watch this week live on the c-span networks or on c-span now. our free mobile video app. also head over to c-span.org for scheduling information. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> washington journal is next. ukraine correspondent for the economist will discuss the latest on russia's invasion of ukraine from lviv. and tia mitchell.

the russian invasion and chemical and biological threats. next on washington journal. host: good morning. it's monday, march 14 and day 19 of russia's invasion of ukraine. a growing number of u.s. lawmakers are calling on president biden to do more to help the ukrainians and the ukrainian president calling on the administration to help his country like the russians. -- fight the russians. russia is turning to china for economic and military help. it's your turn to be part of the debate here in washington. should the u.s. do more to aid ukraine.

democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. and independents (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. good morning everyone. should the u.s. do more to aid ukraine? to help ukrainians secure the sky above their country as russia continues to bomb a military training center close to poland yesterday. jake sullivan was on scene in

the state of the union. what he said about the president's decision to not send in those polish fighter jets. >> the u.s. rejected a deal that would help get polish fighter jets to ukraine through a u.s. military base. the pentagon was concerned that that would be perceived as an escalation by the u.s.. members of your own party are urging the u.s. to help them get planes. so are you talking about another way to get ukraine these planes or are you ruling it out completely? >> the president listens to the assessment of his intelligence community and the advice of his military commanders. he ultimately determines that the risk-benefit analysis of flying planes from nato bases

was not something he would authorize. what he did talk to president zelensky about was other capabilities that could achieve a similar purpose. we are working on that now. other anti-air systems that could help the ukrainians make progress in terms of dealing with the threat coming from the air from the russian side. we are working on that intensively in close coordination with our allies. >> the president deciding about this particular deal to give polish planes wasn't going to work, but are there other planes you are working on getting zelensky because that is specifically what he's asking for? >> our focus is on anti-air systems.

right now we are not looking at the provision of the fighter jets in question to ukraine. we are looking at other methods of getting the ukrainian defenders advanced capabilities to be able to protect ukrainian towns and cities. host: jake sullivan the national security advisor on state of the union. should the u.s. do more to aid ukraine? that's our conversation this morning. margaret in leavenworth, kansas. caller: good morning. i feel like i'm watching like the normandy invasion when we finally got in and sent to help stop hitler's. what if we just stop 10 feet from the beaches? that's what i feel like i'm watching.

you need some time to answer people with a definite -- what are you going to wait, until ukraine is completely all dead and say well, you know. just like when syria asked for help. all these people that think we are going to help them be a democracy and we hardly have it here. putin needs to be stopped. we have a military. it's just odd that i make peacenik -- i am a peacenik from the 60's and i'm wanting to say what the hell are you doing? stop them. because putin has either kidney disease or a brain tumor, i don't know what's his problem. but he is not interested in stopping any grab for doing

things. when there is evil in the world, we need to walk our talk. this is very upsetting as a peace person. to see that we are just letting this people run over people like that. it can happen to us. who's going to stand up? host: you said you were a peacenik from the 60's. back then, were you against vietnam? caller: oh yeah. host: what's the difference today? caller: vietnam wasn't attacking anybody that we knew. it was like a massive trumped up thing and we were sending all our guys to get killed. we have a good military now. we spend so much money on it. what do you just sit there while people get slaughtered like that? putin is not a good guy. not even to his country.

host: understood margaret. united nations same 2.7 one million ukrainians have fled, mostly women and children from the country. and the ukrainian president yesterday. issues urgent plea for more help in resistance. ukrainian officials pleaded with the u.s. on sunday to implement and enforce a no-fly zone to deprive russia of its airpower advantage. they also pleaded for aircraft, more antitank missiles and antiaircraft weapons and a host of other military hardware they said could help turn the tide against the russian invaders. would you support the u.s. helping with the no-fly zone and jets as the ukrainians are asking for. ray in aurora, colorado.

independent. what do you think? caller: thank you for taking my call. how are you this morning? i'm a registered libertarian. you could say i'm a modern-day peacenik. the u.s. should maintain neutrality. we have had so many decades of the u.s. intervening in the affairs of other countries. my concern is with the way u.s. is attempting to aid ukraine is the risk of unintended consequences. historical example that comes to my mind is 1953 when the u.s. government paid a number of groups to overthrow their democratically elected president in iran and install the shop. and the blowback was the hostage crisis. i think the u.s. should maintain a neutral position. i think the most the u.s. should

be able to do is take in any refugees who have fled ukraine. host: the biden administration announced saturday 200 million more in weapons for ukraine's defense. this is from reuters reporting. they reported that the administration announced it would rush up to 200 million in additional small arms as ukrainian officials pleaded for more equipment. so that happened saturday. joanne in connecticut, republican. welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. i'm concerned about the amount of american weapons going to other countries. if it looks like russia is going to take ukraine as during obama's era and many other democratic presidents watch, many countries have been taken.

taliban took afghanistan. it's an embarrassment. we don't look like a world power anymore. what we look like is a weakling sitting around waiting for china and russia to hold hands and to come after us. our weapons, millions and millions of dollars of weapon over to ukraine is at high risk of putting those same weapons into the hands of the russians. we left billions of dollars of our military equipment for the taliban. our own weapons will be utilized against us. we need strategic -- need strategic people. peace talkers to meet with putin. putin liked trump. he liked the idea of the united states being a strength and had respect for just as kim jong-un did in north korea. they respect power. they do not like us to appear to

be weak. and when we do appear to be weak to the world, we are no longer a force to be reckoned with. we cannot be sending out billions of dollars of american armory to foreign countries in hopes that they wind when it looks like -- when when -- win when it looks like they are not winning. host: this argument for sending in the polish air fighter jets. here's what he had to say. you have been urging the u.s. to help ukraine get fighter jets from poland and they were going to do it through a u.s. air base. you just heard jake sullivan mentioned that the intelligence community assessment is that that move would risk and escalation. are you worried that giving those planes to ukraine could actually trigger world war iii?

>> i don't know why that would be true. the russians have complained about everything. vladimir putin set the sanctions are an active for. -- act of war. -- said the sanctions are an act of war. in this case this would be poland providing these airplanes which are soviet style planes. slovakia and bulgaria have these airplanes. what we have heard directly from the ukrainians is they want them badly. they want the ability to have their control over the skies in order to give them a fighting chance. so i don't understand why we are not doing. the secretary of state said it

was going to get a green light and for some reason now we are blocking it. i don't understand why this is any worse from a russian point of view. host: isn't the issue that they would go through an american airbase and that is seen as an escalation? i have certainly heard that from military sources. i'm sure you have. >> we sent lots of weaponry through military bases. this is what we've been doing all along. i don't see that change. i do think that what jake sullivan said today is encouraging. he talked about at least providing ukraine with the antiaircraft systems to be able to protect themselves. he's talking about these soviet era systems like the x300 which

is not the top-of-the-line but is very effective still and again poland and other former warsaw cellblock countries have these. at a minimum let's get those into ukraine and stop talking about it, let us do it. host: came in the bronx, democratic caller. caller: i have got to say, americans are some of the dumbest least read least knowledgeable about current events and history i have ever heard speak. who wants to become embroiled in world war iii? i'm all with the ukrainians. i wish them well. but that doesn't mean that the united states should allow itself to become embroiled in world war iii. the russians have more nuclear warheads than the united states.

they probably have more conventional weapons than the united states. and i don't see us becoming embroiled in world war iii for another country. host: what do you think would cross that line? what move would cross that line? caller: first of all, talking about a no-fly zone is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. one russian air plane gets shot down, that is world war iii. even though russia's economy is nowhere near as strong as the american economy, they are a military world power. russia is not iraq. you will not walk in and simply overrun russia. that's ridiculous. they have more nuclear and conventional weapons than the united states. they are every bit the equal militarily as the united states. that is not iraq, ok.

it's ridiculous. people get on the line and talk about we should be doing this. are you crazy? why would we become embroiled in a world war? the real reason behind all of this has nothing more to do with anything other than demographics. current demographics. so people should wake up and start contacting their congresswomen and men and their senators and forcing them to take a position and if they take a position that is pro-american involvement in this military fight, then they should be voted out of office. and people should be thinking about their children. have a good day. host: this morning we are joined by richard and sir. -- richard enser. where are you exactly this morning? >> i'm here in lviv in ukraine.

host: you about 70 kilometers from the border. what can you tell us about the attack on the military training center? >> it was certainly closer to russian missiles than we wanted to be or thought we might be. they struck a military base. it was the westernmost attack that russia has leveled on this country and many people saw this as a warning. where refugees are crossing, civilians are taking shelter and potentially western supply lines are running back into ukraine. a lot of grim and glum faces

among the people in western ukraine. host: could you hear the attack? >> no, we heard the air raid sirens telling us to take shelter. they are going off on nearly a daily basis right now. host: where is shelter for you? >> you have to look up online where your nearest bomb shelter is. they have been sadly extremely useful. just down the road there are many options to take shelter. it can be quite a run on the way. host: tell us about that experience. >> sometimes you wake up and either hear it out your window or see it on your phone and a chat that you've joined.

these alarms that somewhere missiles are falling and you need to take cover. depending on whether you've got your shoes on or you are ready to run, you think i will run as fast as i can to the shelter. sometimes you think maybe i should just tempt fate and let it pass and keep going with some really important thing that i'm doing right now. these are the kind of awful dilemmas that people here are facing. host: what have ukrainians told you about yesterday's attack? >> 35 people and more than 100 injured is the death toll. that is so far the most deadly single airstrike or missile attack to take place during the war. of course the main response is the intention of how close that

was to another country's territory. you don't want any miscalculations either in terms of firing the rocket itself. you're talking about a potential trigger for world war iii which so many people are terrified of right now. secondly, lots of civilians taking cover here. this is where american troops have been training ukrainians for years. very serious over here. host: the rest of the country was thought to be an area for those that have less heave and other parts of the country. that they could be safe while they decide whether or not to leave ukraine altogether. what are you hearing from those in that area. will they make their way into romania and other countries.

>> we are up to 2.7 one million refugees who have left ukraine into european territory. i'm sure it has gone up by a couple 100,000 since then. we already comfortably in the realm of the biggest refugee movement since 1945 in european territory and that number excludes a lot of people taking shelter in lviv right now. i can tell you a lot of people as these horrors grow by the day , a lot of people are concluding that nowhere in ukraine is safe enough right now. host: how does your publication -- what does the communication like with the economist about how long you stay and continue to cover this?

