accountability. my name is tortuous and i have the honor of serving as chair of the board of directors of the united states institute of peace. for those of you who may be joining us for the first time , us it was established by the u.s. congress in 1984. as a nonpartisan public institution. dedicated to preventing mitigating and helping resolve violent conflicts abroad. to lead our discussion today we are very pleased to have with us chuck todd, director of nbc news. and bill taylor, vice president, director of the europe and russia center here at the us institute of peace. their topic is a difficult and sobering one. how to address and expose mass atrocities committed in the midst of our armed conflict. and how to understand the strelationship between realistic reportingand accountability . throughout its history, us id has been deeply engaged in the examination of how to prevent and respond to mass atrocities. the institute served as cochair of the 2009 genocide invention task force. which established the broad framework currently used by the us government for his atrocity prevention and response policy. today's discussion will focus on efforts to document and respond atrocities committed in the context of russia's unprovoked and unjustified invasion of ukraine. the discussion will consider the often heroic work of journalists to expose these crimes. it will also examine ongoing efforts to hold perpetrators accountable as well as the challenge challenges facing policymakers in ensuring that justice is delivered to victims. today's event also marks the t launch of an equally timely exhibit entitled yimagine: reflections on peace building. this multimedia exhibit which opens officially tomorrow is the product of a partnership between the institute and seven foundation. the exhibit explores the themes and challenges of peace building through an immersive look at societies that suffered and survived conflict. conceived and designed by the seven foundation the imagine exhibit 's historical photos, texts and video to bring visitors face-to-face with therealities of violent conflict . it asks the question why is it so difficult to make a good piece when it is so easy to imagine? for those who are here in person we hope you will take time after today's discussion to visit the exhibit which is located right next door in the institutes great hall. our program today will begin with a moderated conversation with chuck todd, bill taylor. mister todd is political director for nbc news and moderator of meet the press. he leaves the network's premier political coverage across nbc's many platforms offering the american public insider analysis and critical insights into happenings inside the beltway. he also is a primary anchor for the network's primetime election coverage and is known for holding both politicians and networks accountable.it he earned a reputation as one of washington's respected, most respected political journalists responsible for establishing meet the press as the number one public affairs program. ambassador william taylor is one of us ids vice president and director of its war russiaand europe center . and in 2019 he took a leave of absence from the institute to accept and appoint an affair at the us embassy in kyiv having previously served as us ambassador to ukraine 2006 two 2009. from 1992 to 2002 he was coordinator for us assistance to the former union in eastern europe. he later served as apartments afghanistan coordinator and as director of the iraq reconstruction management office in baghdad. following discussion we will allow time for professions from the audience both here and online. for those of us i'm sorry, for those of you following us online please use the question box on the events webpage. and now chuck bill, thank you again forjoining us. and with your permission , chuck we will turn the floor over to you. >> i appreciate it. let's dive right in as much as i'd love to talk about the building. it's my first time in the building. i drive when you drive by this every day and look atthe beautiful building and you're like the federal government help fund this beautiful building and not that horrible architecture across the street ? but let's get started. we've got a lot of news this morning from the president himself in the op-ed and i want to sort of take it piece by piece. first i want to talk about the specifics. the decision. there apparently was a debate about whether to send this new advanced rocket system to ukraine and apparently the russians have let it be known that if somehow we did this this wasan excellent tory move . president biden decided to try to split hairs and said we're going to give them this system. they pledged not to use it to fire into russia. my question is so what? the russians are offended that ukrainians might actually launch a rocket into theother side? what are they doing ? so there's that aspect of it how important isit ? first. >> is great value in this building. i've been in your building several times and it's great to have you here. and george, thank you very much for getting us started here. it's great to have this opportunity. i think this is a big deal. the war in ukraine as george indicated unprovoked, unjustified by russians invading their neighbor for no reason that they can even identify as on on now into its fourth month. and it's shifted locations and it's shifted tactics. such that these longer-range weapons are more important now than they were in the beginning. the beginning the russians came down