>>he former u.s. ambassador to russia talks aut politics and vladimir putin's power and influence following th rebellion. that is on washingto post at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now our mobile video out, or online at c-span.org. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling nonfiction authors in influential interviewers on the afterwards podcast. on q&a, hear conversations with authors who are making things happen. these are conversations that feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. at the about books podcast, it takes you behind the scenes in the industry, updates, and

bestseller lists. find our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now cap -- app wherever you get your podcasts, or on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. >> earlier today, president biden highlighted investments in adventuring as part of his economic plan during a visit to west columbia, south carolina. watch tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span or c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. illiam pomerantz, the director of the kennedy institute as far as the conflict in russia. good morning at thanks for joining us. a little about the institute and the perspective it brings when it talks about these issues. guest: the perspective is a deep understanding of russia, ukraine and the post-soviet space. the objective of the institute

within the wilson center is to promote understanding of what is now a very difficult and complicated region. it is always changing. host: what is the most misunderstood thing about the conflict going on? guest: the most misunderstood thing about the conflict is russia's imperial ambition, that russia has reasserted its imperial goals to the extent that this is a mission by vladimir putin to attach territories to the russian federation whether it h been in crimea or other parts of the former soviet union or in ukraine. what is misunderstood is that this is an imperial goal for the russian federation they think not only has the united states understood that but the europeans of understood that and they know well about the dangers

of empire. host: is it just them gaining real estate? guest: not just that but also gaining control over the ukrainians and the narrative of ukrainian history that somehow ukraine is not a nation and it's a part of the russian empire. it has been a part of russia for centuries. i think vladimir putin has gone after the notion of an independent ukraine. on several occasions, he has looked at maps of the 18th and 19th century and exclaimed that there is no ukraine and therefore, ukraine really doesn't exist. i think the focus of putin and his goals in ukraine and this war is to dismember ukraine as a man -- as a nation. host: because the war has been going on as long as it has, did -- it is prudent strengthened or weakened in the continued effort? guest: it is up in the air.

i think putin has decided he is in this for the long-term. as is ukraine and this has become a war of patrician. there -- no one has the upper hand including the ukrainians who have obviously engaged in a counteroffensive since june. i think putin is really focused on victory as is ukraine and i don't think there is any sort of middle ground as of right now. to resolve this crisis. host: how would you assess the counteroffensive? guest: it's going slower than people expected i think. i think that was because of expectations that the previous attack on ukraine against russia were successful. they were successful quickly. the russians have been able to read worse its troops in

ukraine. it has been able to lay out mines which makes it difficult for ukraine to attack. the expectation of a quick victory for ukraine is not been realized. i think that was because of the expectations the ukrainian army placed in the aftermath of the war. host: our guest is with us until 10:00 a.m. and if you want to ask him questions, you can call into these lines. you can text us as well at (202) 748-8003. what's been the strength of the ukrainians keeping up? guest: the ukrainian army is over performed and they thought when putin invaded ukraine that he would be able to essentially

wipe at ukraine in a couple of weeks. that was his expectation. it clearly has not happened. the ukrainian army has been very valued in terms of fighting the russians and there was no real quick victory for the russians. therefore, the fact that the conflict is on going has been an important stage of ukraine and the founding of the ukrainian state. there is no better movement to create a national campaign. i think ukraine has responded by really creating much more of a multicultural nation that is able to withstand this conflict. host: aside from the manpower, what about the supplies needed to conduct such a campaign and

talk about nato and the united states. guest: united states and nato have been supplying ukraine and increasingly giving weapons, tanks, artillery, etc. i think the ukrainians army has been well-equipped going into this counteroffensive. united states and europe have basically decided to support ukraine from a military standpoint. whether that ultimately leads to nato membership for ukraine is an open question. there have been signs that nato is open to a potential ukrainian membership but there are a host of bureaucratic use that have to be resolved before that should happen. host: do you think that should happen? guest: in light of the atrocities that have been committed by russia against ukraine, in light of the

vulnerability of you rain and in light of the need to defend ukrainian statehood, i think ukraine is on the path not only do need membership it also to membership of the. host: there is a story in the wall street journal about the possibility of long-range missiles being sent by the united states to you rain. if that comes out, what do you think of that as a strategy? guest: anything that strengthens ukraine at this point is a positive. i'm sure united states and the u.s. allies are concerned as to how the ukrainians use these weapons. i think in light of all the human rights abuses and aggression than ukraine, i think defending ukraine is a -- an excellent strategy. you say this is something you

