anything for another month. but we have to demonstrate, the reason i asked for the meeting, we have to stay elite, totally, thoroughly united. thank you. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the response to russia's invasion of ukraine. ringing you the latest from the president, the pentagon, the state department as well as congress. we have international perspectives from the united nations and stationed -- statements from foreign leaders on the c-span networks, the c-span now free mobile app and it c-span/ukraine. our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. weeks? >> we are joined once again by

jamil jaffer, the founder of the institute and senior vice president at iron nets cybersecurity. i want to start with the cyber side first. can you assess the state that the cyber battlefield right now -- have we seen russia change its cyber strategy over the past four weeks as we have seen it change its groundwork strategy here? aggressive on that front, jamil jaffer: russia has been active in cyberspace. they have deployed hyper-viruses. they've been using them like they've used them in the past in ukraine and other parts of eastern europe. these are designed to go into systems and delete large amounts of data. we have seen it three or four instances of those already. the concern, i think, is that the russians will get increasingly more aggressive on that front, coming after kregel infrastructure in ukraine but also potentially coming after the u.s.ion going on within the government and with the public and private sectors about the need to be

prep >> you seen the president warn about a cyber attack in the context of this conflict. he warned the private sector to be on guard. the security agency at dhs has been on top of this for a while. they need to partner with the government. they need to get their shields up to get defended and protected. and so, there is an active conversation going on within the government, with the public in the private sector about the need to be prepared for russia's upscaling of the war in ukraine, but here in the u.s. also. it is our private industry in an effort to pressure us and ukrainians into concessions and to pressure us to stop supporting ukrainians. host: that warning from the white house coming on monday from both the president and the white house briefing room from white house deputy national security advisor and newberger. and here is about a minute of her statement from monday. >> there is no evidence of any specific cyberattack that we are anticipating. there are preparatory activities

that we are seeing and that is what we are sharing in a context with companies that we thought might be affected. and we are lifting of a broader awareness here in this morning. >> when you say are called action, many who you set up my believe that something is imminent. is it? and: so first a call to action is because there are several attacks that occur every day. hundreds of millions of dollars were paid and ransoms by u.s. companies just last year against criminal activity happening in the u.s. today. every single day, there should be a call to action. we are using the opportunity of this of all things threat intelligence involving potential cyber attacks against critical infrastructure to reiterate those with additional focus, specifically to critical infrastructure owners and operators to say you have the responsibility to take these steps to protect critical services americans rely on. host: ann newberger at the white

house. what sectors worry you the most right now? jamil jaffer well look, what you heard her say there which is interesting is on the occasion of specific attacks, you see preparatory activities. what does that mean? what that means is the russians are starting to put in place capabilities to wear if they want to attack, to take action. that means they are getting access to systems to what we've seen them doing the past and this indicates what industries they might be interested in our critical industries in the u.s.. the oil and gas sector, the banking sector and the like. the defense sector of the government. russia has to understand that crossing that line, going after american industry and a big way, particularly critical sectors, could be crossing the line with the u.s. feeling the need to response. they will act carefully. at the same time, there's a lot that these russians can do. they can use proxies like they often do. they can use ransomware attack's and criminal hacker groups to make it look like it's designed for money, when in fact it's designed to go after national objectives. so i think that the thing to do for industry is to be prepared to respond. but also, the government, and at

the podium on monday said it look, the industry has a responsibility. the reality is that american industry cannot possibly protect itself standing alone against a massive attack by the russian government. they would have hundreds of thousands of soldiers, cyber deployed folks working at this stuff, they had tons of money spent. no private company can spend their way out of this problem. it's got to be companies working together with one another. and companies working together with the government in the context of a larger conflict for the government is involved. the government has there is possibility to take action with the private sector as they would in the case of a russian bomber coming over the horizon. there is no reason why in the cyber context it should be any different. and so the government got to work together in this space to make this thing effective and to defend ourselves in the cyber domain. host: jamil jaffer with us for the next half an hour. phone lines if you want to join with us. democrats, republicans, and dependent -- independents.

