captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight: war in europe. russian forces close in on kyiv, as ukrainians struggle to repel the invasion. we speak to the head of nato about the west's response. then, the nominee. president biden chooses federal judge ketanji brown jackson to fill the coming supreme court vacancy, the first black woman ever nominated. plus, the mask question. new c.d.c. guidelis recommend americans most parts of the country can safely stop wearing face coverings indoors. and, it's friday. david brooks and jonathan capehart weigh in on the president's supreme court pick, and the american response to the war in ukraine.

all that and more, on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bn, the engine that connects us. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> care.com.

>> fidelity wealth management. >> consumer cellular. >> the john s. and james l. knight foundation. fostering informed and engaged communities. more at kf.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: and friends of the newshour. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: we ve two major stories tonight. president biden has chosen

ketanji brown jackson as his nominee for a seat on the u.s. supreme court. if confirmed, she would be the first black woman to serve on the nation's highest court. we'll delve into that news, later in the program. but first, to the war in ukraine. the battle for the capital city of kyiv appears to be underway, with russian missile and air strikes on the city, and reports of pitched fighting on its outskirts. ukrainian president zelensky spoke tonight, and told the people of kyiv to prepare for the "storming" of the city by russian forces. this, as fighting continues in the central, southern, and eastern reaches of ukraine. and this eveni, president biden requested that congress authorize a $6.4illion emergency measure for humanitarian and defense aid for ukraine. again tonight, nick schifrin begins our cerage. >> schifrin: it has been 81 years since the world witnessed this-- kyiv, a city of 2.8 million,

under large-scale attack for the first time since it was sacked by nazi germany. this apartment complex hit, not by a russian missile, but by the remains of a russian plane, shot down by ukrainian defenses. ( siren ) and as sirens blare above, exhaustefamiles filled metro stations that double as bomb shelters. they fled their homes with only what they could carry, including furry friends, and the prized possessions that help a people under siege maintain their spirits. as is ukraine's military. it shot down this russian aircraft, and a senior u.s. defense official says russia i“" not advancing as far or as fast as they believed they would be”" ukrainian military command and control remains intact, and president volodymyr zelensky hit the streets and social media to urge defiance. >> ( translated ): we defend our independence. that's how it'll go. glory to our defenders, both male and female. glory to ukraine! slava ukraine. >> slava ukraine. >> schifrin: but all is not well on the southern front. russian troops leaving occupied

crimea are pouringn-- captured on a cctv camera, before a soldier climbed a pole to point the camera down. a senior u.s. defense official says russian troops in the south are advancing past kherson, and splitting off, andeading toward mariupol. in kakhovka, russian forces are battling for a dam and power plant. on the sea of azov, thousands of russian troops are coming ashore, and russia continues its assaults toward kyiv, and in the east, on kharkiv-- ( explosion ) --where journalists took cover in drainage pipes, and military vehicles were left smoldering. ( gunfire ) for many ukrainians, it's all gotten too mh. soldiers had to fire warning shots at kyiv's train station. thousands are trying to flee. families who make it to romania's border have to split up-- ukraine blocked 18- to 60- year-old men from leaving. juliana is from western ukraine. >> we don't believe putin, and we have our daughter. so, we are afraid. >> schifrin: alona, from kyiv. >> there are lots of fights, so that's awful. there is nothing good there,

just blood, ruins, and all the worst that war can bring with it. >> schifrin: war has also brought russia economic punishment. today, white house press secretary jen psaki announced the u.s. is sanctioning russian president vladimir putin and foreign minister sergey lavrov. >> what we are hoping the world takes away from this is the unity from which the united states, president biden, is working with european partners and allies. >> schifrin: the european union and united kingdom today did the same. german foreign minister allalena baerbock >> ( translated ): today, we answer with an absolutely clear message: this will drive russia to ruin. >> there's a full-fledged invasion of a partner-- country that borders nato countries. >> schifrin: for the first time

today, nato activated its response force, which allows up to 40,000 additional nato troops to bolster the eastern flank. nato allies worry, any conflict in ukraine could spread to the rest of europe. today, american f-35's landed in romania. and the first of more than 300 american soldiers arrived yesterday in latvia. despite it all, today, zelensky, speaking in russian, offered diplomacy. >> ( translat ): i'd like to address the russian president again. fighting is going on in the entire territory of ukraine. let's sit down for talks, to put a stop to people dying. >> schifrin: rusan officials responded with mixed messages, but foreign minister lavrov said russia's goals remained maximalist. >> ( translated ): russia will provide the demilitarization of ukraine. russia will provide the denazification of ukraine. ( chanting ) >> schifrin: but these russians want nothing of the sort. for the second strait day, thousands protested. and for the second straight day, police shut it down. independent researchers say authorities detained hundreds, in more than two dozen cities. in washington today, ukrainian ambassador to the u.s. oksana markarova urged the west to impose stronger sanctions, and send more weapons. >> we would like, together with friends, allies, and partners,

