tv Washington Journal 02242023 CSPAN February 24, 2023 6:59am-10:09am EST
c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine bringing you the latest from the president another white house officials, pentagon, and state department, and congress, and international perspective from united nations and statements from foreign officials. you can watch the latest videos's or on-demand or follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. >> we believe whether you are here or anywhere you should have access to fast reliable internet .
>> coming up en "washington journal" your calls and comments and then adam michel along with amy hanauer executive director at the institute on taxation and economic policy would be up to talk about the revenue piece including how and how much the federal government collects in taxes. then nataliya bugayova at the institute for the study of war on the one-year mark of russia's invasion of ukraine. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: good morning, it is friday, february 24. it was one year ago today russia
launches invasion of ukraine marking the conflict that began in 2014 with the annexation of crimea. this morning our phone lines are open to hear your thoughts about how that conflict has shaped the world over the past 12 months. in the role the united states has played. you can call in on phone lines as usual by political party. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. you also send us a text 202-748-8003. if you do, include your name and where you are from. also on social media at @cspanwj on twitter and facebook.com/c-span. we take you to this headline from cbs news, why year of russia's war in ukraine by the numbers. 200,000 dead and wounded --
300,000 dead and wounded on both sides. 65,000 suspected were crimes reported. u.s. provided nearly $50 billion in military aid and billions more in financial and humanitarian assistance. it was after midnight eastern time that ukrainian president zelenskyy tweeted this out, on february 24, millions of us made a choice, not a white flag, but the blue and yellow one. not clean -- fleeing but resisting. this year it remain invisible and we know 2023 will be the year of our victory. here is the video that accompanies that tweet. [video clip] ♪
host: that video and the tweet from president zelenskyy. it came about midnight eastern time. two minutes ago that u.s. president joe biden sent this tweet out. i will repeat today what i said one year ago as russia invaded ukraine in a dictator bent on rebuilding a empire it never erase the people's love of liberty. brutality would never grind down the will of the free and ukraine would never be a victory for russia. never, said president biden. this morning in the first hour of the "washington journal" we are hearing from you about the one-year anniversary of the russian invasion of ukraine.
they'll be our first hour and we will talked about in our 9:00 hour today. 10:00 a.m. on c-span we take you to you in security council meeting. the members of the united nations security council meeting to discuss the future of the war happening in new york and you can watch live 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.org and all the free video mobile app, c-span now. to your phone calls. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. margaret is up first out of kansas, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. it has been the most depressing year. to watch a country slowly get
beat up like this, it is so horrible. it is uplifting in essence that they are still there, but it has been so depressing. meanwhile, our media -- what is wrong with them? to sit there and put some murder and stupid south carolina. we do not live there. we do not care. it is lazy. we need our media to be present. not to show one murder somewhere while this whole country is getting destroyed. we need cnn and msnbc to be the media we need. we do not have any news and they still put that stupid murder on the other day. it was so distressing -- it was so depressing. host: do you think there has been good reporting on the war
in ukraine over the past 12 months? caller: yes. yes, there has been, but it is so depressing. ok. i hope they survive, but that is what is important. not putting on one guys murder in south carolina that we do not care about. host: got your point. marion is next in ohio. good morning. caller: yes. biden, we won't let ukraine down . they bowed down in afghanistan and s it is republicans get in, -- and as soon as the next republicans get in there will bouts of ukraine also. host: you mentioned afghanistan. marjorie taylor greene,
republican congresswoman mentioning iraq in her tweet yesterday on this topic. " ukraine is the new iraq," she says. they are literally leading us into world war iii. that's why she said i'm introducing resolution to find out where our money is going. we mentioned about $50 million over the past year in military aid from united states to ukraine and dollars more in financial and humanitarian aid as well. will work -- we will walk through those numbers throughout the course of this first hour. this is james in alabama, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i am retired air force reserves. when joe got in office, it was
weakness aggression. that was a go ahead for russia and china. we got a president up there. we do not gotta vice president. he left americans behind in afghanistan and he watched australian tv, they are laughing at our president. they really are. we need trump or desantis back in office to get the country back on the right track. that lady wants to news from kansas, needs watch fox news or newsmax or c-span. host: imagine you are retired air force, i wonder your thoughts on how this conflict in ukraine is changing war into the future. there's a piece about today is
he the opinion pages of wall street journal's of how -- drones are given ukraine a wartime edge. i wonder your thoughts given your background. caller: drones are usually used for intelligence, but -- vladimir putin and china they got nothing to fear. nothing to fear. all the arsenal you got, all the military branches are short because they do not want to get the military under this guy we got in office. who wants to serve somebody who is real week? that is my opinion. host: that is james in alabama. this is john in florida, line for democrats. good morning. caller: i can appreciate the guy . i may air force veteran myself. over a year ago, middle of
january when biden was trying to welcome ukraine into nato and ukraine being in nato was paramount to the cuban missile crisis. we wanted nato to put what based on the russian border and russia said no. that's the whole thing that started this. biden started this. he encouraged ukraine to stand up and join nato and that is what happened. the cuban missile crisis was the same way. the americas put missiles on the border. turkey pointed out russia and that russia put the missiles in cuba. that is when kennedy died down. he pulled our people out of turkey. they put the missiles out of cuba. biden started this. i do not know why he started this. he is a weak president. this guy has been in politics too long. that is about all i have to say. host: this is linda in
california, independent. good morning. caller: hi. i want to say this is not biden's fault. it is part of it because he is a part of this move to bring printed now -- vladimir putin down. he is brought russia off of this beat -- off of its feet. vladimir putin brought them off the ground after the millionaires, oligarchs were not paying taxes and left the country. this is not by replicants war. it is the people who have been trying to make usa number one, the solar leader of the world. host: do the russians is in a better place than 12 months ago? caller: is that the question?
is russia in a better place today than problem is ago? nobody is in a better place today. the rep. good: had to do that. i'm glad he kept that were in ukraine. i respect him as a leader. i expect the russian people. i do not respect united states and its foreign policies all this injury. i do not respect the nazi units in ukraine armies that we are arming. host: let's are in minnesota, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a vietnam vet. the way this war is going on -- i watched canadian tv a while ago and you get a different view
on what is happening there. in ukraine, people are leaving and this morning they said there were 50,000 that really bring ukraine and i hope they are not the young guys moving out of their like we had in vietnam war , people that left and went to canada. that type of people we do not need back here when carter let them back in this country. it seems like but wanted this to be to pick up the economy. if you buy ammunition, there was not much there because they were making all the stuff for the military.
that seems to be the way it is going right now. you have a response to that? host: we are hearing from you this morning. that is what are from eyes open for. the one-year anniversary of russia's invasion of ukraine. that you talk about the last 12 months. what you have seen around the world and the united states. this is edgewater in origin, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. do you know how far it is from the ukraine border to moscow? host: if you know, why don't you tell me. caller: the question is why don't you and america's no. in the cuban missile crisis everyone knew it was 90 miles from cuba to key west. in all of the coverage we have not heard the simple fact. it is under 300 miles. less than five minutes for ballistic missile to reach moscow from ukraine.
president putin said is an existential threat to russia, he was telling the truth. the question is, why is nato up against the russian border? we started this. it started in 2008 in the nato summit when nato agreed to open the door for ukraine, but ukraine would be a member of nato. it is not by this award. as a war that has come from president to president since at least 2000 no weight -- at least since 2008. it is a border war. the talk about wanted to expand russia, he is protecting their water just like we would do if russia tried to make mexico into a nuclear base for the nuclear weapons. host: russian president putin
discuss -- blamed the war on the west and discuss the grievances against the west. here is what some of what he had to say. [video clip] >> dramatic changes in the world , great historical changes that will determine the future of my country and our people when every single one of us has a huge responsibility. a year ago to defend our historical land, to provide security and safety of our country, and to get rid of the danger from the neo-nazi regime that established itself after 2014. we took the decision to start
the special military operation step-by-step, consistently required to solve the problems we are facing. donbas defendant it's right in his own country and speak the same language. they fought they did not surrender and continues. they hoped and they believe russia will come and help them. host: russian president vladimir putin on tuesday also on tuesday, president biden spoke about the upcoming anniversary of the war in ukraine. this was his counterargument to what vladimir putin said earlier in the day. [video clip] pres. biden: the united states and the nations of europe do not seek to control russia. les was not plotting to attack
russia as vladimir putin said today. millions of russian citizens only want to live in peace with their neighbors. this war was never a necessity. it is a tragedy. president putin chose this war. every day this work continues, it is his choice. he could end the war with a word. it is simple. if russia stop invading ukraine, it would end the war. if ukraine stop defendant itself against russia, it would be the end of ukraine. host: that was resident biden earlier this week. here are some headlines from today's national papers on the one year anniversary of the russian invasion of ukraine. from the new york times, president biden and zelenskyy form a strong bind i great to start to the relationship -- after a tense start to the
relationship. this from the front page of the washington post this morning, a world deeply divided on ukraine, taking a look at how those around the world arguing this war. then this column from the op-ed pages of the new york times, a brief taking waste of war. this is what she writes, how sad human being survived daily ways of covid -- deadly covid let's get back to killing one another. it is senseless to spend billions of dollars on missiles, tanks, aid more needs to be done to help communities adapt to rising oceans. it is on the have gone hungry highly in bomb shelters. it is madness vladimir putin declared ukrainians to be a part of his on people read before sending his army into the country where russian soldiers have been accused of raping and murdering civilians.
has war in ukraine makes us poorer and hungrier and more secure. she writes, although the war has avoided the destruction of nuclear war, so far, it is not dodged economic degradation. at its heart, war is a stupid enterprise, said former cia analyst working for the senate for strategic international studies. if all you care about is maximizing, he would almost never choose to start a war. if you want to read the column, new york times today. rolen in maryland, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. one time republicans love this
country and democrats were the traders. every republican calling and talking about how weak biden was. can they tell me what strength looks like? [indiscernible] do you realize the symbolizing over the world? this man is doing the same thing in africa, middle east. everybody is talking about biden's week. tell me what strength looks like. we just had a president standing beside vladimir putin saying he believes vladimir putin.
in host: this is unmet in alabama, republican. good morning. caller: good morning and i want to thank c-span for giving the people of america invoice. c-span is perfect. when he first started on the border and calling it, military exercises, and we all knew that something was going to happen, i wish the what would have had a backbone. he belongs to the u.n.. he's a permanent member. there are five permanent members in the you and russia is one and not one a country that belonged to the you and stood up and said , that is a good idea.