>> we are a major newspaper covering one of the most pivotal moments in world history. we are not about to yank our correspondence out of the country. -- correspondents out of the country. that's going to unfold in a couple of weeks and days. i don't have any plans to go anywhere. host: what about the humanitarian aid efforts on the ground? have you seen them? what is it like? >> it's humongous the number of a trucks you can see driving around downtown potentially dispatching aid, food, medicine, socks, clothes. that's an ongoing effort. over here we are terribly concerned about the most acute part of the country where this

aid isn't getting in. i'm talking about the coastal city in the south which is under siege. people are talking about a death toll in the thousands there. the red cross says we have these trucks full of aid we want to give to people but we can't get past the russian siege line. people are dying on the others. these are terribly harrowing things to think about. wars are bad enough when there inadvertent civilian casualties. when you look at some of these russian tactics, they are so nihilistic and indeed vicious that you think they take great pleasure in watching this humanitarian total climb. host: what are you watching for today? >> certainly those peace talks. to possibly negotiate a cease-fire. that has the potential to become a very big story. although many people who expect

that may be a cease-fire might come, they don't put much weight on it because they think a cease-fire is not the same thing as peace. this is something that happens a lot during war, both sides agree on almost like a half time break where they go and sipped some water. the military equivalent of taking a rest and making sure they are back on the field with replenished supply lines and rested soldiers. the cease-fire is something we would all treat as welcome news if not the great promise of peace that many would like to see. host: richard ensor, should the u.s. do more to aid ukraine? what are ukrainians telling you? how do you respond to that question? >> ukrainians are unanimous in their belief that the west should be doing more. they want to see more weapons flowing. a no-fly zone across the

country. the west and nato need to be extremely mindful of escalation because right now we do have a war in one country and to avoid that becoming a war in several countries, between two nuclear powers and at least one power that seems pretty ready to use a nuclear weapon. there probably need to be some limits on what kind of help the u.s. provides. where that limit lies is an open question. a lot of people think there are things america could be doing that they are not doing right now. some people think it is a little too hard to give a hand across the border without having your fingerprints on them. we are all watching this thinking, what can my country do. surely there is something we can do to avert this kind of suffering in the 20th century.

the chances of it getting worse are just as high as the chances of it getting better. host: you can follow richard's reporting from ukraine. you can also follow him on twitter. thank you for your time. back to the conversation with all of you. should the u.s. do more to aid ukraine. murray in sandy spring, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a first time caller. in my opinion, we need to continue to support ukraine. i don't see us getting into another war. but i must admit that we are still leading from behind. i don't understand why we don't take the playbook of the kissinger's of the world. this is how we were able to end

the cold war. he cut off the bank loans. he cut off the technology. during those years. and first and foremost, the energy. we have to start -- america needs to ignore right now the left and we have to support the eu in these countries and ukraine with energy. we can get the support from saudi arabia, from australia. but first and foremost we need to support ourselves, too. we cannot afford these high prices and gas and we have the ability and capability to do this. i don't understand. i heard the other day that even though we may do these things concerning our energy, that -- i think yellen stated that this

will not go into effect until june of this year. so someone please. we are still being seen as leading from behind. host: daniel is in kentucky. caller: about the aid we should be getting to ukraine, we need to keep on doing what we are doing but maybe increase it more, but get some weapons to defend themselves and also maybe while not officially putting boots on the ground, it may be some retired green berets, some retired special forces want to go over to ukraine. just let them. and i agree with some of the other callers. we need to get more energy self-reliant on here and that

means ramp-up production in the short term and look for more sustainable options in the long term. but the thing -- to the people saying we don't need to get involved, we have got to remember that putin has said that he wants to reform the russian empire. the problem with that is part of the russian empire he's talking about had -- in it. if something doesn't get done about putin soon, he is going to become a problem whether we like it or not. you pretty much as our problem right now. but the thing -- yet. we definitely need -- host: your sentiment is echoed in an opinion piece written today by a career foreign

service officer who served as foreign policy advisor to the office of the in vice president mike pence. send nato troops to western ukraine is what he writes in today's wall street journal. he says you have to match putin with strength because that's the only thing he understand. only thing he understands. if western leaders want mr. prudent to pursue peace, they need to increase troop levels and introduce a robust military presence in western ukraine and the black sea. such forces drawn from the nato state and possibly other allied countries could be structured similarly to nato-led missions in kosovo and afghanistan. if mr. putin's ground forces remain bogged down this humanitarian force could gradually move east. the recent uptick in airstrikes underscores the need to determines to prudent, bringing his indiscriminate bombing campaigns to towns and cities on nato's periphery. do you agree?

richard and chicago, democratic caller. caller: good morning to you and all your wonderful guests. happy st. patrick's day. you need to bring the document called the budapest agreement, which in 1994, ukraine was told that if they got rid of their new air armament, france, united states, england, as well as russia would defend them. we have too many internal people who wish to abort this kind of the total attitude. i have heard of information given that was erroneous. the public doesn't have a full understanding until they watch these films of the children and pregnant women dying and so forth. now this budapest agreement

should be brought out and the ranking members in the house and senate should tell us if this agreement is legitimate. the agreement already says that boots should be on the ground. if we had put 1000 marines at the border, putin would not have invaded the country. we have to use the whole notion of freedom and get us back to what this notion of freedom is. some of the american people don't know what freedom is. that is why they elected a president who said if you don't get me dirt on joe biden and his son, congressional approval will not come your way. host: you have heard bipartisan group of lawmakers, the list of lawmakers that are arguing this are growing, that the biden administration needs to let paul linda send in these fighter jets. do you agree with the move? caller: that bipartisan group is nuts.

you don't send a pilot, you send in the marines, troops from every nato country. if we need to go this way, that is where we need to go. it should be special forces in great britain, france, other nations that boast freedom. even some of the african nations can send troops to the western border. host: you are saying, that what these lawmakers are talking about does not go far enough. caller: just look up the budapest agreement, 1994. i already told you. if they are invaded, we will defend you. surround russia on the china flank, black sea, bring troops up, and let the man know we are not going to let international security impact these children who are getting bogged and killed. that bipartisan group is nuts. host: let's listen to one of

them, amy klobuchar in poland, a bipartisan group went there yesterday. here is what she had to say about those fighter jets. >> there are a lot of us who would like to see the planes over there. i know secretary of state tony blinken talked about it over the weekend. there has been so much focus on these planes, especially these particular planes, that they themselves can become a target. the russians are well aware of this. one thing we have to remember, this is all about air defense. you can do what with planes, with drones, which has been incredibly effective, much bigger than anyone thought. as well as the stingers and javelins. a lot of this is up in the air defense. what i heard jake say this morning is that they are looking to help in many ways with air defense.

that is certainly what we've been hearing from our military on the ground here in poland, as well as our allies. we have to remember it is not just america. there are allies that we are working on, you can see how we are coordinating on sanctions, the issue of the planes, but also coordinating on many other ways which don't get on your airways for good reason. it is in the middle of a war. >> even though you supported helping paula to ukraine, you are ok with the decision the administration made not to allow that to happen? >> i have made clear to them, i spoke to the president himself about 10 days ago, i would like to see the planes over there. but things shift. because there is so much discussion about them, it can become an issue itself. that is no one's fault, it just happens. part of it is figure out how you basket things, and it is not

always in public site, because they themselves become targets. how can you help poland effectively so that they can cover things well. some of the easiest things to move around our drones, which are taking down aircraft, other antiaircraft weapons that have been very effective and we must continue. i still don't rule out having planes at some point. but you take one day at a time and make the best defense decisions. they cannot always be discussed on the air or you would be giving vladimir putin the roadmap to what nato wants to do to protect ukraine. host: should the u.s. do more to aid ukraine? lawmakers are asking for some more efforts by the biden administration. the ukrainian leadership is asking for more from the west and the nato allies. makr in milford new hampshire. caller: i think the u.s. should

be doing more. this country is divided between republicans and democrats, and we should be united as americans to help ukraine in any way we can. i hear a lot of callers say that if there is more u.s. involvement, they are afraid about escalating the war. vladimir putin and the russian army had already escalated more. they have already shot, killed, murdered innocent men, children and babies, bound hospitals. i don't want boots on the ground, i wish they could enforce a no-fly zone, but if biden and his administration doesn't want to do that, gave ukraine either drones or fighter jets so they can defend the airspace over their country. what people don't realize, if we don't stop prudent and the russian army, they will go into each one of these countries and call them back to make the russian federation again. china is watching and will

eventually try to take over taiwan. i even saw on the news the other night, iran bombed something related to the u.s. and iraq to see what the u.s. or israel would do. this administration and europe is being tested. if you don't stop putin and the russian army, this will be world war iii anyway. before i leave, one great quote from george washington. sometimes you must go to war in order to preserve the peace. these days we should not be having more. let's get more allies, friends, trade between countries, make the economy a stronger place. that way everyone can flourish from it and no one gets left behind. host: coming up this morning, 10:00 eastern time, live coverage of the united nations security council meeting. they will hear from poland's

foreign minister the invasion of ukraine, refugee situation they are seeing on the border, also that attack yesterday at a military training facility 20 kilometers from poland's border. that happens at 10:00 eastern time here on c-span. go to our website, c-span.org, to watch there, or you can download the c-span video app. at 11:00, a discussion about cyber attacks, with the chair of the senate intelligence committee, mark warner. this is hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. that is on c-span2 or online at c-span.org. or watch our full coverage on our free c-span video app. back to the conversation with all of you. greg in pennsylvania. republican.

host: i have been holding for a while. i have been watching c-span forever. i have to say the quality of the comments this morning is exceptionally high. there does not seem to be the political divide in the comments . they all seem to be informed, it appears that at least a cohort of today's callers are paying attention to what is going on. they may not agree to everything but they are paying attention. therefore, instead of going to the washington post or new york times, go to kansas city, north dakota, go to other media sources. when you say the new york times or the washington post, i can tell you exactly what they are going to say. as to the question about doing

more, yes, i think we should do more. we should have done more to months ago. i called in and said we should have had troops on the ground that. in hindsight, that would have been -- it would have changed the dynamic. would it have made the current situation better? i have no doubt about that. is it still too late to do that? i don't think it is. mr. hood suggested troops in western ukraine. i agree with that. having planes and no-fly does not bother me. but troops on the ground. it appears the troops that mr. putin has used are not doing a great job. i think having the american military 100 miles away would make it big difference. it is not too late to do that.

it should have been done earlier. otherwise it looks like, here we are, the united states, supposedly the number one power in the country, is wrapped in circles because it cannot figure out what is going on. american intelligence, fbi, national defense institute, all of these people supposedly know what is going on. they screwed up russiagate, they screwed up afghanistan, they are screwing up ukraine. host: do you put nato-led troops into western ukraine? caller: you put troops, i don't care if they are nato or u.s.. i prefer u.s. i went to vietnam, airborne ranger. i would much prefer u.s. troops. this whole thing about the nature of the troops, you get

into this stupid argument that makes sense to people inside the beltway, like the washington post. oh my god, it will make a huge difference if it is a nato bullet or u.s. bullet! that is crap. host: we will leave it there. memphis, tennessee. democratic caller. what is your response to the question? caller: i like your show. sometimes it is better than saturday night live, i got some good laughs out of it. but i just about agree with that person who called in. i think the united states should not let this one man destroy the whole world. they should have had troops in a long time ago. they don't have to be american troops. you can get some guys out of jail and give them some guns to help out. i really think the united states has a plan.