and definitely together with all of our armed forces, to get there faster, so we are not losing the bravest anthe best we have. ( explosion ) >> schifrin: but some of ukraine's bravest have already fallen. this soldier livestreamed an attack. he and 12 fellow soldiers died guarding snake island, off ukraine's coast. back in the capital, at the epicenter of today's destruction, kyiv residents cleaned up. this is only day two, and they fear what's to come. but for now, they sing ukraine's national anthem, ending with“ long live ukraine.” for the s newshour, i'm nick schifrin. >> woodruff: and now to the secretary general of nato, jens stoltenberg. he was at nato headquarters in brussels when i spoke with him this afternoon. mr. stoltenberg, thank you very much for joining us. you've just completed a virtual summit with members of nato, their leaders.

my question is, is there a consensus from nato now on whether there's any way to stop the russians from overtaking ukraine, overtaking its capital kyiv, and overtaking the governme? >> all nato allies expressed their strong support to ukraine, and they called on russia to cease the attacks on an independent, sovereign nation: ukraine. what nato does is that we impose severe costs on russia. the economic sanctions-- and the u.s. is-- it's leading by-- by imposing severe sanctions on-- on ukraine. and then we also, nato allies provide, continues to provide, support to ukraine military, and civilian financial support, to help them in an extremely dangerous and difficult situation. >> woodruff: but does that mean there's no way to stop the russians from doing what they say they're going to do? >> we provide them support

because ukraine is a highly- valued partner, and we work with them for many, many years. and the ukrainian army is much better trained, much better equipped, much, much bigger now than in 2014, not least because of the significant support from the united states and other nato allies. but, we have made it clear that we are not going to send in nato troops to fight on the ground. >> woodruff: is there anything more that nato and its members can do to help the ukrainian people? we know nato-- we know ukraine is not a member. but you yourself have said the whole european security order is threatened. >> nato allies provide support, and continue to support ukraine in many different ways, and nato allies, the united states and other allies in the european union, have just announced unprecedented economic sanctions to make sure that there are real costs to be paid by russia for this reckless behavior.

but i think if nato went into ukraine, we'd have something which isven worse than what we see today, and that is a big conflict involving many countries in europe. >> woodruff: and you announced today that nato's response force, at least part of it, is being deployed, but in the-- in the near-term. is that going to be enough to make a difference? >> that makes a huge difference, because we are sending a very clear message to russia that an attack on one ally will trigger a response from the whole alliance, and to demonstrate the credibility of that, we are increasing the presence of nato forces in the eastern part of the alliance, on land, at sea and in the air. >> woodruff: how concerned are you, mr. stoltenberg, though, that once-- if russia is able to take hold in ukraine, that the next stop-- maybe poland, maybe the baltics-- that this is what russia has in mind. what happens then? >> if-- if there is any attack on any nato ally country, like poland or the baltic countries,

then the whole alliance will be there. that's the purpose of nato: "one for all, all for one." and-- and in a way, to make sure that there is no room for miscalculation in the kremlin, in moscow, about that. we have increased the presence of nato troops in the eastern part of the alliance, and that will be there from day one with significant capabilities. but what has happened in ukraine has altered it, created a new normal for european security. this is changing the way we can think about engaging with russia and will have some long-term consequences, both when it comes to our deterrence posture, the need for forces, troops, throughout the alliance, but also how to engage with russia in the future. because russia has proven that they are willing to use force to get their will, and that is undermining core principles for european security, which has been of great importance for many decades. >> woodruff: if nato's not able to stop russia and ukraine, is

it definitely going to be able to stop russia if it were to move on another nato country, on a nato country? >> absolutely. makeo mistake, nato is the strongest military alliance in history, and we will defend every ally against any threat and we will defend every inch of nato's territory. but we are not deploying nato troops to ukraine. i understand the frustration. i understand the suffering they are-- they are seeing in ukraine. but i think we need to understand also that nato has some core responsibilities. we're living up to them. and then, nato allies are actuly those countries in the world that has helped ukraine the most. >> woodruff: you have stressed, mr. stoltenberg, the unity of nato members of europe. and yet, when we look at economic sanctions right now, several european countries are opposed-- at least according to president biden-- opposed to moving ahead with putting strictions on russia's access to this swift system, the-- the global banking system. is that a mistake on the part of

