CHUCK TODD:
This Sunday: Russia's war on civilians.
UKRANIAN WOMAN:
The bombs were falling and they were falling from the airplanes.
CHUCK TODD:
As Ukraine puts up a fierce defense Russia turns its guns on the innocent.
UKRANIAN WOMAN:
You can hear the mines when they are falling and when they're close because it's like shoooo.
CHUCK TODD:
Cities like Mariupol are being flattened –
UKRANIAN WOMAN:
I wouldn't even pray for my enemy to go through, go through that, because, I mean, we could not sleep.
CHUCK TODD:
– with Russia hitting an art school this morning where people were hiding days after bombing a theater marked "children," trapping hundreds.
UKRAINIAN MAN:
All of us are in permanent stress.
CHUCK TODD:President Biden attacks Vladimir Putin personally –
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
I think he is a war criminal.
CHUCK TODD:
– as Volodomyr Zelenskyy presses Putin for peace talks and Mr. Biden for more arms and a no-fly zone.
PRES. VOLODOMYR ZELENSKYY:
Being the leader of the world means to be the leader of peace.
CHUCK TODD:
Does Putin want a negotiated peace or simply total destruction? My guests this morning: NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney. Plus, those soaring gas prices.
MARYLAND MAN:
A couple months ago it was like $40 to fill up and now it’s like, triple digits sometimes. It’s insane.
CHUCK TODD:
Roughly two dozen states are considering or enacting a gas tax holiday. But is that really a good idea? Joining me for insight and analysis are: NBC News Chief Washington correspondent Andrea Mitchell, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, PBS NewsHour Chief correspondent Amna Nawaz and Shane Harris, senior national security writer for The Washington Post. Welcome to Sunday. It's Meet the Press.
ANNOUNCER:
From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history. This is Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.
CHUCK TODD:
And a good Sunday morning. With much of their advance stalled, Russian forces continue to turn their guns and missiles on civilians. In recent days, they've hit a theater that was clearly identified as filled with children. Hundreds remain unaccounted for. Russians have bombed apartment buildings in city after city to spread terror, even targeting bread lines and food storage facilities with the clear intention of starving the populous into submission. These civilian attacks, they're not accidents. Overnight, Russia bombed an art school in Mariupol. 400 people had been hiding there. President Biden has gone to the extraordinary step of calling Vladimir Putin a war criminal. And on Friday, the White House says Mr. Biden warned China's president, Xi Jinping, of significant repercussions if China decides to aid Russia either financially or militarily. But Vladimir Putin now apparently accepts that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is the leader of the Ukrainian people, and will remain so even after this war. It's a big concession. But he's still refusing to meet with Zelenskyy one on one, at least for now. So does Putin even want a peace deal, or does he want to flatten Ukraine so nobody can have it? We're going to begin this morning with a report from Kyiv, which remains under Ukrainian control despite the Russian onslaught, with our chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel. And Richard, it seems as if this week this is the week that Russia amped up missile strikes. Are they no longer trying to use a ground invasion to take over Kyiv?
RICHARD ENGEL:
Here in Kyiv, the mood has changed significantly. People are coming out onto the streets. They're feeling much more confident. But everything in this city feels like it's in a bit of suspended reality. Nobody is working. The economy has more or less stopped. Nobody's paying taxes. People aren't making plans for the future. They're just making weapons in their homes while the Russian offensive is paused. But the expectation is that Russia is just refitting, rearming, regrouping, and that it plans to hit this city and other cities with even more ferocity as it brings in heavier weapons. And Russia's already starting to use heavier weapons. It's used the hypersonic missile which brought a lot of people's attention. But the concern here is that it could bring in its heavy artillery pieces that would do the most damage. And this is typical Russian military operating procedure. When it hits a wall, it brings in bigger hammers to smash through that wall. But here in Kyiv for the time being, they are seeing something of a respite and also using this time to refit and stock up on supplies.
CHUCK TODD:
So if it's possible that Putin has decided maybe he can't get Kyiv and he wants to at least keep what he has or try to, you know, make some incremental gains and the south and east, what do these peace talks look like? And who's now the best mediator?
RICHARD ENGEL:
Turkey is emerging far and away as the clearest mediator, with President Erdoğan. He has a relationship with President Putin. He's a NATO member, so he's trusted by both sides. But he has also had strained relations with the United States, which could help him with Putin. So he's clearly emerged as the interlocutor. And so far, what Turkey is saying is that Putin and Russia do seem to be willing to make some sort of deal, that it would involve denazification, whatever that means. Potentially just a generic statement from Ukraine that it rejects all forms of extremism. That it would involve neutrality, which President Zelenskyy has already more or less agreed to, that he won't join NATO. But it could also involve territorial concessions, particularly in the south, particularly around Mariupol. And that so far seems to be the biggest sticking point.
CHUCK TODD:
And that might be a bridge too far for Zelenskyy right now. Richard Engel in Kyiv for us. Richard, thank you. Clint Watts has been studying the war, deconstructing Russia's military strategy for us here at NBC News. He joins me now. So Clint, do you discern a new strategy here, military strategy, by the Russians? Increased use of missile strikes from farther away, and it appears to be at least a stalling of their ground invasion, if you will?
