Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

U.S. Warns Of Russian Plan To "Bombard Cities Into Submission; Putin: Western Sanctions Are "Equivalent To Declaration Of War"; Will Ukraine Crisis Transform Biden's Presidency?; Trump & Allies Were Part Of A "Criminal Conspiracy"; White House Announces New Sanctions On Russian Oligarchs. Aired 8-9a ET

Aired March 06, 2022 - 08:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(MUSIC)

[08:00:32]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Horror in Ukraine. Its cities are under siege.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't want to have war, we want just peace.

PHILLIP: Putin threatens NATO with a wider war. Can Russia be stopped?

ANTONY BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE: If the conflict comes to us we're ready for it. We will defend every inch of NATO territory.

PHILLIP: Plus, President Zelenskyy pleads for help and calls out NATO for refusing to impose a no fly zone.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): This is the self-hypnosis of those who are weak, insecure inside.

PHILLIP: What more should the U.S. do to help?

And inside the White House, has the Russia invasion transformed the Biden presidency?

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When the history of this era is written, Putin's war on Ukraine would have left Russia weaker and the rest of the world stronger.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PHILLIP: Welcome to INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY. I'm Abby Phillip.

And at this hour, a second attempt is being made to evacuate tens of thousands of civilians from the hard hit Ukraine cities of Mariupol and Villanova. Attempts are also being made to get civilians out yesterday and those came to a halt when Ukrainian officials say Russia's forces began shelling the area. Against all odds, 11 days into this conflict, Ukraine is still standing, but there is widening fear and destruction around the key cities as civilians are increasingly under fire in new and ruthless ways in this phase of the war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR VADYN BOICHENKO, MARIUPOL, UKLRAINE: We do not have electricity in whole city. We do not have water supply. We do not have sanitary system. They are destroying our city.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Saturday was a day of diplomacy for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy starting with a Zoom call with U.S. senators and members of Congress and ending with a conversation last night with President Joe Biden.

And while Zelenskyy's pleas for a no fly zone went unanswered, Secretary of State Antony Blinken says the U.S. is working with Poland on the possibility of Poland providing fighter jets.

The Ukrainian leader created a message for his people telling them not to give up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENSKYY (through translator): Ukrainians, in all our cities where the enemy invaded, go on the offensive. Go out on the streets. We need to fight every time we have an opportunity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: And CNN's Alex Marquardt is outside of the capital city of Kyiv.

Alex, you are in an area that has been destroyed. What are you seeing around you and what do you know about what the Russians are doing as they approach Kyiv?

ALEXANDER MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Abby, it is extraordinary to see this level of destruction anywhere, let alone in a tiny village like this one. We are not near any military targets for miles, this is a village that has no real strategic value and yet it was the subject of a fierce Russian air strike on Friday afternoon.

Just take a look at this. Houses all around this area were hit in that Russian air strike. What you're looking at here is the remnants of the house of a man named Igor who we spoke with earlier. There is a huge crater here in the ground. He lost five of his family members as well as a friend. His wife and his wife's friend and his mother-in-law were in a car when the strike happened. They were killed. His daughter was in the house in her wheelchair and she was also killed.

We spoke with him earlier today, he said obviously that he is just empty. He seemed disoriented. He is horrified by what's going on and he said he doesn't know what he is going to do now.

So this destruction all over this village and that goes to show, Abby, that this is happening all across this country. The Russians clearly trying to get closer and closer to the capital of Kyiv. We know that they are making pushes down from the northern part of the capitol as well as the west in their efforts to encircle it and to strangle the city and to try to cut it off.

We've been keeping a close eye on that column that has been getting closer to Kyiv, but it is as far as we know still at a standstill. But, Abby, the fear now is because of the lack of progress that the Russians have made on the ground, because of that fierce Ukrainian resistance, that the Russians will step it up in the skies, carry out more and more airstrikes just like this one, not only on the cities to then allow ground troops to go in, but also on the general population, on civilians, to get people to submit, to get people to leave.

[08:05:18]

And as the Kremlin continues to to say that they are not targeting civilians, they are not striking residential areas or civilian infrastructure, it is examples like this that just show you how indiscriminate these attacks are and how badly Ukrainian civilians are suffering -- Abby.

PHILLIP: And, Alex, where you are, I mean, to be clear, is there any military significance to what you are seeing around you that could justify this kind of attack? And what does it tell you about the intensity of the attacks as we go into this week on the city of Kyiv?