as we know from the north. they thought they would be able to take kyiv and replaced the president and take over the country by putting up a puppet government and theycould control that of course failed spectacularly . but finding the fighting around kyiv, short range. the weapons that nato provided suited to that promontory. it is now shifted and the second phase of the current phase is wide open territory. for those of us who have seen that part of ukraine can picture kansas. you can't sneak up like you could when you were in the forest. long-range weapons are important. the so-called multiple launch rocket systems, lrs has been on the ukrainians mind for months now. they knew what was coming. they knew what the changein the terrain and tactics were going to mean for them and sure enough , the ukrainians are getting bombarded by the long-range. they're not losing the war because they have won the first phase. they even pushed the russians back out of the second largest city in the northeast. therussians have made progress as we know in the south . they then stopped short of a major port, odessa. ukraine still owns that port. if the russian fleet would allow ships to go back and forth in and out of that port we wouldn't have this food crisis we have around the world but different story. the ukrainians are not losing this war. the battle now is exactly what you say. it's kind of in the center around this area of donbas that the russians invaded in 2014 and they are still trying to take more of donbas and making progress because of these longer-range fires. it's not just artillery,it's also cruise missiles . it's aircraft. it's airstrikes. which they work using very well in the beginning. but they are now. and they're taking some territory. there's no doubt about it so the ukrainians aregradually pulling back . and they're resisting in the south. they've won the battle in the north so it's kind of edging towards an uncomfortable stalemate back and forth. >> did ukraine have but they need to witness ? >> have enough to be in a stalemate. they will know the answer to that question if they win. when they win their convinced they will win. it's grim for them right now. i can't have friends in the ukrainian military and i hear from regular regularly. i heard from him yesterday on the front lines. he described the bombardment in horrific terms. and he's observed himself back and forth to the front line moving equipment. and it's grim. but part of the equipment that is moving is your question coming from the united states. it's coming from nato and these long-range artillery pieces long-range for artillery talking 50, less. but the longer-range and lrs gets back to your question about president biden's decision to provide these and lrs. at least a medium-range version of those. they do go 15 miles, don't go 300 miles. don't go 180miles 300 kilometers because that gets your point about shooting into russia . and ukrainians have said that's not what thereafter. that's not what they're interested in. what they're interested in is stopping the bombardment of their frontline troops. >> and you think this weapon system can stop that. >> can certainly give them the ability to stop it in certain places. the russians just have a lot of stuff. they got a lot of artillery and a lot of ammunition . ukrainians don't have as much artillery and are short of ammunition . so it's hogrim. you won't know the answer or do they have enough? we won't know until they win at which time we will say yes i've spoken to you before but a woman named amy atkins was the ohio public health director during the start. she had this quote that i had on forever and i feel like it applies to this war. she says in a pandemic you never look back and regret what you did . you look back and regret what you didn't do . when it comes to what we're watching now. ukraine had russia on its heels. and essentially russia was allowed to regroup. are we in the west, nato, america, however you want to define. are we goingd to look back and regret that we didn't do ? >> we may well look back and regret what we didn't do at the beginning of the war. our intelligence services, not just united states but allies and intelligence services were right about the russian intentions when they had 120, 150, 170,000 russians around on three borders of ukraine. our services were right and they were also right to say they're going to invade. there were a lot of people who said yes, you got all those forces there and we can see that but it wouldn't be so crazy. they wouldn't make a blunder. putin would be that dumb to invade. he invaded and our intelligence services predicted that. a lot of people didn't think. and our own intelligence services did not predict how well the ukrainians would do. >> does european intelligence were they looking. were they wrong because of confirmation bias because they saw what happened last time and they wanted to believe. they didn't believe what they were seeing for it was truly just a the american intelligence saul one thing and european, germany and france on the other's the breaks. >> as i almost always to. >> as they regularly are. the brits and americans said they're going to invade germans and france and ukrainians still largely agree. i was in the president zelinski's office three weeks before we had this conversation about. >> wasn't just rhetoric. i always thought he said that publicly. >> there was that too. he didn't want panicked. he knew exactly what we all doon the number of russian troops . but