europe-- europe right now and the united states, that they're not able to move together to impose this sanction on russia? >> but european allies, the european union and the other nato allies, as the united states, canada, norway, also the european union, they have been very closely coordinated. they are now imposing unprecedented sanctions on russia, including their banking sector, which has very much the same consequences. so that has consequences for the way they can conduct, for instance, payments, or finance. a russian debt, which has severe consequences for the whole economy, has seen that demonstrated in the russian stock market down the and the value of the russian ruble today. so this is-- this has severe consequences for you, for the russiaeconomy. it will have long-term consequences, and it takes some time before we see the full

consequences. but what is clear is that russia has to pay a high price when they violate international law and invade another country. >> woodruff: there have been unconfirmed reports that president zelensky may be prepared to talk to president putin about having an a non-aligned relationship. in other words, saying that ukraine would never pledging never to join nato again there. again, they are unconfirmed, but do you have a position on whether that's a good idea? >> my main position is that it is for ukraine to decide its own future, to choose its own path, and we should respect that decision. and that's the case for all countries, that they should decide themselves, whether they want to belong to an alliance as nato or not belong to it. what we see now is that we have a full-fledged invasion. we have people killed. we have the use of the russian armed forces to try to force their will on ukraine, and

that's the opposite of respecting the free, independent choice of a democratic country ukraine. >> woodruff: last question, mr. stoltenberg, do you have a message today for the people of ukraine, and for president putin? >> to president putin, the message is that russia should cease its aggression against ukraine immediately and withdraw all its forces and respect ukrae as an independent, sovereign nation to the people to the people of ukraine, my meage is that we stand in solidarity with them. we continue to provide support, and i would like to also pay my respect to the peoe of ukraine and the courage of the ukrainian armed forces. >> woodruff: nato's secretary general jens stoltenberg. thank you very much for talking with us. we appreciate it. >> thank you so much for having me.

>> woodruff: today, president biden delivered on his promise to nominate the first black woman to serve on the united states supreme court. after a month-long search to fill the seat of retiring justice stephen breyer, biden selected a former breyer court clerk and sitting federal judge, ketanji brown jackson. biden and jackson celebrated this highly-anticipated and historic announcement at the white house. >> today, i'm pleased to nominate judge jackson, who will bring extraordinary qualifications, deep experience and intellect, and rigorous judicial record to the court. judge jackson deserves to be confirmed as the next justice of the supreme court. >> if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed as the next associate justice of the supreme court of the united states, i can only hope that my life and career, my love of this country and thconstitution, and my commitment to upholding the rule of law and the sacred principles upon which this great

nation was founded, will inspire future generations of americans. >> woodruff: president biden called judge jackson last night to extend the offer-- a nomination that's been decades in the making for the federal appellate judge. geoff bennett reports on how she got to this place. >> i'm even-handedly applying the law in every case. >> reporter: ketanji brown jackson has a resume seemingly tailor-fit for the moment-- harvard grad, supreme court clerk, and a federal judge with a dp history in public service. >> there is a direct line from my defender service to what i do on the bench. >> reporter: d.c.-born and miami-raised, jackson stood out early, excelling in high school as class president and on the debate team. even then, her goal was clear. she's quoted in her senior yearbook, saying, “i want to go into law and eventually have a judicial appointment.”

her teenage years were key to achieving that. as she put it in 2017: >> i have no doubt that, of all the various things i've done, it was my high school experience as a competitive speaker that taught me how to lean in, despite the obstacles. >> reporter: with honors degrees from harvard and harvard law, jackson scored three federal clerkships, including one under the justice she may now replace. >> justice breyer plucked me from obscurity and gave me the opportunity of a lifetime. >> she is adored among the breyer clerk family. >> reporter: she made a lasting impression, said fellow breyer clerk and former acting u.s. solicitor general neal katyal. >> she is fearless, and also she's a real person. and sometimes that's not always true with supreme court justices, who live in an elite, rarefied atmosphere. but she's a judge who's never forgotten the human side of judging. >> reporter: she'd seen that human side up-close, with family on both sides the justice system.

her brother workinfor the baltimore police, and her uncle serving life for a cocaine conviction. >> justice demands this result. >> reporter: she worked to understand and improve the system, as a public defender, and as vice chair of the u.s. sentencing commission. >> that is an unusual addition, and i think a valuable perspective. >> reporter: margaret russell is a constitutional law professor, who says jackson's criminal defense background sets her apart. >> there are many former prosecutors who are already on the bench. but what's interesting about a public defender, and really quite rare on the court, it's been a couple of decades, is that focus on the indigent defendant, someone who is really lacking an opportunity, often despised, often overlooked. >> reporter: in the sentencing commission, she continued that work, fighting for more equitable drug penalties. >> there is no federal sentencing provision that is more closely identified with