CLINT WATTS:
That's right, Chuck. This is clearly in phase two, which is reorganize, consolidate, bring forces back together, take some of their armor units, by the way. Some of these armor units that you see up here in and around Sumy were nearly decimated. And so they're bringing them back, reorganizing them, patching together all those armor units, putting new commands on it so they can make another advance. Separately, the east is really where the fight is happening right now. You've seen major battles in and around Kharkiv. Not only there, they're moving in two directions essentially, trying to link up in and around an area known as Izyum. Izyum, if they can do this, would link together all this territory here. And what Vladimir Putin has said from the start is that he wants all of Donbas to be essentially secured and Russian. Separately, this is Mariupol, where you're seeing the absolute devastation. And the bigger story I think is where they're focusing in the south. They know in Kyiv it's going to get tough. And one thing to add to all of this, Chuck, is it is becoming mud season, meaning that when you look at some of the things that are going on in the east, as these bogs thaw out, you see tanks stuck in the mud. You see convoys stuck in the mud. So for them, they I think see, "Hey, it may be too much to get to Kyiv. Let's focus on the south," which is the bigger picture I think at this point. The land bridge has essentially been secured, connecting Crimea and this Donbas region. Separately, Mykolaiv, that's where the very devastating missile strike was overnight, they're going to try and go here and encircle Odessa. That's the next fight to watch.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, Clint Watts who's been studying this for us. Clint, thank you. And joining me now from Brussels is the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg. He will be hosting all of the NATO leaders, including President Biden, on Tuesday for an in-person leaders meeting. Mr. Secretary General, welcome to Meet the Press.
JENS STOLTENBERG:
Thank you so much for having me.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me start with the status of peace talks. How serious have they become, and what role is Turkey playing? You heard our report there from my colleague Richard Engel that they're taking a bigger role in this. What can you tell us, sir?
JENS STOLTENBERG:
So first of all, we have to remember that this is President Putin's war, and he can end it now. And that's what all NATO allies call on Russia to do. Then, of course, we welcome all efforts to find a negotiated, peaceful solution. I visited Turkey a few days ago, met with President Erdoğan, and Turkey is doing some real efforts to try to facilitate support, talks between Russia and Ukraine. But it's far too early to say whether these or other talks can lead to any concrete outcome.
CHUCK TODD:
We've seen an increased targeting of civilians, Mr. Secretary General, in Ukraine. How long can NATO stand by and watch Russia target civilians without finding a way to help more when it comes to the Ukrainian resistance?
JENS STOLTENBERG:
NATO allies are stepping up their support to Ukraine, partly by delivering military support, humanitarian support, and billions of financial support to Ukraine. And then, of course, we imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia to ensure that they are paying – President Putin is paying a high price for this totally unjustified, senseless war against an independent sovereign nation, Ukraine. And let me also remind you of the fact that NATO allies have actually trained and supported Ukrainian armed forces for years, trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian forces, Special Operation Forces, command and control, logistics. And all of this proves extremely important now. These troops are on the frontline fighting against the invading Russian troops. So the support allies have provided over many years proves now to have been extremely important.
CHUCK TODD:
If there's a peace deal that gives Russia a piece of Ukraine, essentially, are you concerned that that will reward Russia for this aggression?
JENS STOLTENBERG:
Ukraine is an independent, sovereign nation, and I have full trust in President Zelenskyy and the government in making the right judgments of what kind of peace talks they should engage in and what kind of agreements they can agree to. Our responsibility is to support Ukraine, as we do in many different ways, but also ensure that this conflict will not spiral out of control or – or expands and escalate beyond Ukraine. That's also the reason why we have significantly increased our major presence in the eastern part of the alliance.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to ask you about Tuesday's meeting and the agenda. First thing, have you invited President Zelenskyy to attend remotely?
JENS STOLTENBERG:
We haven't yet decided on the exact format of that summit. It will take place on Thursday, next week, with President Biden and all the other leaders. I'm in regular contact and NATO ally leaders are in regular contact with President Zelenskyy. And I think the meeting of all heads of state and government in NATO will provide us with yet another platform to demonstrate our unity, our support to Ukraine, but also our readiness to protect and defend all NATO allies. And by sending that message, we are preventing an escalation of the conflict to a full-fledged war between NATO and Russia. And I would also like to commend and thank President Biden and the U.S. administration for their leadership throughout this crisis. They warned against this as early as last fall. And then the increased presence of U.S. troops in Europe is something which is, of course, very much welcomed by all allies.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, back in the mid-'90s, there was a lot of talk – NATO was not going to intervene in what was happening in Central Europe until the humanitarian crisis got so bad that NATO ended up getting involved. Is a no-fly zone forever off the table in Ukraine? Or would the use of chemical weapons make NATO rethink?
JENS STOLTENBERG:
Allies support Ukraine, but at the same time, it is extremely important that we prevent this conflict becoming a full-fledged war between NATO and Russia because that will cause much more damage, much more death, destruction than what we see now in Ukraine. Russia is a nuclear power. President Putin is now conveying very dangerous nuclear rhetoric. And therefore, we are supporting Ukraine, but at the same time significantly increasing the military presence with the troops on land, at sea, and in the air. Germany and the U.K. have doubled their presence in the Baltic countries, in their battle groups there. The U.S. has now 100,000 troops there in Europe. And there are tens of thousands of troops in the eastern part alliance to send a message that escalation beyond Ukraine will be met with a very firm response from the whole alliance. And by doing that, we are preventing a conflict, not provoking a conflict in Europe at the moment.