we don't always know what they think or are doing, but mr. putin will get his day in court. i just think people need to be more patient. i hate to see all of them babies getting killed, but i think the u.s. has a plan. that lady talking about putin having more nuclear bombs and the united states, it doesn't matter. it doesn't take that many to destroy a country. you have a good show, i like listening to you. keep the good work up. host: a headline in the washington post. russia is seeking military equipment and aid from china. yesterday, jake sullivan was asked about the prospect of that. >> we believe that china, in fact, was aware before the invasion took place that vladimir putin was planning something and may not have understood the full extent of it. it is very possible that putin

lied to them the same way that he lied to europeans and others. we also are watching closely to see the extent to which china does provide any form of support, material support or economic support, to russia. it is a concern of ours. we have communicated to beijing that we will not stand by and allow any country to compensate russia for its losses from economic sanctions. >> would you sanction china if they did help out russia? >> i am not going to sit here publicly and brandish threats, but what i will tell you, we are communicating directly and privately to beijing that there will absolutely be consequences for large-scale sanctions, support to russia to backfill them. we will not allow that to go forward and allow there to be a lifeline to russia from these economic sanctions from any

country, anywhere in the world. host: on cnn yesterday. rhonda in california, independent. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i believe that the russian representative who is sitting at the security council this morning, i believe he should be removed. also, as far as ukraine is concerned, get the people out, get the refugees out. if you keep poking this bear, he is going to explode. as far as us here at home, this is getting a little crazy now. everyone is talking ukraine, ukraine. my heart goes out to them, but what about us at home? these sanctions are causing us to suffer. this is crazy.

china, they are smart. this is very important for them, what is happening here. i don't see them wanting to step too close to russia. it is like a bad marriage between russia and china. they need to get some people in there to have peace talks, just like the caller before me said. get someone in there like kissinger, sit for hours and hours, whatever it takes to come to peace talks. send anybody. send trump, if you have to. anybody, i don't know. send people in there who know how to negotiate and talk to this man. one caller said putin respects strength. right now the united states does not look like that.

my personal feeling, it is like er on our knees and it doesn't look good. thank you. host: john and ohio. democratic caller. caller: i agree with that first caller, i have always been a piece democrat -- peace democrat. i have been a mcgovern, kucinich, bernie democrat, but there is a time for everything. there is a time for peace, a time for war. i agree with vice president pence, agree with mr. hood. before there was need to, during the second world war, the nazis were bombing england, we didn't have nato then. if we had mr. biden there instead of fdr, he would have said we don't want to escalate this.

i am just really disappointed. i'm glad that more people are calling for troops to get in on both parties. i have not heard, i want to know which democrats are also calling for us to get involved. like the lady who called in first, i consider myself a peacenik from back then, too, but i cannot stand to watch this happen. i am so disappointed in this democratic president. i am a democrat. i am very disappointed. i think we could do more. host: you heard from the caller before say send someone into negotiate peace, sending a kissinger. the u.s. does have someone trying to negotiate peace, that is wendy sherman, longtime diplomat. this is what she had to say about the economic and diplomatic pressure on russia. >> right now, it looks like it

ends very badly. for the ukrainian people, we spent every day horrified at the suffering of the people, as your reporter discussed. it is awful, particularly in mariupol, where people are going to die. it is horrifying. there are two objectives we have, to support ukraine in every way that we can. we have put 1.2 billion dollars forwarding security assistance to help ukraine defend itself against this horrible attack. the second is to put an norma's pressure on vladimir putin who tried to change the calculus, to get a cease fire, to get humanitarian corridors, and to end this invasion. that pressure can to have some effect. we are being to see some signs of a willingness to have serious negotiations.

but as your reporter said, so far, it appears vladimir putin is intent on destroying ukraine. we need to help ukrainians in every way that we can. host: rip in fredericksburg, virginia. republican. should the u.s. do more to aid ukraine? caller: i'm not sure, but the roast has been three quarters cooked, and will continue to cook. mr. pruden is doing what he feels is necessary. the same thing that took place in ukraine took place in mexico. they had troops attempting to do things in cuba and mexico that they are doing in ukraine. i am not advocating what mr. pruden is doing but we have to be careful. i live in fredericksburg, virginia. any kind of nuke or dirty bomb in washington would take us out. we are playing with fire.

once gasoline is thrown on something, it's a horrible situation. all of us need to cut your tv off when you call c-span, listen through the phone. there is nothing more weird than having to listen to people fumbling around trying to hear themselves on tv while trying to collect their thoughts. anyways, we have to be real careful here. mr. boudin, i don't know what is going on with him. he is probably a brilliant individual -- host: if he were to use a chemical or biological weapon on ukrainians, then what? caller: who the hell knows? we have all been brought up in a christian arena, we love people, we want the best thing to take place for people, but this is a horrific situation that took place with saddam hussein and all of those things.

we have painted ourselves into the most weird corner. all of your 41k's will go to hell and a handbasket when all this happens. when you retire and you are poor, there is nothing worse when you are retiring and it is brutal. host: springfield, illinois. democratic caller. caller: good morning. a lot of these calls are excellent. many of them are wonderful. to me, this seems to be like the new world order. a lot of it is antichrist. there is the tradition that we have. 99 out of 100 people will perish in the end times, and it looks like we are heading toward the.

one important aspect of knowing what is going on, a documentary done by oliver stone called "ukraine on fire." it is important to understand both perspectives of what is happening in ukraine. we objected to the neocons going into iraq. they have this new project century that they have done. victoria is one of the people negotiating, i think european foreign affairs. she is in this documentary talking about overthrowing the ukrainian president. her husband is robert kagan. he is the husband, the founder of the new american century, the neocon group. who benefits from this? the world cannot experience a world war iii with nuclear

weapons. ukraine is lost. just as we went to iraq and afghanistan, bolivia, syria, yemen. ukraine will be a loss. are we going to give up the entire world for the sake of ukrainians? my heart bleeds for them, just like it did for the iraqis and afghani's. but we cannot allow troops on the ground because that would escalate. russia is a proud country. if it gets cornered, it will send out its weapons. i was told that it has more nuclear weapons. for every city in america, there are two nuclear heads that would be targeted for that. and then we are going to tell china not to get involved but we are getting involved by sanctioning. putin is a dictator.

you draw the line with nato alliances and you keep it there. ukraine is not one of those red lines that you have to draw. regardless of whether they use a biological weapon. we use biological weapons. we gave saddam hussein the weapon that he used on the kurds. host: listen to what the foreign minister to say. asked if ukraine expected nato to defend kyiv, showed moscow logic chemical weapons attack. [video clip] >> the biden administration is warning of an impending chemical attack in ukraine. do you have any information about where or when, or what the consequences would be, would need to defend you? >> we don't know the details but we don't exclude the option. we see that russia is using one prohibited weapon after another to break us down. the united nations is already concerned that some of the

internationally prohibited weapons have been used against ukrainian civilians, against our citizens. when you are asking me whether nato will defend us, we do not expect that. what we are asking is a very simple thing. arm ukraine and we will do the rest. give us the weapons necessary and we will fight for our own land and people. host: the ukrainian foreign minister yesterday. as we told you, russia launched a missile attack on a training facility, 20 miles from the polish border in western ukraine, killing 35 people, injuring hundreds. also yesterday, brent renaud, award-winning filmmaker, was also killed by the russians. there he is on the right, and a picture with his brother in 2007. they won a peabody award for a

documentary they did. that from the new york times. there was also this, ap news, a pregnant woman and her baby died after the russians bombed a maternity hospital. images have gone around the world, impacting the innocent. very in palm beach, florida. should the u.s. do more to aid ukraine? caller: absolutely. putin has already shown his limits. he threatened to cause unimaginable consequences for anyone who interferes. we certainly interfered already. we are pouring in arms. now the deputy defense minister says, oh, we may even hit though supply lines.

this shows that he is afraid of us. we need to pour in more of these antiaircraft systems, and the migs, put them in there. we need to put more troops on the borders, a lot more than has been sent in already, from the entire nato. ukrainians have said, just get it to us and we will do it. let's start there. we should not be afraid to put troops in. if they interfere with our rearming with ukrainians it anyway. let's do that. host: jay in washington, d.c. democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call.

thanks to c-span for this necessary public forum. i have to fall down on the side of the callers who say give peace a chance. i don't see why we cannot yield to the russian demands for a nato-free ukraine. we traveled 5000 miles plus to make sure sign of hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction. the end of all of this now, it would at least be worthwhile to bring them to the table and get some kind of agreement to end it. maybe with some kind of agreement that russians would repair all the damage that they have caused so far. thank you very much. host: we are going to take a break. when we come back, a look at the week ahead in washington. what is congress working on, the agenda from the white house.

tia mitchell, washington correspondent with the atlanta journal-constitution will be with us, as well as reid wilson with the hill. ♪ >> am pleased to nominate judge jackson who will bring her extraordinary qualifications, deep experience and intellect, and rigorous judicial record to the court. >> am truly humbled by the extraordinary honor of this nomination. and i am especially grateful for the care that you have taken in discharging your constitutional duty in service of our democracy with all that is going on in the world today. >> president biden nominates judge ketanji brown jackson to succeed retiring justice stephen

breyer on the supreme court. if confirmed, judge jackson would become the first african-american woman to serve on the nation's highest court. follow this historic process. watch the confirmation hearing starting monday, march 21, live on c-span, c-span.org, or by downloading the free c-span now mobile video app. >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased. word for word. if it happens here, or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable.

