting what happened in 2014 as a coup. these were peaceful protests against a corrupt leader who had just been bribed openly by putin and a pretty audacious manner. this is someone who was willing to kill his own people so i disagree with that depiction of what happened in 2014 as a coup. nato expansion plays a role in this. i would not depict it as a cause but it increased overall tensions. it is an important context without which this might not have happened. it made trust difficult between moscow and washington and created a lot of tensions between the rest -- west and russia. your last point on iraq, i was very young when that happened but i was opposed to the war and continue to think it was an unbelievable strategic mistake, perhaps the worst the united states has made. host: william calling us from

mableton, georgia on the democrats line. caller: good morning, mr. evans. he started off talking about not being emotional in a response to what you are saying on the news and being very analytical and factual about what you are seeing. i think your demeanor is a very positive thing for americans to see, on both sides of the political leanings. unfortunately we are currently motivated by soundbites and consequences so i want to point out the fact that you are exactly the type of news source that we currently need in this environment. guest: that's very kind of you to say. i think it's ok to be emotional. we are all emotional creatures

but it is important to drive those emotions into things that make the situation better, not worse. there are charities to support to help ukrainian refugees into eastern europe like spirit of america that provides nonlethal laid to the ukrainian people including food, supplies, medical equipment. that's where we should channel our understandable sadness over what's happening in ukraine. host: the pentagon press secretary john kirby yesterday was talking about whether russian and nato officials have used the newly established deconfliction hotline now that rush earns have taken over -- russians have taken over the nuclear plant. >> on the deconfliction line, i don't have any information on whether it's been used. it's only been in place for a couple of days since early this week.

it is basically a phone line, phone connection to the russian ministry of defense. it is being administered out of european command headquarters and as i understand it, it's basically staffed by staff level officers at european command. i have no expectation that unless he really desires, that general walters would be the one managing that, not at that level. it is at a lower operational level and it is being ministered as a bilateral u.s. to russia deconfliction channel so that's why it's being handled out of u.s. european hand -- headquarters. i refer you to you, -- uco on

whether or how it is put in placem. when we tested it, they did pick up the other end and acknowledged that they got the call so we know it works. we think again as we've done before, we think it's valuable to have a direct communication vehicle at that level, at an operational level to reduce the risks of miscalculation and to be able to communicate in real time if need be, particularly because now the airspace over ukraine is contested by both russian and ukrainian aircraft. that contested airspace buttresses up against nato. a smart thing to do and we are glad the russians have acknowledged they will use it. host: there's also a headline from fox news that russian troops are near yet another

ukraine nuclear plant. that's according to the u.n. envoy. richard in texas on the republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. when a bully breaks into your house and a killer breaks into your house, and has a gun pointed at your head and you can do a few things. either run away, ignore it, try to negotiate, or kill them. if you scare them away, they cut your electricity off and turn your water off. you are eventually going to starve to death and freeze to death. should the u.n. send troops to west ukraine and start pushing these back? guest: no, i don't think. i understand where that analogy comes from but the fact is the world is not a neighborhood and ukraine is not a house and not our house even if it was.

the u.n. couldn't be a vehicle for this because russia is a permanent member of the un security council and could veto any such proposal. russia has learned the hard way what happens when you don't exercise your veto power, in the past. they would be very attended to that. the only option for such a coalition would be through nato which would be a very provocative act. i want to comment on one thing on mr. kirby's remarks on the deconfliction channel. u.s. forces had some experience in sera -- syria where u.s. and russian jets were flying close to each other in a high tense environment. this is not the first time in recent history we've done this with the russians and my friends are great resources on this if you are looking for people to follow on twitter. host: shannon in berkeley

springs, west virginia, independent line. caller: good morning. in morning, america. good morning, mr. evans. vladimir putin has been saber rattling for decades ever since gail gorbachev left. -- kyle gorbachev left. vladimir putin has been doing everything he wants around the world. the u.n. and nato has dropped the ball. i don't believe this is a situation that will stop. i think he will take the country of ukraine and nato will do nothing because there's nothing we can do about it because just as we see here lately with the no-fly zone, any type of encouragement -- infringement on what vladimir putin sees as his property now will be an act of war and then the whole world will be in a situation. what's your take on that? guest: i think it's hard -- so i