can agree with? why so? guest: i think ukraine is under attack in terms of being able to defend itself as a sovereignty, i think ukraine has to be given the military equipment on the capability to defend ukraine. host: william pomerantz here for this conversation. david, independent line. thanks for calling, go ahead. caller: good morning. there's a few points i want to touch on. there is the imperialism question. i would like to know how many military bases the u.s. has in combination with nato around the world. we are adding them around china now. the excursions we been on over the past 20 years in the middle east, afghanistan, iraq, libya,

yemen, our involvement is pretty wide across the world. i don't really know how we are two different as it relates to materialism from russia. what do you see as the endgame here? ukraine will not win this war and they will not get their territory back. it's an attritional war and russia has endless resources. china would never allow the geopolitical forces to turn in favor of nato and the eu. third, i just need to know and it might be more academic but what is a nation at the end of the day? it's a body of people that really can't support themselves financially and economically and fight their own wars or is a nation one we have to prop up on a continual basis? when does it stop? host: you put a lot out for our

guest but thank you. guest: that's a lot of questions. i don't think the u.s. is an imperial power. it has engaged in various sorts of actions around the world but they haven't really engaged in what was -- and what russia was doing and that's annexing territory and making it a part of their country. that's one of the important differences between what is going on in russia and ukraine and what has been a strategy of 20 plus years of foreign engagement. whether russia has the resources to finish this war is really a question. i think the sanctions have had an impact on the russian economy. i think there is a question of whether russia has enough troops to actually win this war. i think the proghozian situation

has shown that the russian people are not actively in gauged and supportive of this military operation. country, much larger country but in light of what the dish what ukraine has done the victories they have had during this war, i don't think it is a given that russia simply will overwhelm ukraine. what is the final solution and outcome is still anyone's game. the last question was what is a nation? i think a nation is an entity that basically unites a geographic region. it does so through democracy, civil society, through a common language, religion, etc. in all of the categories of

whether ukraine is a nation, whether it has a geographic location is clearly a dispute of 300 plus years. the notion of ukrainian nation is not in question. host: let's hear from joe in new jersey, republican line. caller: how are you? i think all the geniuses in that city where you guys are, the think tanks, you think it's 1948 and is the marshall plan all over again. this country is not the same country in the 1940's and 50's after world war ii that we can just continue to give countries money. we have no money. we are printing money to fight a war -- host: i apologize but go ahead

with your comment. caller: hello, yes. can you hear me now? host: yes, you are on. caller: the people in that city where you are in washington with all these think tanks, they think it's 1948 and it's the marshall plan all over again with president truman. we are not the same country. we are printing money we don't have, we don't make anything, we are not the strongest country in the world anymore and we are printing money to defend a country which i want to help but we have no money to help ourselves. one thing i didn't hear this man say was peace. i'm born and raised in new york city and if we can get trump back in there, he's the only guy talking about peace. host: that's joe in new jersey. guest: whether it's 1948, i think it's important to

understand that the russian invasion has upset everything that came after the end of the cold war. and the attempt to have a global rules-based order and to integrate russia into that is based order, what is the objective after the end of the cold war? i think there is an understanding that this is really a turning point, that the european unions, the question of sovereignty and internal borders are all up for grabs an upper question in light of this war. i think that's why this war has been so important as to why the united states has responded so aggressively to defend ukraine. host: you mentioned mr. prigo zhian and there is a report that the belarusian president says he's back in russia and if

that's the case, what's the significance? guest: for mr. lukashenko, he doesn't have to deal with the mercenary at his borders and he has handed that back up to mr. putin. mr. putin will have to deal with the question of whether mr. pri ghozian's troops can be incorporated into the russian army and what is the penalty for a mutiny against the russian federation. the fact that mr. lukashenko has said mr. proghozian is not in belarus means putin will have to deal with the whole aftermath of the proghozian affair. host: what did that reveal? guest: the most important thing it revealed is mr. prighozian was able to say things about the russian military, the attack on

crane, about the russian commanders that no one else in russia was able to say. indeed, if anyone else had said this, there are no laws in russia that would enable the russian federation to prosecute these people for up to 10-15-20 years. the importance of the per goshen incident -- of the prighozian incident is it allowed a russian and gave him a platform to basically criticize putin's invasion of ukraine. i think putin has responded by dismissing prighozian, whether he decides to change his mind and prosecute prighozian is an open question i think. i think the important part of the prighozian affair was that prighozian actually connected with this segment of the russian

