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] ♪

>> "washington journal", everyday we are taking your calls live and on the air of the -- on the news of the day and we will discuss policy issues that impact you. sunday morning, alexander ward discusses the latest developments in the russian invasion and -- invasion of ukraine and kimberly whaley on the january 6 investigation and the challenging brown jackson -- ketanji brown jackson's upcoming hearings. and then a more discussion on the russian invasion of ukraine. watch live on 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, or c-span now. join the discussion with your phone calls, text messages and tweets. >> sunday on q&a donna rubins

stop -- talks about an online archive she created to preserve speeches by women that in her opinion have been unjustly overlooked or forgotten. the archive includes speeches by queen elizabeth the second, barbara jordan and phyllis schlafly. >> it is only a very recent time that we have credited at all and paid attention to what women had to say. and we have an assumption, i large general cultural assumption that women were not the best speakers and were not speaking and were silent. and in general, it is true that women did not speak as much as men for a variety of regions but it was not like women have not been speaking. they have been. hundreds and thousands of them, but we just has not had access to their words. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to that and all

of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. live at noon eastern on " in-depth" we will be taking calls on immigration issues and the drug epidemic in the united states. his works include "true tales," "dreamland," and "the least of us" about the deadly impact of synthetic drugs. at 10:00 p.m., we report on the rise of the flat earth movement and other conspiracy theories disseminated through online platforms. she is the author of "off the edge." she is interviewed by jesse

walker. watch booktv every sunday on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including cox. >> cox is committed to providing eligible families to internet through the connectivity program. we are bridging the digital divide one connected and engage student at a time. cox, bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, too you a front row seat to democracy.