cyber experts are calling this the state of the battlefield. can you talk about the role that nonstate actors are playing here when it comes to responding to russia? groups hacking groups, this group anonymous and others, the target that russia has become for these groups. jamil jaffer: it's interesting. in a lot of ways, you see more nonstate actors getting more active against the russians and you see state actors. ukrainians are doing a roach on the battlefield, pushing back russian forces around kyiv. -- doing a heroic job on the battlefield. stalling the russian attack on the ground. see a lot of activists, groups like anonymous, like the u.s. government has had challenges with going up against the russians. you see pro-ukrainian freedom groups going up against the russians also in the cyber domain. there is a lot going on in this space but a lot of it tends to be of the messaging variety. nonetheless, it engages the battle in this domain, so you

see this playing out and what is particularly interesting is you do not really see the governments going toe to toe other than what we know about russian attacks against ukraine directly. we note ukrainian defensive efforts of the potential for russian threat against the u.s. and allies. more to, i think in the cyber domain in particular because if vladimir putin wants to step his campaign up, he is likely to do two things. one, more aggressively go after civilians which he has already done and get more aggressive in the cyber domain. there's been a lot of talk about chemical and biological weapons and nuclear weapons. i think it's hard to see him using nuclear weapons because i think he realizes the consequences would be catastrophic. chemical and biological, also highly problematic. it would be very difficult for the u.s. and europe to not respond. it does not mean he won't use them, but it is less likely. cyber and attacks on civilians like the kind you see him ramping up and siege tactics are the way this is more likely to go which is bad for ukrainians because it's likely to get worse before it gets better. host: staying on cyber, what is been the most interesting or successful cyber attack either

against russia or ukraine? or other nations in this conflict? jamil jaffer: in this conflict there's been a lot of small-scale cyber attacks by the russians against ukrainians. ukrainians like we were just talking about their freedom groups pushing back online. all of a sudden, in a nuisance way. what eyes interesting is the russians could get more aggressive in a big way. if you remember the attack designed to look like ransomware. in fact, it was viper malware into the ukrainian government in 2017. including three to five hundred million dollars of damages. western companies, not deterrence of attacks. the main take away there is the russians can get very aggressive against ukraine. they can also cause significant damage outside of ukraine, either intentionally or collaterally or damage if they choose to do so. there is recent evidence just for five years back in 2017 of this happening with that attack.

host: let's take some calls. this is steven in wyndham connecticut. independent trade good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to expand on cyber and the second phase of the war. i read a paper over this fall about ba bdo. explanation area advanced base operations. it was adjusted -- a justification for wife marines were dropping missiles. you see those columns and burnt out tanks, i think they were right on the ball. and i think the management of the war it looks like the alamo. i mean, our management from our side -- it looks like national security is doing it. i think we need to step up the management. for the second phase of this work. and personally, me, i would train 50,000 or five divisions of ukrainians. there is a ton of videos coming

up where there's like amateurs and then there's really highly professional crews and its completeness. what can we do to up our game on the second phase? jamil jaffer: well, you raise a good point and john, i thing with steve is pointing out is the u.s. supply of weapons to our allies, we done training early on to but there's a lot more to be hundred ukraine has done a heroic job in pushing back but at the end of the day, if the russians want to triple down on this, they have longer staying power. they have a lot of forces, they have a lot more weaponry. they can stay, stick and eventually when this conflict. so we got to enable the europeans to do a lot more. a lot more weaponry, a lot more training. i think steven is exactly right, but there is also a lot of things to be able to talk about. potential need or use of a no-fly zone. i tend to be supportive of that. people are concerned that if you institute a no-fly zone, it will

be a direct conflict with the russians. but the fact of the matter is that the russians do not want a war with the united states as much as we as we know what a war with them. but the other piece of this is they can stick it in and they can stand for a lot longer. they can make this very painful. we've already seen casualties over 2000, with nearly a thousand civilians killed. 3.5 million refugees outside the country, 10 million displaced inside the country. this is likely to get worse before it gets better. we got to force vladimir putin to the table. he has no incentive right now to negotiate a u.s. no-fly zone, supported by allies can help with that. can it get us into a war with russians? that is a potential but the reality is this war is expanded and the one thing that vladimir putin response to his force. we have not heard him do that yet. he is getting more aggressive. we've got to be able to say enough is enough. host: lancaster, california. this is glenn. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about when it the invasion first happened

in crimea. right before that, we sent a bunch of money, plant loads in the dark to iran and that helped fund crimea because they bought weapons from russia. and now, we are in this again. biden is back in there again. the corrupt, nonrepresentative -- he does not even take a question from our press that's right in bed with him. there is another thing. mr. biden is over there pushing the green deal. he does not even really care about the ukrainian people. he doesn't care about the american people. he is enriching himself through the green new deal and all of his friends. host: you bring a president biden strip overseas. jamil jaffer, with president biden in brussels, heads of state meeting right now. he is going to be addressing g7 leaders in about an hour's time.

