welcome to "meet the press daily." i'm chuck todd. as the war in ukraine enters month two, all eyes are on president biden in brussels today and what comes out of his series of emergency meetings today that he essentially helped organize and called, nato, g-7 and the eu. we've seen pledges for more support for ukraine, humanitarian relief, battalions to eastern europe, more sanctions on russia, and perhaps contingency planning in the

event they deploy chemical or nuclear weapons and we don't know the new decisions because amid the military stale mate in ukraine, hanging over today's meeltdings is this question -- how far is putin willing to go? in his address to nato this morning, president zelenskyy pushed nato to further ramp up military assistance claiming russia has used phosphorous bombs, an allegation that u.s. officials say they cannot yet confirm. in his press conference following nato's emergency meeting this morning, jens stoltenberg would not confirm the allegations either as he announced the deployment of four battalions to shore up the eastern side of the alliance and he aid the alliance was taking additional precautions. >> we agreed to do including cybersecurity systems and equipment to help ukraine protect against biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear threats.

our top military commander, general walters, has activated nato's chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defense elements and allies are deproi v ploying additional chemical and biological and nuclear defenses to reinforce our existing groups. >> nbc news has confirmed what was first reported by the "new york times," that the white house has assembled a team of national security officials to start mapping out how to respond if vladimir putin does deploy chemical, biological, or, yes, even nuclear weapons. a pentagon official says russian forces have stalled, and ukrainians have pushed back others. the official says another assault on the city of chernihiv has stalled an troops have been unable to advance. nato is reporting between 7,000 and 15,000 russian soldiers, as

many as 15,000 russian soldiers have been killed since the start of this war. astonishing in one month. ukrainian officials say russian forces are forcibly deporting citizens from mariupol to russia. ukrainians are in russian camps and may be used as hostages. nbc news cannot verify those claims either right now. in brussels, president biden is prepared to head back to nato headquarters after finishing meetings on the european council. we assume then we'll find out what the new forced postures are and in lines for nato alliance. joining me from brussels, kelly o'donnell for nbc news, nbc senior international correspondent keir simmons, richard engel is in kyiv, and a former u.s. ambassador to nato under barack obama. we're trying to answer this

basic question -- what happened in brussels today? kelly, start from the american side. how have the meetings gone so far? >> reporter: well, chuck, this is a dense day of conversations, and the president and his colleagues across europe are running a bit behind. that's not a surprise. there's a lot to cover here. these are difficult issues. and there are not an easy set of answers here. but they are looking at that range of issues, how to try to blunt what russia has done, how to push back vladimir putin, how the create measures that would stop any evasion of sanctions that already have been put into place to try to get russia to not be able to find workarounds to get by the financial constraints put on them thus far and looking at what are some of the what-if scenarios. because vladimir putin has already done things that have really threatened the peace in

europe and have really shattered some of the norms of even how war is conducted by targeting civilian locations, by bombing locations where there was clearly labeling children present, those kinds of things, what else might he do? and then how does nato and how do european partners and the u.s. respond to that? those are difficult questions. they don't want direct intervention. they have not been saying publicly what they're ready to do in terms of additional military deployments yet. that may develop as the day goes on. volodymyr zelenskiy was pointed in his requests and putting pressure on nato and really trying to say to nato, if you stand for peace, if you are a defensive organization, you have to do more to save and rescue innocent people in ukraine. so the stakes are high because of that.

the outcomes are being shaped. yes, there will be more in dollars being districted in policy, but how will that affect change? that's a real question, chuck. >> kelly u within of the debates is they may come to a decision on what the red line is. the question is do they say it publicly. is it important? do they think it's important to tell putin what the red line is? >> reporter: they have set other boundaries for putin, not red lines, but things they have done and he has not been deterred by that. so is there strategic value in not saying too much publicly. we've gotten hints of that from white house officials. or is there disagreement about that line should be, so is it a strategic preference or is there a differing view? those are things we don't have real visibility into at this

point. >> kelly o'donnell covering the president in brussels. thank you. let me turn to keir simmons on the beat of essentially covering the european partners and other nato partners. keir, get at this supposed divide that might be developing. the issue of what do we say publicly and not publicly and what is nato willing to do and not willing to do? what are other european countries saying? >> reporter: that's right, chuck. as kelly said, how do we understand what putin is willing to do and how do we respond to that, it is extraordinarily challenging. while we have seen this demonstration of unity here in europe, incredible demonstration of unity, there are tensions behind the scenes. so just today, for example, i spoke to the estonian prime minister, what she is talking about, that she is wants to see russia contained. she says we need to defeat