military exercises, we are going to go to ukraine's border and we will have our own military exercises, all of us we couldn't wait to you and we are all done we can go home. in 2000 and two he started war was ridiculous and i am ashamed of the world and i am ashamed of america that no one had the backbone to say a very just be military exercises. people are dying by the thousands in ukraine and being buried in mass graves. that's along the brave soldiers. of course they are brave. when we give them munitions and we pat ourselves on the back, which they needed, we have to help them that way, but yet we sit back and watch as children, men and women, innocently from that country, leaving everything they own. the country being turned into
rubble while these brave men and women fight for their country and the world looks on. can you use any more bullets? here is some more. where is the world. this is what is scary. we cannot stand up to one country, russia d vladimir putin, not the russian people come and set military exercises areine, good to you, good idea we will do that too. do not cross the border ukraine. the whole world let ukraine down, including america. as far as biden going over there , starting around, he gets to come home come and go in his mansion. host: you started by mentioning the un security council -- u.n. security council meeting today and we will air live here on c-span. the russian federation, a
permanent member of the security council along with china and france and other members are meeting today to discuss the one-year anniversary of the russian invasion. we are expecting to hear from the russian representative along with representatives from all the other countries. watch her on c-span, c-span.org, the free c-span now app. war in florida, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. this is roy. what i am listening here today is a lot of people calling in to the show and having disapproval of the actual war. and not helping ukraine. we should help ukraine. if we do not, the whole world will be unstable. i cannot believe some of the stuff i am hearing. supporting vladimir putin? vladimir putin is not to be supported.
he is a thug. he is an awful person. people had to remember -- my family came from russia in the early 19 hundreds around 1950 and the recalled names and everything else and that is what is going on now. where i work, people are making comments about russian, when there russian people standing in line. what kind of a country have we turned into? host: you're calling on the line for democrats. i wonder if you agree with jeffrey scott shapiro who served in the trump administration, this is peace in the washington times. you are with ukraine are you with russia. there is no neutral position when it comes to genocide and terrorism. caller: he is wrong. that is everything in the trust administration is wrong.
he would have never went over to ukraine. yet to look at what joe biden did. he went over there. he gave his life and went on a train. he could've got bombed. there's about a problem there. it is being taken care of. the judge -- people went there in east palestine, ohio. it is going to be dealt with. i know how bad they are suffering there. my heart goes out to them all the time. but you cannot not the president of the united states over everything. it is the same when chuck got in there. i at least asked respected him. i do not like him. i see a lot of people being brainwashed right now. i do not like it. i do not like how we got away from being a loving country. if we do not sustain in ukraine
and help those people out, they will get slaughtered. host: roy in melbourne, florida. this is the column today, classroom today -- contrary today, the invasion of ukraine was never about steve's attempt to join nato or moscow need to defend russia from imaginary invasion of the west, it was about fulfilling the long-held narcissistic fantasies of vladimir putin who has believed he was ordained to reunite the soviet union ever since a collapse. in a stunning twist of finery, while many of the cause of strength, they also come from some nationalist despite there being nothing nationalist about coursing a sovereign nationstate to come right is independence and surrender part of this population to an enemy that means to enslave them. jeffrey scott shapiro in today's washington times. coming up on 7:30 a.m., this is
demetri, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. biden visited kyviv because your government negotiated with russia price. otherwise he would never come to ukraine. i think the morgue web-based begets ukraine more ukrainians will die because russia will -- i think the more weapons we give to ukraine more ukrainians will die because russia will give -- have more powerful weapons. ukraine cannot win this war. we need to go to negotiations. otherwise we will be very close to 143. host: what he think an album to
be in negotiation? -- what do you think negotiation can be? caller: it is up to ukraine and russia but my point as the more weapons we get to ukraine, the longer time we need to wait for this negotiation a the more people will die. we need to try this first, nuts provide the weapons because the outcome will be terrible. host: the council on foreign relations was there -- with their study on u.s. arms and military assistance to ukraine trying to put numbers with the dollars, about $50 billion in military assistance. that comes in the form of 8500 antiarmor systems.
46,000 antiarmor systems or munitions. 1600 aircraft systems. 155 mm howitzers. some 20 my 17 helicopters. coastal defenses, air defense systems, air to ground missiles. the council trying to get a handle on all of the weapons systems that have been sent to ukraine. you can check out their piece, how much aid u.s. center ukraine. fred in south carolina. caller: good morning. beginning in the obama administration, ukraine made a big investment in the cartel by paying golf -- paying off
hunters and now that money is being repaid by thousands at times. we have no business in helping ukraine. this entire thing could've insulted before war. ukraine cannot win this war. host: how could it have been settled? caller: there could have been a negotiation. i do not think vladimir putin wanted this war. i think zelenskyy did want the war. when i sit down to compare -- i could not find biden's peace plan.
host: what is realistic? caller: i do not know what is realistic. what is realistic is what they can agree to between russia and ukraine, not what biden wants or some of the other people. we have people in this country. my senator, lindsey graham, never saw war. never saw a country we should not invade and that is a people that is running this country. we have no business. this will lead -- host: that is spread in south carolina. take your phone calls. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. getting your thoughts on russia's invasion of ukraine one year later. we are also asking you to send in text messages and tweets.
here are a couple of those. double writing, it is sad to the people of ukraine and angry and vladimir putin. steve, ukraine knows what they are fighting for but i think many in the u.s. has forgotten the cost of freedom. their love of guns is not diminished. what a conundrum. joe, actions have consequences until saddam attacked kuwait and now russia claims they are legitimately worried about their sovereignty and they attack ukraine. one more from a viewer in virginia, this russia ukraine conflict is starting to get primed and ready to draw america into another no-win situation. sadly no true clear american interests defined here. paul in virginia, good morning. caller: i am baffled by the amount of people that call in that are so misinformed as to
what is happening because of the different news we are allowed to get here in the united states and what is the truth. i applaud c-span for telling it as it is and showing it as it is . i believe we did not provide enough for ukraine. i think they're better off than they were a year ago but i still think we need to provide more, even chiefs is necessary -- even the troops if necessary. vladimir putin is another hit letter. he will not stop at ukraine and will continue on to take over any countries he can. pretty soon he will china to back him up. what is going to happen then? the people of united states still going to be so lackadaisical about vladimir
putin? it amazes me people are applauding vladimir putin. it is crazy to me. this guy wants to take over as much as he can. he will. host: i'm not getting enough is josh rogan's point in washington post. he writes, the biden administration officials were tells the enormous military aid provided to ukraine and take credit for maintaining unity among nato allies in the white house fear of escalation with russia has hampered his willingness to get ukraine the things ukraine says it needs to win the war. ukrainians asking for longer-range missiles, advanced drums, air defenses, a lots of tanks, fighter aircraft. by providing ukraine enough weaponry, the biden administration, it seems like many ukrainians having an international strategy to nudge
ukraine towards negotiations. josh rogan column in today's washington post. an event at the atlantic yesterday, secretary of state of lincoln asked about concerns regarding possible escalation of the conflict. here is with the secretary of state had to say. [video clip] >> the administration has to factor in the possibility of escalation to what their writing and how they are helping. president biden, a support for ukraine is fundamental as long as it takes, but we also do not want to run this war. certainly do not want to do anything to make conservation. the president has to factor both of those things in to the decision he has made. he's the one that makes the decisions. the rest of us give advice, recommendations. you're not in government, you
criticize, which is what needed to make sure we're doing the best we can, but also listen. we have seen, thus far, some steps taken that could be escalatory and not proved to be so. there is one possible reason for that and that is the last thing king charles iii needs as himself -- vladimir putin needs is for nato to defend itself which is nato's purpose, not to attack russia, but to defend the country and they're very concerned about russia's aggressive tactics. if you own this something that created escalation, that is lasting he wants. he is struggling in ukraine. he has anyplace percent of his forces committed in ukraine and in fact because he is falsely
concerned with nato poses a threat to russia has to keep some things in reserve less than be a conflict that he creates with nano. i think that is the biggest deterrent against escalation. host: secretary of state blinken yesterday in an interview with the atlantic. wall street journal today, a column in the newspaper itself on the invasion and how it is reshaped the world, the photo along with the section there, ukrainian soldiers with the 17 independent tank brigade, a large spread over the course of several stages, if you want to read it in today's wall street journal. back to your phone calls. adam in maryland, republican. good morning. caller: good morning.
my background is out of, special forces, senior army, and later my whole career i was a psychotherapist as well. want to say thank you c-span. we need to stay -- vladimir putin is not believe there is a consequence to he is doing. he talks about economic sanctions but here's a consequence, kick off the un security council. wondering whether or not the you in -- wondering whether or not u.n. is still solvent. you cannot continue to fight with a sense of gain. ukraine is going to have to hit depots and food storage places within the soviet union. i think we need to have the dialogue that nobody seems to want to have which is we cannot continue to live under the fear that all the nuclear. about that. we have to be able to respond.
if we transmit the idea that no matter what, we're not willing to go to the nuclear table, then in a sense, will not complete. china is taking notes seriously of not sending military advisors. there able to subdue and some people to concentration camps. the outcome of taiwan, i have a japanese wife, will depend on how the nation responds to ukraine. host: on that point, what you make of this news. u.s. increase the number of troops deployed to taiwan, quadrupling the current number, deploying 100-200 troops to the island in the coming months, up from 30 a year ago, according to u.s. officials wall street journal spoke to. caller: i like it. i think early on, the people i
spoke into it would have said we should detect movement towards nato or have exercises. as a behavioral therapist, when you negotiate, the person has to believe it is in their interest to negotiate what you are interested in where they may lose something of value that they're unwilling to negotiate. vladimir putin seems to be willing to lose lives. let status, what position are would like to take away from him and? -- let status or what position are we willing to take away from him? thank you so much for listening. host: debbie in west virginia. morning. you have to turn down your tv and talk to your phone. caller: ok, sorry. thank you for taking my call.
i want to say, i agree with the last man who was just on the. the special forces guy. dictators are going to be dictators. weakness inspires dictators. it did not do our country or ukraine or russia, the whole world any good for the biden administration to show the weakness they have shown. it is amazing to me, no matter how much they try to place how strong biden is, he is scared of his own shadow, and until he stands up to vladimir putin, is going to continue. the only thing dictators understand his strength and we are showing none of it. host: what would be a show of strength? caller: pardon me. host: what would be a show of strength? well you like to see resident biden do -- what would you like
to see president biden do? caller: i'm talking about the beginning of this. when he came out and said it depended on how big day excursion to ukraine. when did i tell vladimir putin -- that tell vladimir putin? that told him that man is a pushover. i can do whatever i want because he is all talk and no action. that is the way it is. i'm a independent but i really do believe that if biden had not been in office, if it was trump, now this would have had it -- none of this would've happened. trump was stronger. he said what he meant. he did what he said he would do. it seems only people joe biden will stand up to are the conservative americans. host: this is john in tennessee, good morning. democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was going to say is only 570
-- 575 miles from kyiv to moscow. i believe this work and and -- this work in and, just send the jets over there and i believe we would make vladimir putin stop. lots of the talking about what biden has done, he has done the best he can do with what he has to work with because the congress and goes into him. anybody listening -- nobody is listening to him to make decisions and the maga group calling in about president biden, they are wrong and that is why we are not getting along as well as we could be in the united states. thank you for taking my call.