there is the photo of the arrival with the various leaders. that is from early this morning and u.s. time. that was about 9 a.m. this morning in brussels time, meetings throughout the day, what does president biden need to do over the course of these meetings, do you think? jamil jaffer: i think glenn raises an important point, which is that when crimea happened back in 2013, 2014, the u.s.'s response was largely what it is today. it was sanctions and that was not effective. it did not deter vladimir putin from going to crimea. it has not deterred him from keeping crimea and the same is true here. we talked about economic sanctions. punishing economic sanctions. we have gone further i think that anyone expected in terms of imposing sanctions are doing it consistent with our allies are getting everybody in the world to join us in that. i think the biden administration should get credit for that. that being said, it did not do the job. it did not deter vladimir putin from going in. it has not deterred them from continuing the war. it has not deter him from killing hundreds and now thousands of civilians.

and so, the question becomes, what more do we need to do to would bring this war to a close of what we're are doing today is not effective? the challenges that we begun pouring to weapons of this conflict over not willing to do what it would take dreams to a rapid close which is to engage militarily. the president has warned vladimir putin might use chemical weapons, but he has not said what we will do. we know that jake sullivan talked to the national security advisor of russia. it is up in the air what consequences will be laid out. at the end of the day, glenn is right. for deterrence to work, we got to savor the consequences are going to be, you got to be credible. it got to believe you'll impose the consequences and when the line is crossed, you got to oppose them. we are not there to show what our lines are, what were going to do and how far were going to go and be credible toward stopping what is happening. as a result, is no supplies -- surprise, vladimir putin continues to push the envelope in ukraine. host: to that point and this paragraph from the story today in the washington post about the nato meetings happening, some

nato policymakers in europe worried that there has been too much public messaging about what the alliance will not do. and will not send its troops to ukraine it, nor for the moment, send fighter jets for which they have been complaining. the unwise decision to keep saying what we will not do. jamil jaffer: i think that's exactly right. it's interesting to see nato allies actually pressuring us to do more. in a lot of ways, people were very critical of president obama for instituting a redline in syria when it came to chemical weapons even more criminal, when that redline was crossed it was not enforced. it caused us to lose a tremendous amount of credibility worldwide. we set these red lines in president biden has been says it -- hesitant to set a redline. he's done the exact opposite thing, which effectively works the same thing by setting a redline thing were not going to put troops into ukraine, meaning that the russians have free reign to do whatever they want in ukraine. that is not a good message either. i think that that is what our nato allies are responding to put that is upon a mental challenge here in a lot of ways.

you set a redline, if you cross this, we will do this. but you have to do it pretty steady redline, will never going, they need to do almost anything. neither is a good scenario and yet here we are. the problem is the russians are actually taking advantage of that concession. host: to new hampshire, this is cutler, democrat. good morning. caller: yes, hello. if you weeks ago, you had a lady from the ukrainian parliament on and she requested planes. and i don't understand why we have not made them available. full and offered its planes and the administration declined that. you had a lady on, belinda herrick, who was very knowledgeable about the situation over there. and she had the feeling that the administration is afraid of vladimir putin. the other thing is now the president is talking about the

use of chemical warfare. well, that is a fear tactic i believe. and there is nothing to fear but fear itself. i mean, this is not a war, this is not a conflict, this is genocide. armies fight armies. nobody said that. armies fight armies, not civilians. so, this man has to be stopped. host: jamil jaffer. jamil jaffer your caller makes three good points. the: first one about these fighters the ukrainians want, polish people have, they're willing to give them to ukrainian spirit they want us to be part of that could we have said no and the biden administration is laid out two reasons why. one is that they will not make a big difference in the conflict and number two, that it might raise the pressure on the u.s. supplying them. may suggest of the u.s. is more engaged in the conflict than we want to be.

of course the problem is we are supplying other weapons. the russians know that were in the spy. the b-29s -- the may 29, if the ukrainians believe they could have an impact, which they clearly do, it seems hard seems strange to say at the 29th one help. if they want them, we should admit that your caller is right and it's an odd situation for the demonstration to say that the bridge too far. i think in a lot of ways, it is probably the same with chemical weapons the russians are testing out to see if we cross in ukraine, what will be u.s. do? we made it clear we wouldn't do anything, the cross ukraine. we say we might use chemical weapons, the uss we will respond but were not saying how, which the russians, vladimir putin again being a desperate and former kgb officer, he responds to power. he sees the usa were not sure were going to do, he thinks he can do anything so he's more likely used chemical weapons. in a lot of ways our inability to be clear and the say we will not accept this and we will

