fully understanding. most of the countries, including the ukrainian government, most of the countries in europe didn t believe he would invade. it made no sense to them. what they don t recognize is this guy is almost 70 years old. he realizes he s in the back stretch. he probably feels his legacy is not yet complete unless he can restore greater russia which las to include ukraine at least under his thumb, if not occupied by. yesterday he began making assertions to them losing their statehood. as a result you see a person that s now engaged himself in a conflict that he can t win. he is now engaged in a conflict where he s either going to have a costly military victory followed by a costly occupation that he can t afford, or he s going to get caught in a long-term military quagmire at the same time as he s facing a second front which is an economy in free fall in his own country. the combination of these two things i think puts us in a very dangerous place. ha is, he s going to have t
mind about any other measures we should know about? reporter: one big question people have, and the president says he has not taken off the table, is whether he is going to move to remove russia from s.w.i.f.t., which is this high security network that basically deals with thousands of financial institutions worldwide. kaitlan, can i stop and ask you, that is one of the main things i ve heard today. is he feeling the pressure from that? are people asking, saying why doesn t he just do it, just take him and russia off of s.w.i.f.t.? sorry to interrupt, but that s a major question from everyone i ve spoken to. reporter: no, it s a great question. two points, one, when the president was talking about it and a reporter asked him why that stuff wasn t included in the sanctions he took yesterday, why not go ahead and remove russia from this system which is seen basically as the nuclear option here, the president said it was something that was still on the table but something that the r
get together? first i think the president misjudged vladimir putin. he thought if he had enough phone calls and meetings that vladimir putin would stand down. clear to me for months he planned to go for the jugular in ukraine. president biden is beholding to the left of his party that we have to stop all fossil fuel production in america and handed the veto pen on sanctions to russia. not just oil and gas sanctions but removing them from swift. he admitted as much yesterday that europe didn t want to do it. we put our foot down with iran in that system during the trump era. even though european allies didn t want to do that, either. we have the power. joe biden refuses to do so. harris: i want to lean on your experience as a leader in the military and i made a
up. that s true. and very quickly, hagar, what does this mean for the average american? what should they be bracing for? well, as president biden noted, they should be bracing for an increase in gas prices, and that causes inflation for other goods, of course. however, president biden really has said he s working on making sure that the price doesn t skyrocket. it would skyrocket if europe did this overnight, and that s why europe didn t do it. not just because of the prices here in the united states, but for them as well, in particular. and so, we need to rest assured that all these steps are being taken to ensure that those prices don t increase. but at the same time, we have to be prepared for it, and this is the difference. this is the price that we are paying instead of militarily engaging russia directly. yes. hagar chemali, thank you very much for helping us understand all this and the sacrifices that everyone is being asked to make because of this war. great to talk to yo
leadership. the weak leadership they do see from the united states of america. let me say something, emily, when we heard those clips i will tell you that when i hear from joe biden is preparing for a new world order i am concerned. i don t know what that means. we are in a very tenuous moment in american history. we are in a moment in history where at least on the table is the potential for nuclear war. i personally want definitions. i want to rational argument. i want to be trusted with information. i don t want to be emotionally played. i want to know as he goes to europe didn t speak to our nato allies what are our bread died. we know in article five data violation would be a redline paired what about the use of chemical or biological weapon? nuclear, tactical nuclear weapon, with that provoke nato therefore a united states response? if you re the american people once you are trusted with this information what would you like the leader of the free world to make? would you like us t