host: dave in new hampshire, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i guess everybody in america should be hanging their flag upside down because were in distress. ukraine is the hub of a swamp. russia is they are taking out all the human trafficking, everything our politicians, hiding it in the dazzling their money. it is all over the internet. we have no business there. we are sending all of our money there. we do not deserve to send a dime there. host: this is dom in virginia, independent. that morning. caller: good morning, john. i reflect back to president trump saying he loved the uneducated. there's a lot of in south carolina and west virginia. you just heard the lady say,
president biden is weak. what she think about president trump, former president trump when iran shot missiles into iraq and had american soldiers brain damage? he said they had headaches. they'll be all right. give them a tylenol. and then the man in maryland, the special forces guy, if we send material, weapons that can hit the inside of russia deep, hit the civilians, the old people, the babies, the middle-aged people, kill them, just the way they killing innocent ukrainians. america has uneducated people. they realize finland, on the border of russia? estonia? they are nato countries. they talk about putting missiles
in nato -- ukraine must be part of nato. how ignorant are we as americans? there already countries a part of russia's border in nato. host: rick in arizona, good morning. you are next. caller: yes. i would like to ask how come i'm not hearing anything about obama's responsibility and his administration when russia invaded into crimea? all obama did was offer them ready-to-eat mills and blankets. what is that all about? thank you. host: the caller was talking about nato countries of the map here, the current nato members. country sinking nato membership
-- country sinking nato membership. you can see ukraine and belarus there, two countries not members of nato. russia, estonia, lithuania, norway, nato countries on the border and filling also seeking membership. in milwaukee, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i am from a military family. my grandfather was in world war i, my parents in world war ii. i have had residents in all the wars. i support president joe biden. i agree 100% with what he saying. we need to support ukraine and do everything we can because vladimir putin wants to do you like the other man we had to take over europe -- to be like the other men we had to take over europe. if donald trump gets back in to
be a not a crack and take over our country, we are going to be in mess. the people who support vladimir putin, you need to go to moscow and be with vladimir putin. we want our democracy. we have to detect -- protect our democracy at home and abroad. it is in trouble. we do not draw a red line in the sand help ukraine, we will be in trouble with ours. kudos to biden. keep going. keep supporting ukraine. if they invade nato countries, then that is when it is time for boots on the ground. host: mike in california, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. what strikes me as the way we frame this as critical. the enemy is not russia. the enemy is not russian conscripts. the enemy is vladimir putin. he is the individual we need to have our rhetoric focus on him.
he is the one these conscripts from russia. it is not in ordinary russians interest. it is in vladimir putin's interest. host: jackson, michigan, jim, republican. good morning. caller: maybe we have to leave it to c-span to bring history to this conflict, for the national media has not been telling anybody what happened previous to this. in 2010, the people of ukraine voted for victor, who was a pro-moscow leader. in subsequent years after that, the cia backed a coup which
took him out and place a pro-nato person in their. the people in eastern ukraine speak russian. they have ties to russia. they do not speak ukrainian. when the people in eastern ukraine wanted to separate and be independent nation, the ukrainian government said -- host: you think the invasion was justified, is what you are saying? caller: maybe not justified, but you have to recognize this is not a conflict where you got poor ukrainian people against the monster russia.
it is people in eastern ukraine wanted to be independent from ukraine and be aligned more with russia than they are with ukraine. host: this is mike in florida, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to reiterate some points that came out. this is not russia's war. this is vladimir putin's war. when he came to power, russia fell apart years ago, and they split up the country, vladimir putin grabbed all the assets. if were to win, we have to focus on this fact that the russian people have been suffering. go into the supermarkets, you cannot find food. although walt is in the hands of vladimir putin -- all of the
walt is in the hands of vladimir putin and his friends. he needs to keep his standing to continue holding onto that weal th. as soon as we focus and let as many as the people -- russian people here this, it is the russian people who have to take and when the war. machiavelli said if the people wanted bad enough, no matter what arms the country has, they will overthrow it. the only way we vote when it is when we let the russian people know what is going on and give them the fortitude and strength to go forward. host: when you say let them know what is going on, what do you mean by that? caller: you have to understand that vladimir putin is one of the worlds wealthiest man. he took their money. he took their assets. he is in control of all that.
they lived like a third world country in russia. they do not have any of their assets that were stolen. it is extremely sad because he does it dictators do it. chose religion. make the people feel -- kills religion and make people feel he is the savior. he is the one that will take care of him -- them. it is wrong and sooner or later the russian people wake up and we have to help them wake up. how do we help them? information. you are doing. when what everybody is doing. you do not drop bombs, you drop pamphlets. let the people know there is a better way of life. host: thomas in north kalama, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i do think we should support ukraine.
the only issue i have is i think the other nato countries to -- need to step up to the plate and give more country. the day i believe we came 500 million or 500 billion. look at how that money could have helped homeless veterans and stuff in the u.s. i think these other nato countries need to step up and give more money like we are giving because a lot of people in america, especially veterans could use some of that money to help get back off of the street. i am in support of helping ukraine, 100%. host: when you say support 100%, not of the financial degree? you can see from this chart where the is compared to other countries, almost $50 billion in military aid and then tens of billions of dollars more in financial and humanitarian aid. the next closest country is
united kingdom and in germany, canada, and poland. from that chart, distinctly less than united states. are you saying, more weapon systems, less dollars? how do you do that? caller: you got to have the weapons to win the war, but i do think these other countries, i see the chart you got there, look at as compared to everybody. we are giving the majority of the money. i think the others need to come to the plate and give more money to help ukraine. yes, they need more weapons because he is bombing them every day and it kills me to see these children and women and all blown away. i think france, poland, canada. i see the chart you got there. it's not even close as far as the amount of money given.
maybe some pressure needs to be put on some of those countries to step up to the plate and get more money. host: does it make a difference that does country's gdp is not even close to the united states gdp? caller: i don't even know that answer. maybe they could supply military equipment, if they do not have the money. host: thomas is our last caller in those segment. we return to this topic in our 9:00 hour today but up next we are joined by adam michel of the cato institute and amy hanauer of the institute on taxation and economic policy. we will discuss the role of tax policy and creating the federal budget. it is the final installment of the weeklong series examining key segments of the federal budget. later, more on the one year anniversary of russia's invasion of ukraine.
we get of the russian offensive taken place from nataliya bugayova, russian fellow at the institute for the study of war. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 6:30 p.m. eastern, a look at slavery reparations with columbia university american studies professor and at 8 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, university of maryland eastern shore history professor talks about the role black women played during the reconstruction europe. exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at
c-span.org/history. >> there are a lot of places to get political information but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span, powered by cable. >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8 p.m. eastern, the supply-side economist shares his book taxes have consequences where he argues that history shows tax rates affect economic growth and productivity. at 10 p.m. on after words, a
critical look at the immigration issues of the u.s. southern border in his book, overrun. the he is interviewed by the daily caller invested immigration reporter. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. >> c-spanshop.org, you can browse through your latest collection of apparel, books, home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. >> be up to date in publishing
with book tv's podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases plus bestseller list and industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> since 19 79, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings, c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided on with no commentary and unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.
>> "washington journal" continues. host: all week long, we've been taking a look at the federal programs that make up the vast majority of federal spending each year. this morning, we are taking a look at the other side of the ledger and to do that and discuss tax policy and federal revenue, we are joined by a tax policy studies director at the cato institute and the executive director of the institute on taxation and economic policy. good morning to you both. guest: good morning. host: when we talk about taxes, most people think of the taxes they pay each year on april 15 but how many different kinds of taxes does the federal government collect each year? guest: thank you so much for having me. what's important to recognize about the federal government and taxation is that we used to
collect much more from very wealthy people and corporations. we have corporate income taxes and individual income taxes and those are what we've seen with an increasing share from cap dish corporations and very wealthy people. host: total federal revenue collected each year as of 2022 was $4.9 trillion, more than 50% coming from individual income taxes and you mentioned the corporate taxes, about 425 billion dollars and payroll taxes, $1.5 trillion. explain what it payroll tax is and what it goes to. guest: the payroll tax is about a third of the revenue that wrought in and this is a tax at all workers pay, 15.3 percent in most people's wages split between the employer and the employee.
most economist agree the employee ultimately pays the full economic share and cost of that tax. when people think of taxes, they think of income taxes they file every year but most americans, 90% pay more in payroll tax than they do in income taxes. the payroll tax is what most people are paying the federal government. host: who pays the most in income taxes? how many americans don't pay income tax? guest: the income tax system is highly progressive which means that as you earn more money, you pay significantly more in income taxes. the top end of the income distribution pays a disproportionate share of the income tax and when you add all the income taxes, they are more evenly distributed. the top 10% of income earners
pay about 60% of all federal taxes. the bottom 20% of income earners according to the treasury department pays no or negative tax rates. it's because of things like refundable tax credits and the child tax credit and these type of things. host: on individual income taxes, what is the average income that an american makes in what's the average tax paid on that? guest: if i can correct one thing that might be confusing, it's true that the federal income tax system is slightly progressive and it's only slightly progressive but it's not highly progressive. it's been much more progressive before. the reason for that is much of the tax that people pay is the payroll tax.
that's actually capped at $160,000 of people earning over $160,000 don't pay additional payroll tax on those earnings over that amount. that's an important thing to know because it could solve some of our problems to adjust that cap which has covered a declining share over time. back to your question, the typical taxpayer is paying a larger share of the federal income tax then they were in the past. host: you mentioned that cap on payroll taxes. we earlier had air segment on social security. why do we have a cap on payroll taxes? what would raising it do?
guest: raising the payroll tax would sure of social security for the future. that makes a lot of sense right now. the reason we have this is because there's also a cap on benefits that can be received which makes sense because the reason we originally put social security and lays was that huge numbers of elderly americans were living in poverty and we wanted to make sure that wasn't the case going forward and it no longer is. that's the income group least likely to be in property because of this program and that's why americans like social security so much. they put in place a cap because they didn't want shares of the benefits going to the very wealthy and because income is so unequal in this country and has grown more so, it makes sense we don't want huge shares of those benefits going to fund the very wealthiest people. host: your thoughts on raising
the cap? several people have put on the table. guest: the idea whether capping social security benefits and capping what the tax applies to his there is a connection that's intentional. social security was intended to be something you paid into and beyond a certain point of income, you no longer pay into it and are no longer seeing benefits on the additional income earned. there is a reason why we have these components. breaking that would turn social security even more so into just another federal benefit program rather than having a connection between you what you pay in and what you get out. economically, raising the payroll tax cap would have dramatic impacts on work incentives. you be raising the top marginal income tax rate by 15% or more. that's because you are adding
that on top of income tax. ultimately, it doesn't make social security fully solvent for the long run. it adds additional money to the long run but doesn't fix the problem for the perpetual future. it's important to look at both sides of the ledger. host: we have several calls on the social security system but is the payroll tax the only tax that goes to one specific kind of program? corporate taxes, individual income taxes, excise gift taxes and state taxes, to any of those taxes go to a specific program? guest: there are some other examples like that gas tax which goes into a trust fund for infrastructure and roads but the majority of those other revenue sources you mentioned go to the general fund.