engage militarily is causing the war to get worse toward civilians and as your caller points out, wars are fought between militaries, not civilians, but her lack of clarity. we will respond if you use chemical weapons, and his lack of belief that we will actually do it, even if we set those red lines, is i think what causes the war to get worse not better. and that is a real challenge. host: on killing civilians, this headline from the wall street journal. the u.s. formally accusing russia of war crimes in ukraine. here is a portion of the announcement from yesterday on the state department. >> today, secretary blinken issued a statement announcing that based on information that is currently available, the u.s. government assesses that russia's forces are committing war crimes in ukraine. i wanted to provide you with some additional information underlying this assessment. we have all seen really horrific images and accounts from the

insensitive and unrelenting attacks on civilians and civilian sites being conducted by russian forces in ukraine. there have been numerous credible reports of hospitals, schools, theaters, etc. being intentionally attacked, as well as indiscriminate attacks. russia's forces have destroyed apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, other elements of the critical civilian in the structure. we have been shocked by images of russian forces and strikes hitting civilian sites in marriott pope, including a maternity hospital, resuming the hospital -- art school. united nations and other credible observers have confirmed hundreds of civilian deaths and we believe that the exact civilian death toll be in the thousands. last week, secretary ligon expressed his view that some of russians reported attacks -- secretary blinken. he of the size to the department of state and other u.s. departments -- he emphasized to

the department of state and other u.s. deferments will be in the law around these reports. the assessment has concluded with a careful review of currently available information, both public and from intelligence sources. this review underpins the assessment that the secretary announced today that russian forces are indeed committing war crimes in you rain. host: that from the state farm yesterday. jamil jaffer: i think the biden administration is correct. i think they have said what was obvious to all of us which is that the russians are attacking civilians and significant others. they're doing it significantly to break the will of the ukrainian people and that by definition is a war crime. vladimir putin and his government or were common also the question becomes what are we going to do about them? are we going to intervene like in bosnia when we determine that they were a war criminal. are we going to engage and protect civilians? or are we going to say he's a war criminal, it's terrible, and the fighting continues. and that is a real challenge for

the administration is what we do about it now. and that is going to be a question our nato allies and administration are going to have to talk about at the upcoming summit at the g7. host: pawtucket, rhode island, this is brenda, independent. good morning. caller: hi i'm just taking about what i heard reported, that vladimir putin has two people that he is associating with closely. one is a topline physicist and secondly a biblical mysticism. and in his talk and his action, maybe what is in vladimir putin's head is more of a spiritual war, rather than material war. if so, if you follow the logic of newtonian life, how he was, knowing he had a majority of his research and spiritual mysticism , but with a topline physicist. host: tough to get into vladimir putin's head, but do you want to take a crack at it? jamil jaffer: i think brenda

raises a question of what is going on with vladimir putin? why is he in this conflict the way he is? why is he so invested? i think renda is right on vladimir putin's psyche, his belief that russia is no longer where it needs to be. it's no longer as powerful as it was when the soviet union was in existence. he wants to gain back at ability. we'd seen him get more aggressive in syria. we saw over the past two years. we seen him invade ukraine for the second time. we have seen him so weapons to countries, nato countries like turkey. vladimir putin is trying to reestablish russia's role in the world and that is a very much pride mission. it's why at least right now, we see the russian people, while they are clearly concerned that they've lost tens of thousands of soldiers in the ukrainian conflict, they are still supporting back home and parties controlling messaging. so the question becomes how do we change vladimir putin's calculus in his head. in my mind, that includes engaging the russians directly and making clear that they're going to lose a lot more forces and it's going to be a lot more

costly than i thought if they do not bring this thing to a close sooner rather than later. host: fredericksburg virginia, sam, republican. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i've got two questions for your guests and a comments. my comment is where in the united states constitution does it say that the president can unilaterally declare war and send men and women to war? i hope you will let your guests answer the question. my second question is how many of his kids is he willing to send to go and fight? because as far as i know, congress is the one that declares war. so if he really wanted the united states to go into this war with russia, i think he needs to focus his attention on congress and not president biden and his administration. they are doing their best. and your guest, i don't think he

had intelligence on what is actually going on. host: we will let jamil jaffer respond. jamil jaffer: sam raises a great point. congress declares war. we have course have not declared war since world war ii. but congress has authorized use of military force in a number of conflicts, including the war on terrorism, including the to a rock or's and the like. it is congress's role to declare war and broad use of military force. at the same time, the constitution provides the president as commander of the armed forces. presidents including this one and everyone before him have taken the view that that allows the president to deploy u.s. forces overseas, including in a conflict for at least some amount of time before congress needs to act. often congress will act by providing funding rather than authorizing the conflict directly and there is tension here. when i served as the chief counsel of the senate foreign relations committee, we debated and worked with the obama administration on giving them