think russia has cleared conventional advent -- clear conventional advantages numerically and in terms of capability. a city will likely fall in a few days and prudent can consolidate to the east and circle cave. -- circle team. --k yiv. ukraine is a massive country, the biggest country in europe. it is just huge and it is a modern country. if you go to kyiv it is not like going somewhere in a less developed world. it is a european capital. i don't see how putin will hold onto the country even if he is able to prevail in the initial phase. i think this will backfire on russia in a massive way without the need for a u.s. or nato intervention. host: we got a text from ross in

santee, california -- where are the ukrainian army and their presence, and why only guerrilla fighters shown? guest: the ukrainian army is not just fighting a guerrilla war. i sympathize with where he's coming from because it's hard to understand what's happening on the ground. it's a contradiction of open source intelligence. thank -- thanks to videos on twill or -- twitter and telegraph, we have an unprecedented view of videos and photos from different parts of the war but it is hard to piece together. the ukrainian army is taking the fight to the russians, not just using guerrilla tactics. thanks and army vehicles are being destroyed, planes being shot down. michael kaufman of cna and washington and rob lee of ftr i, you can find both on twitter. they are 24/7 following what's

going on the ground and they are the best interpreters. host: the united states is sending weapons and support to the ukrainians. what's the biggest need for the ukrainian military? guest: there's a real debate and i'm not going to pretend to have the best answer but i will tell you the parameters. between people who believe that ukraine needs higher rent capability like fighter jets, bombers, aircraft, military equipment, and what ukraine needs are the basics, bullets, supplies, small arms, rpg's, javelins. i tend to agree with the latter camp a bit more but there's a debate about that and how exactly nato countries can best supply the ukrainian resistance and military. host: jen is calling from silver spring, maryland, on the

democrats line. caller: good morning. hopefully you don't have to repeat something you said, but how did it get started? what kicked it off? what made the hot spark -- hotspot start to boil? i know there has traditionally been conflict. can you give a brief history? guest: that's a real hard question and like all stories in your life or history, it depends when you start. you could start early 20th century when ukraine sought to declare independence in the wake of world war i. you can focus on basically what was essentially a genocide against the ukrainian people during the early soviet era. you could start with the breakup of the soviet union. you could start in 2014 with the revolution. what's interesting is depending on when you start the clock, you can tell a different story.

we have competing narratives about how this got started and i know this is in a satisfactory answer. i'm not going to give you a simplistic narrative because i don't want you to be misled. i will continue -- finish this answer by we are still debating how it started, over 100 years later so i think we will be debating this one for just as long if not longer. host: cbs news says -- hence tells gop -- pence tells gop voters they have "no room" for apologies about putin, contrasting with trump. caller: i want to get your opinion on a couple different strategies. the strategy -- can we try to get more lethal weapons to ukraine? can we just get nato, paint the

ukraine flag and symbols on the flight or jets -- fighter jets, fly them in, whatever sophisticated ground to air capability can be sent in with ukrainian labels. the other strategy would be, can we cause them to pause and flinch? can we send troops that will exercise, a nato exercise, say 50,000 troops, something huge, in either estonia or latvia or will dove out? that would be risky but it would probably maybe cause a pause. guest: i will answer your last question first. there is a previously scheduled major military exercise, nato, with finish and swedish participation who are not members, scheduled to take place

in norway in a couple weeks. so there is this exercise that was planned way before putin planned to invade ukraine and it presents an opportunity for us to signal ally resolve and send a deterrent signal russia that an attack on a nato ally will not be tolerated. i think you should watch what happens because it will be interesting. not an attack on russia or anything but it will send an important signal. the aircraft question is tough. a deal made way on social media purportedly that was never real, poland and a few other countries, hungary, would donate soviet air jets that they have meg's fresh -- but they will donate. the problem is these jets have been upgraded by these countries many times since so it is not like picking up a car on the lot and driving it off and going to