>> washington journal continues. host: joining us this morning is tia mitchell, she covers washington for the atlanta journal-constitution. reid wilson is a reporter for the hill. here to talk about the week ahead in washington. tia mitchell, i will begin with you, if the u.s. should do more to aid ukraine. you heard some callers say we need to push more for peace, but you heard democrats, republicans saying we should be doing more. psalm calling for troops on the ground. what are lawmakers saying right now, what could be the legislative steps they take? guest: i think in washington, in the white house, and frankly, if you polled americans, there is not a lot of appetite for

sending troops directly to ukraine to directly confront russia on ukraine's behalf. that is not necessarily on the table, but we are seeing russian troops come very close to attacking one of our nato allies. that will compel the u.s. to get involved. the nato agreement requires the u.s. to get involved when its allies are attacked. to me, that is what would proceed any direct involvement of u.s. troops. however, what is being discussed in washington is more sanctions for russia. congress did not get that done last week but it is still in the talks this week. whether that deals with russian trade, for example, more bans a oil, natural gas. that is on the table. host: do you believe, reid

wilson, this issue of sending the polish air fighter jets into ukraine, is that resolved, is that done, will not happen? guest: i think we are seeing a substantial pressure from congress to get that done. you heard rob portman talk about that yesterday on one of the sunday shows. even democrats, biden administration allies pushing to get the deal done. people like jason crow of colorado, a veteran himself, trying to get something done. that is probably the next step. we will see progress on that this week from the white house as they try to figure out a way to get this done without appearing to promote russia -- provoke russia, which is the hurdle they are try to get around. host: what is the legislative vehicle for aid, language around these fighter jets? guest: right now, and exact vehicle has not been determined

as far as this week. they could tack it onto an existing bill, strip language out of an existing bill, and in the russian language, which is most likely at this point. it is just not clear. i do think there is a lot of momentum to do something. president biden has done several things but i think congress wants to put its stamp on a package. we will see that come together this week. host: reid wilson, what do you make of public opinion so far, on president biden's handling of the russia-ukraine conflict? guest: for the last decade, i feel like i have seen a million polls that show the country divided. this is the one thing that seem to have united americans, around ukraine, against russia.

more americans approve of biden's handling of this than approve of other elements of the job biden has done. i think his state of the union address put a stamp on that, effectively gave him the spotlight, if you will, -- i don't think take charge or control of the issue, because it is so massive, such a big deal. it allowed him to effectively explain to americans like it was important to be involved to the degree that we are, and i think americans listened. he is getting better ratings on ukraine and then he has on the economy, on coronavirus, overall job rating. this is in joe biden's wheelhouse. he was the chairman of the senate foreign relations

committee 30 years ago, and this is right up his alley. 20 years? a long time ago . this is something that he is able to do, to call upon his experience, in a way that he may not be able to do for, say, a global pandemic, or inflation, which is going through the roof. this is in his wheelhouse. i think he has taken advantage of it to the degree that he can, but vladimir putin gets a lot of say into how this goes. host: tia mitchell, what will we hear from the white house and the president on that front? guest: it is really interesting that the white house is going to lengths we have not seen in the past to really be transparent and proactive about keeping the american public breast about what is going on, warning the american public what could be some of the negative effects we feel at home. even over the weekend, the post

had a scoop, they are even briefing took talkers. a lot of young people, that is where they get their news. i expect more incremental updates from the president as he and other members of his administration meet with our allies, or also meet with chinese and republican diplomats. i expect more of these updates to say, this is what happened, this is what is to come. if there are major sanctions either from the white house or congress that may preclude something a little more formal from the president. host: to our viewers, democrats, republicans, independents, you are welcome to join the conversation and ask her questions about the week ahead in washington. your priorities for lawmakers. democrats, (202) 748-8000.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. send us a text, (202) 748-8003. reid wilson, we asked about gas prices, how they are impacting you. some said they were willing to pay more that the pump to help out ukraine. the president warned americans last week that that would be the case as well. what are polls showing about this issue, how are the nation's governors responding, as well? guest: first of all, awesome that c-span accepts texts now. that's awesome. gas prices has a pretty big correlation to how a president's party does in an election. the higher the prices are, the worse the president's party does. this is an existential threat to the democratic control of congress.

prices were high long before russia even moved toward ukraine. they had been going up over a series of months as demand rises, as we get over the omicron variant. demand is coming back online to where it would have been pre-pandemic, maybe even higher. maybe we have some pent up angst we have to get out by driving around. this is not a good thing for the administration. it is the most obvious way that americans feel the pinch from inflation. it's also a reminder that the most powerful person in the world, the president of the united states of america, is not all that powerful when it comes to things like gas prices and the economy. the price would go up whether biden was in the white house or donald trump, it doesn't matter who the president is. prices are heading higher.

that is just the cycle of economics. but it is the most obvious way americans file pinch. at this moment in particular, more americans say inflation, high prices are affecting their household budgets, their spending habits. i think there is a generational outcome here, too. the last time we had in inflation spike, generation z, millennials were not even born yet or were in diapers. that generation -- i am sort of an older millennial -- i have never really gone through an inflation shock. i think there is a big generational element here. people who have never seen prices spike like this are suddenly seeing prices spike like this. that is scary to them. it is having a bigger impact on public opinion that it may have

had, if it happened at a time when boomers and jen x -- gen x were the dominant parts of the economy and electorate. host: we have seen reports that some are calling for a federal gas tax holiday, maybe a holiday on the state tax level as well. what are lawmakers saying on capitol hill, how they want to respond to rising gas prices? guest: you have seen senators in swing states -- in georgia, raphael warnock is asking for a moratorium on the federal gas tax. that is not something the white house wants to do. and i don't think there is a big appetite in congress as a whole. again, that is a source of revenue to fund our federal government. even a temporary suspension of that tax would have impacts on the federal government's ability to pay its bills.

i don't see that happening right now in washington. you are seeing states talk about it. in georgia, the republican-controlled legislature is moving forward with a suspension on the gas tax. it is not finalized yet, but it seems like that will happen in georgia. the thing to keep in mind is, it will save a few cents at the pump, but in the grand scheme of things, is not a huge savings. it is a hit on any government bottom-line. you are seeing a lot of states try to gauge, yes, it is politically popular, but is it really worth the long term hole it would create when it is not going to say people that much money? that is the conversation you are seeing both in washington, and in states. host: theresa in tennessee,

republican. welcome to the conversation. you are first. caller: my comment is directed to mr. wilson and his praise of how joe biden is handling this crisis in ukraine. i don't agree with him at all. but the gas prices, the liberal media and democrats are pushing this narrative that the american people are willing to pay more for gas, one dollar to two dollars more if it will help ukraine. first of all, i want to know how us paying more in gas prices helps ukraine. i don't see the correlation there. and this is not vladimir putin's gas prices. the voters out here blame joe biden 100% gas prices. they have been going up since the day he took office. you can see, they went up more

since ukraine. but this is a false narrative. all of them blaming ukraine for these gas prices, it's ridiculously crazy. host: teresa all right. reid wilson? guest: gas prices are going out not because of ukraine, they are going up for a million reasons. demand is one of them. supply and demand, the basics of economics. when more people want something, the higher the price goes. we do not get a lot of gas in the united states from russia. only about 3% of the total amount of gas we import. far more of it comes from canada. canada is our main source of gas. there we go. to tia's point earlier on what the fed's are doing on the gas

tax as they consider suspending the gas tax through the end of the year. there is a bill sponsored by three michigan democrats including senator stabenow, to suspend the gas tax for the rest of the year. that would drop prices by 18.3 cents, which is what the federal gas tax is. when it comes to the states, the highest state gas tax is california, somewhere around $.60 a gallon. let's assume in california, the federal tax in the state tax get suspended. that is $.74 off the gallon. still in california, they are close to five dollars a gallon for gas. the national average is around four. tends to be higher in california because of transportation logistics and things like that. even suspending the state and federal tax, still talking about

four dollars a gallon. host: patrick is a democratic caller. caller: good morning. when colin powell's chief of staff famously said it was an incredibly sad day when the man he respected most went before the united nations and lied about uranium yellowcake in order to rationalize a war that has ended in $3 trillion plus, endless american citizens getting killed, and we are being manipulated again. the media keeps on repeating over and over again about the use of chemical weapons. forgive me from being skeptical. on top of this, you have this massive manipulation in the energy sector about energy prices with 5000 products that

are produced. the american people need to wake the hell up. it is ridiculous. i am a democrat and i voted for trump, and i'll be running to vote for republicans in this election cycle. host: distrust of information from the american people, how that impacts the white house's ability to respond. guest: to the caller's point, i think us members of the media learned lessons about trusting what message comes from any white house. again, the difference is the transparency during this invasion, it is something we have not seen. it is not just the media. and frankly, it is not just people in the public going off of what the white house is telling us, you are seeing it with your own eyes. i think there has been some restraint. no one has said that russia has

used biological or chemical weapons. what has been said is that there is the possibility. intelligence shows that could be on the table, but no one has said it has happened yet. this is also another morning to all of those listeners and viewers to mind your sources. there are journalism outlets that are doing it well, so that you can feel confident about what you are reading and seeing when it comes to this conflict. trust is something that has to be built and earned, also about making sure that you get sources that you can trust, so you have an accurate view of what is going on. but it is happening before our eyes, if you know where to look. host: i want to show the viewers the administration talking about the possibility of chemical, biological attack. this is a pentagon spokesperson on abc this week. [video clip]

>> we have heard about possible chemical, biological attacks, saying that ukraine will do an attack. how likely is that, how concerned are you are you this morning? >> we have to be careful not to get into intelligence assessments here. it is of the russian playbook, that that of which they accuse you of, they are planning to do. we have not seen anything that indicates any imminent chemical biological attack we are watching it closely. host: reid wilson, what did you hear there? guest: this is an administration that is trying to be transparent and what it shares about its intelligence sources in this effort to put russia in the corner. it was really intriguing to see how they did this in the run-up to russia's actual decision to invade.

the white house was far more aggressive than all of our western allies in predicting that russia would infect invade ukraine -- in fact invade ukraine. the allies learned our intelligence was correct when they invaded ukraine. now, they are trying to do the same thing, by broadcasting the fact that chemical weapons are apparently on russia's table, on the table for russia. they are trying to box russia into a corner. chemical weapons is the famous red line that americans do not stand for. that would change this entire situation, ratchet it up far beyond even now. this is a scary moment in eastern europe. the biden administration is trying to lay the groundwork for that, prepare for the worst and hopes for the best. host: frank in oakland,

california. democratic caller. caller: good morning. first time caller. i also served in the u.s. air force during the cuban missile crisis in the indochina war. i would like to have a note of caution here. our foreign policy establishment highly recommended the vietnam war, the iraq war, the afghanistan war, and the presidents in all of those wars went along with the foreign policy establishment. all three of those wars turned out to be disasters for the united states and the people of those countries. former secretary of defense panetta, he was also the director of cia until a couple of days ago said that we are in a proxy war with russia. we are in a proxy war with

russia that threatens to spill over into a direct war between the united states and the russian federation. during the cuban missile crisis, the united states had a 10 to 20 more times nuclear missiles than the soviet union at the time. we outgunned them 10 to 20 times. right now, they have about the same amount of nuclear missiles that we do. we should look at our history and see that our foreign policy establishment has made many mistakes. everyone was waving the flag and all gung ho to support the vietnam war, and the afghanistan war, and the iraq war. we all support our president. but it turned out to be a disaster because our foreign policy establishment totally

underestimated the power of nationalism. host: i believe it there. -- will leave it there. tia mitchell, if u.s. were to become more involved with a nato force on the ground, building up troops, what would be necessary from congress? guest: i just want to make a couple of points. number one, every indication we have had from the white house, most members of congress, is that escalation is not what we want. that is why it's been tough for congress to agree on sanctions. the white house has pushed back and said we don't want to be interpreted as escalating this into a conflict that directly involves the united states or any of our nato allies. that has been the message of the white house. we don't want to escalate this into a world war. i also want to make the point

that we know the u.s. has made many strategic mistakes in past international conflicts, but it is too much of an over supplication, quite frankly not accurate to say that we were outgunned or out powered. there were a lot of mistakes, wars that we should not have gotten into, but it is not the might of the u.s. military that has been questioned. that said, if the u.s. were to feel that it was drawn into a war with russia that nobody wants, in congress or the white house, i would guess that congress wants to pass some authorizations. again, in the past, with these conflicts, one thing that has happened, the president at several junctures has made decisions unilaterallym and congress has said, you don't go to war without our approval.