CHUCK TODD:
Russia's use of chemical weapons, would that be considered though an escalation on his part that would make NATO rethink?
JENS STOLTENBERG:
Our core responsibility is to protect one billion people living in 30 different NATO allied countries. And we are doing that by increasing the presence in the eastern part of the alliance. I also believe that, regardless of how this conflict now ends, we are faced with a new reality, a new security reality, where Russia more openly contests core values for our security and are willing to use military force to achieve its objectives. And therefore, we need to reset our deterrence and defense. And one of the issues we will start to discuss at the upcoming summit of NATO leaders next week in Brussels is how we do the more long term adaptation and the long term reset of deterrence and defense.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. It does sound like what you're saying is you don't have an answer yet on what the use of chemical weapons would do to NATO's stance about Ukraine.
JENS STOLTENBERG:
So any use of chemical weapons will be a blatant and brutal violation of international law, the ban on the use of chemical weapons. At the same time, we know that Russia has used chemical agents in Europe before against their own political opponents. And they – Russia has been facilitating, supporting the Assad regime in Syria, where chemical weapons has been used. So this is something we take extremely serious. But at the same time, again, we are not – we are very much aware that we need to act in a way that prevents this conflict from going from being a very bloody, ugly, horrific conflict in Ukraine, to something that turns out to be a full-fledged war between NATO and Russia in Europe and also potentially involving, of course, the United States directly. That would be extremely dangerous, and that is exactly what we need to prevent.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Mr. Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary General, appreciate you coming on and sharing NATO's perspective with us. Joining me now is Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. He's been a leading voice supporting Ukraine in Congress for a number of years now. Senator Murphy, welcome back to Meet the Press. I want to pick up on this. He did not want to say that chemical weapons was a red line. Is chemical weapons a red line for the United States government in your mind? Should it be for the Biden administration when it comes to what we do about – whether we do a no-fly zone and get more involved in Ukraine militarily?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
Yeah. Listen, I think we need to make it clear to the Russians that our level of commitment to the Ukrainians and our participation in this conflict is going to be proportional to the tactics that the Russians use inside of Ukraine. There is no doubt that we have dramatically stepped up the transfer of weapons to Ukraine since the Russians have begun this brutal campaign of targeting civilians. We've sent drones. We have sent new anti-tank missiles, a billion dollars of assistance in the last week. So I don't think the United States needs to draw specific red lines today. I think we just need to make clear to the Russians that our involvement in this war is going to increase if their tactics targeting civilians also increase.
CHUCK TODD:
Do we have to get to the uncomfortable position that Putin may remain in power, get a piece of Ukraine, and we get a peace deal and Zelenskyy stays in power? That's an uncomfortable potential result, but it feels as if – if peace talks are at all serious, we could land in that sort of uncomfortable zone.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
So peace talks are always uncomfortable. And this is a terrible position that Zelenskyy is in because he sees what's happening. The Russians right now do not have a path to get to Kyiv. What you see is they are taking up defensive positions. There's news overnight, in fact, that the Ukrainians have made advances in and around Kyiv. And so this assault into the cities, this targeting of civilians is going to get worse, increasing the pressure on President Zelenskyy to get a peace deal. Listen, Stoltenberg is right. This is ultimately up to President Zelenskyy as to the terms of this agreement. But if President Zelenskyy makes the choice to reject these claims of annexation, the United States people will be with him. The United States will stand with Ukraine if that is a bottom line for the Ukrainian government. I think neutrality is on the table. I think, sort of, increased devolution of power to some of these eastern regions should be on the table. Annexation will be a very tough pill for Zelenskyy to swallow, and the United States is going to support him in whatever decision he makes.
CHUCK TODD:
Are we going to let Putin back into the world order, even incrementally, if there is some sort of ceasefire? I mean, the answer, probably – look, if Zelenskyy negotiates this week, we may have to. How does that work? Is he going to be less of a pariah than, say, Fidel Castro was for 50 years?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
Listen, he was in the world order because we allowed for our allies and the United States to be dependent on the products that he produced. So no, we should not allow Vladimir Putin back into the world order. But we should also be wise to the fact that this is the moment to make the United States, Europe, the rest of the world independent of the product that Russia makes – oil and gas. And if we don't do that, then you will ultimately be forced to keep him at the table.
CHUCK TODD:
President Biden called Vladimir Putin a war criminal this week. There are a lot of people that agree with that assessment, but question whether the president himself should've personalized it. Where are you on this?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
Well, I don't think you can do anything other than call Vladimir Putin a war criminal. He is. I mean, what he is doing right now as we speak, targeting children, maternity wards, schools inside Ukraine clearly crosses a line. And what we are seeing is –
CHUCK TODD:
So we're going to negotiate with a war criminal?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
Yeah. But what we've seen --
CHUCK TODD:
I mean, that is what's, that is what’s difficult here, right? We didn't negotiate with Milošević.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
Well, listen, this is ultimately a decision that Zelenskyy is going to make. But listen, this is a moment where we need to come together in Washington around President Biden. President Biden is showing moral leadership, just like President Zelenskyy is showing moral leadership. I've got a lot of Republican colleagues right now who are using their time to criticize President Biden, to vote against Ukraine aid on the floor of the House and the Senate, while President Biden is standing up there saying and doing the right thing. So I'm proud of President Biden for drawing a moral line against Vladimir Putin. I'd rather have my Republican colleagues supporting him, rather than attacking him.
