nonfiction books. at 1:00 eastern we bring you coverage of the 2022 -- with author talks and your comment segments including lt. col. alexander nimitz with his book. carol anderson. left behind, the democrats failed attempt to solve inequality and david k johnson, author of the big cheat. at 10:00 eastern on afterwards, the chair of the george w. bush council of economic advisers talks about his book. he argues that government and business need to invest more in american workers to offset job losses due to technology advances and globalization. he is interviewed by harvard university economics professor.

watch book tv every sunday on c-span2. find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. host: our guest is the senior fellow and geopolitics team head. thanks for joining us on the program today. both scolded a little bit about your organization, what does it do as far as looking at energy issues, and who is financing it? guest: it is a program under the german marshall fund of the united states. the broader organization works on building transatlantic relations, and the marshall plan is a way of saying that we believe in the international order and the institutions that were set up after world war ii to ensure peace and prosperity in the transatlantic space. the alliance for securing

democracy is a program that started about three years ago under the offices of the german marshall fund, and we work to counter the autocratic or authoritarian influence that is trying to encroach upon our democracy. in the united states, in europe, but also across the broader world. we focused largely on russia and china but autocratic tendencies and autocratic actors and the way that they use various tools from information to economic measures to energy, this is a very big concern. so what can we do to both track this influence and also provide strategies for countering this in to make sure that we are more resilient, that we are not undercutting ourselves? we are not undercutting our democracy because of the interests of these autocratic actors in their society? post: so like vladimir putin, the united states stopping russian oil coming to the united states. how does that act or to that?

guest: it is really important to remember that vladimir putin is an autocrat. when the united states says we are not going to be importing russian oil or gas, it is a way of saying we are not going to enrich this regime, and that is actually a part of making sure that we are not in any way dependent or reliant or complicit in that regime activity. this is really important for the democratic side for american strategic freedom as well, and something that is mirrored all around the world as a way of breaking free of the entanglement of the limitations that these kind of energy relationships pose. this, of course, has a cost to citizens, though. host: and that cost as far as gas prices are concerned, that is what we see directly. some sources are close to five dollars per gallon in some places.

yes: i am with you, i don't like driving down the street and thinking about how much gas i have left in my tank they it is not going to be the picture. i get that. on the other hand, i don't want to fill up my gas tank and thinking that those dollars are going to live a list or to pay for these rockets were to pay for the armor that is going to need to be replenished in ukraine. of course, the immediate hit at saying as of today, we are no longer going to be using russian gas and russian oil, that is a destabilizing effect, of course, on the market. gas prices went way up yesterday. the oil price went down. so the market is a volatile beast, and there are a lot of things we could do to make sure that the energy prices don't go that high for consumers. that is producing energy from reserves, oil from reserves, something president biden has talked about.

also, how do you just make more oil from other sources? the u.s. is a major oil producer ed when you think back to the pandemic days, people with sitting at home, it didn't make sense for a lot of oil and gas producers to be pumping up to be making as much oil and gas to push down the price even more when there wasn't very much demand. it is an entirely different situation two years on, but they are not going to be up today, not tomorrow. but we are going to see an adjustment in the next weeks and months. of course, that hits you in the pocket, but how do you attack women in labor? i think that is just the reality. it is up to the oil companies and up to figuring out other supply chains with other countries to make sure it doesn't hurt citizens that much because there are ways to get

more gas on the market in the united states and i think we are going to see an adjustment in the next few weeks or months that will make it feel much more normal. host: if you have questions, you can call in, (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you want to text us questions, you can do that at (202) 748-8003. as far as the gas prices that you just talked about, jen psaki, the press secretary pointed directly to the actions of president putin for doing that. we will get your thoughts after that. >> i would say that as soon as president putin began his military buildup, the price of gas at the pump in america has gone up $.75, which is significant, of course. there is widespread consensus that the sharp run of energy prices since january was caused by the building of putin's troops at ukraine's border.