president putin. she clearly believes this is a battle with president putin, russia, not just on the battlefield in ukraine but the west versus russia, in a sense. on the other hand, i spoke to the president of the european parliament and she was forcibly talking about trying to get a cease-fire, a peace deal inside ukraine. when you look closely inevitably there are differing views about how to approach this. what the west would be prepared to settle for. that's before you even tad question of how president putin will respond, what is it that's in his mind. >> you know, this is impossible. we would assume he's watching and listening to every single word that's coming out publicly here. is that right, keir? how much does that get consumed by the kremlin?

>> reporter: i think no question albeit he's given papers every day with what's happened rather than watching it real time. >> of course. >> reporter: he is a student of the west. that being said, he misreads the west and it's possible to argue what he's done here hardly is based on a terrible misreading of the west. just, for example, just what he had to say last week about europe being a place where people eat foie gras and oysters. you get a picture of what he thinks the west is. another aspect that is really tricky, chuck, for example, the russian reserves, $600 billion, which he's built over many, many years, the fact that the west has frozen hatch of those reserves, that would be reinforcing his view that it's not a fair playing field, that the west is never really -- the west doesn't play by the rules when it comes to russia. so, again, it's three-dimensional chess. it is a huge challenge to figure

out the best approach towards president putin, how he'll respond. >> keir simmons also in brussels. thank you. let me move to the war zone, where we find richard engel. a lot of reporting says stalemate. how would you describe what you're seeing on the ground and what your sources are telling you? >> reporter: i would describe it as a shift to the east. a stalemate, some reversal around kyiv but the bulk of the russian come pat power is shifting to the area around mariupol, around kerr zone, and -- kherson, and russia is trying to create a map. in the last month, russia has not taken clearly as much territory as they'd hoped but it has taken some territory in this country. the only place it has a large block of contiguous territory is close to the russian border,

close to the separatist areas in donbas, and it seems they are now trying to consolidate those gains they've taken, which is significant because we've been reporting all day about the russian ship that was attacked. that russian ship was blown up, according to ukrainian officials, while it feels unloading personnel, while it was unloading marines and armored vehicles, according to the ukrainian military. there were 400 marines on that vehicle and 65 armored vehicles, 20 of those tanks. so russia has been bringing in more troops and more armor specifically into the south. so i don't think we can say that russia has given up on its assault or it's given up on its intentions to try and attack kyiv, but it is trying to consolidate areas where it can hold territory potentially for a very long time. >> i was going to say, is that more for potential negotiations down the road? they're looking for some, you

know -- and this to me is the larger challenge, how do you come to a cease-fire if everyone wants putin to look like a loser, he wants to walk away with something, could it be the military strategy is being changed to fit that potential outcome? >> reporter: i think in war countries don't take territory with the intention of giving it up. i think vladimir putin is trying to take mariupol and destroy it in the process because he wants to keep it. he's happy people are living this city and about two-thirds of the people have left mariupol, only about 100,000 remain, because it lies right in between russia and the donbas and crimea. i don't know if enough attention has been focused on the sea of azov. it's an internal sea from the black sea, if russia can control

that entire corridor connecting russian territory and donbas to crimea, he would effectively turn the sea of azov into a port, into a russian link, which would be strategically very important for the russian navy. you've pulled up the map. the sea of azov is that internal sea just off of crimea. and you see there's a lot of red around it. if he can control the sea of azov, that would be -- putin would be able to consider that a win for this war and a win for his country. richard engel in kyiv for us. as always, thank you. be safe. let me bring in former nato ambassador under president obama, ivo doddler. i want to quote you directly in your most recent column. you write this. you say, "though a nato response would risk even further escalation, not responding would risk the future credibility of nato and its capacity to deter." this gets at the question of