unwarranted disparity and perceived systemic unfairness than the 100-to-one crack-powder penalty distinction. reporter: that was the first of three senate confirmations for jackson. in 2012, she was nominated to the federal bench in washington, d.c., introduced by then- congssman paul ryan, who's related to jackson by marriage. >> my praise for ketanji's intellect, for her character, for her integrity-- it's unequivocal. she's an amazing person. >> reporter: she earned a reputation on the district court for being thorough and methodical. >> you can tell she has that speech and debate background, because she likes to engage. >> reporter: sanchi khare and neha sabharwal clerked for jackson, and say they were struck by her work ethic. >> one thing that she would tell us when i was working for her is that, you know, you can't always expect to be the smartest person in the room, but you can promise to be the hardest-working. and she truly lives by that

philosophy. >> reporter: and by the warm welcome she extended... >> she came out of her office, huge smile, give me a huge hug, and told me how excited she was that i would be working for he and that sort of set the tone for the rest of my clerkship experience. >> there's this relay race in which several d.c. circuit and d.c. chambers participated. and, at the judge's suggestion, we made matching t-shirts and set up a training schedule and lined up everyone in chambers to participate, because she just has so much spirit for everything that she does, and her diligence is really contagious. >> reporter: it was there, on the district court, that jackson sentenced more than 100 people, and penned some of her best-known opinions. in 2017, she presided over the so-called “pizzagate” conspiracy case, delivering a four-year prison sentence for a man who firehis gun in a d.c. pizza op, wrongly believing it was home to a child sex ring. and in 2019, she ordered that

former trump white house counsel don mcgahn comply with a congressional subpoena during the russia investigation. siding against the trump administration, she plainly wrote, “presidents are not kings.” >> one thing is clear-- the 120-page ruling had a purpose. >> reporter: it came up at her third senate appearance-- this one for the d.c. court of appeals, seen as a try-out for a supreme court hearing. >> i am both humbled and very grateful to be here once again. >> reporter: republicans took aim at jackson's public defender clients... >> have you ever represented a terrorist at guantanamo bay? about 16 years ago, when i was a federal public defender. >> reporter: ...and her identity... >> what role does race play, judge jackson, in the kind of judge that you have been and the kindf judge that you will be? >> i don't think that race plays a role in the kind of judge that i have been or that i would be.

>> reporter: behind her at those hearings, her husband, dr. patrick jackson, and one of their two daughters. the pair met in college, and were, as she says, an unlikely match at first. >> he and his twin brother are in fact six-generation harvard. by contrast, i am only the second generation in my family to go to any college. and i'm fairly certain that if you traced my family back past my grandparents-- who were raised in georgia, by the way-- you would find that my ancestors were slaves on both sides. >> the nomination is confirmed. >> reporter: she was ultimately confirmed with 53 votes-- all 50 democrats, plus republican senators susan collins, lisa murkowski, and lindsey graham. that put jackson, now 51 years old, in the seat formerly held by another supreme court hopeful. >> today, i am nominating chief judge merrick brian garland to join the supreme court.

>> reporter: before then- president obama made that decision in 2016, jackson's 11-year-old daughter wrote in, with her own suggestion. >> "dear mr. president, while you are considering judges to fill justice scalia's seat on the supreme court, i would like to add my mother-- ketanji brown jackson of the district court-- to the list." >> reporter: six years later, it's president biden honoring that request. for the pbs newshour, i'm geoff bennett. >> woodruff: it is a landmark moment for black women across the legal field, who, throughout american history, have made up less than 2% of the federal bench. lisa desjardins has more on the historical significance, and how judge jackson could reshape the nation's highest court. >> desjardins: joining me now to discuss this nomination is professor margaret m. russell from santa clara university law school, and newshour regular, marcia coyle of the national law journal.

>> marcia let me start with you, what do you think this means? how would judge jackson fit in with or maybe change current court? >> well i think, lisa, first we have to realize that she will not change the did logical divide on the court. it will still be a 6-3 conservative majority. but that doesn't mean she can't be influential in several ways. first of all, she is the only one on the court who has been a federal public defender. she is seen a side of the criminal justice system that none of the other justices have experienced. so when they go into their private conferences she can bring that to the table if the case before them is relevant, it not only is her experience but she can share that experience request the others and perhaps influence what they decide in some way. the other way she can have influence is, she is only the second justice on the court to have been a trial judge, justice

sotomayor is the only other one, and belief me, they bring a unique perspective as well to the court. they know how trials operate. they though what lawyers do in those trials and the court often has cases about trial practices and what lawyers do or don't do during those trials. and finally, i think her dissent can become majority opinions and also they can be influential in lower courts as they try to get, decide cases and perhaps move cases up to the supreme court. so think she brings all of those qualities and life experiences to bear when she sits on the supreme court if she is confirmed. >> margaret russell, this is a historic nomination as the president and others and everyone points out. >> what does this mean to you? but also what do you think this means for the supreme court? >> this is a tremendously historic and significant day, not just for me but i see it in