authority to go into the conflict in syria. ultimately, the president said he did not need that authority because he made a deal with the russians to bring chemical weapons out of syria. they are caller is right. congress has a role to play and with sanctions, if we get any conflict, it is could go. i think her color is red. if congress and the president come together, my view is now is the time for american leadership. now is the time for the president to get engaged, congress to get engage and say enough is enough vladimir putin good we do not want a war with you could we will come in and was a no-fly zone. we will not touch a russian aircraft until you start flying or laying of our jets and that we have a problem. host: you mentioned work on the senate foreign relations committee and as we wind down can you explain your efforts when it comes to guantanamo bay detainees? jamil jaffer: sure. the senate foreign relations committee is responsible for the house -- working with the government to figure out what the president needs in terms of foreign affairs and the like,

but also to authorize conflict. when i was at the committee, one of the things we live -- looked at was the situation with detainees. the just chari committee work on that too. just the judiciary committee. the challenge becomes what do you do with them. do you prosecute them? some are eligible and i want to play a minute and a half about the bait and come back to you. there are 39 guantanamo detainees remaining. the annual budget is 540 million dollars per year for guantanamo, which means each detainee is being held at the expense of $12 -- $12 million or $13 million per year. if they would be incarcerated in florence, colorado, super max, the amount would be dramatically less. since 9/11, one thousand convicted in the united states on terrorism charges. since 20 oh nine, with the beginning of the obama

administration, the recidivism rate of detainees released is 5%. >> according to the director of national intelligence, it is 31%. you have to talk about what i said and i will respond to what you said. if we close gitmo and move them to colorado, do you support indefinite detention for the detainees? >> given the fact -- >> the answer is no. >> the 31% you referred to goes back to the year 2003. >> what doesn't matter when it goes back to? we had people and they started killing people. if you're one of the people killed in 2005, does it matter? i am suggesting it fails miserably and advocates to change the system like she was in was advocating, would destroy our ability to protect this country. we are at war, not fighting a crime. this is not a passage of time

event. i hope they all die in jail if they are going to go back and kill americans. it will not bother me one bit if 39 die in prison, a better outcome than letting them go and if it costs $500 million to put them in jail, keep them in jail. look at the freaking afghan government made up of former detainees and gitmo. this thing by the left about the war h working -- ain't working. >> heated debate between the senators about what to do about the detainees in guantanamo bay playing out in the context of a hearing on judge ketanji brown jackson's nominations to the supreme court. the reason it came up during that hearing is during her time as a public defender and later in private practice, she represented a number of these detainees, as have many law firms. this is an ongoing debate. i did a hearing before the same committee on the same issues and

the question is i think everyone agrees the war on terror continues and they want daca -- to attack americans and our eye lies -- allies. is a cost-effective? is there elsewhere to hold them? what happens if? they are brought to the u.s.? ? how long do we detain them if we do not prosecute them all? if we release them, whether it is 5% or 31%, some return to fight or leadership. that is a problem for the american people and our national security. how do you weigh those things? there is ongoing debate in the senate and amongst members of congress and judge jackson is caught in the middle of that with her prior representation of detainees. >> no stranger to this program, the founder of george mason university law national security institute. national security -- nationalse curity.gmu.edu. we will talk to again down the road. thanks.

[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] >> every day, we take your calls on the news of the day and discuss policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning, supreme court author discusses ketanji brown jackson's confirmation hearing, then american public health associations dr. benjamin talks about the u.s. covid-19 response. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern friday morning on c-span or on c-span now, our free mobile app. join the discussion with your phone call, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. ♪ >> ohio republicans participated in the debate in cleveland for the parties nomination for a u.s. senate election in november. the candidates are trying to replace rob portman, retiring senator, with a primary scheduled for may for the

republican party. watch the debate friday at 8:00 eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or coverage on c-span now, our free app. if confirmed, ketanji brown jackson would become the first african-american woman to sit on the supreme court. the senate judiciary committee heard from the nominees this week. join us saturday for select portions of the hearing, including questions regarding her record as a public defender, federal judge, and member of the u.s. sentencing commission. watch starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, for using our free, video app, c-span now. the ranking members of the house foreign affairs and intelligence committee talked about russia's invasion of ukraine and other international conflicts during a briefing from the house republican retreat in florida.