i think congress would want to be involved and pass a resolution that rises to the white house what type of military interaction would be approved. but again, no one wants to have that conversation right now. quite frankly, if that were to happen, that would mean escalation happened on the side of russia, not the united states. host: reid wilson, you have some thoughts? guest: tia is exactly right. nobody is talking about war in the sense of the last wars that people are comparing it to. it is not even up for debate. host: there is not talk of an authorization of military force? guest: no. host: jason, falls church. independent. caller: first off, i'm disappointed that you decided to have two flacks from the biden administration have done nothing

but praise the biden administration and run cover for him. zelensky is basically soros' pu ppet. he got into office through corruption and he is enjoying his tiktok fame while people are dying and he is sitting in his bunker, making videos. he is doing everything he can to avoid making concessions. russia made some reasonable concessions in the war and he is convincing his citizens to keep fighting and dying at the expense of their lives while he is sitting in a bunker. biden can affect gas prices. one of your guests said a total lie when he said he cannot control them when he could have opened up the keystone xl pipeline, everything began to ramp up production. this is kind of a good thing because we want to get rid of fossil fuels anyway. calling the biden administration transparent is a joke. they have lied almost every step of the way. we found there are bio labs in

ukraine which contained all kinds of deadly things. the russian federation came out, the you an -- un security council laid out a bunch of evidence in the u.s. will not address it. host: jason, where'd you get your news? caller: from a variety of sources. i watch the un security council briefings. that is where i watch that. let me just finish my point. let me finish my point. russia presented the evidence and the u.s. was not willing to dispute that. biden is not talking to putin right now. we are close to a world war and biden does not even have a line into putin right now. he should be talking to putin every single day trying to resolve this. instead, he is demonizing him and talking about escalating things. host: tia mitchell, you can go

first. guest: i don't know where to start because that caller was full of disinformation. you asked a good question of where does he get his news because i don't think what he said was accurate. also, there was some anti-semitism. anytime you see people bringing up george soros in the context of ukraine when he is a businessman and philanthropist, then you are going to question everything that comes after that. i will pass it on to reid. guest: the ad hominem's are not helpful. that is the one thing i am with him on. host: last year in newark, good morning. i'm going to move on to ricky in michigan. democratic caller. you are next. caller: thank you for having me on. i agree with the panel.

that guy talking a few minutes ago must have been watching fox news. my comment is the people in ukraine did not start nothing. putin started it all. it started with donald trump. thank god, we got joe biden as our president because he knows how to work this thing that is going on. he's doing a good job. we dodged a bullet because we could have been just like the people in ukraine if donald trump would have stayed in office. host: i will leave it there. tia mitchell and reid wilson, let's talk about what else is happening on capitol hill. you have preparations underway for the supreme court nominee to get her day on the hill. tia mitchell, what can you start by telling us, what is the process like?

where are they in the process? what comes next? guest: this week, we expect judge ketanji brown jackson to continue having one-on-one meetings with senators, particularly those who serve on the judiciary committee. she has been making the rounds at the complex. starting march 21, the official hearings will begin. you will hear judge jackson talk directly to the members of the committee, give her opening statement, and over the next three days, she will answer their questions. we expect them to be tough. there are some skeptical republicans on the committee and in the senate in general who want to talk about what they consider her lack of experience. they want to talk about what they consider some potential conflict of interest she may have.

on march 24, you will hear from outside groups like the american bar association about what some of their leaders think about judge jackson. hearings start next week. this week, she is meeting with senators one-on-one answering the questions privately. her and her entourage as they try to build a case for why she should be confirmed. host: reid wilson, how is the vote looking for her? guest: there are not a lot of republicans who have made positive comments about judge jackson, with the notable exception of susan collins from maine who offered some effusive praise after their meeting. senator lindsey graham, who has voted in favor of a number of democratic nominees for various courts and voted in favor of judge jackson the first time she was up, sounds skeptical. it sounds like he will be a no.

there are one or two other centrist republicans who may be in favor of judge jackson. i've watched susan collins. i've watched susan murkowski of alaska and a few others. democrats are likely to have all 50 of their votes plus vice president harris would be 51, especially after senator joe manchin said last week he says no red flags and no reason not to vote to confirm judge jackson. if she is confirmed, it will be with 52 to 55 votes. probably not many more than that. if she runs into trouble, it will be with that moderate republican set and somebody like joe manchin, but there are no signs of that yet. host: susan, republican. caller: yes, i am 80. i have never seen gas prices

this high. gas in california is not $5. it is $6. quit trying to spin this story. i'm tired of being manipulated and lied to by the left. i have never seen such a clown for president in my life. host: tia mitchell, you can hear from our viewers that high gas prices is obviously going to be an issue that falls on partisan lines. guest: yeah. i think it is true that high gas prices are annoying to all of us who drive. that is not something i think should be ignored. i think the white house is very sensitive to that. but i think the point that we have been trying to make on this show is that there are a lot of factors that play into what the price is at your pump. for example, there is a reason

why gas is $6 in california and $4 in the d.c. area. that does not have anything to do with something the white house can directly control. it is about supply. it is about demand. it is about how close you are to certain suppliers in the supply chain that creates the final product you get at the pump. it is also about the international price of oil per gallon. i am no expert, you know, but i would like people to try to find reliable sources to help you break down what contributes to what you pay at the pump so you can understand what parts the white house can control, which is not much of that $6 a gallon, what parts your state government controls, which is not much of that $6 a gallon, and what parts have to do with the international oil, the crude oil

companies, all the way down to the gas station. we live in a free market society, which i think all of us want, which is what our american economy is based on. we actually tell the government to stay out of fixing prices on things, which allows businesses to set prices and allows it to fluctuate according to supply and demand. that has a lot more impact on your gas prices than anything joe biden is doing on a particular day. host: please, go ahead. guest: there is clearly anger out there. and whether or not the biden administration can do anything or the governor of your state can do anything, it is anger. people are furious at the price of gas. yes, your caller has never seen

gas prices is high because gas prices have never been this high. regardless of what the biden administration can do or what a governor of either party can do, this is a political problem. one of the first things we said in this hour is there is a correlation between how high gas prices get and how a president's party does in a midterm election. this boiler alert is -- the spoiler alert is the higher the prices, the worse that party does. forget what is happening in ukraine and russia. things are going to get worse because we are not even into the driving season yet. prices tend to go up in the summer in july and august. this is going to become an even bigger problem for the biden administration and once again underscores the fact the most powerful office in the world does not have a lot of control over some things and they are subject to the whims of the market. host: cleveland, ohio, allen is watching their. good morning. caller: good morning.

some of the colors you have, i wonder where they get their news from. the opening of the oil line in the united states, the type of oil that we drill for here is not the type that would make gasoline, most of it, ok. there is a small percentage that will make gasoline. opec controls the market, not the presidency. rather, it was biden or trump being the presidency does not control the price of oil. people get their news from fake media. this is getting tiresome. this country is going to heck just from all of the comments out here spread. you have people like these two

people that are actually giving you proper information, and nobody wants to listen to them. it is ridiculous. that is all i have got to say. host: let me go into george in lindale, texas, independent, iran with tia mitchell and reid wilson -- you -- are on with tia mitchell and reid wilson. caller: i want to comment on the bioweapon's lab in ukraine. it seems like your guests scoff at the idea of the man was getting his information. i will redo an article from 2005 from "the washington post" when senator lugar and then senator barack obama have an agreement with the ukrainian capital to up the securities at a biolab in od esa, so i'm not sure what she is

referring to on poor information. but there is the washington post in 2005 talking about it. host: reid wilson, tia mitchell, anything to add? guest: there's a lot of opposition research showing russia in a good light. host: democratic caller? caller: i was calling and thanking your panel for the truth that we get. different facts when people call in. i want to say that the caller before me hit the nail on the head about the president not controlling the oil prices. i just think people blame the new administration for the old administration policies that failed as far as afghanistan and now ukraine because there was

some type of deal, quid pro quo that they tried to do before with number 45. i wanted to thank you guys for being there. i appreciate you as american citizens and the taxpayer. keep doing a good job. host: the conversation about the midterms has been brought up. how is it looking? guest: not great if you are a democrat. americans are angry. we are tired. we are angry. we are less excited about life than we ever have been before. a ton of social science research we have seen. when people feel that way, they tend to punish the party in power. we have said a million times the white house does not control x, y, or z. it does not matter.

this is politics. people vote the way they are going to vote. if i were a democrat right now, i would not be terribly happy about the position of my party for the nation and how people are going to vote because they are going to vote to punish the party in power. republicans have their own challenges. one of the things i have been following the last several months is how many candidates are running in a lot of these contests. i'm talking about democrats and republicans. there was a time when party leaders could control who the nominee was going to be in various races. that time has passed. now, there are these primaries that are incredibly wide-open. party leaders have less control than before. that means a lot of what the next congress is going to look

like it's going to be unpredictable. whether or not mitch mcconnell is the leader, what the caucuses look like it's going to drive a lot of what gets done over the next couple of years. because these races are so crowded and uncontrollable and unknown, we don't really know. republicans are going to have a good night if everything stands the way it is today. but what the next version of the republican party looks like is up in the air. voters are going to decide that in primaries over the next couple of months. host: tia mitchell, your thoughts? guest: i agree. the only thing i think is interesting is, as reid kind of mentioned, although all the indicators are that this is going to be a good year for republicans, history tells us midterms are not good for the party that controls the white house.

but democrats see an opportunity to buck that trend. it could be enough to at least keep the senate. for example, in some recent polling of the generic ballot, democrats are doing ok versus republicans. in redistricting in several states, democrats did better at keeping safe seats than they thought they would. there is an opportunity for democrats even though all the signs point towards it not being a great year. we know right now the democratic majority in the house is very slim, so republicans only need to flip a handful of seats to gain control in the house. we know they only need to flip one seat to gain control in the senate. if senator warnock can

hold onto his seat, democrats may be able to keep control in the senate. a lot will depend on what the economy looks like when it is time for voters to head to the polls. we've got to remember this election is no longer the second tuesday in november. early voting, voting by mail, is much more entrenched and how elections are run in a lot of states. we are talking about by the beginning of october is when the election starts. what is our economy look like? what does national security look like then? that could sway the election one way or another. host: tia mitchell rights for " the atlanta journal-constitution." you can follow her on twitter. reid wilson, national reporter with "the hill." you can follow him on twitter or go to thehill.com.

ajc.com. we thank you both for the conversation this morning. guest: thank you so much. host: we will take a break. when we come back, we will turn our attention to the possibility of a chemical and biological attack. we will talk with gigi gronvall with the johns hopkins center for health and security and former advisory committee member who served from 2010 to 2020. >> first ladies in the white house and the issues important to them.