what does the west say publicly? how many public lines are drawn versus private lines, number one? and two, how important is it do you think that there is some public deterrence here, if you will? >> so, i think it's very important that we make clear that there are certain actions that russia might be contemplating that would change fundamentally our perspective on this war. and, indeed, president biden has said that as well as jens stoltenberg. they said such kind of use would change the nature of the conflict. i'm told -- >> but that's all they've said. i don't mean to -- look, i had the secretary-general on sunday. i asked him five ways from sunday, if you will, about is this a red line, and they were trying to say it changes the callus. i'm sitting there going, okay, that means we're going to get

involved militarily, but they don't say it, right? >> so, i think there are two pieces to this. i understand that there are high-level connections between the u.s. and the russians in which it has made very, very clear that that kind of use of these kinds of weapons would change the calculus, and if there is a response being contemplated, that we would communicate that privately, not publicly. so that's number one. i think there is a distinction between what we communicate to putin and my understanding is there are communication channels open. i mean, secondly i think there is a need for the alliance of 30 independent countries, all of them democracies, to come together, and that just takes time. i think the nato meeting today did discuss escalation scenarios and what we might possibly do, but there's quiet work under way in the u.s., as you just confirmed, again, on these tiger teams, but also with our nato

allies about what the particular steps are. i mean, this is a big deal. thinking through under what circumstances one might possibly have nato and u.s. forces engage with russian forces is not something that happens every day, god forbid, and therefore it needs to be very carefully considered. i think we're getting closer to that point, particularly if there are weapons of mass destruction used, but one hopes that this kind of conversation is leading putin to think again about what he's about to do. >> you know, you're a pronoent of what you said is proportional response. they launch a chemical weapons attack, nato should take out the battalion that launched the attack, that that would be the type of response as a way, you said -- you seemed to indicate you thought that that would at least be -- that that's the best way you have to sort of -- you have to draw a line, but you also want to be able to say you're not escalating.

>> yeah. so i think there are different kinds of responses, and it depends really fundamentally about what happens. i'm worried, for example, that the russians would target a chemical industrial plant. they've already hit an ammonia facility. and that would lead to large-scale damage to people in ukraine, who, of course, are not protected. in that case, i would be more limited in my response. but if they use nuclear weapons or chemical weapons, i think we need to come to the aid of ukraine and help and defend them, and then the bridge is crossed. whether we're -- you know, the u.s. will actually be willing to do that, i don't know, but i think that's where we need to be if the conflict changes to that extent. >> can you just explain to our viewers -- you hear the nato secretary-general say they have activated nato's chemical weapons and biological weapons and nuclear weapons response

forces and things like that. what does that mean? >> so, these are defensive measures, masks and suits and atropine to defend nato troops deployed in eastern europe against those kinds of weapons, particularly if they were used in ukraine and a chemical cloud were to come across the border, which would, again, change the nature of the conflict, you want to protect those troops. it's not about protecting unfortunately the civilian population. that's just too difficult to do. >> that's why i go back to it was interesting you drew a line between russia launching a chemical weapons attack and perhaps what sadly might be really what they're looking to do, which is bomb something that would essentially duplicate a chemical weapons attack and claim, well, we just bombed a building, we didn't know ukrainians were hiding chemical weapons there, right.

that very much would be a very russian playbook thing to do, would it not? >> yeah. to be clear, i don't think there are chemical weapons anywhere in ukraine but an industrial facility, a fertilizer plant, something like that. bay the way, i think the russians would blame the ukrainians for it as they tried to do with the fire in the nuclear reactor and use that perhaps as an excuse to then escalate, say, we didn't go, we're just responding to them. that i think is the scenario. it depends. remember the chemical facility in india exploded back in the early 1990s killed upwards of almost 400,000 people. if something like that were to happen, near a population center, large numbers of people die, i think that's akin to using chemical weapons and we should respond accordingly. >> the ambassador of nato under

president obama, now the head of the chicago council on foreign relations, appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective with us. >> my pleasure, chuck. >> thank you, ambassador. we just learned, this is a rarity in the presidential scheduling business, but president biden's news conference at nato headquarters is actually being brought forward earlier, and it may take place in about 15 minutes. we have got an unofficial, if you will, 15-minute warning. we'll take you to brussels as soon as that press conference begins. and another big programming note. our fourth season of "meet the press reports" kicks off tonight. we do a deep dive into the growing fights over school boards and education, what we read, what we teach. it's all become the front line of the country's culture wars these days. streaming tonight 10:30 eastern on nbc news now and will be on demand tomorrow on peacock. kate snow talks to folks on the front lines of the classroom culture wars. she joins us tomorrow. we'll discuss her reporting.