trust funds are accounting makes , congress dressing up how they move money around but ultimately, when push comes to shove, they push money in and out of trust funds or borrow against them. more or less you are right, the rest of the revenue is available. guest: i just want to jump into say that we have had tax cuts since 2000 the cost is $5.1 trillion and two thirds of those have gone to the top 20% of americans. there is lots of room beyond just raising the payroll tax on social security to shore up our tax base and make our federal budget more solvents and most of it should be done by reversing those incredibly lopsided tax cuts that have been in place. host: remind us of the most recent one, the trump era tax
cuts. guest: those were cuts to the corporate income tax, cuts to the top income tax and they overwhelmingly benefited the very wealthy. adam said something about who ultimately pays these taxes and what we have seen with the corporate tax cuts and the high income tax cuts cuts on investment the trump administration put in, you see corporate lobbyists really pushing hard for corporate tax cuts and that's because they know that ultimately, that cuts into their profit and its corporate shareholders who bear the largest share of that. host: let's invite the viewers to join in the conversation. we've been focusing on key aspects of the federal budget and today looking at taxes and the revenue side. the phone lines are as usual --
remind viewers what the cato institute is. guest: it's a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank in washington, d.c. where we promote individual liberty, free market and peace and you can look us up on cato.org. host: on the institute on economic policy? guest: we are a policy research institute and have a micro simulation model that tells us who pays more for every kind of tax change. host: you can check them out online. nt of callers already on this topic. david is in waynesboro georgia, in-depth pendant, good morning. caller: thank you all. i appreciate being able to get
in on this conversation. we are talking about part of the budget that is overlooked so much. you cover the tax cut job act but i was going to talk about the policy of that and what it has done to the budget. my comment is you can see it clearly in our deficit spending and our debt. it went up like the president said. $8 trillion. that's like one quarter of what we do and that's in the past six years. it doesn't stop for another three or four years. we are getting back some of it now and you can see it it's making a difference. here's my question -- trump started a tariff of 25% for durable goods coming into the country. in 2015, there was a vetoproof
resolution that was forced upon obama to allow our oil companies to sell oil overseas now we are up to 6.3 million barrels of oil and oil products every day that's coming out of what should be going to the pumps first so are we getting any of our dollars back for what we are losing? can you answer that for me? have a wonderful day. host: you want to talk specifically about oil and gas or in general? caller: just on the export portion. are we, the american people getting a tax collected on that? guest: the tax cut comment, the 2017 tax cuts were a broad-based
tax cut and they didn't just lower top marginal rates for wealthy people, they doubled the standard deduction and the child tax credit and there were tax cuts all up and down income distribution. corporate tax rates lowered our rate from an internationally high tax rate to something more in line with our peer nations around the world. the law did result in additional economic growth and additional job creation. it was also a tax cut for a broad section of americans. i wish we cut spending along with it but i don't think that it's the main contributor to our deficit. revenue compared to gdp was that an all-time high and that will stay elevated above the 50 year average for the future. that tells me our current budget
deficit is a product of spending too much and not taxing too little. host: do you want to jump in? guest: i appreciate the caller's question. in terms of the tax cuts and job acts and its effect on the economy, we had a strong economy going into that we had a strong economy coming out of it. there wasn't a big change in any economic indicator as a result of that bill. despite the claims that were made by the trump administration and its supporters. it added $1 trillion to our deficit. i think -- two thirds of the benefits went to the wealthiest. when you're talking about international tax can harrison's, the united states ranked six from the bottom among wealthy democracies in terms of the share of revenue that we use on public needs. if you want to start comparing
what we do to what other countries do, i think you need to recognize that we use much less for public revenue in the last thing i will say is that is true of rate was high comparative internationally but what corporations were actually paying was much lower. you really need to look at what's actually being paid. we know that 55 profitable corporations paid zero taxes in 2020 after the tax cuts and jobs act. if we want a fair tax code, big part of his making sure that corporations actually pay what they are supposed to. host: we have individual taxes, why do we have a corporate tax? guest: i think we have a corporate tax because corporations take a huge share of the profits in this country. they require that we invest in
all kinds of things so they can thrive and prosper and they need a well educated workforce and they need the infrastructure. it's to their benefit and our benefit for them to contribute to the tax code. host: we are talking about the tax code and federal revenues. this is a familiar sight, the u.s. debt clock and we often focus on this. the $31 trillion number, 31 $.6 trillion at this point and we are focusing on this green box, the u.s. federal tax revenue. it's federal spending of $6 trillion. we are focusing on text policy and federal revenues in the segment of the "washington journal." kentucky, a republican, you are next. caller: thank you for the
answers to the questions. as a consumer, why should i want the government to tax any corporation? why should any corporation have any tax assessed to it? as a consumer, we all have to pay the tax for them plus preparation of that tax and so many things that go with it? why don't we pay everything as individuals? why is it that you are allowed to speak out about taxation but christians and churches are not allowed to do that as a 5013 see? -- 501(c)(3)? guest: the caller's right, the corporate tax is not paid by
some faceless entity, it's ultimately paid by people, the workers, the employees, the investors who invest in the business for the consumers who buy the things the business sells and we look at the economic literature on this topic and most of the corporate tax, as much as 100% of it in some cases is paid by workers in the form of lower wages. i agree, that's one of the many reasons why the corporate tax should be as low as possible. ultimately, the burden falls on workers. i think the 55 companies statistic that doesn't pay any taxes is misleading because there are good reasons why we may not want some company to pay taxes every single year. if a business had many years of losses in a couple of years of profit, we want them be profitable over a time frame.
the same thing with investments, we don't want to penalize corporations for making investments in expanding their vestment. allowing them to deduct that is why you see lower taxable income. there are many reasons why businesses lower their taxes that we should get rid of like the 30 plus green energy tax subsidy in the tax code, the research and develop an tax credit these are prefacing different types of activities to lower tax rate for his this is. getting rid of all of that junk in the tax code would be a great place to start. guest: host: there is a lot there but i want you to talk about the 50's -- 5013 c question. guest: there would not be as much time and money and effort spent to lobby against corporate tax cuts if they didn't know
it's born largely by them and their shareholders. the official congressional budget estimators estimate that most of that is borne by corporate shareholders. 40% of them are foreign investors of this not even resources going back to the american economy. if corporate lobbyists want to do something for working people, they should lobby for a higher minimum wage and lobby for the right for workers to join unions. in terms of the point about profitable corporations that don't pay taxes for a year, we greet it's not the clearest explanation but we also find many corporations that don't pay taxes for many years in arroyo including companies -- or pay low taxes for companies like amazon and domino's and that licks.
fedex and nike are on that list of zero corporations. it's hard to argue that they were also strapped that they weren't earning anything and that's why they had to pay nothing. on the 5013 c, i think it makes sense for people to be able to speak out. i'm happy that adam has a voice on the show and i'm happy we do as well. host: kentucky, a republican, you are next. caller: thank you, i was already on the line. host: you did ask your question. bob is waiting in logan, utah, democrat area caller: this is the second time this is happens to me. your employer passes everything on. wouldn't be in business wasn't
being able to pass the expenses on. you pay it and you repay it and you bite whatever. it's just pass on to the public. thank you and i'm sorry for taking up time. guest: host: not at all. this is jason in montgomery, alabama, independent. caller: good morning, the first thing would be regarding the 2017 cuts. the idea that is alive. trump came in behind seven years of growth from the obama administration then said he was going to do a major tax cut and it would make a big difference but the fact of the matter is, they never saw the growth they promised. during obama -- obama's time in office, the magic number was 3% annual growth and trump never saw that. there was never a time after that tax cut or before, there
was 3% annual growth. there was never will a single quarter where there was more growth under trump than there was under obama. the idea that tax cuts did something different is a lie, not to mention with all these stock buybacks and where the company uses the money to get back to themselves and give more compensation to their ceos, they didn't invest in they didn't expand anything. employment was low. guest: i think we did see a distinct effect from the tax cuts. we saw investments higher than what was previously projected by the congressional budget office and we saw a trend change in wage growth and job creation. some people do oversell the benefits of some tax cuts but i certainly think these had a real economic and if it if you look broadly across time. there is a clear relationship
between tax cuts and higher gdp growth and the same on the others. there is a clear relationship between raising taxes and slower growth. host: who are you referring to that sells -- that oversell's tax cuts? guest: when you hear that tax cuts fully pay for itself, it has happened in the past but in the case of the tax cuts and job act, it added to the debt on an ongoing basis. it's not necessarily contributing to the deficit which i was hoping to clear up. i think the tax cuts lead to economic benefits but not necessarily as large as some people would have you believe. host: this is jason in louisiana, line for republicans. caller: yes, thank you. this is a simple solution.
you just need to flatten out the text code. there shouldn't be any more than a 10% federal tax -- flat tax. that way you cut all the lobbying out. the one lady is talking about corporations getting tax rates but the flatten out to 10%, they would not be lobbying anymore. everybody wouldst -- would pay the same. you just pay 10%. it would fix a multitude of problems. corporations and businesses, they would come back in a flash. multiple people would start going to work. that way, more people would be paying taxes in. that would also cut down on the cost of products. it would fix everything almost immediately. host: the flat tax on
individuals and corporations? caller: there would be no loopholes and no write offs nobody. the only reason the corporations right off from loopholes is they arrived congressman to get what they want. if you flattened out the tax code, they wouldn't have to do that because they can plan their business out and they knew what they would have to pay, only 10%. host: let's take that idea -- this is individual tax rates. the slightly progressive individual taxes is 35% for incomes over 231 thousand dollars, 32 percent for incomes over $182,000,
guest: thanks for that clarification. the important idea about that chart is it's important to realize that everybody pays the same amount on the first 10000 and everybody pays the same amount on the next 20,000. you don't pay the rate on the full income you get, only on the rate that's on the income above the previous rate. to jason's idea about flattening the tax, i can see why it's tempting. the problem is that flattening the tax would not make it simpler. what makes our tax code complicated is the carveouts and giveaways and loopholes. the problem with the 10% flat tax across the board is it would hit really low income people extremely hard.
it would also hit middle income families. the lowest income families have to pay almost everything they earn just on the essentials. middle income families have to spend much of what they earn as well. flattening the tax code like that would hit the poor hardest and it would enrich the wealthiest. the wealthiest americans don't know what to do with all the money they bring in. they cannot possibly spend it all. a flat tax would be very inequitable. a 10% let tax would certainly not raise a fraction of the revenue needed. we need federal revenue to pay for the things that americans depend on whether it's health care or retirement security or infrastructure or greening our economy when we have contributed
so much to climate change and we are seeing the concert ends as of that area guest: i think the flat tax is ideal, it's we should be striving for. amy is correct that when you talk about the context of the current budget, 10% flat tax lightly would not bring in enough revenue to meet the current spending levels and that's the problem we face. we are spending well above our means. you look at the way that a lot of the talking points from democrats and others is that we can just raise taxes on the wealthy and increase that top-rated couple of points and we can fix our budget problem but you look at the way every other large social welfare state around the world is on their large government programs and its higher taxes on everyone. the european union is a value added tax of about 20% that
everyone pays. many of the country have the top marginal rent of over 50% down to middle income families. you look at the similar low income tax payer in the united states, that person pays about $6,000 less in taxes than a similarly situated person in europe area big government is costly so if we are going to continue on a current trajectory, there is no way we can fund it with just more tax increases on the rich. host: this is brenda, line for democrats, good morning. caller: i'm going to pick up on that flat tax idea. what would be the problem with giving everybody the first 20,000 -- $25,000 of income tax-free which would help people on the lower end of the scale. i was glad you showed that chart this morning about how federal revenue is collected and what
individuals pay and what corporations pay. i think people need to pay more attention to that. according to the world book of facts, jeff bezos is worth $219 billion. yet on the corporation income tax, corporations pay like $425 billion. when you consider the combined wealth of corporations on wall street, that 425 william dollars is a pretty authentic amount of money. i don't see how that plays out with corporations taxed to death. you might want to say these tax cuts are because of donald trump lowering the rates.