his sense was that it would be such a mistake for putin to do that. this was putin trying to bluff or intimidate zelensky were present by. >> he's been proven right, that it was sort of us have measured invasion that they did it seem like he was holding . >> strike, quick surrender. >> and he knew his military. and his office three weeks before we were talking about his military. he was increasing the pay for the soldiers. he had this in mind for sure. but all the intelligence services missed how strong the ukrainian military had become and how fiercely they be willing to fight and how supportive the ukrainian people would be but i think we underestimated. i think president putin underestimated the strength of the ukrainian military. one answer to your question is ukraine military is the last time in 2014 when russians first invaded, when they took crimea and then continued into donbas the ukrainian military was in terrible shape underthe previous president . he is still in russia now. he allowed the ukrainian military to hollow out l. so the ukraine military in 2014 and the russians first invaded, not so good. the russians miss and maybe the west miss the kind of strength, the morale of that the ukrainians did but in any case well we regret something, i think since we didn't think ukrainians would be able to resist, this enormous military that was arrayed, we didn't think they would resist. it took a while before we realized these guysmight win . we should be supporting them. and then the stingers and the javelins and the other ammunition came. all that stuff darted to come in and it had a real effect. it helps ukrainians but it might have been late, it was lateto the question. >> is the question with this weapon system . is going to be a continuous stalemate forget ukrainian opportunity to make some progress. >> part of the answer is going to be the state of the russian military on the ground. they've been, the russian soldiers have been in the field as they say since what, last december through the winter. they were arrayed as we all saw pictures of on the border , just waiting there. and finally on february 24 they had been in the battle since then. and have gotten wet frankly in the north andin the northeast . to make some progress progress. we remember around variable and how the ukrainians held out and took casualties but inflicted casualties so to answer your question can they win, a lot depends on military, the weapons we're talking about. mlr has these long-range medium-range lockets. medium-range rockets and the state, the around, the t capabilities the number of soldiers the russians can put in the field. >> let me borrow a phrase from the taliban. who's got the time and who's got the watches? >> that's a great line. >> i wish i could have come up with. >> i heard it early, usedit a couple of times earlier and had it attributed to a couple of people . >> it doesn't matter. it is a great line. and you are right. so right now, ukrainians need the time for these weapons not just mlr asked and others but to get there so it is a race. the russians however they need some time as well to regroup and reform these units that are being beaten up. the interesting thing is the russians seem to be pushing hard so that like, they seem to be in a hurry and probably we don't know what does president putin wants to take over quickly before ukrainians can build up the strength and they need to push them back out. so ukrainians need the time. the russians are eager to move forward right now. and there on the clock. >> they show specifically in nato and i want to the other part of president by at this point awhich got very specific and walking back to the most iconic lines through this war from american officials first secretary austin when he said what seemed particularly often does not strike me as somebody who goes off topic and he said definitively russians are going to pay a price for this. so he was another level of accountability. president biden during that speech that he gave in poland when it was clearly something in his hand he wentahead and say . we all not use our filters and that was a moment where he said this man can't stay in power which is an obvious observation. i always thought i get the diplomatic trickery there. the president want both of those comments that. why? how important was it he had to do that. >> really important. he let off maybe with the headline that said president biden outlined goals because is an. >> .. >> a and nice outcome. >> it would be a nice outcome but that's not why we're there. it's not the goal, it's not the objective. the objective is a free, independent, sovereign, prosperous ukraine. that's the goal. >> iff it weakens russia, so be it. >> if the weekends russia, that's just fine. that's exactly right. that's a good side benefit in some sense. but the real goal is an independent, sovereign, prosperous, democratic country. president biden's clear about that. he needed to statees that. >> right. >> it's okay, it'ss out there d he will probably say it again. >> this brings me to the other part of what we're supposed to talking about here which is the conduit aspect of this war. let me start when it comes to war accountability. has a loser in a war ever successfully helped the winner account? >> that's exactly the right question. if are going to hold president putin to account and his whole chain of command, his ministry of defense, his general officers, commanders all the way down to the soldiers who committed these war crimes, these