the reality is that russia is the world's third-largest oil producer and energy supply disruption is a result of his aggression. if you don't take my word for that, there have been a number of assessments that in january, fed chair powell warned there was a risk to our economy based on what is going on in eastern europe. in early february, j.p. morgan analyst predicted disruption of oil from russia could push prices to $120 per barrel, which is what has happened. our approach is always been twofold. we need to ensure supply meets the demand. obviously we are engaging with big global producers around the world to meet that demand. but there are also 9000 unused oil bases that oil companies could certainly tap into and we have encouraged them to do that. that is certainly a way to address. >> gas on the 14th was what i -- at a high point in 2014, already

at an elevated level. >> and the buildup of troops was even before that. post: that is the exchange. what do you think of what jen psaki posted about why? >> i think it is absolutely right. if there wasn't already the anticipation of some kind of disruption in energy supply, i think we have been seeing the prices go up this year. the market doesn't respond only to what we know for sure, there is a psychological effect here. what might happen to the reserves? will there be a future in the near term, the lack of energy supplies? maybe we need to stock up. the fact that president putin has been creating a tremendous volatility on the six early-stage globally, but also on the economic stage is absolutely true. president putin in many ways has taken the world security question and economy hostage

through this act of taking ukraine, and the reason to try to get off of russian fuel right now is to say you are not taking us hostage with you. we do not want you to have leverage that power. you are too much influence on the global stage right now because you want to reestablish an empire. we want nothing to do with that. that is a way of insulating the american people from an unpredictable and belligerent man on the world stage. why should the world have to be taken along with him, and why should americans? it is not nice to see that increase in the price, but there is a way to adjust for this. not going to be this morning, but even yesterday we saw jen psaki saying it went up to 122 days ago, but it felt like yesterday. what is not movable is the moral reckoning that we must have what we are buying when we are buying russian oil and gas right now.

i don't want to contribute to the murder of these people, and i don't think most americans do, either. host: let's hear from jack in florida, independent line. good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning. when we took all these sanctions against the oligarchs and putin, why is there a problem with just taking their money and adjusting the markets? make them pay for it. why should we have to pay for it? we got their money, take it from them. sell the yachts. guest: i think it's a very good question. how do we make use of the bad assets that the russians have in our society when we are starting the process of trying to identify the ill-gotten gains of the russian oligarchs and the ruling class?

we are right at the beginning. how do we use that money? is it defined more reserve gases? we are not quite there yet. how do we think about the assets that we have access to the punish russian for its behavior right now, but to help people carry through because it is not fair to pass on the bird entirely to the american people or the european people facing so many of the same challenges. i think we need to be the smart and creative about how we think about resilience right now, how we think about you guys have to stay at the apartments were extreme millions. absolutely, your thinking the right way, i think nativity that this crisis is causing in the policymaking in washington and across the state have been

capital to start thinking through, wait a minute, let's set our ownhost: here in west v, this is the democrats line, david, hello. caller: yes, sir. i would like to ask her a question. what about the world global oil market? seems like for the past 40 years, they control the price of oil and i think opec's meeting today talked about ramping that third production and could stabilize the prices of oil and also senator warner and -- warren and senator whitehouse is working in bill they announced tuesday that, if the oil companys in america tried to

take care of russian leaving the markets here, that they cannot increase their profit margin. host: thanks, caller. guest: thank you. you are right that these are two important parts. if opec agrees to increase production, we could have significant stabilization and return to normal price levels. opec has been restricting supply for a number of years, in particular the post-pandemic period because there was not much demand. if you have a lot of supply a little demand, it is bad for saudi arabia. what matters for saudi arabia or the united arab emirates sets the state-run opec. if the saudis would think right now, it is better for them to increase production, the u.s. and diplomatic efforts is trying to convince them this is a good idea. if that happens, then you do have more stabilization. again this is part of the bigger problem of relying on foreign sources of oil.

if you have the saudis, venezuela, iran, others who might be the right answer to increase the oil production, it is not the best place to be. because we have, the u.s. is a major oil supplier, and a better place than it was a decade and a half ago. that would be excellent but it would be nice to generally not rely on autocrats anywhere for our energy. i think some solutions are beyond opec and begging opec to do a better job, but also going to think about our own resources and maybe how we get more cars and trucks on electricity and burn something that is not saudi oil or russian oil. i think other solutions here could also be in order but you are right, opec is part of it, though opec has to think about its relationship with russia and it is not necessarily saying yea, america wants something, let's do it. on your other points, which is how do you deal with the prices

