tv Washington Journal Jamie Mc Intyre CSPAN March 22, 2022 12:04pm-12:26pm EDT
journal" and life scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span that is available at store and google play. download it for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime anywhere. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that's why charter has invested billions holding infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span is a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> as we turned back to the
topic of the russian invasion of ukraine will come back to our program jamie mcintyre, defense and national security senior writere at the "washingtn examiner." easy author of jamie mcintyre daily on dispense newsletter a staple for national security professionals in this town. what's leaving the t daily on defense today? >> guest: this morning iwh was writing about how the valley defense of the southern port city of mariupol has really stymied thehe russians but it's come at a terrible, terrible cost to the remaining residents who were in mariupol, which is basicallymi been leveled by this constant bombardment of russian troops. and the citizens, the residents there are without food, water, medicine, electricity. many of them have left, describing scenes of utter devastation with corpses and
bodies strewn on the street. it's been a terrible, terrible price, but what the refusal of mariupol to surrender to the russians hassa prevented them fm linking up with their other forces to the east and then beginning to move northern, to the north. i quoted the former nato supreme allied commander james stavridis as saying that he was comparing the sort of last stand of mariupol to the battle of the alamo, which was a siege as well. it ended with all of the people, all the defenders in the alamo in the 1830s in killed, but it was a rallying point that rallied the texans to defeat the mexican army the next month. we are releasing this sort of pivotal battle being played out, and the very brave refusal of
the ukrainians to submit to the russian demands. but this war has not gone anything like president vladimir putin had anticipated. the russians have had problems pretty much at every turn. they didn't think that nearly a month into the war this is where they would be. and it's really a race against time whether to see which side will be ablea to withstand the casualties and the losses, and in the case of russia, the crippling economic sanctions. it's a terrible sort of perversity of war that the more inept the invading force is, the more pain and suffering is suffered by the people of ukraine or being invaded by the russian forces. one of the big revelations of this war is from the pentagon's point of view is they clearly overestimated the prowess of the
russian military. the u.s. thought the russians having built up their military and gotten better equipment were much, much moreth formidable foe than they have turned out to be. they've got serious problems, the russian military, and again the price is being paid by the ukrainian people. >> host: you talk about the strategic importance from the russian perspective creating that land bridge to crimea. but is the symbolic importance outweighing it?ei is it worth it at this point for the russians? you just made a comparison to the alamo and the symbolic importance of that. why does rush have to have this city? >> guest: well, they need that city. they also need the port city, the major port of odessa that is further to the west to secure the coastline and cut off ukraine. that was their plan and they thought they would execute that quickly in the matter of a couple of days.
the symbolic value is the longer ukraine can holdal out, the lonr they can inflict heavy casualties on the russians. we have gotten somer new figures that were leaked from an interior, internal russian ministry document that indicates that around 10,000 russian troops have been killed, could be even more. in many, many more wounded. those are very high numbers. it's more than, it's way more than the united states lost in afghanistan in 20 years, and it's approaching what the u.s. lost in afghanistan and iraq over 20 years of war. that has an effect at home. the russian defense ministry can claim that everything is going to plan and everything is doing just fine. and then they even be able to prevail if they keep back this brute force, bombarding cities
with missiles and rockets and airstrikes. but it's going to come at a terrible cost, and the people back in russia, as their sons are being slaughtered in ukraine, that could cause a considerable problem or mr. putin.le it's almost, it's kind of like a war of attrition. it's also turned into sort of a classic guerrilla war with the ukrainian forces who are highly trained by the u.s. and its allies over the last eight years, very well equipped with a kind of weapons that can inflict damage on russian tanks and aircraft, and they are being very creative and very motivated in the sort of hit-and-run attacks. just this morning we have a report from "the associated press" that one of the suburbs outside of kyiv has been retaken by ukrainian forces, and that's a measure their of how well they
