The NPR Politics Podcast - Biden Holds Out Hope for Diplomatic Solution In Ukraine

Episode Date: February 16, 2022

The president says that a Russian invasion of Ukraine is still "distinctly possible," but that diplomatic talks to avert an attack are continuing. And later this week, Vice President Harris will discuss the crisis with European allies at the Munich Security Conference.Meanwhile, former President Trump and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are at odds over the integrity of the 2020 election. It could determine the future of the Republican Party.This episode: White House correspondent Ayesha Rascoe, White House correspondent Franco Ordoñez, and editor/correspondent Ron Elving. Mara Liasson.Connect:Email the show at [e-mail] the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.Find and support your local public radio station.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hi, this is Laura in Memphis, Tennessee. I'm sitting here with my 16-year-old pug, Apple, and my three-year-old pugs, Mabel and Rosie. Did you know that pugs snore when they sleep and that a pack of pugs is called a grumble? This podcast was recorded at... It is 2 or 8 p.m. on Wednesday, February 16, 2022. Things may have changed by the time you listen to it, but hopefully you've gone out and got a pug of your own. Okay, here's the show. I always thought pugs kind of snore just all the time. Just breathing. They're always kind of snorting. Maybe they sleep all the time. They are very, very adorable though. Yeah. Hey there. It's the NPR Politics Podcast.

I'm Aisha Roscoe. I cover the White House. I'm Franco Ordonez. I also cover the White House. And I'm Ron Elving, editor correspondent. We're going to start today talking about the ongoing tensions between Russia and Ukraine. President Biden said yesterday that a Russian invasion is still, quote, distinctly possible. But he held out hope that diplomatic talks could avert an attack from continuing.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken told ABC this morning that Vladimir Putin could take military action at any time. President Putin's put in place the capacity to act on very short notice. Vladimir Putin could take military action at any time. President Putin's put in place the capacity to act on very short notice. He can pull the trigger. He could pull it today. He could pull it tomorrow. He could pull it next week. The forces are there if he wants to renew aggression against Ukraine. So, Franco, let's start with the president's remarks yesterday. What was Biden's message in that speech? The message to Russia is, as Biden has said before, that should Moscow invade Ukraine, that Russia is going to be hit with really, really strong sanctions that

President Biden says Putin has never experienced before. And that such an invasion would cause tremendous human suffering and needless death and destruction, but also hurt Russia's standing in the global world. But you know, at the same time, he is saying that there is still an avenue for those diplomatic talks to continue. I guess I wonder, Ron, like, can you kind of set the scene for what this moment is? I mean, to have Russia having these talks with the European powers, having people from the U.S. talking to Putin, trying to avert a really violent situation, like what is that, you know, what does this moment mean? And is this different from where we've been for the past like 20 years? Yes, it is. There's no question we have known for the last 20 years

that Vladimir Putin has been the leader in Russia, and he has made no secret of his desire to restore some de facto version of the old Soviet Union with the severe of influence that they had at their peak. And that would include not only Ukraine, but several of the countries that are now in NATO in Eastern Europe. And if he were to go into Ukraine, but several of the countries that are now in NATO in Eastern Europe. And if he were to go into Ukraine, as expected, he would be sending his troops to where they would be within the borders of several NATO countries.

We are obligated to defend with the full force of our arsenal. Now you're talking about the brink. Now you're talking about the big stakes like the Cuban Missile Crisis. And that really escalates the tension around all of this, but also I think emphasizes how serious the administration is. Later this week, Vice President Harris is going to meet with European allies at the Munich Security Conference. Franco, you are going to be going on this trip with her. What do we expect to see from Harris during this trip?

You know, obviously, she's going at a time when allies are really on edge about whether Russia will invade Ukraine. Harris is going to deliver remarks at the Munich conference. And she's also going to be meeting one on one with some of these European leaders and NATO allies to make sure that everyone is, you know, on the same page about what to do if Moscow does invade. I've been speaking with a lot of people about this transatlantic specialist, you know, and it's, they tell me that it's not just about Russia and the possibility of invasion. They also see this as kind of a chance to redefine the U.S. relationship with allies, with Europe. And this crisis has made, given an opportunity to kind of rethink that relationship, you know, because so many people understand where Biden, where Biden sits on the relationship with Europe. Many people call him kind of like a creature of Munich,

but they don't necessarily know where Harris sits on this issue. And they see Harris as kind of representative of America's future. And this will be an opportunity for her to kind of show that younger Americans do also care about what is happening in Europe, because there has been questions about it, especially after the last four years of Trump, about how much the U.S. cares about European security. You know, speaking of the former administration, there was this kind of this idea back then that the U.S. had done too much for Europe and the U.S. needs to worry about its own problems. But obviously, and there were questions about commitment to NATO. But right now, it does seem like in Congress, Republicans and Democrats, everyone is on the same page that Russia invading Ukraine would be a bad thing for democracy. But the issue is that there are

disagreements on what to do about it. What is that breakdown? Yeah, you know, there really has been a lot of unity, bipartisan unity about needing to do something should Moscow invade. And there was some work being done on some bipartisan legislation. Senator Bob Menendez, he's a chair of the Senate Foreign and Relations Committee, actually called it the mother of all sanctions. And things seem to be moving along. But just in recent weeks, things started to kind of fray a little bit. And then, you know, the plan kind of fell through as some Republican leaders just had questions about how some of the