and deal with oil companies, this is generally a concern. how are the oil companies responsible only to their shareholders, and how are oil companies only responsible to the population as well? and can, in a situation like this where there is a moral imperative we respond to, can that be a situation with oil companies behavior better -- behave better and release more because it is the right thing to do, and not turn a profit because -- and not use the fact that there is this volatility but choose the right thing. maybe this is not also a hopeless question given many of these oil companies have less russia -- they were not meant -- left russia. many have left russia because it is a bad idea to be there. can this oil bull -- this horrible tragedy in ukraine lead us to think about doing things right? are we in bed with the right

people around the world? do we have our energy makes right? are we doing the best job we can to make sure that we are not involved and are not pleasant in things we not -- are not complicit with things we do not want to deal with. host: our next caller is on the republican line. caller: yes, i heard jen psaki say the price of oil and gasoline went up when putin invaded. it went up long before that. the day that biden was inaugurated, i paid $1.39 per gallon for gasoline and could have got it for one dollar 35 cents if i had gone up to walmart, so it started long before that. to correct it, the price, the easiest thing to do would be to finish the pipeline and start redrawing. the idea the oil companies are holding back on production and

on delivery is ludicrous. they need to excel oiling gas to make a profit. that's the resistance the current administration has placed on the petroleum industry, it is what is causing the price of gasoline to go up. host: alright that is our call in texas. the 40 respond to him, if i could, it was kevin mccarthy yesterday that talked about what the caller referenced, the xl pipeline, it is what he sees in all of this. i want to play what he had to say and you can respond to all of these things. [video clip] not only did how -- house republicans worn this would happen, we offered repeated solutions to the problem, build a pipeline, increase production, distribution, and fast-track energy exports our allies. by contrast, democrats plan to lower prices today and blame russia. buy expensive electric vehicles

and beg opec for a bailout. if you look here, you have watched time and again where the democratic leadership goes after american companies that produce energy to produce less but ask those countries with dictators and other leaders to produce more. the president said the buck stops with me, then he said you can do much about it now, russia is responsible. the secretary of transportation tells americans to go by and electric car. the state department was to buy oil from iran, trading one dictator for another. host: go ahead. guest: thank you. i think these are very good questions. there are things i agree with you on and don't agree with you on. if you look at the gas prices, you are right, they have increased significantly since president biden came into power. what we have also seen at the

same time is going from the height or a very high point in a pandemic to a low point. when there was a high point in the pandemic, most people were sitting at home, people were not going to work and were not driving, kids were not going to school in the demand for gas was low yet there was significant production lower than before and lower than now. in that situation, because of what we all as a society were doing, the prices were lower. as everybody has woken up and think i want to get out of my house and i want to fly and drive to the beach, want to get together with my family, all of those small decisions resulted in much bigger demand on oil available, and suddenly that oil became more valuable per unit in each car because everybody wanted more. so that is leading to the increase in prices. when you think about the unpredictability of the pandemic, which month would be

the save one and which month when we have delta and omicron? it has been hard for the gas producers to anticipate the need when you are responding to something fundamentally unpredictable as the pandemic. we are now in a situation where there's a tremendous need to increase production anyway. the lack time between where we think we want to be, how much we want to travel how much we want to be producing, how much we want to use gas, and the oil companies know that when they were trying to ramp up production? this is creating higher prices. of course we do see a timeline correspondence between the inauguration of president biden and where we are today, but i would not say it is a political link. i would say it is a link that has to do with the pandemic and much more with the wave of covid we are seeing, rather than with significant political decisions.

that is true until you get to right now. where you see the prudent dynamic changing things and at the same time i want to get out and about and that means i'm driving more and so i am contributing, as are many people who are like this wave is over, let's see people. so you have human behavior plus political questions here. something you did say totally to the point is you need to drill more. yes the u.s. has a good reason because of raised demand because normal behavior is where we are in the pandemic and because of the situation in russia to make more oil, to make more gas. that is not immediate. so there's a question how quickly could we do that, what are the weeks and months required to increase production, can we increase that production in the united states? that is a crucial question. when it comes to the pipeline, you will also not snap your fingers and have that pipeline and the kind of solutions we will need are the solutions for

the next few weeks in particular. because you can ramp up, without really needing to completely change the infrastructure that you have, but it will take a few weeks. the keystone pipeline will not be the solution for the gas to go back to $1.39 per gallon at the pump two weeks from now. so yes, drilling, yes production, the like times there are significant. we need to figure out how to pace them. other countries have different approaches as well. europe is way more dependent on russian oil and gas and generally any kind of fossil fuel imports, 90% dependent in many ways, europe will need to also think about its imports. what they are doing is providing additional financial resources to households to get out of this. we heard the question of the