CHUCK TODD:
One of the first times you and I talked publicly about Ukraine was during the first President Trump impeachment. One of your traveling companions frequently was Ron Johnson. He said something interesting this week that I wanted to get your reaction to. He said, "I personally think if Trump had met with Zelenskyy, never would've made the phone call, I think those two would've hit it off beautifully and none of this would've ever happened. It's kind of interesting. How would history have changed based on that one decision not to meet with President Zelenskyy?" This was part of the holding this aid hostage – he snubbed Zelenskyy in a meeting in Poland and sent Vice President Pence there. This seems to be Senator Johnson admitting that the situation in Ukraine would be different had Trump handled it differently. Is he right? Do you agree with him?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
Listen, we lost four years of cooperation. Had Ukraine not been a political poker chip during the Trump administration, we could've been increasing our level of military commitment to Ukraine. I don't know if I can sit here today and say that things would have been different. I think ultimately, President Putin wanted to control Ukraine and he was going to stop at nothing in order to bring it back into Russian orbit. And so yes, I think Ukraine would be in a better position to defend itself today had Trump not played games during those four years. But I'm not sure that anything was going to stop Vladimir Putin from moving troops into Ukraine.
CHUCK TODD:
Is this the right time to do the Iran deal?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
There's no choice but to do the Iran deal. I mean, where do you --
CHUCK TODD:
But can you trust the Russians? This is a case where we have to – we're working with the Russians on this. It seems like an awkward time to do that.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
Cut the Russians out. I mean, you don't need the Russians, right? The material that was being removed from Iran on the original nuclear deal went to Russia. There are other countries that can take it. You ultimately don't need the blessing of the U.N. to get this deal done. You think it's bad to have Russia as a nuclear power invading a sovereign neighboring country, imagine what happens if Iran is a nuclear power. The rest of the Middle East will pursue nuclear weapons.
CHUCK TODD:
So you're good with doing this if we find a way to keep Russia out of the deal? You'd keep them completely out of the deal?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
If they're in the deal or out of the deal, we cannot allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. That sets off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. And I don't understand why my Republican colleagues, having watched what Vladimir Putin can get away with with nuclear weapons, want to hand nuclear weapons to the Iranians.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Senator Chris Murphy --
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
Thank you.
CHUCK TODD:
– Democrat from Connecticut. Good to see you.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY:
Good to see you.
CHUCK TODD:
Thanks for coming on. When we come back, one of the more hawkish voices on the Republican side of things. I'm going to talk to Congresswoman Liz Cheney about the war in Ukraine.
CHUCK TODD:
Congresswoman Liz Cheney has become something of an outlier in this version of the Republican Party. Cheney represents a more traditional, hawkish wing of the GOP from the Cold War era at a time when many in the party have followed former President Trump's nationalist, isolationist, America-first approach. And, of course, Cheney has risked her own political survival by condemning Mr. Trump over January 6th and for simply agreeing to join the congressional inquiry on January 6th. We wanted to get her thoughts though on the war in Ukraine. And Liz Cheney joins me now. Congresswoman, welcome back to Meet the Press.
REP. LIZ CHENEY:
Great to be with you. Thanks for having me, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me start with a question that I asked the NATO Secretary General and that I also asked Senator Murphy, and I'll ask you. The use of chemical weapons, is that a red line in your mind for whether NATO should at least intervene to protect civilians in some form in Ukraine?
REP. LIZ CHENEY:
I think that it should be, Chuck. And I think that we in the west, the United States and NATO, we need to stop telling the Russians what we won't do. We need to be very clear that we are considering all options, that the use of chemical weapons is certainly something that would alter our calculations. And we need to understand that, you know, we shouldn't be in the business of some have called it self-deterrence. Putin's actions so far have demonstrated, first of all, that the Russian military is nowhere near as capable as the world perhaps thought it was, probably not as capable as Putin thought it was. And they need to understand that if the brutality here increases, the United States will contemplate and consider every possible range of actions along with our NATO allies. And I think it's important that they know that we will contemplate changing the calculation in terms of humanitarian challenges and the humanitarian devastation the Ukrainian people are facing.
CHUCK TODD:
Congresswoman, we seem to be in a bit of a conundrum with Putin. He's extraordinarily weak right now on one hand. It's clear, as you just pointed out, his military is not what he thought it was. And yet, he is cornered and he does have nuclear weapons. So I guess the thing is, are you going to be comfortable if President Zelenskyy comes to some sort of truce with him that codifies some of Ukraine into his hands, essentially, rewarding him for this aggression? What is that line we strike there, not rewarding him for aggression, but trying to get peace here?