fight the russians. these are aircraft that ukrainian pilots are not experienced in flying, even though they might be the same model. they have just changed dramatically, hardware and software. the other problem is russia made an interesting announcement where they said they would be targeting with precision munitions any weapons convoys coming into ukraine. that makes it difficult for us or our allies to drive or fly indirectly supplies because it risks a confrontation with russian forces. i'm sure that's something that's being debated in the pentagon and white house, how best to do that without provoking them. it will be difficult in reality to give just to the ukrainian air force, not least because i think soon the airbases will not be operational. the russians do not have air superiority yet but i don't know how much longer that will last. host: kelly from albuquerque, new mexico, on the democrats line. caller: good morning.

thanks for having me on your show. i was really taken aback by the reporter that was talking to boris johnson and pleading with him to -- for britain to enter and help them with a no-fly zone . i was wondering -- it seemed they seem to be the best choice on this. what's your opinion? guest: i watched the video myself and it was heartrending. this is an un-popular tradition -- opinion but i think mr. johnson gave the right answer. they know flight zone as a combat operation so this effectively would mean a military intervention in the war in ukraine which risks escalation with russia which is a nuclear power. i think that's too dangerous for

people around the world. i understand why ukraine wants to see it happen and why the reporter was so insistent, but i think this would create more human suffering, not less. host: let's go next to bob in atlanta, georgia, on the independent line. bob. caller: yes, i'm here and i'm way too shy to hold myself together. i just want to welcome you, young lady, to the show. there isn't anyone on the c-span -- there is talk we need to hear and i'm going to move on. i better not hear somebody ask how you are doing. host: go ahead, bob. bob? all right. michael in san jose, california,

on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. right now it seems like we are kind of in an impasse. we are being asked of zelensky that we put in a no-fly zone and all of these different requests for weapons in such. this kind of seems like all we can do is react to putin. given that his aggression seems to continue to follow the playbook of alexander demons book, "-- duman's book, " foundation of geopolitics." should we preempt putin's aggressions so that as ukraine unfolds, maybe we can kind of protect nato before we are

attacked? guest: i'm familiar with the book you referenced, appreciate you raising it. its influence on putin is a bit overstated but setting that aside, one thing we can do is deter an attack on one of our nato allies. i think the administration is focused on that. as far as reacting, you are right we are reacting and we tend to be in a reactive posture but the sanctions levied on russia cannot be overstated. they are massive, completely unprecedented, going beyond whatever we did to iran which were themselves very powerful. russia is cut off economically from much of the world and this will lead to hardship for russians. a russia we have not seen for a generation, pretty incredible.

thousands have been arrested protesting against the war. the troops fighting in russia are often on videos showing signs of low morale, abandoning equipment. any of them didn't know they were being sent to fight in ukraine. i think this is going to backfire on russia and this is the end of the rise of prudence adventurism in -- putin's adventurism in other countries. host: "the new york times" has an article -- russia takes censorship to new extremes. russia clamped down harder friday on news and free speech than any time in president vladimir putin's time in power, blocking access to facebook and major foreign news outlets -- outlets, and a law for anyone "publishing information" and a

new law by putin makes it a crime to call the war a war. pete on the democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was wondering, do the ukrainians have an air force and if so, why aren't they attacking the convoys on the road? i can't understand why not. i also want to welcome the new lady because some of the questions she was asking you, i was thinking the same thing and i appreciate your input and i'm glad to see a new face. host: thank you. guest: you are referencing this

40 -- russian convoy moving towards kyiv or seems trapped or is immobile. why aren't they moving? why aren't the ukrainians bombing it? i think the ukrainians are launching attacks but there are russian air defense systems that provide partial coverage over that convoy. as to why the convoy isn't moving, it is an interesting question. one of the internal realities of warfare is friction so this is probably a mix of factors from breakdowns to fuel shortages to mud to other sorts of attacks, ukrainian attacks on the convoy. it could also be that russia is not as interested in advancing to the capital until the front out east -- this is just speculation on my part. i am not sure but these are some of the reasons i think could explain that. host: i wonder what your biggest

surprises have been on how this invasion and war have played out. guest: it's not just surprised me but also the smartest people i know on russian military affairs, how incompetently the russian invasion plan was formed and executed, premised on ridiculous assumptions probably related to russian chauvinism against ukrainian abilities. i think putin drank his own kool-aid by calling ukraine not a real country and he thought with minimal force the edifice would fall down. ukraine proved more resilient than he expected so the initial invasion plan was incompetent. it is rather surprising to see russian troops so poorly motivated to do their jobs. it is different in every part of the country and the russians are still advancing against ukrainian forces, but this is a remarkably incompetent or. that's been the biggest -- war.