cost of $6,000. it matters to you and i'm sure it matters to me. an extra $20,000 difference between a gasoline car and the same car in the form of an electric vehicle. how do we fix that gap? that's a policy decision. are there incentives right now where you look at -- i hate this autocrats autocrat throwing a potato around game of gasoline. we have all sorts of domestic sources of fuel in the u.s., we make our own coal, our own natural gas, our own gasoline, and we have a tremendous potential to have renewables as well on rooftops in mass industrial scale as well. can we be more flexible if we have more evs? i as a consumer would want more of a something in order to cut the difference for me so that if it is one to one and i think about what does this mean globally, what does this mean in terms of my own ability to

charge my own car? if it is the same price, awesome. it is not the same price. what matters to me probably also matters to you. i think that is a lot of what the biden administration is talking about. when you look at build back better, i know that is not a popular word right now, but fundamentally, having policies and incentives to say do you want to buy a new truck? make it electric, make it run on american fuel, i think that is a good bet. i want that 20 grand difference in my pocket so it does not hurt me. it is not fair to hurt you. let's figure out how it is possible to get the congress to pass this bill. i think it really makes a lot of national security sense, makes climate sense, and it is a good idea. host: let's hear from jackson in arlington, virginia. democrats line. caller: good morning. i want to continue on the line of thinking you were just on right now, basically internal to

the united states, we have these resiliency's for needs to breed -- needs to be brought to bear to bring americans up that opportunity frontier, right? my question is, how likely do you think president biden and this administration will become the most popular one term presidency if we continue to let's say get too involved redistributing resources to ukraine when in fact, and what is more insidious, our congress seems to be rallying around somewhere in the vicinity of billions of dollars in aid when internal to the u.s., those resiliency's that need to prop up americans do not seem to be there. if the administration supports that, what is the likelihood of that working to the detriment? guest: it's never a great thing for any presidential --

president going into a midterm to have high gas prices. it's a dangerous decision for the ministration to go in but there is bipartisan support for making sure ukrainians have the ability to fight off russia. if you turned on the tv in the past two days and you see families with suitcases, like many of us have in a closet to go for a weekend away being killed, shelled, putting that roller suitcase away -- pulling that roller suitcase and trying to save your life, these are not images i can get out of my head. i can not get images of an 18-year-old shelled taken to the hospital and the doctor on the floor because they could not save the child's life. humanitarian assistance on the hill, that is the right thing to do. it is not ok to leave the ukrainian people bleeding and

dying without significant military and humanitarian support, just because vladimir putin wants that to be the case. it is also not ok not to provide basic needs to the american people in the way much of the world actually is accustomed to. so you are right that it is important for the u.s. to be providing much more assistance. as i was saying, whether it is in the field of providing subsidies, to make sure american national security interests are better that american use american fuel whether they are renewable or fossil fuels, to keep the economy going, to fuel their own lives, their households, these things are possible. it is not an either or. these things are completely doable. there is no reason to turn a blind eye to an entirely unneeded human suffering and

ukraine and there is no reason except for deadlock on the hill, but to make a lot of these things easier for americans. i do not see why it should be a political -- politically controversial decision to make america stronger and make americans stronger and more able to take care of themselves right now. that is where i think the question of resiliency, societal resiliency, comes in. that is providing americans tools so they do not have to be complicit in tough decisions about where you get fuel or fragile and therefore more susceptible to the kind of propaganda and disinformation campaigns that russia, china, or other autocracies push out. it is important for americans to feel supported and feel unified, because that will be tremendously important, to fight off these global evils we are seeing right now.

host: in arkansas, this is tim, independent line, hi. caller: hi, pedro. first with you i want to ask a question. have you guys done a segment yet on joe biden using the russian ambassador to negotiate with iran for the new jcpoa? have you done one or will you? thank you on that. teargas, -- to your guest, you are up to 4000 words or 5000 words and you have not said anything. joe biden is the unpredictable belligerent person in the mix here. he signed 50 executive orders his first days in office and all of our current problems, gas prices, fuel costs, inflation, then surrendered to afghanistan, left for the rise of isis. we have fennel deaths, illegal crossings because he won't prose the border, human trafficking. now human trafficking going on

in ukraine, people trying to flee. supply chain shortages, nursing shortages, medical workers shortages. host: that's a lot out there. what would you like our guest specifically to address? caller: mostly it is the attitude and words. when you tell the gasoline companies that we are going to phase out gasoline engines in five to 10 years, who wants to buy a gasoline engine if there will be no more gasoline? but the problem is you cannot build roads with electric bulldozers. they do not exist. host: ok, thanks. guest: thank you for your questions. on the question about who is at fault, look at these pictures of little kids and women in labor who are being shelled, who are being killed. that is not president biden's doing.