welcome to the eat fresh refresh at subway wait, that's new wait, you're new too nobody told you? subway's refreshing with better ingredients, better footlongs, and better spokespeople. because you gotta you gotta refresh to be fresh and it's easy to get a quote at libertymutual.com so you only pay for what you need. isn't that right limu? limu? sorry, one sec. doug blows a whistle. [a vulture squawks.] oh boy. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty♪

what does a foster kid need from you? to be brave. to show up. for staying connected. the questions they weren't able to ask. show up for the first day of school, the last day at their current address. for the mornings when everything's wrong. for the manicure that makes everything right, for right now. show up, however you can, for the foster kids who need it most— at helpfosterchildren.com

welcome back. in just a few minutes we are expecting to hear from the president from the european council headquarters where he just met with eu allies. boris johnson finished his press conference so literally they are cleaning the room. they did agree this morning to send more troops to strengthen the eastern flank. they agreed to equip ukrainian forces with more military equipment. the decision follows an urgent address from president zelenskyy this morning where he laid out his requests directly to nato. >> translator: you can give us 1% from all your planes, 1% of all your tanks, just 1%. when we receive this at last, this will give us a new 100% of security and the world is waiting, and ukraine is waiting for real actions, real security guarantees from those whose word

is worth trust and whose actions can defend peace. >> president zelenskyy said this was the moment for nato to prove that it is the strongest defensive alliance in the world, warning once again that russia will not stop at ukraine. joining me is phillip breed love. general, i want to start with the larger question here. we are now in month two of this war. ukraine has not just held, ukraine has really stood up in the face of this attack. yes, the russians proved to be not as prepared for this. do you think in a year, two years, three years we'll look back and say we did it just right? or are we going to say we should have done more sooner? >> well, my first reaction is we should have done more sooner. in fact, if we had gotten in front of the invasion, we

probably could have made a pretty big difference with some of our actions. but since the war has started, we've done a pretty good job of trying to push the right kinds of things to ukraine. there are still things they want that we intend to get them that we haven't gotten there yet. >> getting logistically them on planes isn't easy, is it? >> it's not. it would be if there were considerations of how that happens and how mr. putin thinks about how that would happen. not very hard to fly a mig-29 from poland into ukraine but it's hard to do in a geopolitical sense. >> i was going to say, poland clearly was eager to d it until somebody got in their ear and they said, never mind, you do it, america, right? >> well, there's a lot of things going on that may not be terribly public about who's

saying what to who about how that would be perceived, et cetera. so i think that knowing these great polish people, that there's more to the story that we'll listen as history unfolds this all. >> walk us through what this -- what you believe the conversation is likely been had inside that nato meeting as they're trying to decide, okay, what is our response if putin does this, what are we going to do? so, you know, i don't know if you heard us earlier with ambassador doddler who believes we should publicly state what we're going to do, others don't believe we should do that. where do you stand on this? >> well, we sort of did this going into this invasion. we told hem them that they were going to get incredible sanctions, yet we didn't discuss them publicly, but we were assured that we had told them in private how tough those sanctions were going to be. and mr. putin took a measurement

of us and decided i can live with that and he went in and invaded anyway. i think that maybe this time we should consider being a little more public so that all the other 29 nations of nato can sort of resound together in do not cross these lines of chemicals, biologicals, or nuclears because that is a different regime. i agree we ivo on that. >> how concerning is it to you our top pentagon officials are not able -- are not getting their calls taken by their russian counterparts right now? >> it is troubling. i have a -- i had a hot line when i was there. we spoke for smoefrls and directed to stop speaking. i thought that was a mistake because when you go into conflict, you need to talk more

rather than less. but it is worworrisome. i believe a part of this is a problem on the far side. we haven't seen much of them since the poor performance of this military, and one has to wonder what that means. >> nobody wants to try to figure out what's going on here, but, you know, and i know russia has said he's just busy, that's why you haven't seen the defense minister. it is obviously hard to take anything the russians say at face value. we assume putin is looking for a scapegoat. could this be it? >> well, i don't know, but you also have heard that at least one of these individuals has suddenly developed a heart problem, so, you know, i just wouldn't believe anything right now. i'm pretty sure that mr. putin is extremely unhappy with the performance of his military right now, and we haven't seen much from his civilian military leader or his uniformed military