atrocities, if we're going to hold the whole chain of command, the answer to your question is no. i certainly can't i think, maybe somebody here might be able to answer this question. i can't think of a winning side that has helped itself or -- >> the beauty of our justice system is will hold a prosecutor to account if they basically go about a prosecution illegally. whatever it is, they trump up evidence or delete something out. weve will hold and our system, this is what makes our system, we hope, such a successful system in our belief in the role of law. that is not the way war crimes trials work, right? >> correct. there are different mechanisms that are in place, international mechanisms, rome sets up a national criminal court which turns outou the united states ad russia are not members of. the ukrainians have signed on to it without actually signing the treaty but there's that. there's thatt mechanism. there are special tribunals that can be set up to do this. what we are seeing right now is within ukraine their justice system which is there has some trouble, as all justice systems do, but they been working on their justice system. but they're holding russian soldiers to account who were captured come hold them to account. >> is that actually a problem when it comes to fairness or the somewhat new too be acquitted in one of their trials? >> that's the right question. and so far those three i think there's been a soldier and then a pair of soldiers who all three pled guilty to actually committing the crime. >> wasn't invasion a crime? >> invasion is a crime. >> this is how we hold russia accountable. if the entire operation is a crime, then where do you go? >> that is a war crime. the international community has to enforce that but goes back to your question, ukrainians have to win. ukrainians have to win this war in order to hold the russians to account for the crime of aggression as well aswe individl atrocities. >> how do you -- one of the things in my line of work as a journalist, you can't help but have it ready for the side you think is righteous, right? that you have to do your best to try to not -- not report confirmation bias essentially. when i think about all of the different evidence we're all gathering to show the crimes than taken place by these russian soldiers, the ukrainian government is very helpful in making sure we know this or see some of these things. it's tough to that. i'm not going to lie to. it is tough to that these things. we know it's in their interest to make sure the world sees those guys as war criminals. >> it is certainly true that that is where the ukraine government is. but it is also true that all of the reporters that you have, all the reporters from around the world are there checking, and unlike in russia, the reporters in ukraine, both ukrainians and international core, press corps, are not under control of any government. >> true. >> and they are demonstrating, documenting these horrors that you can't hide. so i i take your point about trying to be objective, but this war is clarifying. i have said on this stage that i fought and a morally ambiguous war. this whether we talk about is morally ambiguous. this is clear. >> my frustration as an american citizen is it really looks like we are still waiting and still sitting on the sidelines. >> were sitting on the sidelines in that we donate soldiers on the ground. >> i don't think -- >> we don't have airmen in the air. we talked earlier about the bombardment, airstrikes as well as -- >> russia does not want to fight with nato. there's a reason they pick the countries they have invaded to pick. >> they have not, they have not. the prize is ukraine for putin, to reassemble the russian empire, reassemble the soviet union. that's the price. and you're right, not being a member of nato, he can do that. i go back to 2008. 2008. i was in kyiv in 2008 when president bush and steve hadley and condi rice came to kyiv in route to a nato summit where the question of nato membership for ukraine was on the table, and they made, the germans and the rest said no at the time. had they gone differently, had ukraine been accepted as a member or a prospective member we wouldn't be here today. the russians would not invaded, for the reason you just said. >> it is amazing when you look back at that moment. so 2008, made of passes on george and ukraine and what is it, two months later? >> three. >> that george is invaded. is that not a cause and effect? >> i think it's a clear cause and effect and what, not by this after that they went into crime crimea.. >> so i want to ask about the germans and the french because that was something else that happened this weekend they cut underreported. they had another call with putin and he did it together. president macron has been very vocal about essentially pushing zelensky to get to a piece, get to a piece to physically financially driven by both france and germany, is it not? >> maybe.ay undoubtedly there are humanitarian concerns. people are dying, civilians are dying as well as soldiers are dying so that is a perfectly legitimate concern. however, it's not just the leaders of france and germany. you have got distinguished u.s. diplomats, henry kissinger has been saying the samenr thing, tt ukrainians, zelensky should give territory, give up part of his land in order to speed is one of my other favorite washingtonians, writer back in the '90s michael kinsley, washington guy who is axially speaking the truth. did kissinger commit a washington