this is the actions of an autocrat whose aims are to reestablish an empire that russia has -- had so many centuries ago. this is about 1918 century thinking about what the glory of russia was. he is living in a palace and he would like to feel like the king from the days when the american revolution was fought. what he is doing to get that is unthinkable in the 21st century. outright murder, looting. it is just awful, and i think that really needs to be in perspective. you are right there are a lot of problems in the united states. you are right if it is gas prices or addictions, other things, those are absolutely true, but when you look at the situation today, it is also good to call that a blessing because

that is something i think the administration and everyone on the hill is trying to protect. so that's important. on how do you keep with gas phase out. gasoline and fossil fuels are going to necessarily be in the mix for the foreseeable future. you will not run a plano solar right now, you will not get coast-to-coast audit, you will not be able to build a road. that is right. but there are a lot of people for whom having a big gasoline engine early does not matter. if you live in a city or in the suburbs and what you are doing is home to school, to work, to home, to school, you can perfectly do that on an electric vehicle that you charge with power you make here. and i think that is incredibly important to enable normal citizens to have that opportunity for what makes sense to them.

you are not going to plow the fields with an ev at. you are not going to-- ev yet. you will not be able to do heavy transport. can you put an entire fleet of post office vehicles or other delivery services on electric and charge them at night? all they are doing our impound movements. that works really well. then you don't have idling engines, you now have a solution. you have to be creative about the things we can do. then let's say you move all of your delivery trucks of some kind if you are a company onto ev and then you have the batteries to charge at night. maybe there is good wind power you can do it with. it will not work for everybody or all industries. gasoline will be part of the mix , but if we can get off saudi gas and use american gas, and if we can do that by moving what can be moved -- and frankly it's more convenient for air-quality to be moved tv's, great.

-- moved to evs, great. congress should be rallying around it in this moment to make sure it does not call citizens money. host: there's a story today taking a look at europe as a whole and why do the events of the last -- and the events of the last couple weeks. audi think they have changed as far as energy is concerned? guest: many of us that look a lot at europe feel whiplash. europe has been dependent and staunchly dependent on russian natural gas, russian oil for decades. certain countries, that was a decision. the germans thought it was a good idea to buy russian natural gas, to keep them in the loop, to keep them close enough and have some influence in russia. frankly the influence with the other way and you had significant corruption at the highest level of german power. chancellor schroeder taking key positions in these russian pipelines rather than the other way around. germany and europe has turned on

a dime on these. they have looked at what is going on with russian invasion of ukraine and said no, we get it. we do not want to be part of this. they have said that by the end of this year they will be -- two thirds they will reduce dependence on russian gas by two thirds. this is a continent 40% dependent on russian natural gas , but it matters in the household level. for europe to say we will provide you with the financial incentives and we will help get heat going and electric solar panels on your roof, we are going to substitute with american or qatar, lng, liquefied natural gas, we will try to get off of russian gas as quickly as we can, understanding we have dug ourselves into a deep hole, europe is taking this moment and doing things that many of us have pressed your to do for a long time and suddenly

it is coming together. why can't the u.s. do the same thing? why can't the usa we looked in the 1970's we had the oil embargoes, we had a tough time, right now we see what it means not to have a variety and tremendous new wealth source of energy. we need to support that more. let's say no more like many of the europeans have done and made decisions that are shocking, excellent but shocking. the u.s. can do that too. host: from bridget in south carolina, republican line. good morning. caller: thank you. biden from day one, his policies started this and i remember the stickers that people were putting on gas pumps with biden saying i did that, but we are where we are now. we need to ramp up and become