population that is concerned about how the war is going in the origins of the war. host: does it foster other people to do the same or is there nobody in that position? guest: there is nobody in that position today. prighozian was unique in the sense he had access to vladimir putin and the media. he was perceived at least as part of the system. his support was for mr. putin. no one else has that opportunity. again, the russian federation has made sure that any sort of dissident or opposition to the russian federation is washed. many people who were in the opposition have basically decided to flee russia and are in a duress for that -- in a deep diaspora in europe.

there is not an opportunity to confront putin unless the military situation where the economic situation ghost significantly south. host: democrats line, william is next. caller: yes, good morning. i've got one question. i don't understand why the country in europe are not helping ukraine. why are they not putting boots on the ground and helping them bite? you mentioned the horrible things that has been done and they are hiding behind article five. i just don't understand that. can you answer that question? guest: both the europeans and the united states have not wanted to put boots on the

ground and make this a fight between russia and nato/united states. i think there has been a specific reason as tohyhe united states and europe have not wanted to be engaged in this fight mainly because it was -- it would escalate the entire rhetoric of the russian federation. i think the europeans have been engaged in this fight. they haven't put boots on the ground that they had been the primary organization and groups of nations that are trying to help -- hold russia accountable. in the last couple of days, the europeans at the hague had. a special commission to deal with war crimes and with the crime of aggression. that is quite frankly the most important charge that could be

brought against the russians. it has not been able to happen for a variety of procedural reasons but the europeans have said russia will be held accountable from a military and legal standpoint. i think the europeans have taken the lead on that. i should also add the europeans of suffer the greatest economic consequences of this war. they were so reliant on russian energy and gas and now i they do you faiths -- the europeans will continue to step up in terms of engaging in this action. host: this is dee from florida, republican line. caller: good morning. i have a question and i have a slight comment if you don't mind. this gentleman cannot deny this but the media and all the reports out there since the war

started, they never got out as to why russia got into ukraine the first place because nato and russia, including the united states made this deal that they would not encroach anywhere near russian territory. we have been getting closer and closer around russia to block them in. the russians really had no choice. all they have left is ukraine because the united states and the eu got in there with the rest of the countries to block that and push them further against russian borders. he cannot deny that. i know all the hosts and this is my comment -- you can shut me down the minute i mention biden. don't talk about biden. this is bidens war and i think he got into this war because

there is this corruption going on and this keeps everybody silent in this big worship biden can hide all the conflicts he had with ukraine. guest: i think the issue the caller is raising in the gathering that were given to gorbachev at the end of the cold war. the united states and nato would not actually incorporate some of what was the warsaw pact there is no evidence that historians have raised and spent an important issue of historical research that says there was a guarantee that there would be no expansion of nato. therefore, the idea that somehow russia was to seize for that russia somehow had some sort of

guarantees that there would be no expansion of nato and the eu were simply not the case. his document that suggests that russia had to guarantee. the question of bidens war, outthink vindman is war. in the roll up to this work on my think biden basically tried to tell putin when he was escalating and putting these tanks on ukrainian border that this would have serious consequences. i don't think biden is using this war to enrich himself and so forth. there is no evidence of that and i think that biden is basically been a statesman in terms of holding together a -- a very

fractured nato and europe that is no basically united in trying to stop the aggression of the russian federation. host: leading up to the july 4 holiday, president zelenskyy sent a message to the united states talking about our july 4 but relating it to their circumstances. [video clip] >> on your independent day, only the brave gain independence and only the best of the brave are able to pass the freedom from generation to generation. crane loves freedom with support has ignited a powerful flame of liberty in our part of europe which will not go out and will ensure that tyranny will never again pass through europe. therefore, europe will not need your soldiers in blood and battle for freedom. the ukrainian dream of leaving

freely is the victory with the brutal and unprovoked war started by russia will give fresh energy to the american leadership. host: that's the message, what you think of those? guest: i think there important -- are important parallels from this message. it emphasized is not asking for troops on the ground, that he is basically saying ukraine wants to be a part of the west and a part of europe and that this is a significant development in the history of europe. it's because ukraine has been subjugated by russia essentially for centuries. i think mr. zelenskyy is very open in terms of what he thinks the importance of liberty and freedom means for ukraine and