gas? >> no, he believes that. there have been -- i will speak ill of -- there have been others have made the same point. that is thema small countries don't matter as much as the big countries. you respect the russians and jeff to deal with putin's ego and face anpu exit ramps and all that stuff. whereas what president biden said yesterday, or wrote yesterday as you point out is that he will never lean on, he will never pressure president zelensky to negotiate or to give up land, give up territory, give upgn sovereign ukraine to the russians. he won't do that. president biden undoubtedly will support president zelensky if he decides to negotiate. i think that's part of the reason for providing him the equipment is open to be a stronger position to negotiate but he will not lean on him unlike what henry kissinger said and what macron said. >> whose definition of sovereign ukraine is right? because russia obviously is already annexed some pieces. i see that come here that phrase thrown out, it's almost purposefully not defined. >> president zelensky is been clear. he's been clear that in the first principle he will not give up claim to any sovereign ukrainian territory including donbass and crimea, both of those. however, he has also said that he will not use military force to enforce that claim on crimea. he hasn't made that same statement about donbass and he has said that he is willing to sit down and negotiate after the russians pull back from the territory that they have gained since february 24, 2022. since this current version of the war began. the russians have claimed territory, occupied territory, open slit but that i can write and he will sit and negotiate a cease-fire, maybe other things. once the russians are pushed back, or withdrawn back into donbas and crimea. so that gives you a sense of what he thinks of the immediate sovereign nation, sovereign territory, even though he won't give up ultimate claim for the whole. >> do you expect accountability for crimes to be negotiated? >> no. >> you don't think that ends up on the table between ukraine and russian? >> i don't think he can be. there are no statute of limitations. >> the russians may call for it. >> i'm sure they will. i assume they will. who knows what they will do? i don't think, i don't think the ukrainians will negotiate on that, and i don't think the international community will negotiate ont that. >> it's an unanswerable question i'm about to aske you, but the united nations. it does feel as if because russia is a permanent member and at the end of the day they are out of reach. i mean, they're really kind of untouchable and that this is a flaw in the u.n. charter. >> there's no doubt there's a flaw in the u.n. charter. we have ans expert here. ambassador moose who -- >> i know a lot of people, ambassador bolton has believed you and is unworthy for decades. to tell you, watching them throughout this, the fecklessness of united nations has come through in spades during this war. >> well, let's bet clear. that sort applies to the u.n. security council. >> i dated on -- to do a few things well. >> may be -- >> war and peace, , not so much. >> because of these vetoes, which we use. let's be clear. we do, but russians have frozen come have stalled, have stymied security council. president zelensky, we remember when he addressed the security council, he was harsh picky said this organization, u.n., was designed, was founded, wased designed to stop or prevent wars. you fail, he said. if you can't do it, then he is right. >> zelensky said there's so much clarity brought -- i don't even know, sure there is a mechanism to get rid of a permanent member. i don't -- >> i don't think there is. george will know better than i. >> it is amazing that certain continents don't even have aen permanent member, like there's -- the whole thing seems to be -- >> this is a topic of a lot of thought already and more needs to happen going forward. george is urging us to use and we will do this. will actually do this. >> we are in the second half of our conversation so get ready for questions but i have one more question before we open up. and that is, how does ukraine not become syria? >> so ukraine is a stronger nation. and ukraine has been strengthened over the last eight years, but certainly over the last three months even. it is so unified at this point, ukraine is so unified, and his military is fighting so fiercely with the support of the ukrainian people. and again, with zelensky being a true representative of ukraine people and the ukrainian people strongly supporting him that you don't see that in syria. you have got a united nations, united united ukraine determined to be independent sovereign, free, prosperous,ov democratic. they have been that way trying to get that way, , trying to be better democratic for the last 30 years. they do not want to go back under the thumb, control of an oppressive russia. so they are fighting for the feeding in ways that very few other nations do. >> a follow up on that is, the left got tired of trying to get rid of assad. they gave up, including the united states butsa you could argue the west, it was a europeans in some ways pushing to de-escalate. how did we not have the same thing happen here in six months? >> that's the right question. there will be tensions and their are already tensions. macron. receipt in the economic strains, the -- >> food crisis is real. inflation is real. natural gas prices are high really. oil prices as well. contributing to inflation. all of that will