been able tos stymie the russians. russians. the plan for the russians was to encircle kiev the same way they of encircle mariupol in the south and then starve and bomb the citizens into submission. as long as they can prevent that, we can continue to get the flow of arms and supplies and other things into the capital. of course until the capital, until and unless the capital falls, this war isn't over. and if it goes on long enough the price for russia could be so high that they're going to have to find some way to find some sort of offramp to end the fighting. the problem is that vladimir putin has pretty much decided he has to win this war. he didn't really leave himself and out turkey's back in a corner, he has no way to get out and save face, and that's a problem because clearly he
doesn't care about the lives of the civilians in ukraine. and included also doesn't care about the heavy losses that his own military has taken. he seems to be winning at all costs, and the cost is going to be very high for both sides. >> host: let me get the phone numbers for viewers to join the conversation. as you know democrats 202-748-8000. republicans 202-748-8001. independence 202-748-8002. jamie mcintyre with the "washington examiner." on twitter it's at jamie g mcintyre, easy enough to find. question for you first from twitter, this from the libertarian saying this proves the russian conventional military threat was a largest paper tiger in history and we can stop spending so much money on the military. on that your thoughts assessment. >> guest: well, i agree with the first part of that. the russian military did turn
out to be a paper tiger, or as i wrote in my magazine article two weekss ago, putin's army look like it was very formidable but it wasn't. >> host: explained that term. >> guest: it is going to cause nato to reassess how it defends against a potential russian invasion into nato territory. something that was really the founding principle of the nato alliance was to stop the soviet union, , or to counter the sovit union if it had designs on things. a couple of years ago the rand corporation reviewed some of the wargames that the u.s. does to sort of game out how a conflict with russia might play out. in the wargames russia was able to take huge amount of territory very quickly, and data was sort of out of position, didn't have enough resources, , particularly on the countries that border
russia to stop them. based on their performance now in ukraine, it seems like some of those assumptions about how this conflict between russia ann nato would go were a bit flawed. but if you read what vladimir putin has said about his ambitions, it's pretty clear he would prefer not to just stop at ukraine. after being bloodied in ukraine he might not have any stomach to go further, but nato is very concerned that he might try to go after one of the countries, former warsaw pact countries, that are right on the border, including lithuania, estonia, latvia, those countries along the edge of his border. and they are making big plans to beef up the defense is there to make sure that doesn't happen.
but there's one other big wildcard here, and that is russia has this unique nuclear doctrine. you know, the united states and most of the countries that have nuclear weapons argued that the purpose of nuclear weapons is not for them to ever be used but to deter and prevent war. that people are not going to attack you if they know you have nuclear weapons. and that the best use of them as if they are never employed and only used as a deterrent. but russia's nuclear doctrine that was adopted in 2014 calls for the use of so-called tactical or battlefield weapons, lower yield nuclear weapons in the conflict to escalate the conflict to de-escalate. that's what the doctrine is called, escalate to de-escalate. and the idea is if rush is losing on the battlefield or if
the country is at stake, they might employ a small nuclear weapon, which seems kind of oxymoronic to say small nuclear weapon, but something that might take out a tank division or an aircraft carrier or a major airfield, and then the other side, in this case the united states, would be loath to retaliate with another nuclear weapon because that could end in escalation that could imperilat the entire planet. so we would back down and russia would be able to prevail with the limited use of nuclear weapons. that's a very dangerous doctrine, and you can see out that could easily spin out of control. and by the way, it's a big part of the debate during the trump years about developing more low-yield nuclear weapons for the united states, again, not to useev them but to send a message to russia that if they use some
small mini nuke that we would have some kind of small mini nuke that we could respond with, without provoking an all out thermonuclear war that could destroy the planet as we know it. he's a very perilous times, and that nuclear doctrine is one of the things that is kept the united states from doing things like putting a no-fly zone over the country or intervening any more proactively. >> host: let's get a couple calls because members are going to start gathering in a senate judiciary committee hearing room in just a few minutes. want to get to a few calls before the vision. this is timothy in washington, d.c., a democrat. you were on with jamie mcintyre, cow are you doing? i live in washington, d.c. not too far from the white house. like everyone here is little more on edge. we are aware that russia possesses -- tested at 50-megaton could send shockwaves around the world three times.