energy independent again. i agree with you. but about the saudis and uae, they would not even accept biden's call. why? i think they are mad at biden for some reason. could you explain that? guest: thank you. the saudis and uae are really important here. the saudis are really difficult partners. the u.s. has needed the saudis because of the kind of energy dependence we have been talking about. here, before the advent of oil, saudi did not exist really as an entity. what we have is a country that has been created, that has been bald heard -- bolstered and preface further because of that dependence and the power that oil gives them. saudi right now today is not an

excellent partner to the united states, but they have not been in many ways an excellent partner to the states four years. this is not something that is a problem only today. saudi arabia is a country that allowed a journalist to be chopped up into pieces in diplomatic representation of it. this is a country that routinely aggressors against the values and norms and human rights that we in america hold so dear. yet because of this oil relationship, saudi has been in the fold, and they have never felt that it needs to be playing by the rules because really what are america's chips? what is the u.s. going to do about it? we can do something about it. this is where, as i was saying, how do you increase resilience? how do you increase the flexibility americans have? how do you free up the money right now through legislation so

that americans say awesome, russia showed us a bigger problem, we do not need to be part of this anymore, let's figure out how we use existing democratic fossil fuels where they are needed because they are needed. and let's figure out how to move everything we can move to electricity that we power ourselves as quickly as possible, and let's make sure it is a fun thing, that it is paid for, like you get a new truck and you get a new car you figure out, on a hot and sunny day i do not need to be on a grid because i am powering my house on solar. that is the kind of movement that needs to happen. the benefits of that are not just in one sector. it is really a tremendous transformation. that is a word we have been using a lot to look at europe. completely turning around military spending, turning around energy choices. it is a transformational moment in europe. the u.s. can take that exact same principle.

we see the bipartisan cooperation on ukraine on the hill. can we get back to a place where there are certain things we agree on? we agree on the fact that we do not want to be beholden to these autocrats abroad, we agree that americans should not be paid a price -- paying the price for it. let's do something about it. host: democrats, kevin, go ahead -- democrats line, kevin, go ahead. caller: it didn't seem like the past few days we have been talking about the saudis. everybody forgets when the united states tries to amp up production and extraction of oil, the saudis will ramp up there is to drive down the price and make it unprofitable for american producers. that is the biggest problem with the united states using its own oil. i'm glad we are talking about the saudis, but it is not as simple as just cutting off, in global capitalism, in a global

economy, it is not as easy as cutting off another country from trade and business. small things or localized things have a ripple effect throughout the entire globe. this is an issue of global capitalism, not just energy. because energy is distributed for profits around the world but i also think that is why we have to go to venezuela and why venezuela is a good idea. because we will take them out of an alliance with russia if we patronize their oil and it gets us a way to get in and address human rights issues. host: i will have to leave it there. i apologize for that. go ahead. guest: thank you for the question. you are right that saudis are important here and there are various games they play. you talked about a game they played in the past, opec did not like the fact that the u.s. outside of opec became a major and very -- and at various

points the top global gas producer. it does not help them to have the leverage of the world they would like to have. at various points, there has been the game of let's release more, let's undercut the pricing of u.s. producers and get an upper hand. let's force them out of business. the gameplay during the pandemic was slightly different, which was generally if we produce a lot, no one is using it, it is so cheap, let's not drill it right now. when you think about oil and gas, ears of corn are ripe or tomatoes, you harvest them when you wish to harvest them. you might want to do that in two years or 20 years and the gas and oil will still be there. the selective drilling, there depending on what kind of strategic in their playing weather they are trying to flood the market or restrict resources. that is a bit in their hands and the rest of the world and not opened producers would respond to that.

that is one game the saudis can play. right now they have been in a more restrictive position. they could release -- the question of the release given the high prices, it would not have the same effect on the game they were playing a little bit ago. venezuela matters, but they again are not perfect. the problem with interdependencies with governments that really do not abide by the values, norms, and practices we think are appropriate, it is a sticky situation. you want to say maybe we can have influence their right now, but what is to say that we actually still like the russians and we can sell it to you. how do we force them to change? that is what the germans were trying to do with the russians this whole time. when you got tremendous amount of staunch russian support at various levels of german industry, and russia felt emboldened enough to invade ukraine and felt as though the germans would have their back

throughout it. there is no guarantee establishing that relationship with the autocrats is going to feel -- owing to give them a beholden to the u.s.. often they feel the opposite, they feel emboldened that the u.s. will not stand up for them. that is a position we cannot be in. host: kristine berzina with the allies for security democracy, a senior fellow at the website gmfu