>> education is such an important issue for a governor but also for president. that was very helpful to me. >> using materials from c-span's series -- award-winning series. >> i believe you should say what you mean and mean what you say and take the consequences. >> c-span's online video library will feature the first ladies including laura bush, michelle obama, and melania trump. watch "first ladies: in their own words" saturday at 2:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span2 or listen to the series as a podcast on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.

>> what is the financial history of the founding fathers? how did their personal finances affect the constitution in the new united states? he puts the focus on how money shaped the birth of america his book. the professor emeritus at champlain college in vermont has written books on benjamin franklin, benedict arnold, thomas jefferson, george washington, alexander hamilton, and ethan allen. he has now turned his attention on these and other founders and how they made and lost their money. >> would stern randall on this episode -- william stern randall on this episode of book notes plus. available on the c-span out or wherever you get your podcasts. >> now available for order, the

2022 congressional directory. this compact spiral-bound book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress. also, contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. preorder your copy today. every purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operations. >> there are a lot of places to get political information. but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you're from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america's watching on c-span, powered by cable.

host: [laughter] >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with gigi gronvall, senior scholar with johns hopkins center for health and security. she's also a former threat reduction advisory committee member. what capabilities does russia have for biological or chemical attack in ukraine? guest: russia was accused by the united states a couple of years ago having a biological weapons program. no nation is supposed to have a biological weapons program. they are a signatory of the biological weapons convention which prohibits that.

they have been suspected of being a violator for some time and they were accused formally. and now, the united states is talking plainly about it. biological programs are not as resource intensive as nuclear programs for example. there's very little available outside of what is publicly available to know what kind of program russia has. we can talk about what they used to have in the 1990's before they announced them or said they renounced them, but we don't really know what they could have. host: what is the difference between biological and chemical? how do they work? guest: biological, bacteria,

viruses, fungi, those are all biological organisms. even though there is a lot of work done across the world for peaceful purposes to better understand them so we can help to cure disease, it is possible to use those as weapons as well. that is the biological side. the chemical side is a little more fuzzy because a lot of chemicals are used and allowed for a variety of industrial purposes and riot control agents, etc. but there is a list that is prohibited of chemicals that are prohibited under the chemical weapons convention. host: there are international agreements? guest: yes. there are definitely international agreements. the biological weapons convention was in 1975.

the chemical weapons convention was in the 1990's. yes, it is definitely not allowed to use those in warfare. host: who agreed? which countries? guest: most nations in the world. there's 183 members of the biological convention and 193 to the chemical weapons convention. that is most of everyone. there's also the u.n. security council resolution 1540 which made nations do things so they can discourage any nonstate actor or terrorist use of chemical or biological weapons. host: did russia signed as agreements? guest: yes, they did. this has been a problem with russia in the past during the

soviet days. it was not long after smallpox was eradicated that they started using, growing tons of it for weapons. they were illegally growing anthrax and putting them into bonds, etc. that is what we know was the case back in the 1980's and 1990's. host: what was the use of these types of weapons by russia and syria? guest: thankfully, to my knowledge, biological weapons were not used in syria. but chemical weapons have been. there have been other indicators russia has been developing other chemical weapons. the reason we know about novichok is because russia wanted us to know about novichok in the u.k.

right after 2000, 2002 i believe was the theater use of fentanyl compounds. they definitely have a diverse array of chemical weapons. host: what worries you about their capabilities? guest: i think states have a lot of options at their disposal. i worry more about a using these weapons and eroding the norms that have so far protected on the biological side against their use. there are many worrisome things about the situation. this is one of many. host: want to show you from a senate hearing on thursday in exchange between senator marco rubio of florida and the director of national intelligence avril haines. the senator asking her about the conspiracy of u.s. bioweapons in ukraine. [video clip]

>> does the u.s. have any biological research weapons facilities? >> we do not assess ukraine is pursuing either biological or nuclear weapons which have been the propaganda russia is putting out. >> they do have the biological research facilities. what is our government's role in their biological research programs? >> as i understand it, ukraine operates a little over a dozen biolabs. they are involved in ukraine's bio defense and public health response. that is what they are intended to do. i think the u.s. government provides assistance or has in the past provided assistance in the context of biosafety which is something we have done globally with a variety of different countries. would defer -- i would defer the

details of that to the agency. but how do we define biosafety or bio defense? is it the availability of responses? what exactly is not? -- that? >> i will give you sort of a generic answer that i understand. for bio defense, you think about things like medical countermeasures, things that will help you to address a pandemic that is an outbreak in your country. things along those lines. things that prevent the spreading of pandemics and other health issues. the kind of biosafety pieces you would be providing assistance for our things like making sure

-- appropriate. that is the kind of assistance. i want to be absolutely clear that we do not believe ukraine is pursuing biological or nuclear weapons. we see no evidence of that. this influence campaign is completely consistent with long-standing russian efforts to accuse the united states of sponsoring bioweapons work in forever -- former soviet union s. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] what is your assessment -- host: what is your assessment? guest: the director is referring to the biological threat reduction program which has funded labs in ukraine and elsewhere in the world to help them with biosafety so you can do research safely, so it can help them with outbreak response , for animals and people. one of the pathogens that was worked on in ukraine was the

african swine fever virus which is endemic in that area. it does not affect humans but it can affect people's farm animals, particularly pigs. there are all kinds of beneficial and needed research endeavors going on or that were going on. that is the kind of twisted logic the russians are using to say it was nefarious when it was normal and routine and should be the subject of more boring discussions than the ones you're having now. host: do have any concerns with the pathogen? guest: people who are not used to talking about biological stuff or biological facilities don't realize the small quantities people are using for

research. a test tube here, a vial there. if people knew the lab was going to be under attack, it is very straightforward to make it safe. it is not something i am concerned about with these pathogens. there is no concern about any lab leak or something like that. the people who work in the labs can sponsor blue dispose -- responsibly dispose of the pathogens. host: gigi gronvall is our guest this morning to take your questions on chemical and biological capabilities. democrats dial in at

(202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. you can also tweet. walk us through your experience with biological and chemical weapons research. guest: my background is more on the biological side. i worked for the army at frederick, maryland. i have worked in a variety of science policy roles focused on bio security, including being the science advisor for the w md commission and also's serving on committees like the deity advisor committee that was disbanded during the trump administration.

i have written a couple of books , one on bioterrorism and biosecurity and another on emerging biotechnologies and how that will change our world. host: what was the work on the threat reduction committee? guest: the committee was focused on the unconventional weapons which include biochemical and the potential for misuse. they provided advice to the secretary of defense and was managed by the defense reduction agency. -- defense threat reduction agency. we had a lot of reports that republic. it was a federal advisory committee. a lot of the people and work are

public. one of the things i did when i was on the committee as i led a group to examine the department of defense role during the 2014 ebola epidemic in west africa and a department of defense role in supporting the efforts to stop the transmission. that was one of the things that was a success of dod taken interest in and involved in laboratories around the world. host: al in tennessee, independent, you are up first. good morning. caller: the first question is, if these labs are so benign and innocuous and safe, my with the documents from the u.s. embassy -- why would the documents from

the u.s. embassy be taken down when it became apparent the us government was saying things that were not true, that they did not exist? why would we show the intent to conceal by taking down those documents? which i have up on my computer screen right now. guest: i don't know why things were taken down. i can say the russian line that there was something nefarious happening at those labs is completely ridiculous. they often have accused others of doing what they themselves are doing. that is a concern. there's nothing going on at those facilities except for public health research. host: gigi gronvall, here is a viewer that texts us to say the

weapons do not respect political boundaries. isn't this an attack against nato that requires an overwhelming military response? do the international agreements that numerous countries signed outline what happens if you use one of these weapons? guest: yes. it is different for chemical and biological. i will limit my remarks to those. for biological attacks, there are a couple of different mechanisms to investigate what happened and attribute who was the perpetrator. when it comes to both chemical or biological use, there is a health component too. people who are affected depending on what chemical or biological agent is, it could have other effects that need to be addressed.

i algae, as everyone knows, depending on what pathogen is used could cause a problem beyond borders of where it is being used. that is a big concern if a contagious agent were to be used. that would be a bigger public health problem to try to treat people or vaccinate people or do what can be done to limit the impact. host: does not exist, that type of biological attack that could be so contagious that it goes beyond the borders? guest: sure. viruses like what we are experiencing with covid is not a biological attack but is a good demonstration of how viruses spread and do not respect borders. that is true of other contagious diseases.