the history of this nation and in the history of the supreme court for african-american women in the legal profession it has been a long uphill battle that is also true of other groups. but the significance of judge jackson's ascendency to a court that, when it first sat in 1790 had all white men, of course, six white men, and did not have a black member of the court until the 1960s and a female member of the court until the 1980s should really be cause for reflection, not just sort of a recite at a if the gurnlgation of facts but what it means is there a history of exclude in the legal profession and a history of exclusion among the people who actually decide the fate of millions and millions of americans, including african

americans. i think it is extremely significant. >> of course even before we knew who the nominee was to be, republicans criticized how the president went about this. they criticized that he was pledging to nominate a black woman as something that they said was not substantive and smacked of a quota system. i wonder what you make of that. >> well, i would say that in talking about it, it is important to remember that there were no black members of the court until the late 1960s with thurgood marshall and no female members, so criticizing biden for making a point about race doesn't mean that all of those other decisions did not involve racial identity. they did. racial identity and gender identity. i hope that it is seen as a step forward for the nation, not just based on political party, because what it means is that president biden who had previously been in the senate judiciary committee and a lawyer

himself knows his facts. it meant that when he made that promise he knew that there was already a pool of talent that could yield exceptionally well qualified people to be in the united states supreme court. second, when he became president, he made sure that there were -- was an ample pool on the federal bench and beginning with the district court and then the court of appeals, so that no one could say that it was nonsubstantive. it is a substantive decision to recognize that african-american women in the legal profession have grown enormously. >> maria, now we know judge jackson is the nominee we are getting an idea of some republican criticism ahead, this from senator mcconnell, republican leader in the that senate. >> jackson is the choice of far left dark money groups. now, that is political, of course, not substantive, we are talk about what is substance five and what is not, this comes

after two very tense and political supreme court nomination fights, just to yap this up, can you help us with what you think is ahead in this process, what dynamics do you see? >> well, it is the flip side of what we saw with the last couple of republican nominations, certainly democrats accused republican nominees of being supported by dark money groups. but -- and try to stay focused on judge jackson and what may be ahead. she was confirmed in june by the u.s. senate and she had three republican supports, and it is true that a confirmation to a federal appellate court is different than a confirmation to the u.s. supreme court, but ere really wasn't a whole lot to try to block her with when she went before the senate in june, and she has been confirmed three times by the u.s. senate, sentencing commission, federal

district court, the u.s. court of appeals in the dc circuit, and so far there has been nothing major to stop her from moving forward. so i guess what i am saying is, we are just going to have to wait and see how this i think with senator arlen expecter who called it a ca buick, ca buick can i dance plays out in the next few weeks .. the democrats trying to get this nomination through the first weeks of april, margaret russell and marcia coyle, thank you very much. >> always a pleasure, lisa. >> woodruff: in the day's other news, the c.d.c. loosened its covid-19 guidance on wearing masks in indoor public settings. the new standard says that people don't have to mask up if case counts and hospitalizations

are not especially high where they live. about 70% of the.s. population would now qualify. we'll get details, after the news summary. johnson & johnson, and three major u.s. drug distributors, sathey will pay $26 billion to settle opioid addition claims. they stem from some 3,000 lawsuits, involving nearly every state and city. most of the money in today's announcement goes to health care and drug treatment. the latest winter blast reached the northeast and new england today with up to a foot of snow. the storm forced cancellation of hundreds more flights, and disrupted commuter rail. on the roads, plows struggled to keep up. state officials reduced speed limits, and urged people to stay home, but there were multiple accidents. longtime oklahoma senator jim inhofe has announced he will retire in january, four years before his term ends.

he is now 87, and says that he needs to spend more time with his wife. inhofe has served since 1994, and is the top republican on the armed services committee. on wall street today, stocks rallied on hopes that russia and ukraine will hold peace talks. key indexes rose 1.5% - 2.5%. the dow jones industrial average gained 835 points to close at 34,058. the nasdaq rose 221 points. the s&p 500 added 95. and, actor sally kellerman has passed away in los angeles, after a tv and film career of 60 years. the highlight was an oscar nomination as army nurse margaret "hot lips" houlihan in the 1970 film "mash." a key moment came when rowdy doctors yanked away her shower tent, and she stormed into the commander's quarters.