be a strain. all that will put pressure on the international community to ease upbi a little bit. >> if we ask for more ukraine aid that would be double the amount of republicans against i it. >> i think wes need to prepare for that. so far, i want to say so far the support has been strong, even in the republican party in the senate. the leader of the republican party in thebl senate, he was jt a, unabashed. him.ood for so i think it's going to be tough, there's no doubt it will be tough. this is important to us as a nation. it's important to us as the leader of the international community, and it's important to the ukrainians. >> one thing i like when people is an 1942 the midterm elections went against the party apart because people were more worried about what was going on here. i'll open up to questionable in the room and and inio no wae online questions. go ahead. do have mic? >> running toward you at this moment. here he comes. >> now that the ellen show is canceled we have some helpers. [laughing] >> thank you. first, i wanted to thank both of you for your service. mr. f taylor, morally and ambiguous conflict in the state department now at the institute of peace. and mr. todd, i've always liked your penetrating analysis through the years. two quick clear clarification. what was a quote attributed to the taliban? >> was it, we have the time but you have the watches, i think is what it was. >> mr.r. taylor, what was zeleny is position to crimea? >> earlier on like about two months ago there were negotiations. at least the ukrainians were serious about these negotiations with the russians. first on the board of belarus and then in istanbul or in turkey. outside of istanbul. and in those negotiations there were some serious proposals put down by the ukrainians. one ofe the proposals put downy the ukrainians was a commitment to agree to disagree about crimea for 15 years, and a commitment not to try to reclaim crimea by force. so that was the ukrainian -- that's what the ukrainians were willing to commit at the time. these negotiations, those negotiations were before atrocities, before mary opel. with those war crimes the enthusiasm, the willingness to negotiate will wake up but at the time president zelenskiy said that he would forswear militarily trying to take back crimea. >> great, thank you. >> i, too, would like to think buffy of what's been a great discussion. i would also like to complement whoever titled this event as exposing atrocities. becauseve i'm not sure we're gog to build do more than expose atrocities, and this leads to my question to the ambassador. if we don't go into russia, how do wee hold putin and his chain of command, as you described it early, h accountable for what ty have done? it seems to me that they're going to sit in a certain security and all i have to do is not travel abroad and they are off the hook. the analogy is indictment and the israelis had to go get them before they could hold them accountable. >> it's a fair question. it's a very fair question and wo do know who titled this. she sitting right here, congratulations, lauren. nice work. and, and you're right, there's no intention, president biden in a statement yesterday made it very clear that that is not our goal. our goal is not regime change. our goal is not to go into russia. our goal is not to have, to enable the ukrainians to even fire in. so we're not going to go arrest president putin or that chain of command that you talked about, that we talked about. but you also said the right thing, you made the right point, that is, no statute of limitations as long as he is in power and if he is able, if the international community is able to label him and try him as a war criminal, he can't travel. now, there have been some leaders who were condemned who did travel and may not have been arrested, my mistake. they should've been arrested when he went into south africa or whatever it was. but being a variety, being a convicted war criminal, not being able to travel, that's a penalty. >> do you expect the trial in absentia? >> why not? why not? absent you come have we done this? >> it's not recommended. we could do it but then becomes more of a political consideration. you want the defendant there to try to vindicate themselves. you do.o, thank you. >> good question. let's go online. >> we have got some good online questions and i will give you two group together related to the icc. what steps should congress take to take a company for grabs in ukraine? should this include amending some of the restrictions have been put in place? relatedly, to what extent does the fact that the u.s. -- complicate u.s. efforts to assist in the investigation prosecution of war crimes and will the u.s. put aside its difference and work with the icc? >> the second question seems to be the more relevant one because notfirst question is relevant if were not part of the icc. >> we are not part of it but i think it is true that while there i are constraints on us, y law, there there's some ut says you can't do some things with the icc, and we know why they were paid in place. but there are some things we can do to support the icc. i thinkme this is true. and again smarterk people thani or one of whom is sitting right here have suggested that the united states either with the government or more likely through legal abilities that we have, can support icc investigations. that's right. is that right? so, there are things we can do. but we cannot actually participate. and we don't expect -- except jurisdiction