the division of individual taxes to corporate taxes, this unbalance division has been in place since the reagan administration. consider the combined wealth on wall street alone and try to convince me that businesses are taxed to death. host: let's pick up on that point. why do we collect more than six times as much an individual income taxes than corporate taxes? guest: there are many different reasons. we don't want to tax investment income at a rate that would mean businesses aren't creating the jobs and growing their workforces and wait -- and raising wages. the business tax costs are passed on to others so we want to eventually eliminate those
taxes to the greatest degree possible. people think there is a vast sum of wealth out there and that billionaires don't know how to spend the money they have and i think that's besides the point. they are not spending it, they are investing it. jeff bezos employs millions of americans across the country and the same with elon musk. if we tax that, we are not just taxing some amorphous stock of dollars, we are taxing the businesses that are employing and innovating and creating jobs for americans across the country so i think we need to be careful when we conflate income with investments. host: you were nodding during brenda's call? guest: let's talk about jeff days owes. -- jeff bezos.
he doesn't pay any tax at all on his unrealized capital gains and he is a great example. his net worth increased by 99 billion dollars over a recent five years because the value of his stock. his income was a fraction of that because he didn't sell that stock. one of the things that present mine has proposes a billionaires minimum income tax that would enable us to text unrealized capital gains. that would make sense only for those who have income i believe over $100 million. it would be a very targeted tax increase on the wealthiest americans. i think we can get into how we treat capital gains income differently from regular income and tax them at a lower rate even when it's realized and don't taxes at all. and even let people pass on
dynamic wealth from generation to generation without anyone paying taxes on the unrealized capital gains. there is a lot to dig into there. host: federal revenue in 2022, state taxes account for $26 billion. it's on the lower end of taxes so dig into estate taxes and when you pay them and don't pay them. guest: you pay them at the end of your life, there are threshold exemptions. it's a similar problem with often with being passed on, our physical assets khmer is this is are things you don't want someone to liquidate in order to pay the tax. you want that asset to continue to generate jobs and employment opportunities and innovation.
it's also important to remember that the income that was invested in the stock market and that grew a business and then grew over time was originally wage income. the idea that we should be hitting people multiple times simple because they are reinvesting their money into the economy i think can get dangerous the more we layer these taxes one on top of the other area we can start penalizing the very lifeblood of our economy. host: is the estate tax a double tax? guest: i don't see that as a double tax at all. it is taxing upon transfer of wealth that it makes sense and is not a double tax to say that jeff bezos should be taxed on the 90 $9 billion that amazon stock has grown by. one thing that was said earlier
when we talked about how we can cut spending. adam was suggesting we cut spending rather than trying to tax the wealthy and corporations. the problem with that is that most of what the federal government spends money on, people really support so half of it is social security and medicare and that played out recently when president biden talked about that in the state of the union, the notion that they would consider cutting that. another is military and i appreciate that the cato institute is in favor of peace but most republicans and democrats are not willing to make the cuts to military spending. once you get past those three items, you are looking at a small share of the federal budget that is available to be cut. host: let me bring in thomas from delray beach, laura, independent. caller: good morning, i have to respond to a few things because
i caught her in an inconsistency. the arguments she makes against trump's tax cuts are not honest and it's been up problem. people have been misinformed about his tax cuts for a long time. it is a lie that the tax cuts benefited the wealthy. i have a chart in front of me as well if you go to balance money.com. the largest beneficiary of trump text cuts, the greatest percentage decrease of their taxes were the working and middle class. the people who make less than minimum wage pay the lowest tax rates, the bracket went from $11,000 to $22,000, the smallest beneficiaries of the trumps tax cuts come up 5% were the wealthy. what the left-wing media and democrats did in the way they
spun the math, they argued that the total dollar amount that wealthy people paid is now lower. if you do the math, a smaller percentage of a higher number can give you a griddle dish a greater total number. per ratio, per percentage, the lower and working classes saw the greatest increase -- the greatest decrease in their tax rates under the trump tax cuts. it is a lie to say that the trump text cuts predominantly help the wealthy. host: there are two different ways of looking at these numbers. when wealthy people have in norma's share of the wealth in this country a smaller percentage of that well works at the bigger tax cut. the tax cuts in 2000 cost is $5.1 trillion and two thirds of that have gone to the top 20%.
it's not a lie, there are two ways of looking at the numbers. if you think poor people have too much money in this country and the wealthy jeff bezos people don't have enough, we disagree. host: union new york, line for democrats. caller: i can see both sides of the issue. there is too many taxes. there is taxes for the state, federal and city and excise tax, the liquor tax the gas tax, real estate tax. there is more. we are in the united states and we are supposed to have land ownership. we have to pay real estate taxes or air land gets confiscated by
the government. it's like we are renting our land, we don't own it. i have prepared income taxes for 45 years and i remember when the tax rate was 88%. my family members did the taxes and i saw the books. the idea of a flat tax is a good idea but they missed the point. you can have a flat tax which is graduated. you would have a tax mainly on what people bring in on income, the more you make, the more your flat tax would be. everybody misses this point. have a graduated flat tax. host: isn't that kind of what we have with rates going up i how much you make? guest: we do have a progressive rate structure right now the flat tax means one rate but
everyone pays the same percentage of their income and if you earn more, you pay a larger dollars share. i agree we have way too many taxes and the tax code is way too complex. on the individual income tax, any number of special credits, deductions especially in the corporate tax. there are 30 plus different tax subsidies for green energy prefacing wind and solar and biofuel in these things junk up the tax code and we got rid of all of them, we could lower tax rates for everyone and have a simpler and fairer system. host: i want to focus on the irs ability to collect all the taxes owed. a recent congressional hearing on leading the irs, they spoke about the irs ability to collect all taxes. [video clip] >> as a taxpayer, i have been
concerned about gaps in capacity that have impeded the irs ability to meet its critical mission6+3+. the result is that hard working honest taxpayers who need assistance in meeting their tax obligations are not getting the services they need. the irs has also been ill-equipped to unpack complex and intricate returns of high income taxpayers. following the passage of the inflation reduction act, americans rightly expect a more modern and high-performing irs. last year, secretary yellen issued a directive that the irs will not increase audit rate for small businesses and households making under $400,000 which i am committed to meeting. therefore, if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, the audit and compliance priorities will be focused on enhancing the irs capability to ensure that america's highest earners comply
with applicable tax laws. host: that's from a recent congressional hearing who was nominated to lead the irs. guest: this may be an area where we agree more. we need to enforce the tax code we have in place and that would make a huge difference. we have people that can talk about that but for many wealthy individuals and corporations, they don't pay those rates at all. you can -- they can hire high-priced accountants and get around irs regulations and the irs is not had the capacity because they are underfunded. they have simply not had the capacity to enforce tax law. the new funding the irs has gotten is already showing and questions are being answered
more frequently. i hope it will show results on the others of the ledger with going after more high income tax avoiders. the example of former president trump not as president but as an individual when he said paying taxes is stupid and despite living a luxurious lifestyle, he paid zero taxes in recent years. whatever you think of his political priorities, i don't think anybody looks at the way the trump family lives and think that's a family that should pay zero taxes. host: agreement? guest: i think the problem whether the irs is funded enough or not comes back to congress. congress has given the irs a tax code way too complicated to enforce in a meaningful or systematic way. if congress wants to continue adding complexity to the tax code, the irs would need more
money to make sure people know what the rules are and can comply. i think the right answer is to simplify the tax code so it's not so hard to comply with. host: yucca valley, california, good morning. caller: the working people that pay federal tax dollars, 48% of the people pay no federal tax dollars but they use 70% of the giveaway to welfare and it's not fair. working people are tired of hearing about poor people. poor people are poor for a reason. if you were sick or handicapped, that's different but if you are overweight or an alcoholic or drug addict they throw money at you. the government has made people poor and people need to pay their fair share whether it's 2% or 4% but when you have 48% of the people paying no federal tax dollars and use 70% of the giveaway money, there is your problem, thank you. guest: that's leaving out the
payroll tax which is the main tax of working people pay. every working person pays into the payroll tax until the 160 thousand dollars threshold. it's just not accurate to say low income people don't pay income tax. the problem is, it costs something to do what we want to do in this country. the last thing i will say is when it comes to state and local taxes and this is where my organization has a lot of information but when it comes to most local taxes, low income and middle income families pay a much higher share of those taxes because the states and localities rely so heavily on sales taxes and are pretty taxes and because income taxes have been cut in many states for many years. host: ruth in rochester, new
york, line for democrats. caller: good morning, i think you got to the nub of the problem. the problem is not the tax rate, it's who pays what they are supposed to pay. i do think anybody in this country who gets services from the government and all of his due in one way or another, they need to be paying something. it seems that part of it is related to the fact that we don't fund irs well enough to take care of the total problem. nobody deserves to pay no taxes. i don't care what they are making. they obviously have enough to invest. they have enough to live on. often people who are poor do not. host: this comes back to the complexity of the tax. most americans are good faith
and complying with the tax code but it's incredibly complex and hard to figure out the rules especially if you are a small business and you cannot hire a high-priced attorney to figure out the tax code. the answer is simplification, not throw more money at the problem. that won't make anyone's life easier but congress should assess the rules they have on the books and make it easier for the american people to comply. guest: adam and i agree that there is a lot that can be simplified and eliminated an equalizing the tax rate between capital gains with simple -- would simplify things but most working people pay their taxes. the taxes are deducted from their paycheck. they comply and it's really the very wealthy get away with
complicated shenanigans with their accountants. i understand the callers frustration. working class and middle income people have their taxes deducted from their paycheck and they comply. host: we have five minutes left -- this is indiana, independent, good morning. caller: i have a question for amy. if you are going to tax unrealized capital gains, are you willing to give refunds for unrealized capital losses? for adam, what would you think of the possibility of doing away with the corporate income tax altogether but then cap the tax on capital gains at the same rate as all other income? host: two good questions, -- guest: i think the first thing we should do with capital gains
is equalize the rates between earnings from wealth and earning from work. that seems fair for working people. the second big thing we should do is to tax the capital gains at the point of inheritance because that's a clear point when you have a wealthy air inheriting maybe there's a $5 million exemption on this. we are not talking about grandma's house, much higher levels. when it comes to the billionaires and multimillionaires who president biden has suggested an income tax for, i think it makes sense to assess that over five years and if there is a loss, there would have to be a refund but stock market generally goes up which is why people invest in it. host: no corporate tax but capital gains tax? guest: getting rid of the corporate tag is an excellent goal.