( screams ) ( catcalls ) >> this isn't a hospital-- it's an insane asylum! and it's your fault! >> woodruff: kellerman also appeared in the original tv pilot for "star trek." and, she worked into her 80s, earning a daytime emmy nomination in 2014. sally kellerman was 84 years old. stay with us. coming up on the newshour: analysis from david brooks and jonathan capehart on the president biden's supreme court pick, and the american response to the war in ukraine. >> woodruff: as we reported, the c.d.c. has now changed its recommendations about when and

where americans should be wearing masks to protect against the coronavirus. william brangham looks into the details. >> brangham: judy, instead of using just case counts, the c.d.c.'s mask guidance will now be based on local cases, hospital capacity, and rates of severe disease. based on those metrics, communities will be rated low, medium, or high risk. universal masking-- including in schools-- will be recommended only in high-risk counties. the c.d.c. emphasized that anyone with symptoms, or own covid exposures, should still wear a mask, and especially the immunocompromised and medically vulnerable. i'm joined now by epidemiologist jennifer nuzzo from the johns hopkins bloomberg school of public health. jennifer, great to have you back on the newshour. i want to ask you about the cdc guidance. the cdc is now saying that 70 percent of americans live in counties where the risk is so low that they don't need to wear a mask indoors.

what do you make of that? >> well, i think what we are hearing from the cdc is not that they have loosened their recommendations but they have actually changed how they calculate who is at risk. they are using new data. and that's reflective i i think of a few important changes. one the virus is not the same went had a huge surge of cases that was incredibly challenging but fortunately the percentage of those cases that went to the hospital was much lower, so it is a different virus than we had to deal with in earlier points of the pandemic. the other change that changed is the data we used to track the virus have changed and with the increasing use of home test metrics like case numbers and test positivity was what the cdc exclusively used to rely on to make those risk maps are no longer as reliable or as meaningful, so what they have do now is brought in other dasets to construct those risk maps and i frankly think it is a more of an accurate reflection of what is going on in the community level. >> i know there are a lot of places that really do rely on

the cdc's guidance on thousand make decisions about their own places. budo you think in the end this will, you know, two years, plus years into this pandemic that this will meaningfully change people's behavior? >> you know, i think what is likely to have the most impact is probably in, for employers, who look to official guidance to set company workplace policies and also likely schools that very much want sort of an official metric to use in order to make decisions about what mitigation measures they should use. but for the average person i personally have never met somebody who has looked at the cdc map to decide whether or not a mask is required. you know, certainly i think they go by what their local governments tell theto do and what their personal risk tolerance is above all. >> in this discussion about the changing guidance, you have referenced two particular examples. texas which dropped its mask

mandates and did not see a huge surge and hong kong which has very high levels of masking and is still experiencing a very severe omicron surge. put those two examples in context for us. yes. i mean, the take away from those two examples is that what impact changing mask policies will have is really complicated and we shouldn't automatically assume one way or the other is going to happen that we will have a huge surge of cases or we won't. i don't want anybody to take from those two examples that lifting mask mandates speard texas and having the masks condemned hong kong to having a surge, just to say that sometimes when you lift a mask mandate or mask guidance people may continue to wear masks regardless, so we don't really know what the impact of these changing guidance is going to be. obviously it is something we have to look for and if we see that it has done harm, that there is a rise in cases again then of course we have to change our approach and i think that is something that the cdc director said today quite clearly this is very much a dynamic situation

and we are going to continue to look at the data and we are going to assess. i think some people have argued that changing masking guidance right now may make it harder to put masking back into place when it is needed. i am not sure i agree with that. i think people tend to look around at what is is happening and they don't see real risks in their community they will adjust their behavior, you know, regardless. >> what do you make of the criticism that has been leveled about this, that this puts immunocompromised people and kids who have not yet been able to receive a vaccine at real risk and this is more about politics rather than public health? >> well, i don't think it is about politics. i do think it is about public health and recognizing the limitations of our previous approaches and trying to update them with changes in the data that we have. but what i do think is that we as individual humans have to continue to care for our neighbors and classmates and coworkers and certainly decisions about wearing masks

aren't just about individual protections but also thinking about what it may do to others so i just encourage people to, you know, inquire of people that you are around or comfortable without your wearing a mask or if they would prefer you wear one, that's one of the reasons why i choose to continue to wear a mask when i go into indoor environments despite the fact i live in an area where masking isn't reired because i you know, i don't know who is around me handle i want to be mindful of the fact that, you know, i could be potentially exposing somebody. >> all right. jennifer nuzzo, thank you very much for being here. >> thank you so much for having me. >> >> woodruff: with the world's eyes on ukraine and president biden moving forward on his pick for the u.s. supreme court, we turn to the analysis of brooks and capehart. that is "new york times" columnist david brooks, and jonathan capehart, columnist for

the "washington post." >> it is good to see both of you, thank you for being here on this friday night. we are going to talk about ukraine in just a minute, but david, i want to start with president biden's choice of judge ketanji brown jackson for court. what did you make of his choice of her? >> she seems great. you know, what you want on the court is someone with a lot of intellectual firepower but without intellectual arrogance and she seems to have that, as marcia and others mentioned before she has the defender, she was a regular old judge on -- with real trials, not just a fancy appellate judge so she has been in the trenches and she seems like just a wonderful person, i wrote, read a good story on the 19th about four friends, three friends she had starting in freshman year in harvard, four black women who entered harvard together, and roomed together, four cities of them and went to harvard law together and since then they have been at each other's weddings and childbirths and what they described are three