leader, and i think that's a pretty easy page to read. >> just on the -- walk me through how we could confirm the phosphorous bomb allegation that president zelenskyy told nato about today. >> well, you're going to have to get a forensics team in there or get the ukrainians to recover some. you know, no matter what the ukrainians find and show, the russians are going to deny it, and so we would need to get some real proof of what happened in there. and there's not that hard if you are at the impact point or the place where is imimpacted. this is something that our forensics folks could sort out. >> when it comes to -- we're about to hear from president biden here in this press conference in about 90 seconds or so and trying to teal with these red lines here. what is a -- if we're trying to

both get a cease-fire and punish putin for doing this, can both be accomplished here? >> yeah, it's going tock tough. you know, boept sides are fighting for position on the battlefield now to give them better strength at the negotiating table. and i think every day mr. putin's negotiating position is dwindling and ukraine's is growing. and so, this is going to be an interesting dynamic as we start to talk about what the conditions of ending are. mr. zelenskyy, he's a leader, so we'll watch and see how he works his way through this. >> i appreciate that, general breedlove. stick with me. i know you want to listen to this press conference and help us out, put in some layman's terms if that's necessary. let me bring in josh lederman in brussels. he's stand big here. as we wait for president biden, i have to ask about the schedule change because there's a fascinating gap between today and poland on saturday, and the white house has been pretty

hush-hush about what his schedule is. now when you see it moved up a little bit, i have to say may be more curious about his schedule in the next 24 hours. do you have any hint? >> reporter: well, it looks from the way that the schedule shifted, chuck, like basically the president was running behind, which if you've covered president biden for as many years as you and i have, you know that's not something that's out of the ordinary for joseph biden. he's walking up u josh. >> reporter: as a result -- all right. let's listen. >> so there you go. it's running late to run early. here is the president. >> good evening, everyone. if all the press is here, you must be getting very tired. am i the 16th or 17th? all kidding aside, thank you for taking the time. today marks one month since russia began its carnage in ukraine, the brutal invasion of ukraine. and we held a nato summit the

very next day. at that time, my overwhelming objective in wanting that summit was to have absolute unity on three key, important issues among our nato and european allies. first was to support ukraine with military and humanitarian assistance. second was to impose the most significant sanctions, economic sanctions ever, in order to cripple putin's economy and punish him for his actions. third was to fortify the eastern flank of our nato allies who were obviously very, very concerned and somewhat worried what would happen. we accomplished all three of these. today we're determined to sustain those efforts and to build on them. the united states is committed to provide over $2 billion in military aid to ukraine since i

became president, anti-air systems, anti-armor, ammunition, and our weapons are flowing into ukraine as i speak. and today i'm announcing the united states is prepared to commit more than $1 billion in humanitarian assistance to help get relief to millions of ukrainians affected by the war in ukraine. many ukrainian refugees will wish to stay in europe closer to their homes. but we also will welcome 100,000 ukrainians to the united states with a focus on reuniting families. and we will invest $320 million to bolster democratic resilience and defend human rights in ukraine and neighboring countries. we're also coordinating with the g-7 and the european union on food security as well as energy security. i'll have more to say about that tomorrow. we're also announcing new sanctions of more than 400

individuals and entities aligned with -- in alignment with the european union, more than 300 members of the kuma, oligarchs, and those who fuelled the russian war machine. in addition to the 100,000 u.s. forces now stationed in europe to defend nato territory, nato established, as you already know, four new battle groups in romania, hungary, bulgaria, slovakia to reinforce the eastern front. putin was banking on nato being split. my early conversation with him in december and early january was clear to me he didn't think we could sustain this cohesion. nato has never been more united than it is today. putin is get exactly the opposite what he intended to have as a consequence of going into ukraine. we've built that same unity with the european union and with the leading democracies of the

g-7 -- in the g-7. i want to thank you. i'll be now happy to take your questions. since there are so many people out there, i've been given a list. chris with the associated press, first question. >> thank you, mr. president. you've warned about the real threat of chemical weapons being used. have you gathered specific intelligence that suggests president putin is deploying these weapons or considering their use? and would the u.s. or nato respond with military action if he did use chemical weapons? >> on the first question, i can't answer that. i'm not going to give you intelligence data, number one. number two, we would respond. we would respond if he uses it, the nature of the response would depend on the nature of the use. josh with bloomberg. >> thank you very much.