everyone should have access to a universal statement account to eliminate the capital gains and encourages people to stay for the long term. it gets away from the complications of whether the government has to refund your money if the stock market has a loss which is one of the many complications with taxes. my 401(k) k has gone up in the last couple of years but has also gone down. the day-to-day fluctuations in the stock market creates even more complications for the irs to help people comply and it's incredibly complicated system not to mention the economic costs. host: one last call in this segment from the lone star state, republican. caller: good morning, a couple of questions.
businesses, no matter how little they pay in taxes, i'm in a business myself, i always pay taxes. just because i don't make an income, i still pay a fuel tax and business licensing, insurance tax and so forth. i really hate when i hear anybody say that corporations don't pay any taxes. they know that is a lie, they pay tons and tons of other taxes but just because they didn't make an income to pay any other tax, doesn't matter because we still pay other taxes. host: what type of business are you in? caller: i do security systems so i deal with low income people. i also deal with corporations. i pay tons of money on different licensing. i got my business license which
is $45,000 per year. host: let's and on corporate taxes. guest: i completely agree with the caller that we should consider all of the taxes that people and companies pay when we talk about taxation. we talk about the 55 corporations that pay zero income tax, we are clear in writing that we are talking about the corporate income tax. when you counting all the other taxes, it makes our texas and much more regressive. i agree -- i agree we should think about that when we talk about the tax system. guest: i also agree with the caller that there are many other taxes other than the printed contacts that businesses pay and those are a cost to the business which means they are able to carry out whatever that business is less well and can hire fewer people because the government is
taxing the resources away from them and that's how we should think about the business taxes. are we penalizing the entities we need to create jobs and build innovation and ultimately grow the economic pie for everyone? guest:guest: and are we making sure they have what they need as far as an educated workforce and infrastructure? host: it won't be the last time we talk about taxes on this program but thank you both. come back again. guest: thanks for having us. host: up next and about 15 minutes, we will turn back to the topic of the anniversary of the russian invasion of you rain. we will be joined by the institute for the study of war for that discussion but until then, time for you to leave this program -- to lead this program
in the open forum. the phone lines are open so you can start calling in. the numbers are on your screen and we will get your calls after the break. >> since 1979 in partnership with the cable industry, c-span had provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, partner briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to have issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> preorder your copy of the congressional directory for the 118th congress. it's your access to the federal
government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member. important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. scan the code on the right to preorder your copy today for early spring delivy. evy purchase alps support our nonprofit operations at c-span shop.org. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, bringing you the latest from the president and other white house officials, the pentagon, and state department, as well as congress. we also have international perspectives from foreign leaders. the c-span now mobile app and c-span.org.ukraine, our web resource page where you can watch videos live on demand, or follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine.
>> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 eastern, important congressional hearings and other important events throughout the day, and weekdays at 5:00 eastern, fast reports throughout the day. just tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: it is our open for them, letting you lead the discussion. you can join the conversation. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8002 -- (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. at 10:00 eastern, will be taking
you to the un security council meeting today in new york. a meeting to discuss the future of the war in ukraine, on the one-year anniversary. you can watch here on c-span, c-span.org, c-span now video app. plenty of calls already this morning. mike is in upland, california. republican. go ahead. caller: i appreciate your show, by the way. i am curious about these corporate taxes when i believe the corporations, the people who work for corporations, all the employees of corporations, as employees they pay income tax, so they are made up of people already paying income tax. the owners of these " large evil
corporations" are mostly retired persons. these large pools they jump into, their retirement accounts. i am just curious why we would even want to tax them anything at all to begin with. it is like double taxation. you are taxing all of the employees twice and the stockholders twice. a lot of the employees get stock incentives to continue working there, so everyone is being taxed twice. it does not seem right to me. host: thanks for the call. mary in chapel hill, north carolina. independent. caller: hi, america. i just want to remind america what it is like to live under a dictator. over the last year, anybody that
has said anything negative about putin ends up dead. just remember that. they are thrown out a window, shot. that is what it's like living under a dictatorship. why wouldn't ukraine fight that? why wouldn't we support them? that is what a dictator is all about. host: marcy in north carolina. republican. good morning. caller: good morning and thanks for taking my call. i have called in before and ask you occasionally have a segment on what we are doing to make our world a better place, our communities. we spend three hours debating whatever government is doing right or wrong, we call each other names. if you don't agree with me, you are racist, ignorant. we call our president, former president names. we don't have respect for the office.
we, the people, are responsible for our peace of the world. instead of telling us what others are doing wrong, what are we doing right to make the world a better place? host: what are you doing down there in north carolina? caller: i'm a volunteer for domestic violence. i cover a crisis line two weekends a month. i work in the office son. -- some. when i am outliving my normal life, if i see somebody that i think i can help out, i try to give them encouragement. through our church, we have a neighbor helping neighbor program where we give clothes and bibles and food to people in our neighborhood. we support several ministries throughout the year. i am part of a good news club, afterschool program. just simple things that you can do. host: what is the good news
club? >> it is a bible program, volunteer afterschool program, for children. we just have a good time with the kids. kindergarten through fifth grade. it is all voluntary. we have some great kids. we have some great workers. host: thanks for telling us about that in north carolina. pompano beach, california. this is mark on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i do not understand why the rest of the world has not brought putin before the commission to answer for the crimes. we have not even made an effort to remove some of the things that he likes, such as the largest house on the planet.
the very least they could do is take out the golf course in moscow. i have been there, so i know they have them. to remove the pleasures of the oligarchs who support russia, in what is the most horrible war on the planet. they are going unanswered before the war crimes commission, as they did in world war ii. host: on this one have in your anniversary of the russian war in ukraine, some numbers. 65,000 war crimes have been reported to the european justice commissioner. 300,000 dead and wounded on both sides over the course of the year. 8 million ukrainians have fled their country. when it comes to u.s. assistance to ukraine, almost $50 billion in military assistance, tens of billions of dollars more in
financial and human tearing assistance. those are some of the numbers from 12 months of war in ukraine. this is ken in miami, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i am very much concerned with our governor desantis from florida. he is a very authoritative person. he wants to get involved in limiting history in schools. he was against the science of vaccinations and so forth. of course, he will be going -- him and trump will be running for the president for the republicans next year. i am concerned about the people that support him.
america is a democracy that respects diversity, different other religions. the constitution protects us as equal citizens. but he is only catering to a very narrow base, pretty much white christian, auld, rich individuals -- old, rich individuals, which is not the makeup of this country. host: in the washington on ron desantis, on the verge of a 2024 campaign, announced yesterday that the state has its most ambitious proposal yet to combat the illegal immigration. the legislation, governor desantis said would counteract biden's border crisis, would strengthen detention requirements without documentation in florida, invalidate out-of-state licenses
issued to those living here illegally. in-state tuition for migrant students in the country would end. hospitals statewide would have to report what they estimate to be millions of dollars in costs for caring for patients for patients or countries in the country illegally. immigrants in the country illegally would also be prohibited from practicing law in florida. some of the proposed legislation from the governor's office. this is philip in philadelphia. democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i would just like to ask, what kind of coverage c-span intends to do with the border hearing that the democrats have refused to take part in? host: next week or the week after, when is that? caller: where jim jordan and his committee our meeting on the border, and the democrats have
announced they will not attend. host: this is the one taking place on the border? i'm not sure what our coverage plans are for it. we often cover congressional happenings. in terms of one that is and what coverage decisions have been made, not privy to that at the moment. those decisions often come a day before, days before hearings, once we know what is on the hill. c-span.org is the best place to go, we have our hearing schedule on that. that is where i would point you to. apologize. i cannot answer that for you right now. alan and fort mills, south carolina. independent. good morning. caller: i tried to call when we have the social security experts on earlier in the week. i keep hearing that conservatives want to cut social security, but isn't it true that most people and entitlements are
in red states? do you intend to have the security experts back on again? host: i am sure we will have a discussion on social security again. we had two days, at a roundtable for about an hour on that. caller: it was great. i tried to call but could not get in. i was just wondering, where most of the social security recipients live in. host: maybe a topic we can cover down the road. with all of these proposals on capitol hill, we will certainly be covering it again. thanks for the call. alan, our last collar in this open forum. we will return to the one-year anniversary of the russian invasion in ukraine, will have a discussion with the institute for the study of war fellow italian buba yoga -- nataliya bugayova.
she will be with us right after the break. stay with us. ♪ >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our collection of products, apparel, books, home decorah, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase help support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, bring you the latest from the president and other white house officials, the pentagon, state department, as well as congress. we also have international perspectives from the united nations and statement from foreign leaders all on the c-span networks, c-span now free mobile app, and c-span.org/ukraine, our web
resource page where you can watch the latest videos live on demand, and all the tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. be up-to-date on the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases, plus a bestseller lists, news, and trends through insider news. find out about books on our mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> there are almost 80 new members in the 118 congress and this diverse group includes first-generation americans and a record number of women and minorities. c-span interviewed more than half of them about their upbringing, careers, and political philosophy. tonight at 8:00 eastern, hear
from representative jen kiggans, harriet hageman, loralee, the cabal and, and ryan zinke. watch new members of the 118 congress at 8:00 eastern on c-span, or online at c-span.org. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span2. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 6:30 p.m. eastern, look at slavery reparations from a rowdy perspectives with columbia professors. lectures and history, university of maryland eastern shore history professors talk about the role that black women played during the reconstruction era. exploring the american story. watch american history tv, saturdays on c-span2.
and find the full schedule on your program gui, or watch online anytime at c-span.org /history. >> preorder your copy of the congressional directory for the 118 congress. it's your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member, important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. scanned the code to the right to preorder your copy today for early spring delivery. it is $2995 plus shipping and handling. >> washington journal continues. host: admits the one-year anniversary of the russian it invasion in ukraine, we are joined by nataliya bugayova from the institute for the study of war, author of several books about russian foreign policy. thanks for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: if this war is taking
place into phases, what phase are we in right now? guest: there are several key phases and milestones. i want to start with a couple. russia has been trying to control ukraine for years, first, by trying to manipulate ukraine's political and domestic environment. then russia launched a limited military invention in 2014. for the subsequent eight years, russia tried to use that to control ukraine politically. all of those efforts have failed. then russia resorted to full-scale military invasion of ukraine. we have several key phases. the first one was when russia had initiative on the ground from february of last year to july. and that phase, ukraine had defeated their objectives in the more to invade and conquer
ukraine in a matter of a few days. ukraine won the battle of kyiv, pushed russia out. it won the battle ofkharkiv and forced russia to change their operational objectives to just focus on eastern ukraine. then there was a shift in the mid summer of last year. ukraine launched several counteroffensive operations and successfully liberated thousands of square miles of territory and people. ukraine has been setting conditions for additional counteroffensive operations since, however some of the momentum slows, in part, because aid was a step behind. that allows russia to reform its lines and shore up its offensive of bahkmut and other regions.