friends describe about her is someone who is social organizer, someone who early on said i am doing take up a lot of space and make my point of view known and one of them early in college said you will be on the supreme court one day, so if she could see it that early maybe she is fit to be there. >> woodruff: jonathan what is your take on her? >> well she is definitely fit to be there. i didn't read the story you read, david, in the 19th, i read this big profile of her online in the "washington post", and what came -- the four women were also featured in that profile, but what i got from that was a woman and a lawyer and now a judge who is and has been pragmatic on the bench. sure, you know, she follows the law, but -- and she is grounded in her belief in the law, and belief of the law should be needed -- meted out equally, and throughout her career at harvard, both undergrad and law

school when there were moments when other black students were looking to protest, you know, x, y or z, sometimes she participated, other types she didn't and the reason why she didn't was because she thought it was more important that she be in class and prove folks wrong and i am talking about a situation in harvard where meone in her dorm unfettered a a confederate battle flag out the window, she did protest but she told her friends, look, one of the things they want us to do is not focus on our classes and if we don't focus on our classes we flunk out, there by proving to them at least that we don't belong here. so i think what president biden has done is nominate someone who is coming to the bench as david said with intellectual firepower , but also someone who is going to be somebody who tries to, you know, bring the liberal and the overwhelming

conservative majority together on some of the key issues that are coming up before the court, even after she is confirmed. >> woodruff: and, david, how do you see her potential effect on the court? we are starting to hear some republicans raise objections, questions about mitch mcconnell is one of them, but what do you think lies ahead if she confirmed? >> well, you know, she -- you know, there are nine personalities on the court so each personality adds something to the little family drama there. they have, my impression of the court has always been they find ways to get along, but bring in a new personality will widen their perspective of the court and a new set of perspectives and new set of experiences, it can't help but have a humanizing aspect, ideologically, in the rating systems that rate judges on how conservative or liberal she, is she is in the mainstream of democratic nominees, one of the rating seasons i saw put her slightly to the right of he

legal six lena kay again, a bit to the left but very much in in mainstream of a democratic nominee and obiously replacing democratic nominee so as marcia clark said earlier today, it is probably not going to alter the ideological balance but will why den the human aperture. >> woodruff: and jonathan, how do you see her fitting in and how do you read the coming republican opposition? >> well, i think she will fit in just fine, considering the she has been on the bench for a few years now and folks love her. when it comes to the republican opposition, the idea, i can't remember which republican member of congress said this, that she is some, you know, left wing radical. it is just -- that would have been branded on to any -- whoever the president named it just now happens to be judge jackson. i think, you know, if republicans stick to substantive

criticisms of judge jackson, either her record or rulings or cases, they will be fine, but the moment they stray into the territory that senator kennedy of louisiana did by saying, you know, he hoped the president would choose someone who could tell the difference between a jay crew catalog and a law book or another member of congress who said before even a person was named that no matter what, that the president was making an affirmative action hire, if they go down can that route they should be prepared for withering criticism and also republican leaders, those who say they are republican leaders should be prepared to condemn those folks because there is no question that judge ketanji brown jackson is qualified to be on the court, should be on the court, and is not some radical but as david said is in the mainstream of american political thought and life. >> woodruff: so now we turn to

the thing that we have all been, i guess, fixated on for the last several days, the last time i talked to the two of you last friday the russians hadn't begun their attack, their assault on ukraine, but david now they have, and i think this is the first time in modern memory that we have been able to watch a war unfold one country attacking another in real-time on television and social media and the rest of it, but what do you make of what russia has done and is doing so far? >> well, i am just impressioned by the ukrainian people, impressed by the russian people on the streets protesting, and the ukrainian people are facing resolve and they are having heroic self-sacrifice, my hat is off in admiration for them. i think we are entering another era. we were blessed to live for many years probably all of our lives so far in this era of rules. we may be ending that era and reentering an era of great power

rivalries such as we saw in the 17th century and 18th century and 16th century and 16th century and it is not pleasant to live in those eras because nobody is secure, vladimir putin only thrives in areas that nobody is secure so we may be with russia, and china defending -- iran, we may be one great power forever after or a long time after engaged in constant struggles to head off authoritarian tyranny and that will involve different defense budgets and involve electing different sorts of people to be our leaders, it will involve a much more bloody and much less pleasant way to live in a set of mutual democracy. >> woodruff: it is hard to watch, isn't it, jonathan? >> it is. again, you know, the first major land war on the european continent in more than 70 years, as david said, this is now -- this is a battle of ideas, but as hillary clinton and dan scwawrn write in the "atlantic"