>> if you find your voice i would be elected a lot earlier. >> thank you. can you talk about two things, sir? once, since your conversation with president xi of china, have you seen any indications of action or lack of action from china that has led you to believe whether they will intervene and help russia either with the sale of arms or the provision of supplies to support this war in ukraine? and secondly, can you say whether the conversation turned to the subject of food shortages and what the u.s. will do to address wheat shortages in particular as result of this war? thank you. >> on the first question relating to president xi jinping of china, i had a very straightforward conversation with xi now i guess it's six days ago, seven days ago, in that range. and i made it clear to him, i made no threats but made it clear to him that make sure he understand the consequences of him helping russia as had been

reported and as was expected. and i made no threats, but i pounted out -- pointed out the number of american and other companies that left russia as a consequence of theirbarbaric behaviour, and i indicated i knew how much he had -- because we had long discussions in the past -- about his interest in making sure he has economic relations and growth with europe and the united states and indicated he'd be putting himself at significant jeopardy in those aims if, in fact, he were to move forward. i am not going to comment on any detail about what we know or don't know as a consequence of that conversation, but tomorrow -- tomorrow or next monday that ursula is having that conference with china? the first.

on april 1st. we've had discussions -- because i think that china understands that its economic future is much more closely tied to the west than it is to russia. and so i'm hopeful that he does not get engaged. we also did discuss today that there's a need for us to set up nato to set up -- and the eu to set up a system whereby we have an organization looking at who has violated any of these sanctions and where and when and how they've violated them. that's something we're going to put together. it's not done yet. so with regard to xi, i have nothing more to report. with regard to food shortages, we talked about that.

it's going to be real. the price of these sanctios is not just imposed upon russia. it's imposed on other countries as well, including european countries and our country as well, and because both russia and ukraine have been the breadbasket of europe in terms of wheat, for example, giving you one example, but we had a long discussion in the g-7 with both the united states, which has a significant -- the third largest producer of wheat in the world, as well as canada, also a major, major producer. we both talked about how we could increase and disseminate more rapidly food shortages. in addition to that, we talked about urging all the european countries and everyone else to end trade restrictions on

sending -- limitations on sending food abroad. so we are in the process of working out with our european friends what it would take to help alleviate the concerns relative to food shortages. we also talked about a significant major u.s. investment among others in terms of providing for the need for humanitarian assistance, including food, as we move forward. rina of "the wall street journal." watch out you don't get hit in the head there now. >> mr. president, in your view, does president zelenskyy need to cede any ukrainian territory in order to gain a cease-fire with russia, or is that completely off the table? also, do you think that russia needs to be removed from the g-20? >> on the latter point, by

answer is yes. that depends on the g-20. that was raised today. i raised the possibility if that cannot be done, if indonesia and others don't agree, we should in my view ask to have both ukraine be able to attend the meetings as well as basically ukraine being able to attend the g-20 meetings as an observer. with regard to -- what was the first question? >> do you think ukraine has to cede territory to -- >> that is a total judgment based on ukraine. nothing about ukraine, without ukraine, i don't believe that they're going to have to do that, but that's a judgment. there's negotiations, discussions, i should say, that have taken place that i have not been part of, including ukrainians. and it's their judgment to make.

cecilia, abc. there you are. >> sir, you've made it very clear in this conflict that you do not want to see world war iii. but is it possible that in expressing that so early that you were too quick to rule out direct military intervention in this war? could putin have been emboldened knowing that you were not going to get involved directly in this conflict? >> no and no. >> and to clarify on chemical weapons, if chemical weapons were used in ukraine, would that trigger a military response from nato? >> it would trig err response in kind, whether or not you're asking whether nato would cross -- we'd make that decision at the time. >> my final question. because you're heading to poland tomorrow, do you think that getting a firsthand look at the effects of this war on these millions of ukrainians who have

fled their country could change way that you might respond? >> i don't think so, because i've been to many, many war zones. i've been to refugee camps. i've been in war zones for the last 15 years. and it's devastating. but the thing you look at the most is you see these young children, you see children without parents that are in those camps who are refugees, you see women and husbands and men and women who are completely lost and have no -- you see that blank look on their face, that absolute feeling of, my god, where am i, what's going to happen to me? and so what it will do, it will reinforce my commitment to have the united states make sure we are a major piece of dealing with the relocation of all those folks as well as humanitarian assistance needed both inside ukraine and outside ukraine.