REP. LIZ CHENEY:
Well, I think you've put your finger on that, Chuck. I think it's very important that Putin not reap any rewards at all for this aggression. I think territorial gains would be a reward for him. I think that we cannot be in a situation where, you know, the security and the peace that has been guaranteed really since 1945 on the continent of Europe certainly suddenly now powers believe that by the kind of onslaught that you've seen, kind of war crimes, the kind of brutality you've seen Putin unleash, that they can gain from that. So I do think it's critically important for the United States and for NATO to be clear. Obviously, we are going to support President Zelenskyy, but we need to be very clear we do not believe Putin should be able to gain, to benefit from the actions he's taken.
CHUCK TODD:
It sounds like if you have a critique for the Biden administration it's less on the actions that have been taken, and more on the rhetoric that they've said or not said. You know, for instance, allowing the appearance that Putin gets to dictate the terms of engagement here. Is there something more substantial you would be doing, other than changing rhetoric right now?
REP. LIZ CHENEY:
Many things. First of all, I would completely stop the negotiations that are under way for reentering this Iranian nuclear deal. It is absolutely indefensible to be in a situation right now where we're, number one, contemplating giving the Iranians billions of dollars in sanction relief, giving them a pathway to a nuclear weapon. That money is going to be used not only to destabilize, probably the world, not just the region. They'll use it to help to fund terrorism and support. It also benefits Russia directly. And Russia, as you pointed out, is organizing those talks, is mediating --
CHUCK TODD:
What did --
REP. LIZ CHENEY:
-- those negotiations.
CHUCK TODD:
– you think of Senator Murphy saying, "Cut the Russians out. Do this deal without them.”? Is that possible?
REP. LIZ CHENEY:
Look, I just completely disagree with Senator Murphy's concept that we should be doing this deal. It is wrong to be doing this deal, no matter what. It is certainly indefensible with the Russians in the middle of it, given that they are a pariah state, that Putin is a war criminal. Even if they weren't in the middle of it though, this is absolutely the wrong time to be providing a windfall to the Iranians. And the deal does not stop them from getting a nuclear weapon. It actually gives them a pathway to a nuclear weapon. And I think that those negotiations should stop immediately.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to ask you about, and I know you've been asked a version of this question before, but I want to put up what Adam Kinzinger said. He said he doesn't regret many votes, but one that he does regret is that he didn't vote for the first impeachment that was involved with the Ukrainian situation. And I know what your answer has been in the past. You didn't think the case had been made. But I'm curious. You're on this January 6th Committee. You've seen all the different ways that circumstantially that President Trump reacted and reacted. In hindsight, does it not seem conceivable that he really did hold money hostage for his own political gain, and that was indeed an impeachable offense?
REP. LIZ CHENEY:
You know, I believe, Chuck, all of us who are in positions of public trust have an obligation to the Constitution. And so having sat through, watching the hearings, watching the evidence that was put on for the first impeachment, at the end of the day, the evidence that was put on didn't make the case. The January 6th situation and attack is obviously something that is fundamentally different. We all watched that unfold in real-time. We all lived through that attack. But I will say that the January 6th Committee is very much focused on lessons learned from that first impeachment and very much focused on making sure the American people have all of the facts and the truth about what happened.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me ask you about that finally, just before I let you go, which is the public exposé that you guys are eventually going to do, is this going to – you said it's going to make recommendations. Should we expect criminal referrals on this? And should we expect something – how much new do you think the public will learn that will actually change the way they thought about January 6th?
REP. LIZ CHENEY:
Well, I think certainly, our first priority is to make recommendations. And we're looking at this like do we need additional enhanced criminal penalties for the kind of supreme dereliction of duty that you saw with President Trump when he refused to tell the mob to go home after he had provoked that attack on the Capitol. So there will be legislative recommendations, and there certainly will be new information. And I can tell you, I have not learned a single thing since I have been on this committee that has made me less concerned or less worried about the gravity of the situation and the actions that President Trump took and also refused to take while the attack was under way.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, that's quite a statement and I think I'm going to let that stand as the end of this interview. Congresswoman Liz Cheney, appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective with us.
REP. LIZ CHENEY:
Thank you. Great to be with you. Thanks, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, President Biden called Vladimir Putin a war criminal. He may be right. But was he right to say it publicly? The panel is next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. The panel is here. NBC News Chief Washington Correspondent Andrea Mitchell; the Washington Post Foreign Affairs Columnist, David Ignatius; Shane Harris, national security reporter for the Washington Post; and PBS NewsHour Chief Correspondent Amna Nawaz. All right, China and the role they may or may not play here. Andrea, I want to put up the two readouts because the good news was the readouts indicated they were at least on the same phone call. Sometimes you get readouts and they're not. I want to put up quickly what the Chinese side said: "All sides need to jointly support Russia and Ukraine in having dialogue and negotiation that will produce results and lead to peace. The U.S. and NATO should also have dialogue with Russia to address the crux of the Ukraine crisis and ease the security concerns of both Russia and Ukraine." And of course, the White House emphasized that they warned China, "Don't help the Russians." He described the implications and consequences if China provides material support to Russia as it conducts brutal attacks against Ukrainian cities and civilians. We love to say, watch what they do, not what they say, whether it's Russia or China. But what they said indicated something, Andrea.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
What they said, though, indicated they had to talk about Taiwan because everyone is analogizing Ukraine and Taiwan. They had to separate that out. And also because President Biden, frankly, last October in a town hall, was a little bit off the one-time China policy. He was less ambiguous than previous presidents have been going all the way back to 1979. They had to lay that as a marker. That said, there was other language in there. And talking to officials on both sides, frankly, there's, first of all, a saying that the U.S. and China have a stake as Security Council members in working something out, not just NATO and the U.S. with Russia, but also nobody really thinks that, despite Russia's request, which the U.S. leaked, again leaking intelligence, no one really thinks that China was going to provide weapons. But this was sort of a, "Don't do it." It's drones, it's UAEs, it's the money. It's getting around the sanctions --
CHUCK TODD:
Because they've done that for North Korea in the past.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Right, exactly. It's the material support. When they said material support, they don't want that. And the fact is that Secretary Blinken actually met with the Chinese ambassador –
CHUCK TODD:
After the call.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
– after the call.