over them. but the question also asks, are there changes to the law? some people are suggesting changes to the law. there is an amendment that says, if there is a war criminal who comes to the united states, who is convicted of a war crime in another country we can arrested them. >> so we do not make a distinction on being named a war criminal by the icc versus the ukrainian judiciary, versus another country? >> it is being worked on now. but there seems to be bipartisan support for saying if they are a war criminal we ought to be able to arrest them. >> we had a question out here. >> hello. good morning. thank you both so much for your marts -- remarks and the lovely kickoff to the event, george. in this conversation and in high-level conversation to a degree are gender dynamics being considered in the analysis of the war and exposing atrocities, especially considering the high level of civilian casualties and the history of prominent human trafficking and sex trafficking region? >> great question. your reporters, all the reporters have record highs the -- recognized the incredible burden on women and children particularly in ukraine. we have seen them leaving. we see them packing up their homes and traveling to another country. they hope they can come back. they are not all coming back to the u.s. because they want to stay in the area. it is really a burden on women, children. you mentioned sex trafficking. they are worried about that. that has got a lot of attention in eastern europe. there have been a couple indications. again, i go back to the importance of what we are talking about today. of service, of reporters who are documenting this as well. some more than others. but nonetheless, i have always stuck with tim snyder and his dedication to what he says, for journalist, the heroes of our time actually doing the most to identify the truth in some real sense. >> ukraine has a robust industry of adoption. you know, we have done some stories about what has happened at some of these places. to me, that is a concern. you have to be worried about child trafficking. >> absolutely. you are right. in ukraine, the orphanages, some of moved totally. some have moved into eastern europe. so, child trafficking has to be a big concern. before adoptions, there were a lot of americans and others who adopted ukrainian kids. this war has actually stop that. it has really put a halt to that. it is one of the biggest problems for ukrainians at americans. but that is something we ought to be focused on. great question. >> i have another online question. credible reports of torture are emerging out of kherson. are these known to be committed elsewhere by russian forces? >> chechnya, georgia, and syria. in all three countries russian soldiers have gone above and beyond. terrace on --kherson is the latest one but we saw vividly in bucha, the torture that was evident. now inkherson, which the russians occupy but do not control, there are stories coming out of this again. ukrainian internationals are showing torture going on there. as you just said, this is what the russians seem to do. >> is this the penalty for not holding them accountable in chechnya, holding them more accountable in georgia? is this a fall out of not pursuing justice? >> this is a further demand requirement, imperative that we hold them accountable. otherwise, it keeps happening. >> a final question directed to you, bill. in your opinion what does winning look like for ukraine? >> great question. winning, i go back to president biden. winning is the emergence, the defense of, and the continued existence of a democratic independent sovereign prosperous ukraine. those are all important pieces of it. the prosperous part. this suggests that the free ukraine would have access to the boxee. it needs to have odessa. when he said prosperous, that is what i read. he did not say that it has to be immediately the fulham territory of ukraine as it was -- the whole territory of ukraine as it was before 2014 when the ukrainians first invaded. nowhere has president zelenskyy said that. but the answer to the question of what the goal is, there needs to be a sovereign, independent ukraine that can continue to develop, continue to develop economically. so a free ukraine, even if there is some portion that is still occupied, a free ukraine can join the european union. a free ukraine could apply to nato again. a free ukraine could develop north korea and south korea. south korea developed its economy pretty well even though it was divided. western germany helped found the european union. west germany was in nato. for a while the soviet union controlled east germany. a free ukraine, sovereign, not under the control of russians, democratic, it can continue to develop from not giving up an eventual claim on this full territory. >> kospi pivot. we have a -- let me pivot. we have a few minutes. let me pivot to the future of russia. is it worth planning on in the near term or not? >> sure. let's be clear. that is for the russians to decide when putin leaves. >> how is it for russians to decide? >> the russian people or people around them. i was on a panel a couple of weeks ago with a very senior ask intelligence service head. and he said his scenario is that bad decisions by president putin is hurting the country, hurting the economy, hurting the military, the services. bad decisions there, bad help. unpopular -- popular unrest. some people around him, russians, come in and say, you know, boss, your family is fine. you are fine. there