for example, this is not something that poland or romania or germany should carry on their own. this is an international responsibility. the united states is the leader -- one of the leaders in the international community that has an obligation to be engaged, to be engaged and do all we can to ease the suffering and pain of innocent women and children and men for that matter throughout ukraine. and those who have made it across the border, i plan on attempting to see those folks as well as i hope i'm going to be able to see -- i guess i'm not supposed to say where i'm going, am i, but anyway, i hope i get to see a lot of people. [ laughter ] marcus. der spiegel. >> thanks, mr. president. there's a presidential election

coming up in 2024, and as you know -- >> you're kidding. >> yes. it's true. and there are widespread concerns in europe that a figure like your predecessor, maybe even your predecessor himself, might get elected president again. so are there any steps, anything you're trying to do and nato is trying to do here these days to prevent what they're trying to do becoming undone? thank you. >> no, that's not how i think of this. i've been dealing with foreign policy for longer than anybody's involved in this process right now. i have no concerns about the impact -- i made a commitment when i ran this time. i wasn't going to run again. i mean that sincerely. i had no intention of running for president again and -- until i saw those folks coming out of the fields in virginia carrying attorney generals and carrying nazi banners and literally

saying the same vile rhyme they used in germany in the early '20s -- or '30s, i should say. and then when those gentlemen you mentioned, one was asked what he thought when a young woman was killed, a protester, and he was asked what he thought, he said they're very good people on both sides. and that's when i decided i wasn't going to be quiet any longer. and when i ran this time, and i think the american press, whether they look at me favorably or unfavorably, acknowledge this, i made a determination -- nothing is worth -- no election is worth my not doing exactly what i think is the right thing. not a joke. i'm too long in the tooth to fool with this any longer. and so we're a long way off in elections, a long way off. my focus on any election is making sure we retain the house in the united states senate so

that i have the room to continue to do the things that i've been able to do in terms of grow the economy and deal in a rational way with american foreign policy and lead the world -- be the leader of the free world. so it's not an illogical question for someone to ask. i say to people at home, imagine if we sat and watched the doors of the bunds stag broken down and police officers killed and hundreds of people storming in or imagine if we saw that happen in the british parliament or whatever, how would we feel? and one of the things that i take some solace from is i don't think you'll find any european leader who thinks that i am not up to the job. and i mean that sincerely. it's not like, whoa -- the point

is that the first g-7 meeting i attended, like the one i did today, was in great britain. i sat down and i said america's back, and one of the -- one of my counterparts, colleagues, head of state, said, "for how long? for how long?" so i don't criticize anybody for asking that question. but the next election, i old be very fortunate if i had that same man running against me. thank you very, very much. whoa, whoa, whoa. up with final question. hold on a second. i was supposed to be an hour ago at the european union meeting to speak. someone i haven't called on before. you. who are you? >> i'm with cbs. thank you, sir. >> okay.

>> deterrence didn't work. what makes you think vladimir putin will alter course based on the action you've taken today? >> let's get something straight. you remember if you covered me from the beginning i did not say, in fact, the sanctions would deter him. sanctions never deter. you keep talking about that. ab. sanctions never detour. the increasing the pain and the demonstration of why i asked for this nato meeting today is to be sure after a month we will sustain what we're doing, not just next month, the following month, but for the remainder of this entire year. that's what will stop him. >> do you believe the actions have an impact on the change of course in ukraine? >> that's not what i am saying. you are a playing a game with me and the answer is no. the single most important thing is for us to stay unified, and the world continue to focus on what a brute this guy is, and

all the innocent peoples' lives being lost and ruined. if you are putin and you think that europe is going to crack in a month or six weeks or two months, why not -- they can take anything for another month, but we have to demonstrate, the reason i asked for the meeting, we have to stay fully, totally and thoroughly united. thank you. >> well, that was president biden with would you say a bit of a short press conference and laid out some things, and some things stayed vague, and there will be a response to the use of chemical weapons, and what is that response, not laid out. another fascinating answer he gave, of course, is when he was