that's been the biggest surprise. host: iris on the independent line in michigan. caller: i wonder, mr. evans, have you thought about doing a podcast about the deterioration taking place in the united states? there are homes that have been shut down, boarded up, plumbing is missing, rat infested, cockroaches and everything else, have been boarded up since world war ii. come here to michigan and travel on the expressway. they are right off the expressway. they are neighborhoods that you hold your breath if you have to go through them. the houses are rubble. i just wonder, why don't you do a podcast showing the decay of the united states and what to do with all the rubble? where do we dispose of it? host: we want to stay on ukraine but if you've got a comment you can go ahead. guest: it's certainly an

important point. i love michigan but this is not a topic we focus on. we focus on foreign affairs strategy national security issues. host: mount gilead, ohio on the republican line, george. caller: yes. host: can you mute your tv? is that what's playing? caller: yeah, my question is, wouldn't we be better off to deal with putin while he's got his hands full with ukraine? when he's done with ukraine you know he's going to start elsewhere with cyber attacks on the united states and everything else. host: what do you think? guest: we do already have a real cyber problem with russia. many people have written and spoken about it very eloquently.

i think that will be worse before it gets better. what do you mean by deal with putin? host: he's gone. guest: that's all i have to say. host: joel in belleville, illinois on the independent line. caller: thanks for having me and welcome to the show, ma'am. host: thank you. caller: welcome. i don't want to sound pro-russian but i'm thinking perhaps putin is another world leader who is seeing nato closing in on him and now he's doing what he feels is best for his people. maybe he doesn't want to feel boxed in. i'm not a political scientist or anything like that. if he were really crazy, they would have significant armaments at their disposal, i think he would have gone all in. it was a measured attack -- i

think we all can agree. i'm not condoning it. i'm just saying that's what it appears to me. we are not warlike people. you hear people coming on saying, let's go to war. we just got out of a war and society cannot agree, we don't want to inconvenience ourselves by wearing masks. lastly, i recalled the term "shock and all" -- awe" and i think that may have created a humanitarian crisis. i think we can tighten up our game a little bit before we start dating to other countries how to conduct themselves. host: all right. guest: you made an important point and i don't think you have to apologize. i didn't take it to be pro-russian.

there's this assumption that what putin is doing is crazy and he must be irrational but rationality does not mean we are robots who can coolly from a distance way the best options by weighing all the best -- weighing all the factors. we have the imperfect ability to access information, burned by our own -- burdened by our own biases and assumptions. putin is no different. he was trying to create a new reality that he thought would work to the benefit of him first and foremost, and set russia up for geopolitical success is a legacy issue. i think he miscalculated but that doesn't mean he's crazy or irrational. host: ryan evans, host of war on the rocks, thank you for joining "washington journal." check out the c-span podcast. all of our podcasts are on our website and our mobile app, c-span now, or wherever you get

your podcast. that's it for today is washington journal. thanks for joining us. thanks to everyone who called. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television stations and more, including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that is why charter invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy.

>> sunday on q and a, a talk about the speech bank, and on live speech bank she created to preserve speeches by women that have been unjustly overlooked or forgotten. the archive include speeches by queen elizabeth the second, robert jordan, and delish/fully -- phyllis schlafly. >> it is owing been in recent times that we have credited and paid attention to what women have to say we have a large general, cultural assumption that women were not the best speakers, that women weren't speaking, that women were silenced. in general, it is true women didn't speak as much as men for many varieties but it is not true that women weren't speaking.