i don't want to borrow trouble and i don't want to make it seem like that is an inevitable thing , but yes, depending on what kind of biological agent, if one were to be used, that would be a concern. that is the reason i got into this business. the person who started the center i work for recently passed. he led the global eradication program for smallpox. he was concerned that when smallpox was eradicated it could be used as a biological weapon. in fact, that is what the soviets at that time were doing. host: what are some common types of biological and chemical weapons? guest: thankfully, biological weapons have not been used in

warfare except in world war ii. the japanese had a program. they did use those weapons against china. there has not been that record. some of us may recall in 2001 that anthrax was used by a terrorist in letter attacks that targeted media and political politicians. that is one example. anthrax is often used in hoaxes where people will say a letter contains anthrax, and it contains baby powder. but that is an example of a non-contagious pathogen. it is definitely not something you want to inhale, but it is not going to affect anybody else who is not inhaling it. as far as chemicals go, there is

a list of them that the chemical weapons convention prohibits. there's also the risk of industrial chemicals like chlorine being used as weapons. even though fentanyl can be considered a drug people can overdose with, it is also in a more potent form a worry for chemical weapons. host: let's go to james in connecticut, republican. caller: thank you very much fear guest -- for your guest. i would like to ask you in terms of biological weapons if you have been following up on the covid-19 origins and specifically the story that came out recently that they ran a supercomputer against known

coronaviruses and found within that a patented sequence of 19 letters of dna that was patented by moderna in 2013 when they were doing cancer research in oregon. these 19 letters of dna were patented as a medical discovery by moderna and published in a magazine. those dna sequences were designed to push chemotherapy drugs into the lungs. that is why they patented it. they have now found that exact sequence in the original samples of covid 19 -- covid-19 from wuhan, china, which seems to be the smoking gun that it was produced in a lab. i'm interested if you know anything about that story and have followed it yourself as a professional because i find many health professionals do not seem to be very interested in the true origins of the wuhan virus

that we call covid. i will take your answer now. thank you. guest: i have written about the origins of covid. let me just say that all of the evidence is on the side of it being from a natural event that came from the markets, the animal markets. there were many susceptible animals in the markets. all of the early cases were associated with, or more than half of the early cases, were associated with the markets. there was an actual virus found in the drains where the animals were butchered. it is a lot on the side of it being from, coming from a market, similar to how sars in 2003 emerged from a market. i know this is worth a longer explanation.

but just to say that we have a lot of work to do when it comes to making those kinds of markets more safe so this does not happen again and to limit the wildlife trade. it is not just china but other places in the world. this is a breeding ground for potential new diseases. it is a hard problem because it is a lot of money in the illegal wildlife trade. even just in china, the amount of money is more than the u.s. beef industry in a year. it is a hard problem with a lot of people making money off of it. we are going to keep being here with new pandemics until we take on some of these complicated issues. host: melvin, fort lauderdale, democratic caller. caller: good morning. the lady was talking about the

labs in ukraine. the biden administration when they were in office had people from the united states working in countries all around the world in these particular labs to get ahead of situations where they might have some type of case and the united states would be up to date on it when it came to dealing with it. the trump administration did with all of those particular people working in these countries. isn't that correct? it is nothing new. the trump administration did away with these particular labs in all these particular countries. that is one reason why covid came to united states and we did not have the upper hand. is that correct? guest: it is true that a lot of

labs including in china were no longer supported in the last few years. it is a tempting target for budget cuts. it is a shame because having people and support for laboratories around the world helps them meet their obligations to the world health organization so they are able to detect and report diseases much sooner and better than they would otherwise. it is our eyes and ears around the world. having those connections, being able to do safety training, and enable needed laboratory work to happen in a safer way gives us information we would not otherwise have. host: michigan, dave, your question or comment? caller: just a quick question. how serious would you rate this?

how serious would the guest speaker rate this on a scale of 1-10, the way certain american personalities, tv hosts, talk about it? and more side with the version the russians are trying to put out there. is it of a great security concern or risk? is it just to article colson -- tucker carlson running his mouth or is it just we can say whatever we want to? i would like to hear what she thinks.

thank you. guest: i think it is very serious. i think it is deplorable and awful that people like lynn greenwood and tucker carlson, the last couple of years, i've been mostly focused on covid like many people. tucker carlson, his diminishment of the effectiveness of vaccines , he had people on who claimed covid was a bioweapon when it was absolutely not. he repeatedly does these things that undermine people's faith in institutions trying to help them , that undermine the effectiveness of vaccines that could save people's lives.

there are so many people that have died since vaccines have been freely available in the u.s.. some of those people would not have been able to be saved. but the clear majority, it is because they were not vaccinated. i know it is very contentious what people believe, but those people did not want to die. i don't understand why people like tucker carlson try to make money off people's misery like that and to deliberately foment it. i think it is terrible that he is taking the russian line which is meant to create problems with our own biological research capabilities. i think it undermines our

security. i think it is bad. i wish he would stop. i wish people would stop listening to him. host: palm harbor, florida, steve, republican. caller: good morning. i have a comment for the doctor and a question or two. i also and a doctor -- i also am a doctor and write an editorial in "the wall street journal" from an epidemiologist to discuss all the research from the wuhan markets and they found zero animals that tested positive for covid-19. therefore, it would be highly unlikely it would have come from any animal source. they did not find viruses in any drains or any such thing. there were zero animals found with covid. additionally, they looked at hospital admissions in china in that region with respiratory diagnosis prior to the outbreak

and found zero patience who tested positive. you would expect to see some slow infection within the human population before it got to the pandemic levels. host: steve, what was the source of this information? caller: "the wall street journal." this was an editorial written by a very high level epidemiologist. i cannot recall his name. but you can fact check that all day long. i am telling you straight up that is exactly what i read. host: did you go to his sources? caller: did i research that? no, i did not. host: gigi gronvall? guest: back in the early 2000's, it was a bit different. the markets were not closed. there were cases occurring but

the animal markets were not closed. when investigators went to the markets, there were animals that were sick. this time, we have a lot of uncertainty that got dropped in the middle of this story because as soon cases seemed like they were being associated with the markets, the local authorities in china, in wuhan, shut the markets down and cleaned them out. there were no animals to test later on. that is why we don't have the same definitive answer that some people want. however, we have a lot of other evidence that points to the market over the lab, which there

is really nothing on that side of the equation. we are never going to have enough. you cannot rewind the videotape and go back and take the samples you wish you could have taken. but we do have quite a bit of other evidence as far as the cases associated with the market. the virus found in the drains, the susceptibility of the animals that were there. we have photographs of the raccoon dog which is probably where this came from, that they were present in the market in november of 2019. there's a lot of stuff. there is great work being done on this. of course, you will have people who don't believe it, who want more. but the majority of scientists think this came from the market and it is natural, and it will keep happening again and again because we are not addressing

the true causes. host: janus is in illinois, democratic caller. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. first-time caller. i am 83. i was a child in london during the second world war. we carried little gas masks all the time with us. we had our little boxes on our arm going to school and everything. what i wanted to ask gigi is i did not hear her mention anything about mustard gas, which is what the germans were dropping on england. i wonder if we are so worried about biological warfare if maybe we should provide, everybody should have a mask to carry with them. if you could explain a little bit about mustard gas, i don't

know if that was a biological weapon or just a gas. if you could answer my question, i would appreciate it. thank you very much. guest: thank you. mustard gas is a chemical weapon . one of the hallmarks of this is you need a tremendous quantity of it to use as a weapon. hopefully, there will be some morning of intelligence -- warning of intelligence if that is happening. biological weapons do not require the same amount of footprint. the kinds of masks that use -- you use for a biological weapon are the kind of masks people are doing in the u.s. now, high filtration n95 masks. the amount of protective

equipment and what is they are, i do not know what is being supplied to ukraine or if that is something part of the aid packages going to them. i hope we will know more in time to help. it could be that the work that the russians are doing now is all on the information plane, that they are trying to use disinformation to make people worried about these weapons and undermine, try to undermine u.s. credibility. we will have to wait and see. host: john, virginia, independent. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. there was a previous caller who mentioned moderna and their patents on some of the dna sequence discovered in the covid-19 virus.

i would like to know why ms. gronvall did not address that at all. guest: i did not -- i am not a patent lawyer, but i do know the vaccine was after the d's's were detected -- diseases were detected. it is an amazing effort that the viruses were sequenced and the information was able to be used to develop vaccines. there was no prior knowledge of covid. there was some prior knowledge of other coronaviruses. people have been worried about coronaviruses becoming a potential pandemic for some years. this is something we have been worried about my center for health security. the exact circumstances and

sequence was not known. that is why i did not comment on the moderna patent. host: rose is in illinois, republican. caller: good morning. i have a question if you know anything about nuremberg 1945 were all the countries got together and promised never to play frankenstein again like the germans did. i don't know if there was any outcomes on that where they would get punished or persecuted for doing such things. but we do have a frankenstein in our country called fauci. he has been approving drugs that have not been tested for many years. that includes the drugs for aids , coronavirus, and his own inventions like remdesivir. he spends $7 billion a year across the world putting labs in.

if you deny this, the military has given him $2 billion a year towards his budget. there is something really illegal going on in our own government that should be looked into by our congress and stop beef -- stopped before we harm anymore babies. host: do you know what she is referring to and do you have a response? guest: i am much younger then dr. fauci, but i have followed his career since he was treating aids patients before even hiv-aids was coined as a term. he has worked tirelessly to help people around the united states and to fund research that has enabled the vaccines that we have. i am sorry people have been so

misinformed. host: gigi gronvall, we appreciate the conversation with you. thank you for talking to our viewers. we are going to take a break. when we come back, we will return to the question we asked earlier. should the u.s. do more to aid ukraine? there are the lines on your screen. start dialing in. >> ♪ >> deep experience and intellect and intellectual record to the court. >> i am truly humbled by the extraordinary honor of this nomination, and i am especially grateful for the care that you have taken in discharging your constitutional duty and service of our democracy, with all that

is going on in the world today. >> to succeed the retiring justice on the supreme court. if confirmed, she will become the first african-american woman to serve on the nation's highest court. watch the confirmation hearing starting monday, march 21, live on c-span, c-span.org, or by downloading the free c-span now mobile video app. >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unbiased, word for word, if it happens here, here, or here, or

anywhere that matters, america is watching, on c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back for the next 30 minutes. your thoughts on whether the u.s. should do more to aid ukraine. many are calling on the administration to supply the air defense systems and polish jets that ukraine has asked for. ukrainian president says he needs more military systems, including a no-fly zone and more sanctions on russia. russia is turning to china for help militarily in its battle for ukraine. what, if anything do you think that the u.s. should do? a republican from ohio and a

democrat from minnesota were in poland, talking about this issue . he told that audience why the administration has rejected calls to send polish jets into ukraine. >> the u.s. rejected a deal that would help get polish fighter jets to ukraine, but do so through a military base. they were concerned it would be perceived as an escalation by the u.s., but zelensky is pleading for help. are you talking about another way to get ukraine these planes? or are you ruling it out completely?