it could have increased that to 100 megatons. the thought is a lot of people in d.c. is what is something like that was taken as a threat, america sending aid to ukraine and weapons as an act of war? and russia besides, you know, i'm losing -- everyone leaving her, the millionaires, the oligarchs. this is an act of war. we are losing because you are sending sophisticated weapons to help them. my question to you is, if putin's back is up against the wall and feels like he has nowhere to go, what is stopping him from launching, which only take eight bombers to destroy probably the entire united states? >> host: we will take that question. mr. mcintyre. >> guest: as far as we know, as far as we can tell putin is
ruthless. he is backed into a quarter. he is desperate. he has gambled big on this and he is capable of doing something beyond just the conventional warfare. the united states is worried that he mightso use chemical weapons in ukraine. the u.s. is a a bracing for cr attacks on u.s. infrastructure. that could cause major problems for the u.s. we saw what happened when the colonial pipeline was crippled. and as i said he also in theory could use some small limited nuclear weapon. although it's problematic because ukraine is right on his border and any effects of that would also affect russia. what we believe is that putin is not interested in some major exchange of nuclear weapons. the whole theory of their nuclear doctrine is that this one strike would be so shocking
that nobody would respond to it and there would be immediate calls for peace and that russia could prevail on itsts terms by basically having a one and done small nuke. there's no indication that he has any appetite for an all-out nuclear war as i said would basically mean the end of the planet as we know it. he's got 1500 1500 nukes. we've got 1500 nukes that are deployed -- if we start an all-out nuclear war, everybody would lose. >> host: let's get to scott in omaha, nebraska, independent. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i just wanted to point out that if you follow the u.n. security council, this is an issue that the russian ambassador has been trying to raise for the past two years. they have state interest inside ukraine, and that is a dispute that is occurring in the region
of the world that we should let slip out in discourse. re substitute or i guess when youou stifle discour, you produce an alternative result which is warfare and that's what robert reed has said politics is a a continuation of warfare by other means. what a think we should look to is not just had resolved s particular summation but how to avoid spiking discourse in the future so that people can have their problems comes a problems can be resolved in a nonviolent manner. >> host: jamie mcintyre, give you the final two minutes here on the role of the u.n., the role of nato here and expectations for what's going to happen with president biden's trip overseas this week. >> guest: so the basic principle at stake here is that one nation shouldn't be able to change the borders of another nation or take over another nation just because they want to. to. and just because they believe
that some historical events give them the rights to it. there was no shortage of efforts to resolve this diplomatically, but president putin had interest in doing h that either in giving lip service to all those things and he lied about what his intentions were as he amassed this giant invasion force. so president putin -- sorry, president biden will be going to nato headquarters eating with the eu, defense secretary lloyd austin will be going along with him. they will be mostly talking about adjusting nato's security make sure that whatever happens in ukraine doesn't spread to nato countries that putin might have designs on after that. and to send a more effective message of deterrence.
and there will also be a lot of talk about what more the u.s. could do, the u.s. and its nato allies could do to get the kind of weaponry into ukraine that will allow them to continue to keep the russian forces on their back foot.ra because the theory is if the ukraine is could hold out long enough they could wear down the russian forces. otherwise, it's just going to be a matter of time before russia with its superior numbers, weapons and planes and tanks just simply grinds down the opposition in ukraine. it's a veryin perilous time. most of the experts i talked to thank the next week to ten days will tell the tale of whether ukraine will prevail or whether russia will be able to impose its will on ukraine. so we will be watching it every day. >> host: and its jamie mcintyre daily on defense. you can get it through the "washington examiner" and also follow him on twitter.
as always you appreciate the time. thank you so much. >> guest: my pleasure. >> the white house were briefed reporters later today. press secretary jen psaki will join by national security adviser jake sullivan. they are expected to talk about the situation in ukraine and eastern europe. it's now set for 1 p.m. eastern. live coverage when it gets underway here on c-span2. >> lawmakers in a recess now to attend the weekly party caucus lunches. today the senate has been working on the american competes act, legislation focusing on competition between u.s. and chinese markets. when it comes to electronic chip manufacturing. no vote. >> carly scheduled although judicial nominations could come to the floor later today. more light senate coverage when they gavel back into session here on c-span2. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring her unfiltered view of what's happening in washington-on-demand.
keep up with the days because the event with live streams of four proceedings of hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics all that your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episode of "washington journal" and life scheduling information for c-span's booktv networks in c-span radio app plus a variety of compelling podcast. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it for free today. c-span now your front row seat to washington anytime anywhere. >> the mayor of kyiv and his brother a member of the key of territorial defense spoke with "washington post" by videoconference from ukraine. they said they are willing to die to defend their city from the russian invasion. >> welcome to "washington post live." i'm david ignatius, columnist at the post. i'm honored to be join today from
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on