things were going to be implemented, particularly the divide is over how and when to sanction the Russian pipeline Nord Stream 2, which is to bring natural gas directly from Russia to Germany. And, you know, this kind of divide is a really big deal, because it does show, you know, a bit of a gap between the White House and Capitol Hill on what to do. I'm actually struck by how much unity there has been in the Senate, where you have both the majority leader, Chuck Schumer, and the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, are very strongly on board in support of the president in a traditional, conventional fashion of standing behind the commander in chief. And most of the senators

are there. The problem seems to be more in the House, where there is, among other things, a spirit of opposition and where basically anything that Joe Biden does is an occasion to bring up all the grievances that the Republican minority in the House has with Joe Biden, going back all the way to the impeachment struggle the first time, all of that bitterness is still there in the House. So if the names Joe Biden and Russia and Ukraine are all in the sentence, it's going to be hard to get them all to be happy about whatever the House is going to say. You know, let's get into the politics of this. You know, this is a midterm year.

Major components of President Biden's agenda have stalled in Congress. His approval ratings have taken a serious hit. What does this moment mean for Biden politically? It means a great deal. It means the direction of his administration from here. He does not need another debacle like Afghanistan, and he does not need another problem that goes on festering the way COVID has, never seeming to respond finally to any of the solutions that are brought to bear. And what it also does is it exacerbates inflation because the effect of whatever happens in this crisis, especially with Russia, is going to be felt in energy markets, and that means higher prices for oil energy markets. And that means higher

prices for oil and gas. And that means higher prices for pretty much everything in the American economy. And that's what's really biting the American family today. Okay, let's take a quick break. And when we get back, the latest battle between Trump and McConnell and what's at stake there. And we're back. Former President Trump is out of office, but he's certainly not out of mind when it comes to Republican politics. And lately, he's been once again taking aim at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Ron, what is he upset with Mitch McConnell about this time? This is about several things. The immediate trigger was the dispute that arose from the Republican National Committee about 10 days ago,

characterizing the January 6th Investigation Committee as persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse. That's a quote. That's a verbatim quote of what they called it, legitimate political discourse. Now, that quote. That's a verbatim quote of what they called it, legitimate political discourse. Now, that was way too much for Mitch McConnell. He was actually there that day. He saw what happened. And he shot back that it was not as portrayed. He said it was, quote, a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a legitimately certified election. Well, now that's what Mitch McConnell thinks and what probably most of the people in the Senate

think. But it was way outside the bounds of what Donald Trump will allow a Republican to say. So he fought back by saying Mitch McConnell does not speak for the Republican Party and doesn't represent the views of the vast majority of its voters. Beyond that, they're struggling over what kind of candidates the Republican Party will put up for the Senate this fall. Will they have to hew to Donald Trump's line on everything, especially about the election in 2020? And ultimately, beyond that, it's a struggle to see who is going to define the future of the Republican Party. This is a question that comes up, it seems like over and over again, the idea of Mitch McConnell being a more traditional Republican and willing to kind of go against Trump on certain things. But it seems like generally, they always were able to come back

together, right? Like to get things done while Trump was in office. Does this seem like a permanent rupture? And is this a division within the Republican Party over the 2020 election that can be bridged? They did do a lot of business together over the last four years. I like to say that Trump's heat was a boon to McConnell because it powered the Republican engine as they passed the big tax cut bill and as they cut down on regulations and as they confirmed an enormous number of federal judges, including three on the Supreme Court. just fine through much of that time. But the personal animosity goes back all the way to 2016. It's really an older thing, but they worked with each other for that agenda. Now, with the 2020 election becoming the dividing line between them, there does not seem to be any way to compromise that particular discussion. And it is going to overshadow everything else that goes on as long as everyone in the Republican Party feels that they must pay fealty, they must show fealty to Donald Trump. Ron, I am so fascinated by the daylight that we're seeing between McConnell and Trump.

You just outlined, you know, how they work together, you know, well, from a Republican perspective for four years. I mean, do you see this daylight opening wider over the next few months before the midterms? Or is it kind of like we just don't know? During the period of time that Trump was president, there were a good number of intermediaries between McConnell and Trump. And they were able to work through those intermediaries because they don't really have a personal relationship. And now those intermediaries are largely gone. The people around Donald Trump are not chiefs of staff with standing of their own. There is not the bridge that there was before that was provided in some degree by necessity. Now the two of them really are at odds. They have very different agendas. And Donald

Trump is actually urging people who are running for the Senate as Republicans to win the nomination, get elected in November, and vote for somebody else other than Mitch McConnell. He's quite explicit about that. And a couple of the candidates out there in Missouri and Alaska have said that's what they'd do if they got to Washington. Now, in that kind of an atmosphere, it's hard to work together. All right. Well, let's leave it there. I'm Aisha Roscoe. I cover the White House. I'm Frank Ordonez. I also cover the White House. And I'm Ron Elving, editor correspondent. Thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.