CHUCK TODD:
In person.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
In person. He was going over to the State Department --
CHUCK TODD:
That says a lot.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
– to see the Deputy Secretary Wendy Sherman and they had a meeting, which has not been reported. And there was follow-up here. China wants to be seen as a neutral broker. And they don't want to be seen as embracing the civilian horrors that we are seeing.
CHUCK TODD:
So, David --
ANDREA MITCHELL:
They're not at all happy about that.
CHUCK TODD:
– do you think Putin received the message that China is not going to be his lifeline?
DAVID IGNATIUS:
So, I think Putin must be, should be worried that China, his only meaningful ally, is distancing itself. And that's the way I read this call, that China wants to distance itself enough from Putin that it isn't taken down with this invasion of Ukraine. In a sense, the biggest obstacle to Xi's China Dream, as he calls it, this idea of China emerging as a dominant player, right now is the alliance with Russia, which is a pariah which poisons Xi's future. So, I think the call was part of a number of things that we've seen. There was a very explicit op-ed written by the Chinese ambassador in the Washington Post –
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Well, that was the most significant factor.
DAVID IGNATIUS:
– saying, "We're not on board. We believe in territorial integrity and sovereignty." So, if I were Putin, I'd be worried about erstwhile Chinese allies.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, let's talk about NATO this week, Amna. What should we expect from this meeting?
AMNA NAWAZ:
So, that's obviously an ongoing negotiation right now, exactly what they're going to do. The G-7 countries are going to be the nations where they talk about additional, you know, economic sanctions and steps they can take –
CHUCK TODD:
What's left on the sanctions front?
AMNA NAWAZ:
Broader, more significant restrictions on Russian banks, complete removal from the SWIFT financial system. I mean, the knock-on effects of all of this are something they are all deeply weighing. As, like, no one's been hit harder by some of these sanctions, certainly Russian and the Russian people, but also the European nations. And so there's a lot of consideration about what exactly to do there. They are very clear about military intervention at this point. Any European official you talk to, any --
CHUCK TODD:
Oh, my goodness, the NATO --
AMNA NAWAZ:
– American official --
CHUCK TODD:
You heard the two American representatives. They're ready to go to war. I’m not saying – they don't want to--
AMNA NAWAZ:
Absolutely.
CHUCK TODD:
But boy, the NATO Secretary General seemed to really -- chemical weapons was not going to be a red line.
AMNA NAWAZ:
No. He said that it would be a violation of international law and so the question there is, "And then what?"
CHUCK TODD:
And then what?
AMNA NAWAZ:
And we've seen that before. I mean, we saw that in Syria. And let's be clear, too, the line, from what we saw in Syria and Russian aggression there and the brutal aerial bombardment of Aleppo, there's a direct line from that to what we are seeing now. So, the military line, if there's a red line at all, it is just an Article 5 violation. And that is a direct attack on NATO or NATO interests.
CHUCK TODD:
Let's talk about, Shane and everybody here, this decision by the president to call him a war criminal.
SHANE HARRIS:
Uh-huh..
CHUCK TODD:
It was very intentional by Biden. You know, sometimes Biden says things, as she pointed out, but take a look at this clip. This was intentional.
(BEGIN VIDEO)
REPORTER:
Mr. President, after everything we've seen, are you ready to call Putin a war criminal?
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
No.
REPORTER::
war criminal, sir. Are you ready to call him a war criminal--
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
Oh, I think he is a war criminal.
(END VIDEO)
SHANE HARRIS:
No, that was absolutely intentional. That's not off the cuff. And when the president says it, now it's policy, even though previously officials in his administration have been reluctant to do that. Practically speaking, I'm not sure it really matters all that much. We're not a party to the International Criminal Court.
CHUCK TODD:
Except do you have to negotiate with a war criminal?
SHANE HARRIS:
Well, exactly, now are we doing that? This is where it creates a moral ambiguity, I think, here that is very dangerous for the president. On the one hand, you're negotiating with a war criminal. On the other hand, you're calling him a war criminal, but we're not going to get involved when he's shelling civilians? How does he square that? And I think there's a real risk there for the summit next week that it ends up making officials look more feckless because what are they going to do? They're not going to draw new red lines. You pressed Stoltenberg five different ways on this. He won't even say chemical weapons is a red line, but yet Putin is a war criminal. There's dissonance there.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
What's interesting is at the State Department, day after day, I was questioning Ned Price, the spokesman, about, "Isn't he a war criminal? Look at what's happening." And he kept saying, "We are investigating reports of war crimes. We can't call them war crimes."