they launched an offensive that is happening very slowly and that is where we are right now. host: you talk about objectives. what divides winning and losing with russia right now? guest: their objectives have been consistent for years. they always expand, just taking territory, countering nato or forcing ukraine into neutrality but it is never about protecting russian speakers given how many thousand russian forces have killed or expelled from ukraine. the objective for russia has always been to control ukraine and eradicate ukraine's statehood and identity. those objectives remain the same. we see no indication of vladimir putin changing them despite the battlefield setbacks he is facing. we accept those objectives will likely outlive him. host: what divides winning and losing four ukraine?
if russia ends up controlling any territory that it has taken since a year ago, does that mean a loss for ukraine in this war? guest: four ukraine, essentially it is ukraine existence as a state. russia preserving some of its territory allows them to do several things. territory matters tremendously. russia will use and it territory it keeps in nutrient to state future attacks. that has not changed. russia can advance much further if it starts from the lines it currently controls compared to what it had in february. there will be perpetual threats to ukraine's existence, survival as a state. host: you mention western aid. when it comes to usaid
specifically, what has been the most important? a specific weapons system, dollars in general? diplomatic efforts to unite the west? what do you think has been the most important piece of aid? guest: i think military aid certainly but it is the full package. there are two centers of gravity. one is ukraine and the fight, and then there is western support of ukraine's effort to fight. as long as those exist, russia cannot achieve their objectives. military aid, systems like the himars, were essential for ukraine to liberate its people. liberation of kherson city, vital, liberation would not have been possible without u.s. support and the himars system. but it is about the whole package. host: the next package to ask
for is aircraft. what is the status of the air war over ukraine right now? guest: russia does not have air superiority in ukraine, one of the more important distinctions of the war compared to others where russia has been engaged. ukraine being able to preserve its ability to control its airspace and deny russia's manned aircraft from really operating has been crucial. that is why russia has been relying so much on unmanned aircraft, drones, trying to get more from iran. i think about the next phase of the offensive and western aid, there are two things that matter. russia's offensive in ukraine right now is moving slowly. in fact, it will be short of achieving any significant gains. that means that ukraine will likely have another chance, almost certainly, to launch
their own counteroffensive. it's important to make sure that when that time comes, ukraine is fully positioned to take that opportunity and exploit it to the fullest. it is in the u.s. interest, not just ukraine, that ukraine deliberate terrain. host: you assess that they will not meet their objectives. how do you see and watch this more? -- this war? guest: the war has been extremely costly for russia. they have been repeating mistakes like growing in a lot of resources despite little gains. it is the same in bakhmut. it is russia's costly operation that depleted a lot of their capability. we see russian efforts to try to regenerate in the both and
long-term, but they are facing a lot of systematic issues that cannot be fixed overnight. fixing some of those issues means not just 12 months of mistakes but 20 years of chemo to mistakes that vladimir putin and the way that he ruled russia lead to corruption and the erosion of russian capability. we see this on the ground, we are ideally observing the information. various russian military movements, how the war is shaping on the bow to field. host: is that twitter accounts, instagram postings? how are you watching this? guest: we have research teams in russia and ukraine developing for a number of years. russia has been a global actor for a number of years. it is a comprehensive system
including social media, news outlets in the ukrainian, russian language, telegram channels including russian military bloggers. it is very comprehensive. we constantly revise those sources, make sure they are primed for performance. host: about 35 minutes left in the program today. we want to get to your calls, this being the one-year anniversary of the russian invasion of ukraine, escalating an invasion that began in 2014, full-scale invasion one year ago today. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independent, (202) 748-8002. nataliya bugayova is with us from the institute for the study of war. guest: we are a nonprofit is an nonprofit research institution. our goal is to inform the public
and national security community about military affairs and issues critical to national security. host: it is @thestudyofwar twitter. sergio is up first. good morning. caller: good morning, john. how are you? host: i'm fine. you are on with nataliya bugayova. caller: good morning, nataliya. my question is, i respect the president of ukraine standing up against russia's tierney, trying to take over their country, and they are fighting back strongly. i respect that in this man. also, by the grace of god, that they are protected. how can president biden work with ukraine to overcome putin's
invasion of ukraine? how can they defeat russia to stand back and leave them alone? caller: thank you for -- guest: thank you for the question. one, regarding russia's objectives of ukraine, those will not change. you have western policy that should try to stop using resources to change putin's mind through cease-fires, peace talks, negotiations, especially those that are premature. the thing that truly matters is russia's capability to sustain the war. capability has four elements. one is momentum on the ground. two is russia's ability to keep terrain. three, as russia's convention on al military power. and then capabilities such as using information to limit their
power. you asked, and ukraine and ukraine partners have a lot of agency in shipping those elements of russia's capability. the first is by denying russia's momentum on the ground. we talked about supplying ukraine with what it needs to be successful in the next counteroffensive. secondly, recognizing that terrain is a core part of russian capability. whatever terrain they keep will use in future attacks. on the military-industrial complex of russia, a lot of necessary and good steps have been done to limit its access to? it's, western technology, but more needs to be done. finally, parsing through a lot of russian disinformation, including the key effort -- and i cannot emphasize this enough -- the key effort that is aimed
to peel western support away from ukraine. countering those is essential. host: does targeting russian capabilities mean ukraine attacking russian depots, the ability to manufacture arms inside russia itself? guest: denying russia's ability to preserve their gains in ukraine. first and foremost, expelling russia from the territory of ukraine, helping ukraine to regain momentum and go on the counteroffensive. host: which stops at the russian border. guest: correct. ukraine has made it clear that it has no intentions of taking land that does not belong to it. there is also russian capability globally, that many to target, by not amplifying russia and their military industrial complex with access to western technologies and markets. at the bare minimum, that is
what we need to do. host: where do they have that access currently? guest: russia is using a lot of countries in the former soviet states, in some cases belarus, to circumvent sanctions. we are also watching their efforts in africa. russia has been using africa for sanctions, export controls were a number of years. there is a lot of knowledge about what russia is doing. it is harder to fully stop it. this is the effort that these to be advanced. host: chris also in florida. independent line. you are on with nataliya bugayova. caller: i was wondering they might consider the first rule of war there at the institute, the institute of the study of war? i have another follow-up. host: what is the first rule of war? caller: if they have rules, but would they consider the first rule of war? there may not be an answer.
host: what would be your answer? caller: i would like to know hers. guest: thank you for the question. a couple of points. at the institute, throughout the u.s., national security, we study issues through the open source data. we also have a program that is focused on the war studies that educates americans in war, understanding the war. i don't think we have a written rule at the isw that can be quantified as a first rule of war, however, as we have seen in the past 12 months, there are some fundamental rules of war. one is understanding yourself, understanding your enemy, understanding your own capabilities, understanding the capabilities of your adversary. that is one of the key rules that vladimir putin has broken
by both, overestimating russia's cabability, underestimating ukraine's capability, underestimating western support. that is one of the most essential rules of war. host: what is your first rule of war? caller: avoiding war. what i'm trying to say is what started this? i remember when there was georgia, something to do with georgia and russia during the obama candidacy. i was wondering what her opinion was on that? and then your opinion on crimea. the reason he took crimea, the port there that he needs tremendously. the war is about the land bridge to crimea. what i'm asking is, why do we not avoid war? why did we not avoid war with these people? guest: thank you.
this is an essential question about the kremlin's objective. first of all, the kremlin's efforts to begin control over ukraine and over other soviet states, including belarus, moldova, started early after the soviet union collapsed. there was a brief period that you have to think up as a nonassertive russian policy in the 1990's, that was an anomaly, not the norm. as soon as vladimir putin came to power and stabilized the situation inside russia, he went on his efforts to begin control of ukraine, georgia, and let's not forget that russia also moved to the west and occupied illegal territory in moldova even before nato considered any conversations about enlargement. what i am saying is, the kremlin's objective to gain
control over the territories of the former soviet states, first of all, were independent of any u.s. actions. u.s. policy may have accelerated some of those objectives, but he is intent on controlling ukraine, exceeding any contours of u.s. policy. we know that russia's goals in ukraine were not just territory. putin wanted to control portions of the luhansk and donetsk regions for years and that was not enough. there were negotiations between the russia and the u.s., other western partners, but none of that mattered to putin. ukraine's territory and neutrality with the west was not the goal. full ukraine of ukraine was. i want to emphasize that. host: jane is on the line on the independent line.
caller: i think she just answered my question partially. a simple question. why does russia need more territory? it is a big country. the other thing is, do they really need democracy because communism is a failure? is that really the motivation? guest: it's a great question, why does russia need more territory? i think another reason for why what vladimir putin is doing in ukraine actually comes down to how he governs russia. ukraine opposed zero threat to russia, other than just existing, trying to build a society that was different and free, not authoritarian. one of the reasons vladimir putin is going on this endeavor is also to boost his domestic support.
it worked in 2014 when he illegally occupied crimea. it worked a lot less this time. but he has also been consolidating russian society. russian power brokers around the agenda of continued war against ukraine. it is not putin's war, it is russia's war. unfortunately, much of russian society supports the war, or at least not objecting to it. in terms of the second question about democracy, your question is about whether russia needs democracy? host: i think that is what she was asking. that communism did not work for them. guest: unfortunately, russian chose a path several decades ago when vladimir putin came to power, and he became
increasingly authoritative over the past 20 years. year after year we see him imposing more societal control policies, controlling the information space, limiting freedom of speech, extending his suppression apparatus. creating the russian version of the national guard that directly supports putin. there were some efforts by the russian people early on to resist some of these increases in authoritarianism. those efforts were crushed. russian society either got in line or left to russia, or became neutral or idle about the agenda. that is the path russia has been going down under putin's leadership, but this really exceeds putin. that is the choice they have made. host: before vladimir putin called up hundreds of thousands of additional troops, there were
a lot of questions about how russian society would react to that, whether he was holding off doing that out of fear of a larger pushback from russian civilians. in your mind, how do you think that went? was there much pushback when it happened? guest: i think there were a lot of expectations that russian society would pushback on this invasion. however, in the 12 months, we have learned, the thing that really shapes the russian domestic information space, causes russian society to react, is unfortunately not even russian casualties, not russian atrocities in ukraine, it is russian setbacks on the battlefield. we have seen them react when russia was forced out of the kiev access. host: what is that? guest: when russia lost the battle of kyiv, forced out of western and northern regions of
ukraine. second, when russia suffered some very embarrassing defeats in eastern ukraine, expelled from the kharkiv region. we have seen the russian public react, in part because many of them do by the idea of russia being a great power. the idea that putin has been cultivating for 20 years. that is what russia probably reacted to factually. unfortunately, we have not seen those kinds of reactions to their own casualties even. host: paul is on the phone, independent. you are on with nataliya bugayova. caller: good morning. but before the war started, on c-span, you had putin on tv. i checked that out. basically, putin said what this is all about is, on the eastern
part of poland, there are nato missile silos and the eastern part of romania, missile silos. the thing is, they are afraid of ukrainians, if they join nato, missile silos there. weapons could be used against russia. they are about five minutes flight time to moscow, so it is checkmate. that is why he is doing this. host: is that why he's doing this? guest: that is not why he is doing this. he has proved it over and over again. territory, neutrality is not the goal. you cannot have it both ways. claim that ukraine somehow presented a conventional military threat to russia, but also that russia was planning to invade and conquer ukraine in three days.