asked about the potential of a new president in 2024, and he went through a story you and i heard many times but it was interesting to see him tell it on the world stage, what motivated him to run and the little shot at the end saying he would be fortunate if that person ran again, but acknowledging it's a question many european leaders continue to ask and it's in the back of heads of some. i will leave that aside, and let's deal with what is on tap today which is we are getting a vague response on this, on what the red line is with nato and chemical weapons. clearly they decided not to say this publicly. >> that's right. and up until now, chuck, when the president has been asked about this, he said there would be a response to the use of chemical weapons, but he has not gone any further than that. today he's saying essentially the response will be kau phez

rut to it would not have a full-fledged response, and that's not a red line but it's a blurry line, where putin would not know if i do this there may be an overwhelming response that would detour his actions, and deterrence is not the strategy here. all of these sanctions are not aimed at detering. he -- the white house is continuing to struggle to figure out what tools do they have here short of the things they said they would not do, like a no-fly zone and putting troops on the ground and how do they deploy those to try and get to peaceful

resolutions they are trying to get to but so far have been elusive. >> and let me bring in general, in the issue much sanctions general and the idea if they are deterens or not. the answer is that these people break and put pressure on putin, translation, looks like they are trying to crumble the government but we never say that like that, and isn't it the wish? >> that's one of the goals we are hoping for. what we do know is that sanctions hurt the russian federation. they hurt the russian people. they hurt the russian economy, but they have never, never

changed mr. putin's actions, and that should be the measure of merit. the sanctions are so tough now that i do believe there are some that i am hoping they will cause those around him to fracture and solve the problem for us. >> yeah, there was one analysis that said, look, if you are hoping for a coup with putin, that's not it, but the alternative is resignations, that maybe people around him can't defend it so they walk. look, you have got some insight with your russian counterparts when you were at nato. what do you make of a scenario like that, general? >> i do side with those that say there will not be a coup. mr. putin has a lot of tools left, and some of the more recent oligarchs, they owe that

to mr. putin. some of the big and older oligarchs, they were before putin, and the new guys, they owe it to putin and it's a tough road to count on in this case. >> josh, real quick, president biden at one point seemed to hint maybe i am telling you too much about where i am going. is it possible he's going to ukraine? >> absolutely not. the white house has firmly ruled out president biden going to ukraine. there certainly has been a lot of question about whether he would be near the border to see some of the refugees, and that could be part of the itinerary based on what the president just said. >> he seemed to realize he was all but confirming that and then backed off. thank you for helping us get through the rest of the hour. that's all we have today. we will be back tomorrow with

"meet the press daily," and msnbc coverage will continue with andrea mitchell after the break. the break.

dry eye symptoms driving you crazy? inflammation might be to blame. time for ache and burn! over the counter eye drops typically work by lubricating your eyes and may provide temporary relief. those'll probably pass by me! xiidra works differently, targeting inflammation that can cause dry eye disease. xiidra? no! it can provide lasting relief. xiidra is the only fda-approved non-steroid eye drop specifically for the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. one drop in each eye, twice a day. don't use if you're allergic to xiidra. common side effects, include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied to the eye, and unusual taste sensation. don't touch container tip to your eye or any surface. after using xiidra, wait fifteen minutes before reinserting contacts. talk to an eye doctor about xiidra. i prefer you didn't. xiidra. not today, dry eye. it's still the eat fresh refresh™ and subway's refreshing everything like the new honey mustard rotisserie-style chicken. it's sweet, it's tangy, it's tender, it never misses.

you could say it's the steph curry of footlongs. you could, but i'm not gonna. subway keeps refreshing and refreshing and re... centuries ago, native californians you thrived on this land.na. now, we share a destiny with all californians. when voters granted our sovereign nations exclusive gaming rights, it advanced self-sufficiency and created thousands of good jobs. but now, out of state corporations are coming to california. their online sports betting initiative would break the promise between us. it's bad for tribes and all californians. join us. protect the promise.

this is a special edition of "andrea mitchell reports" live in brussels. president biden just held a news conference after the emergency nato summit. this is after the meeting today to consider emergency measures in response to russia's devastating attacks against ukraine, and how to respond if vladimir putin were to use chemical, biological or worst case, nuclear weapons. the president was asked directly about that response moments ago. >> if chemical weapons were used in ukraine, would that trigger a military response from