CHUCK TODD:
Or they say, "We believe he's committed war crimes," but they haven't called him a war criminal.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Exactly. And then until the U.N. ambassador said it and then they explained, "Well, she said it because she was speaking from the heart." But then, when the president said it, then it became policy, as Shane said. And it became policy and you're going to end up negotiating with Vladimir Putin no matter what happens.
CHUCK TODD:
David?
DAVID IGNATIUS:
So, I mean, at the end of the day, this will require an off-ramp. It will require a negotiation. And for Putin especially, a person who takes things so personally, you know, who just feels humiliated, slighted, obviously has a huge chip on his shoulder, to make an ad-hoc attack, I think, was really unwise. I don't think it was pre-planned. I mean, there was a big crowd --
CHUCK TODD:
Not pre-planned, but I do think people have been trying to get him to up his rhetoric, in general, and he grabbed that --
DAVID IGNATIUS:
Chuck, that was Joe Biden.
CHUCK TODD:
Yes, I know.
DAVID IGNATIUS:
I mean, you know, Joe Biden, you know, he's just, you know, average Joe. He is a war criminal and you ask him, so he says, "Yeah, he is."
ANDREA MITCHELL:
But after seeing Mariupol and after seeing that video that day, they felt, and he felt, that he could no longer -- it sounded too legalistic and too cute by half to just --
AMNA NAWAZ:
And it is a legal definition, right. And that's something the prosecutors have to figure out. Putin has to be held responsible for. Displacement is also a war crime. And the U.N. has new numbers this morning, 6.5 million Ukrainians internally displaced on top of the 3.5 million refugees. You're talking about ten million people affected.
CHUCK TODD:
And I think we're up to 1.5 million children.
DAVID IGNATIUS:
Just don't close doors to the settlement that's necessary to keep --
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Absolutely right.
DAVID IGNATIUS:
– that country from being destroyed and to prevent escalation into something that's a nightmare.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. When we come back, we're going to look at a lighter story, literally. Should daylight saving time become permanent? It just might. And as we go to break, though, I want to note the passing on Friday of Alaska Congressman Don Young. Young was the longest serving Republican ever in the House of Representatives. And he was best known for bringing federal projects, earmarks or pork barrel, to his state. Former Speaker John Boehner said Mr. Young had once pinned him against a wall and put a knife to his throat, upset about a lost earmark. Don Young would joke later that the more Boehner told the story, the bigger the knife got and the closer to his throat the knife got. Don Young was one of a kind, and he was 88.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. It's Data Download time. The Senate appeared to put aside its partisan differences this week when, seemingly out of nowhere, they unanimously passed a measure that would make daylight saving time permanent. In other words, our annual rite of springing ahead or falling back with our clocks an hour would suddenly be a year-round practice. We wouldn't do it anymore. So, as we watch to see what the House of Representatives will do with the proposed Sunshine Protection Act, take a look back at how we have regulated time here in Washington. Look, it was in 1966 that we made it sort of uniform when different states were trying their own versions of daylight saving time. And then we started making it, instead of six months and six months, we're now up to about eight and four. We've done that incrementally. For what's it worth, we did try permanent daylight saving time. It was a two-year experiment in the '70s. It went so well, we repealed it in less than two years. There's a reason why it didn't go so well. I'll tell you in a minute. But right now, the public's kind of divided on this. 35% want to keep doing this, fall back and spring forward. 13% would like to see us get rid of daylight saving time, go back to standard time. 44% would like to see this permanent daylight saving time. But I'll tell you, this impacts people in different places. Here's just right now the western time zone, Pacific time zone. If permanent daylight saving Time, Las Vegas's sunrise would get to close to 8:00 a.m. Look what would happen in Seattle, a little further to the west here. It would move to nearly 9:00 a.m. It would wreak some havoc on kids walking to school or walking to school bus stops. Now look at the east coast. Boston's sunrise would move to 8:15 a.m. in the morning on January 1st. Look what would happen on the other edge of the Eastern time zone. Nearly an hour later would the sun rise in Detroit. Look, there's a reason Marco Rubio is for this. The state of Florida, not really impacted. Not too far to the east, not too far to the west in that time zone. So, kind of easy for Florida, kind of harder for many other parts of the northern tier. When we come back, with gas prices soaring, more than 20 states are considering or have already enacted a gas tax freeze. It's obviously a popular idea, but is it really a good one? Stay with us.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. The biggest domestic political fallout from the current war obviously is gas prices. And we are up to some two dozen states that are considering gas tax holidays. One right here in neighboring Maryland already has done it. Georgia's already done it. It's hard to say no to these as a politician, Shane, is it not?
SHANE HARRIS:
Absolutely. And it's something that the states can do unilaterally, right. They can take a bigger chunk out of the gas prices than the federal gas tax can be. At the end of the day, it's not going to dramatically lower the price at the pump though. I mean, these prices are factored in. Oil is sold on a global market. It's an index price. It can make people feel really good and it can let the governors say, "Hey, I'm doing something for you," when maybe it looks to make the president a little bit weaker, but it's a band-aid.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
It's terrible policy. First of all, there's no guarantee legally that the producers or the retailers are going to pass that break on to the consumers. Second of all, it gets people to drive more when supplies are short, so it's going to pump up prices overall because it's inflationary. And third of all, it's terrible climate policy. So, it's really bad policy.