today this is what is happening now in ukraine ask much bigger than that. they write ukraine is one flash point in a larger global struggle between democracy and autocracy, and they point out that the day that chinese president xi jinping and russian president vladimir putin met in beijing, which was february 4th on friday is the same day that the republicans said that the january 6th insurrection was quote legitimate political discourse. the battle between autocracy and democracy is -- was a factor in president biden's presidential campaign, but there on the streets in ukraine, in the air a, in terms of the war that russia is waging on ukraine, we are seeing right there the battle between democracy and autocracy and the fact that the united states and president biden is leading the alliance

to, you know, at a minimum defend the nato alliance but also help the ukrainian people shows that everyone takes this seriously. there was a lot of talk about whether the nato alliance was going to wither on the vine, whether ate could hold together, and in the face of this war, before the impending war was vladimir putin, they rallied and they are stronger, but that battle between democracy and autocracy and having democracy win is not assured, especially because democracy here in the united states is the weakest it has been in memory. >> woodruff: there are a lot of people watching president biden very closely because of what happened in afghanistan, but what is your assessment of how he has managed this, handled this so far? >> i think quite well. he organized the alliance, for once we won the information war. he really leaked all of the

intelligence and it was all vindicated, our intelligence community was? excellent in what they did and they went ahead and did it, so he did that part well,e is playing with an extremely weak hand, putin is willing to commit troops wisely or unwilling to commit troops is one disadvantage. we are unwilling and our european allies are willing to impose any sanctions on putin, we have to go after the russian economy which is going after the energy secretary for, we won't do that because the european and american economies don't want to impose any costs on themselves. so i think the sanctions are weak. i think the alliance between russia and china, which seems to be reasonably strong is extremely troubling. the hope i have, and i think the place to focus our efforts and our attention is on the ukrainian resistance. if the ukrainian resistance with the help of the west can make the occupation of ukraine very costly, then this whole thing does backfire on putin, but i would focus open that rather than stay the sanctions which

have been symbolic and not nothing, but clearly not strong enough to impose any real costs on the russians. >> woodruff: jonathan, how do you size up the reaction here and in europe? >> well, i would say that late this afternoon the united states, the united kingdom and the european union announced sanctions on putin and his foreign minister lavrov personally, so that is a ratcheting up of the pressure on putin, on russia, i think the third, the second round of sanctions, and there are plenty more things the united states can do. i think one thing that everyone should do is to sort of remind -- we should remind ourselves that in a culture that we have where everything is instantaneous, we order something online, it can be, depending on which service you use, could be at your house in a few hours but definitely by the next day. we are talking about war, and we

are talking about responding to war, and some of the things that have to be done, should be done, the impacts that they have don't -- the impacts don't reveal themselves in an hour, in ten hours, in a day, they take time, and i think the more people that sort of reorient themselves and realize that some of the things that the united states and the west are doing to put pressure on putin to bring this war to a close whenever that can happen, that this takes time, the better off we will be. >> woodruff: well, one thing is for sure, we are going to have a lot of -- we are going to be watching a lot of painful scenes in ukraine as we watch the ukrainian people deal with this in the hours and the days to come. jonathan capehart, david brooks, thank you both. >> thanks, judy. >> thank you, judy. >> woodruff: and -- mod --

>> woodruff: and don't forget to watch "washington week" tonight. moderator yamiche alcindor and her panel will have more on russia's invasion of ukraine, and on president biden's historic supreme court pick. that's tonight on pbs. and tune into pbs newshour weekend for the latest from ukraine, and the international response to russia's invasion. and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. join us online, and again here on monday evening. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you, please stay safe, and have a great weekend. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> fidelity wealth management. >> consumer cellular. >> consumer cellular. >> care.com. >> bnsf railway. >> the william and flora hewtt foundation. for more than 50 years, advancing ideas and supporting institutions to promote a better

world. at www.hewlett.org. >> supporting social entrepreneurs and their solutions to the world's most pressing problems-- skollfoundation.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and friends of the newshour. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc

♪ hello, everyone, and welcome to "amanpour & company." here's what's coming up. explosions, para troopers, soldiers on the ground in ukraine as russia invades. we have an exclusive interview with the nato secretary general jens stoltenberg, and the former chairman of the joint chief of staff, admiral mike mullen, and the former deputy nato commander, richard shirreff join us on putin's military maneuvers. then, as her people shelter from the russian assault we speak to ukraine's ambassador to the united states. also ahead. >> dictators lose, it's not about the outcome. it's about the price we pay. >> russia's chess grand master, garry kasparov tried to run against putin in a presidential election. he talks to walter isaacson about the madman's strategy.