>> the president listened to the advice of his military commanders, consulted his allies and determined that the risk -- it did not make sense. it was not something that he would authorize. what he did talk to president zelensky about was other capabilities that could achieve a similar purpose. we are looking at systems that could help take -- it could help with dealing with the threat coming from the russian side. we are working on that intensively. >> the anti-air systems -- i understand what you just said about the president deciding about this particular deal, how it was not going to work, but

are there others that you are working on? >> our focus right now is on anti-air systems and other forms of assistance. might now, we are not looking at the provision of the fighter jets in question. we are looking at other methods of getting the ukrainian defenders advanced capabilities to blunt the advance. host: the washington times that russians are asking for more help, pleading for urgent help. ukrainian officials pleaded to enforce a no-fly zone over the

country, to deprive russia of its airpower advantage. do you agree to that? do you agree that the u.s. should risk bond with what ukrainians are asking for? they announced 200 million in more military assistance to ukraine. you heard about them talking about the weaponry that they are sending there. a democratic color. is it enough? caller: no. you have the best. now, it is certainly not enough. ukrainian pilots and their crew could have gotten to poland and picked up the planes, and flown them back to ukraine. there are many who would have loved -- they have not been able

to get in for over a week. people are dying of dehydration. once vladimir putin takes over, he is already surrounding all of ukraine. this is done, and he is not stopping with ukraine. he is going to take the rest of those areas. they do not have proper equipment to take down russian planes. they have low level shoulder launchers. we are acting week. this starts with president trump and his kowtowing, being in love with putin, but at the same time, joe biden -- it is not

enough. one big thing is russia is bringing in fighters from the middle east. who knows who those people are, but they are people he did not want in his country. they are probably some pretty bad fighters. if they are terrorists, god help us all. those people need protection. president zelensky is powerful. we have a bunch of people who listen to nonsense and do not know how to research what is true and what is not. we push russia's propaganda for them. we need to stop this and get with reality. we are not doing enough. you not doing enough. thank you for c-span and especially what you do. host: let's hear from steve, a republican. your turn. caller: good morning.

i think that the greatest aid that we can give to ukraine is to get a peaceful and humanitarian ending to this conflict, as soon as possible. i am not a russian apologist, by any means. i am on the west side of this fight. we are the good guys and the russians are the bad guys. anyhow, our journalism, we are looking at this through a western perspective. to get to a peaceful resolution, i think we need to realize or find out why the russians are doing this. figuring out their attitudes towards this. there was a russian gymnast and he was wearing the z symbol. it was put on the russian ministry of defense website and it stands for victory.

it is their propaganda, but this is how they stand. there is symbolism with orange and black. back in 2010, they had a rise of what was called the immortal regiment. it was a grassroots movement in russia. they had a group and realized they are not seeing any of the world war ii veterans on victory day. day of victory, may 9. this grew into a movement in 2018. you had 700,000 people marching in moscow, waving old sss are -- ussr flags. also, the orange and black symbolism. the orange and black is from the order of st. george, which was a

medal that catherine the great came up with. we need to look at the russian nationalism. he watched tv -- they have been cutting it off, but they use propaganda. it is not fake news. interviewing russian people saying, we were just peaceful people. all of a sudden, the ukrainians came in, so we need to examine the russian viewpoint and why they are doing this, what their goals are to get to a peaceful resolution. poland is bearing the brunt of the refugees. i hope that they do not come to a breaking point. if the chance that poland could say, we are tired of dealing with you, we are tired of being

overrun by the germans -- if poland were to attack russia and send in these to end the russian violence, that would drag in nato come into the conflict. we have a lot of moving parts and we need to end this as peacefully as possible. host: the fourth round of talks are underway right now. you have 20 minutes before the un security council will hear from the foreign minister. he will be discussing with the councilmembers, the discussion on the ground there. that begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. keep your channel here and we will have live coverage of it. more, you can download our new video at and watch it right here

this morning. over on c-span two, we will hear from senator mark warner of the top democrat on the intelligence committee, talking about the possibility of a cyberattack from russia. irving in winter haven, florida, democratic probably. welcome to the conversation. >> good morning and thank you for having me here. in terms of what else we can do to help ukraine, it is just about any additional military equipment that can be provided that will not cross the line. i'm sure that they can come up with other things. not just through poland, but other neighboring nations.

ever since the soviet union lost the cold war, bottom up putin has been wanting to stick it to us. anyway she can. getting involved, i'm sure some people in the country are beholden to him. when we talk about spheres of influence, we basically tell other countries to stay away from this area. this is under our influence, our control. part of the sphere of influence is ukraine. i can understand it.

it is encroaching on our borders. i think he is trying to reintegrate what broke away when the soviet union became a republic. great strategy. we need to keep them under the sphere of influence. we can come out and condemn so much. we had to look at ourselves, look at our past and history. many times, we are reluctant to acknowledge these things, but it is true. host: let me ask you about a chemical or biological attack. did it cross the line with you,

if russia were to do that? caller: yes. that would cost -- cross the line. it takes things to a different level. that concerns me, but what i am saying is we need to try to resolve it in a sensible way. host: i want to show you what they said about the possibility of russia using a chemical or biological weapon and what would be the response? caller: i will not layout the exact consequences. i would just say that the

coordination is prepared to impose severe consequences. we have communicated that directly with the russians. we have prepared for that eventuality. part of the reason why we are so concerned is that when russia starts accusing other countries, it is a good tell that they might be on the cusp of doing it themselves. we are here to deny them the capacity to have a false flag operation, to take away their pretext and make the world understand that if chemical weapons used in ukraine, it is the russians that will abuse them. the response will be severe.

>> we want to communicate directly what they will be, but i do not want to sit in public and lay out every possible option available to the president, available to our allies, to respond. we would prefer to do it directly through channels that put us in the best position to respond, should they move forward with an attack. host: promising severe response from the u.s., if russia to reuse chemical or biological weapons. what should the u.s. do to provide more help ukraine? join the debate. i also want to let you know that laura hernandez, the correspondent for newsday is tweeting out that senator schumer and nancy pelosi said that the ukrainian president will address the u.s. congress virtually.

he plans to do so to the u.s. congress as well. we have coverage of that virtual appearance before the british parliament on our website this will be at 9:00 a.m. we will learn as the ukrainian president makes his address. caller: i believe they should put up a no-fly zone over ukraine and poland. the ukrainians have been asking for this and protesting peacefully about this.

it was an embarrassment when they asked if poland should accept immigrants. this is a very serious subject for our country and attempting to keep from having a third world war that we might be coming up against. my father was in world war ii and was shot down by the nazis. i'm very familiar with a lot of past history that has gone on. we do not need to risk -- to repeat this. we need to be more forceful. i feel that we are being very weak in showing our power. we are not even assisting our own country against inflation.

there are both sides to the coin, as i said. i know that people have given thousands and thousands of dollars to ukraine, but they need protection. we need to be forceful. i have a relative in the service and he cannot believe how weak our own forces have become, and that we need to be stronger. we need to listen to both parties and we need to respect one another and not include racism and try to defeat this vladimir putin, who has basically used his forces because he sees as as being weak. host: i'm going to get in some

more calls. more ukrainians have left. many of them are women and children. your turn. caller: what if trump were president right now? that would be unimaginable to deal with. i think that right now, you will see that he will be right up to the line of everything that is legal to do for ukraine, short of the treaty with russia. we do not want to get into that, but what else can we do? it is up to people around the world. [indiscernible]

do we just pretend that we are rogue and stealing the gents? i think we can take the gents over there without violating the treaty. just so happens that biden is president right now. host: republican, your thoughts. >> it is the best that we can give ukraine right now is to have a coalition. the human has passed some sort of resolution, but i do not believe it is binding. we have nato and they were already in for their own defense, but i really do think that this administration needs to get an international coalition, and it has not

happened yet. so thank you very much. have a good day, everybody. host: democratic caller. caller: we are not around the table when they are over there talking. this is the first time i have known the u.s. to be tightlipped about what they might do. if we do anything, it will give vladimir putin an excuse to escalate whatever he intends to do. this is russia and the u.s., and nato. in regards to sending folks in, i am a former military mom. do i want my son or daughter to go into the unknown? if so, how are we going to do that? we know that our military is down in numbers and it will take quite a few people to do something in that part of the country. host: philip, independent.

how do you respond to this question? should the u.s. do more to aid ukraine? caller: i think that america has already done enough. i think that joe biden has crossed the line and has already put america over the line, as far as a threat to russia, by putting the restrictions on the people around vladimir putin, freezing their bank accounts and stuff like that, i think that has already agitated then, so now they have nothing to lose, aside from do what they wanted to do, to start with. it will make them more aggressive. maybe more than they were to start with.

host: good morning. caller: thank you. mr. biden is doing a very elegant high wire. all this negativity is going to shake the wire and we will be in world war iii. what we can do right now is be quiet. listen and maybe it would be a good thing to pray. thank you very much for letting me express my thoughts. host: thank you for calling in. democratic caller. caller: good morning, greta. vladimir putin has obviously violated the treaty. ukraine was a buffer between

russia and the rest of nato. he has violated the treaty and we should enforce a no-fly zone. we should start taking down his air force. it would definitely change the whole war. it should be considered. host: what do you think of a nato-led troops on the ground in western ukraine? how do you think the russian president would view that? caller: he invaded ukraine and violated his own treaty. his war, that is what it is. i would be in favor of that. they have been there. it will lead to his downfall,

eventually. host: welcome. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am -- we should send more planes. in this situation, we had to trust our government officials. they are reviewing information that we are not privy to. whatever support is sent or not sent is being made on a decision of a higher level than we are aware of. in the situation, putting in a no-fly zone would be seen as an escalation. there are all these people talking about how we do not want world war iii, and i agree. world war iii would be pretty detrimental, but putting in a

no-fly zone would definitely be would be very harmful to the ukrainian people. i think what we should evaluate is further support and organizations that are going to be able to more meaningfully support the ukrainian citizens and the refugee effort all over the world. these are now over 2 million pistol -- misplaced people, and we are not even thinking about what life is like for a refugee in country that may not be friendly to a refugee. host: democratic caller. what are your thoughts on this? caller: i think that we need bold leadership to end the conflict, but i do not think that means endless weapons into ukraine. the u.s. needs to articulate for

sanctions on russia and exercising diplomacy. diplomacy has to be at the center of the approach. it has to include compromise. the alternative to a deal -- i think the u.s. is in a pure punishment regime change right now and we need to turn into a more balanced approach that includes incentives. zelensky says he wants to engage in direct negotiation and i agree with that. if people do not agree with that, they have to think hard about what the alternative is. the world cannot afford a nuclear miscalculation. i understand compromise and diplomacy is hard, but the alternative is just hard. it is time for the u.s. to do

its part to negotiate in the ukraine and russian war. he probably saw the headlines about asking for aid from china. breaking news, israel announces that it will comply with the international sanctions against russia and the foreign minister said israel will not be used as a means to bypass sanctions on russia. let's go to robert. good morning. good morning. it has been about a year since i got on the program, and he were there. you are aging very well. i think that the people in other countries, our allies should be voicing their opinions a lot more. they just did not seem to be stepping up. i do not think that the u.s. should be footing the bill for

everything. i think vladimir putin will keep on and he is not going to stop with ukraine. if we keep backing down, he will keep coming forward. that is my opinion. we appreciate your opinion. thank you for being part of the conversation. we will bring you to new york where the security council is preparing to hear from the foreign minister. live coverage, here on c-span. [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]

[background chatter]