CHUCK TODD:
It's also terrible pothole policy. Forget the climate.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Right.
CHUCK TODD:
Like, it depletes the transportation --
ANDREA MITCHELL:
The Highway Trust Fund. So, it's a $20 billion hit on the Highway Trust Fund if everyone did it. But the other thing is the windfall profit tax. And that's what, you know, senators and other House members are really looking at. But that would get producers to produce less. So, there's no really --
CHUCK TODD:
The issue is the oil supply, so I've got to ask, David, is the Iran deal -- is some of the motivation here about increasing some supply, too? Is this why we're still --
DAVID IGNATIUS:
I don't think it's the reason.
CHUCK TODD:
Or is it a benefit? A potential benefit?
DAVID IGNATIUS:
I think there's a genuine desire, obviously, to cap the Iranian Nuclear Program again. But that is a side benefit. The administration had hoped that our erstwhile Saudi friends might help out by pumping a little more out. That doesn't seem to be happening. So --
ANDREA MITCHELL:
They said "Nyet."
DAVID IGNATIUS:
So, I think that is a benefit. I just have to say about gas prices, I know that this is a big political issue, but there's a sense of disproportion. Here's the center of Europe in flames and the big issue in America is our gas price is going to go up, you know, by another $0.50. You know, part of being a super power is sucking it up and kind of getting through this --
CHUCK TODD:
But political leaders have to then make that case, though, right? I don't disagree, but you've got to say that. And we kind of say, "Hey, this is going to take some sacrifice. Oh, by the way, the administration's thinking about passing out gas cards." You want to talk about messing up the supply? That would have done that.
AMNA NAWAZ:
Gas prices are the easy thing to point to, right? Both for Republicans who are looking to make a point against the president and also for people to say, "How am I feeling day to day?" Inflation, more largely, is the bigger issue and it still remains the biggest issue for most Americans. That said, Americans are really following what's going on in Ukraine. And right now is a moment for President Biden and this administration to lead on a foreign stage in the way that they have not been able to after the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. And Americans right now broadly support America doing something. Not necessarily military intervention, but doing something to bolster Ukraine.
SHANE HARRIS:
Yeah, I think that this is going to be the pressure that continues to build the more you see those horrific images of schools, of maternity wards, of people sheltering in place from relentless Russian shelling, dying in the rubble. There is going to be a momentum that builds toward that. The president could go out and start to build that momentum, too. He could make a case for doing more. He has been very reluctant to do it. But then he calls Putin a war criminal. Again, back to the point of you're going to have to start squaring that rhetoric with your policy.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
I think I should also point out about the Iran deal that I think you were making that point. There is a real concern about the nuclear breakthrough moment and that they have to do something.
CHUCK TODD:
It feels like if they get it, people are going to blame for not being in the deal, and if they get it, people are going to blame for getting into the deal. But I don't want to get into that. This is becoming --
DAVID IGNATIUS:
Chuck, one thing to say about the Iran nuclear deal, this war in Ukraine is going to end up being the biggest demonstration of the usefulness of having nuclear weapons. And that's why we're not being more aggressive against Russia. And the danger of giving them up, as Ukraine did. I mean, would Russia have attacked a Ukraine with nuclear weapons? No, it wouldn't have. So, if you're Iran, if you're Saudi Arabia --
CHUCK TODD:
The Libya question.
DAVID IGNATIUS:
Go down the list. Every country is going to say, "Oh, I get it. I have to have nuclear weapons."
SHANE HARRIS:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
Next week is the debut of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and it feels like it's going to be an afterthought. It's going to be in our old ways of describing the Washington Post, the A-4 story. And you know, does that matter? Does that, I guess, hurt President Biden politically because he doesn't get sort of a little bit of an afterglow?
AMNA NAWAZ:
I mean, one of the big questions going in was does this have enough of a rally effect, a supportive effect that carries over into the midterms, right. It's happening so early. Democrats want to get it over by the Easter recess anyway.
CHUCK TODD:
Republicans want to get it over with, too, it seems like.
AMNA NAWAZ:
Right. Right.
CHUCK TODD:
Because they can't quiz her about inflation.
AMNA NAWAZ:
Sure, but they can still ask her about a lot of things. I think, in many ways, it's going to be a repeat of the hearing she went through almost a year ago, right. A lot of the same issues are going to come up. Not much has changed since then and the lens has completely refocused. America is paying attention to different things.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Some of the Republican votes may have changed because now they feel they have to be in lock step against her.
CHUCK TODD:
It's becoming a more party-line vote, I'd say, politicized, yes.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
But the other thing is that it is not going to change the character of the Court because she's replacing, you know, Breyer. And so, it's a liberal for a liberal and it's not going to change votes on the Court. And it is an historic moment, though, and we shouldn't overlook that.
CHUCK TODD:
Completely agree. And it's why we wanted to make a quick note of it here. Thank you, all. Terrific panel. That's all we have for today. Thank you for watching. My bracket's busted and I didn't even make it through today. We'll be back next week because, if it's Sunday, it's Meet The Press. That's right, we're all Saint Peter's Peacocks fans.