is no brutus. have a nice life. this has happened before. this could happen. this is not for us to do. this is not for us to say. russians will make that decision. >> but your question is a good one. should we be planning? sure. we should be planning for a lot of contingencies. >> we talk about what winning looks like for ukraine. how does europe get its economy functioning again? because, it is so reliant on russian energy. the rest of this decade will be essentially getting europe to wean itself off of russian energy. >> amazingly, they seem to be going in that direction. they talked about cutting off all of the oil and that sounds high. but they have the hungarians applied. they have also committed to reduce by two thirds the natural gas. >> when europe's economy has flatlined for decades, won't we see major -- >> it will be a major transformation, no doubt about it. it will be a major transformation of their economy. which they are ready to do. it will affect us as well. prices will go up for oil and gas when they cut off that supply. it will affect us. there is no doubt about it. >> is there any fear here we are treating russia like germany in world war i? >> i since that from emmanuel macron and olaf scholz. olaf scholz he is -- has said he sees that. do you have that concern? >> i don't have that concern. my first concern is to succeed on having a successful ukraine. this will take both military support that needs to come very fast and very heavy right now. it will also take pressure on the russian economy. if the russian economy is able to sustain the war effort, primarily through what you ask about, through oil and gas. $1 billion a day is going into russia. still going. if they succeed by cutting by two thirds and 9%, that will go down. >> europe is both fighting and funding at the same time. >> hopefully, they will continue to fight and stop funding, or, phase out the funding. that seems to be the direction. >> how does the end of the war not put the ukraine in the eu let alone nato? >> i think that is right. there have been commitments from a lot of the eu including eu leadership, not the french, but, that ukraine's application for eu membership will be fast-track. they have already begun that process. nato, that's an interesting question. how does europe avoid going into a war again. after the war settles down, the ukrainians win or they have the free ukraine we talk about here that develops and then anything they do not control, how do we make sure that ukraine is not invaded again or georgia is not invaded again, or moldova is not invaded again? what is the security structure in europe? there may have to be guarantees. the best guarantee is of course what you asked about, chuck, nato membership. >> it's pretty obvious. >> that is why sweden and finland joining is such a big deal. this wayne you and estonia are kind of stuck out there. it is possible to defend the baltics if sweden and finland are members. >> i always learn to talk -- a lot anytime i talk with you, bill. i hope everyone else did as well. >> thank you for being here. come back. >> i would love to. we can arrange that. >> thank you very much. >>[applause] >> many unanswerable questions. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] live coverage on c-span now includes today's state department briefing with midprice period that begins at . also coming up today's white house briefing, press secretary is set to answer reporters questions starting at 2:30 p.m. eastern. you can watch these events and more on our free free mobile you out. downloaded from the apple store and google play. >> congress is back this week and will take a gun legislation in response to the school shooting in uvalde, texas. the house returns tuesday and will vote later on a package of gun safety measures. among them are increasing the age limit from 18 to 212 by semiautomatic rifles like the ones used in the texas shooting. a bipartisan group of senators also plan to continue their talks on gun proposals. the senate returns monday at 3 p.m. eastern. senators will spend most of the week working on legislation expanding health care and disability benefits for veterans exposed to toxic chemicals mainly from burn pits. watch live coverage of the house on c-span, the senate on c-span2, online at c-span.org or with our free video app, c-span now. >> congressman jamie raskin spoke about the upcoming january 6th committee hearings and what the public can expect. watch his comments tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span, you can also watch on a free mobile app c-span now, or anytime online at c-span.org. >> after months of close to investigations the house january 6th committee is set to go public. tune in as committee members question key witnesses about what transpired and why during the assault on the u.s. capitol. watch our live coverage beginning thursday at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app, or anytime online at c-span.org at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington live and on-demand to keep up with today's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the the u.s. congress,e house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episode of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime anywhere. >> law professors talk about the history of reproductive rights cases and the recent supreme court draft opinion indicating majority of justices would overturn roe v. wade. posted by the georgetown university law center this is about two hours.