that they have now taken the battle to russia in order to make sure that they gain their sovereignty. host: how much do you think ukrainian success is directly attributed to the president himself? guest: i think he has been remarkable figure. he was offered various opportunities to leave ukraine but he has state, he has rallied his people, he has essentially made ukraine a much more cost pollen country. that's in terms of the national minorities. he has unified ukraine to extent that it don't think anyone but was possible in the events leading up to this war? host: jim is in wisconsin, independent line, go ahead. caller: i was wondering if the gentleman could talk more about what the previous gentleman

said. vladimir putin is a thug. he was with the kgb in the 70's and 80's and tortured and murdered a lot of people. he is no saint to be sure. i am not really sure what's going on in russia. i'm not sure he's telling the truth. there are two different sides telling two different stories. there was 39 or 40 billion people in that country before the war started now there's only 18 or 19. his -- there is a scene hundred casualties on both sides combined. something has to be done about this to get a peace treaty signed instead of having this drag on. there are over 100,000 vets here who are homeless. i happen to be a that but i'm not homeless.

he has to do some back channel diplomacy and something's gotta be done here but i don't know what. they have to get peace talks to get along because this is ridiculous, all these people being killed and for what? because nato wanted to expand and steal all the resources from ukraine and russia? i don't think so. host: thank you. guest: i think the caller has raised an important in terms of the ukrainian population and what actually is the ukrainian population going forward. it was a country of 40 million people but it has lost millions of people through emigration, through a new diaspora in europe and whether the ukrainian nation

can convince their compatriots to come back to ukraine will be an important part in asia russo and rebirth of ukraine. in terms of trying to have a negotiated settlement, both sides have kind of waded in and are dug in. i think neither side is capable of admitting defeat. at that point, that means the war will continue. whether biden has a back channel , it's very difficult. i don't think china has really been able to have a back channel. i think there was an attempt to have india have a back channel. none of these countries have been able to stop this war. it has gone on now for so long

that i think no side is in the position to concede defeat going forward. host: i believe at the beginning of this conflict, there is concerns about the use of short-term nuclear weapons from russia. is that still a concern or consideration? guest: everything is still a consideration because i think they have created an environmental disaster by blowing up that dam in ukraine. they have basically been attacking the parisdia nuclear power plant and is a question as to who was running it and whether it can continue. the russians basically have tried going it's both ukraine and russia that are engaged in sabotaging this nuclear power plant. i'm very concerned.

forget about tactical weapons, there is an imminent danger of a nuclear strike which could make chernobyl look like a cakewalk. host: there was reporting that the cia director met with president zelenskyy on a trip to ukraine. guest: i think he basically committed the united states to support or ukraine. i think that was really the just of why he would go to ukraine. i think that was really a sign of support. host: what resources could the cia provided in this matter? guest: they can provide intelligence as to what the russian armies doing in the initial part of the war, ukrainian intelligence in terms of what the russians were doing and their strength was clearly

superior to russian intelligence who thought they would be in kyiv in 24 hours. as the reliance of u.s. intelligence plays an important role in the initial ukrainian victory, as well as the fact that the russians really weren't capable of controlling their own troops and their communications. they were calling the russian so mothers and telling them where they were. i think from intelligence standpoint, and mr. burns basically would have reasserted the fact that u.s. intelligence will help ukraine. host: audrey is in south carolina, democrats line. go ahead.

caller: hello. you touched on some of the issues i wanted to ask about. if he was to do something to the nuclear plant, with the company clean it up after that? guest: in light of all the evidence that has come forward, it would be a huge disaster for ukraine and the ukrainian nation. there are millions of people close to the nuclear power plant. a long outbreak of radiation so forth would have catastrophic consequences. it's for the people but also the country in the agriculture, everything would be affected if indeed his new new lupa plan

would blow up. host: from illinois, independent line, dan, your next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm sorry but i'm calling you out on your response to the lady from florida. you have to reach back to gorbachev to talk about that there were no written agreements. we have a monroe doctrine with their own country where we will not accept anybody in our hemisphere. you can imagine russia now forming alliances with mexico and putting nuclear weapons in mexico. we wouldn't stand for that in the second. we can barely tolerate what's going on in cuba and we couldn't bear it in the 60's as well for. for you to go back to gorbachev, i don't know how you can defend that stance because we've been several presidents since then. please respond to me. yo