based on russia's own assessment of how limited the ukraine and military was. you also cannot have it both ways, claiming that russia is generally concerned about the conventional nato threat, and also observe now, when russia is removing and pulling back some of its military given abilities the nato border and the peninsula. also, putin openly claiming that sweden and finland joining nato is not a fundamental national security threat to russia. it is very important to parse the disinformation operation russia is using to justify its illegal invasion of not just ukraine, but also georgia, earlier moldova, its occupation of belarus also has transpired in the last three years. let's not forget about that. and so on.
host: south carolina, this is hank on the democrat line. caller: i don't know if this young lady has answered the question, but i've been thinking about, we have given ukraine these tanks, but we are going to make them before we send them over. it will not be about 10 or 20. ukraine does not have air superiority. those tanks will be destroyed the first day they go there. can you answer that? host: abrams tanks. guest: actually, russia does not have air superiority in ukraine, and this is why russia continues to rely on unmanned aircraft. tanks are incredibly important in the counteroffensive operation that are underway, are being planned right now in ukraine. i think it is actually quite the opposite.
if anything, tanks did not arrive when ukraine had the opportunity to exploit the russian setback after ukraine first push them back out of the kharkiv region and liberated kherson. tanks are important and russia does not have air superiority. host: we talked about the air war. is there a naval war in the black sea? guest: a couple points. russia's ability to control crimea in the beginning of the war, illegally occupying for eight years, was one of the key reasons why russia has been able to control the black seacoast, essentially use it as a staging ground for attacks on ukraine. as we look ahead, we should remember, helping ukraine liberate the south and also deny russia an opportunity to some of the southern regions freely, is vital.
russia had been kicked out, if you will recall, from snake island, which is a controlled. so, russia has had some setbacks in the naval war, as well. it's been an important element from the broader global implications of the war. in the beginning of the war, russia blocking access to ukraine ports, essentially starting their ability to export grain. that has been partially resolved. but it also matters for russia's ability to deprive some economic activity in ukraine, diminish that. it is also part of economic warfare. host: you mentioned the planned ukrainian offensive. what makes the most sense for ukrainians to target in their upcoming offensive?
guest: we did not watch the specific ukrainian counteroffensive, we watch russia and the adversary. however, the key question here is what ukraine needs to liberate to create a circumstance in which it can understand its sovereignty sustainably. the whole territory is the answer but there are some more immediate priorities. i already mentioned the south of ukraine is critically vital. also denying russia the ability to easily use portions of ukraine as a staging ground for resupplying russian military operations. there are several critical lines of communication that russia will also likely target. host: ronald in jericho, new york. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. nothing has been said on the
media, c-span, or elsewhere, about the expansion of nato in the past, right up to russia's border, and how far russia this is analogous of when russia sent missiles to cuba, right off the coast of the usa in 1962. this has been a provocation, existential threat to russia. for this reason, russia feels it must win. host: is this akin to the cuban missile crisis? guest: it is not. once again, there is years of evidence to suggest that russia did not take nato conventional threats seriously. we see that from their military posture, many other actions. the only thing that they took series was the rhetoric, which they used two wage war against ukraine, other states in its orbit. the second point, the
conversation about nato expansion somehow threatening russia, and therefore being a justification for russia to launch an unprovoked invasion of several of its states, killing, torturing, deporting a lot of those people is actually not a good justification. in fact, it dismisses any agency that any other state that russia invades has. many of those states wanted to join nato. many of those states want to join nato now after russia launched a full-scale invasion, precisely because it is their people, it is their sovereign choice. russia has no say over that. we shouldn't forget what is at stake in this war. it is not just ukraine sovereignty. you also have national security interests, and it stabilization of values.
we will either emerge in a world where states can redraw, or we can emerge with ukraine sovereign. there is no middle ground here. host: in 10 minutes, we are taking our viewers to the u.n. council meeting happening in new york, happening today on the one-year anniversary of the war. what are you expecting from that meeting? guest: i think there will be a couple of points to watch for. one is the continuing resolution for the support of ukraine. there are two things that truly matter in the war. continuation of ukraine's willingness to fight. you cannot break the will to fight of people who are facing an existential war. second is global support for ukraine's effort to defend itself. looking at the u.n. security meeting from that lens. the second question being
brought up is, the way of war by russia and its atrocities. we should not forget, in the past 12 months, we have seen russian atrocities all throughout ukraine. there were not isolated incidents. this was actually a microcosm of their way of war. bucha was a suburb of kyiv where russian troops -- the troops were occupying. when it was liberated, we saw horrific scenes of the atrocities that russia committed including killings, rapes, torture, so on and so forth. that is happening in every city that russia occupies in ukraine. that is why also people who are suggesting -- that implies giving some of ukraine's land in exchange for whatever they see,
to be explicit, that they understand this condemns those people on those territories to perpetual russian atrocities. back to the u.n., there have been some great sessions this week talking about the issue of russia deporting children from ukraine, from the occupied territories. perhaps you are aware of a great yale university study that says about 6000 ukrainian children were forcibly deported to russia against their will, being forcefully reeducated. we cannot agree on some issues of the war, but we can all agree that deporting children against their will is not some thing that should exist in the world. we should not try to create a world in which a country that does it, but also praises about it, is rewarded. that will be the theme at the u.n. host: a caller asked earlier
why russia is still a member of the security council. why can't that be changed? guest: great question. many people agree that it shouldn't. it is the structure of the u.n. they are a legacy framework, but it brings up a larger question. it comes down to the question of what kind of world we will have it russia wins and keeps its gains. it has everything to do with the global security structure, as well. this is where i want to bring in a point of u.s. national security interest in all of this. american supporting ukraine in this for values, but on the security side, if russia keeps its gains in ukraine, it will have a chance to rebuild, launch future attacks, connect its military gains in ukraine to belarus. that would imply different requirements on nato, the eu,
and united states. the u.s. is risking being dragged into this, have the same problems, with the same escalation risks. those risks will always be there, but under much worse conditions, if it doesn't help ukraine right now. host: randall is in michigan. independent line. caller: thank you both for taking this call. first of all, obviously, president kennedy must've been concerned to agree to remove nuclear missiles from turkey as a part of that deal. the second -- i want to preface this. both the vatican, his holiness pope francis, chinese president xi, have made numerous statements suggesting that nato played a role in undermining the minsk agreement. i want to specifically focus
your attention on the issue of self-determination. it is my understanding that the previous president before zelenskyy, poroshenko, had, in fact, recognize those two republics in the donbass region had inherent, as a collective -- and i'm crossing over to the u.n. charter the issue of self-determination -- that they had met the criteria to where ukraine recognized that. there was an accord, understanding between ukraine and russia on that specific point. then zelenskyy became elected, and he has acknowledged that he actually repudiated that
agreement that had been earlier agreed upon in russia. that, in my mind, if true -- which is not a part of the western narrative. that has been excluded from the western narrative. if you look to the other side of the world, many people see that as a provocation. host: let's talk about that. poroshenko, minsk agreement, self-determination. guest: first of all, the narrative that so-called separatism exists in ukraine is anything other than russia created situation is flawed. i can tell you, as someone who has spent many years in eastern ukraine, speaking not just as a military analyst but from first-hand experience. russia is not in ukraine to protect russian speakers. in fact, russian forces killed,
deported, tortured russian speakers all throughout ukraine. russian forces leveled to the ground many russian-speaking cities in ukraine. mariupol was a predominantly russian-speaking city. now is a mass grave. let's get over that narrative. number two, ukraine and every other former soviet state became an independent state in 1991. full stop. that is the border of independent ukraine, russia. russia's efforts to set up so-called separatist structures in eastern ukraine actually started as early as 2005. they have been going at it deliberately for years, trying to create a foundation that they would then used to have a
military intervention. the minsk agreement, how putin broke them -- this is nothing more than putin to use his limited military gains to control the whole of ukraine. any discussion about peace agreements now need to account for that. we have seen that in ukraine, syria. russia uses and then corrupts the notion of peace with one sole purpose. rebuild, reconstitute, and then attack again. host: you mentioned, you spent years in eastern ukraine. what were you doing there? guest: my family is originally from donbass. i can speak to on the ground experiences. host: how long have you been in the u.s., how long have you been studying these issues? guest: i'm a proud american. i've been with the institute since about 2015, have lived and
studied in the u.s. in high school, also did my masters degree in the united states. so, for many years. host: how we got here with russia, the kremlin worldview. when was it published? guest: 2019. it was a recognition that we needed to look deeper at russia's objectives over time. it was an effort to counter the russian misinformation, that everything that russia does is because they are being provoked. it is to document putin's speeches, actions of the kremlin, to show a lot of the efforts to once again control the countries in former soviet states has nothing to do with the u.s.. it is intrinsic to russian policy and continued to be. host: a couple minute before we go over to the un security council. matthew in new york align for democrats.
can you make it quick? caller: absolutely. one of the myriad reasons that russia supposedly went into the ukraine was because they did not want a nato country abutting theirs. putin must be losing his mind because finland now wants to be part of nato. what do you think about that? guest: i think a lot of what putin has done actually went against his original objective. his invasion significantly depleted russian literary capabilities, expanded the unity within nato, expanded the unity between ukraine and the west. a lot of his actions were based on flawed assessments, intelligence, actually led to him creating a problem that he thought he was solving in the first place. host: for much more on this
topic, and for nataliya bugayova 's work on this topic, go to understandingwar.org. nataliya bugayova is a russian fellow there. that is going to do it for us this morning on the washington journal. we take you up to new york to the u.s. security council getting ready to hold their meeting, the one year anniversary d -- anniversary of the ukraine ovation. we will be back here tomorrow on the washington journal. >> do not hide under the coverage of immunity. thank you. [indiscernible]
>> gathering here in the united nations security council on the one-year anniversary of russia's invasion of ukraine. members of state will discuss the situation in ukraine and will be hearing from u.s. secretary of state antony blinken and international officials. while we wait for them, we will take a look at some of our phone calls this morning on c-span's washington journal. host: one year of russia's war ukraine by the numbers. here is just a few of those numbers. 300,000 dead and wounded on both
sides. 8 million ukrainians have fled their country, six to 5000 suspected war crimes have been reported. as of february, the u.s. has provided 50 billion in military aid and billions more in financial and humanitarian assistance. the latest from kyiv this morning. volodymyr zelenskyy tweeted this out, on february 24, many of us made of -- many of us made a choice. not fleeing, but facing. resisting and fighting. this year, we remain invincible. we know that 2023 will be the year of our victory. here is the minute 42nd video that accompanies such week. [video clip]