MARQUARDT: It says two things, Abby. I think it says that it's completely random. We don't know where and when attacks are going to happen, and that they are indiscriminate.

So as we said, the Russians have said that they are only going after military infrastructure. That is clearly not the case. This home has nothing to do with the military.

There is nothing within miles that has anything to do with the military. So that begs the question, are the Russians really bad at aiming? Is that why they've killed hundreds of civilians and hit all these residential areas or do they simply not care? Is it that they are simply just trying to bomb the Ukrainian population into submission? And it looks more and more like that may be the case.

Now, the Russians have said that they have agreed to allow people out through humanitarian corridors, but we've already seen today bombing north of here, near an area called Irpin, where people are trying to get out, where people have been killed.

So it does certainly appear, Abby, that all bets are off, that certainly we cannot believe what the Russians are saying when it comes to their intentions here. Very clearly not just going after the military infrastructure, but hitting civilians as well, Abby.

PHILLIP: Thank you for your excellent reporting, Alex Marquardt, and stay safe out there.

And joining me now is retired Marine General John Allen, the former commander of the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

General Allen, what Alex just described to us, we have -- where he is physically today is in this sort of southwestern city just outside of Kyiv. We also, as we just mentioned, have seen shelling in a northeastern part of the city. We know there's also been fighting near this Antonov airport as well.

What do you see that the Russians are doing? They have struggled to take this city. What are they doing now?

GEN. JOHN ALLEN (RET.), FORMER U.S. AND NATO COMMANDER IN AFGHANISTAN: Well, first, thanks to all of the work that CNN and other networks are doing with brave reporters like Alex in the field shining a bright light on this Russian aggression and this humanitarian catastrophe. What you're seeing is the response to Alex's rhetorical questions, are they bad at aiming or are they making war on the Ukrainian people? Well, it's both.

What we've discovered is that the Russian military is far less capable than we perhaps proposed or believed that they were, but they've also now shifted because of their limited capacity to take the objectives that they need, to set themselves up ultimately for the westward encirclement of Kyiv, they've now begun to attack the people themselves, hoping to break down their willingness to oppose the Russian threats.

PHILLIP: What is it about Kyiv that made it difficult for the Russian to advance? I mean, they are coming down from the north and also now they are attacking the west, but it has been more challenging.

Why is that? Is it the geography or is it something else?

ALLEN: Well, it's both. First, this military is road bound, they don't get off the roads and the availability of the terrain for wide open maneuver is really limited. So they are on the roads and that has created both a congestion on the roads, the logistics and supporting their columns has been poor and they've taken casualties. The Ukrainian military has fought.

The initial Russian thrust down that main axis towards Kyiv, which was the principal axis of the Russian advance in the entire country, they believed that the Ukrainian military would fold, that the Ukrainian people would accept the Russian presence in their country and that the government would unravel.

None of those things has happened and with this frankly marginally capable military, they've had to resort to the Russian reflex, which is a lot of firepower to accomplish their objectives.

PHILLIP: And the cities in the south and parts of the east have already experienced that. Just to show our audience here, we have seen intense fighting in the cities of Kherson, of Mariupol. We know Kharkiv has been under siege.

[08:10:01] And as you've heard in our intro to this block, they are talking about a lack of food, a lack of water, potentially a lack of electricity. Are these just simply war crimes that are being committed and is this what we can expect to see as they try to finally take the cities -- the city in the north, Kyiv?

ALLEN: The answer to your question is yes, these are war crimes. And there should be a long list of people who could be susceptible to indictment as a result of the war crimes being committed every single day against the Ukrainian people. It's not just the firepower, it is the human misery that is being inflicted on these populations in the towns that you have just listed.

And coming out of the Donbas was one thrust, going after Kharkiv was a second thrust and coming out of Crimea and attempting to control the southern coast of Ukraine along the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov was a third thrust. They have had some success there but less success than they had hoped and really the success on the principal thrust against Kyiv has been hung up because of Ukrainian resistance.

PHILLIP: But they are going for Odesa next.

ALLEN: Yeah, I don't think there is a question.

PHILLIP: Odesa is quite close to Moldova potentially creating a humanitarian crisis. You have President Zelenskyy saying to his people they are coming for Odesa.

What do you think is the significance of that city and the Russians potentially taking control?

ALLEN: It's one of the principal connections still into the black sea. The fall of Odesa really isolates Ukraine from the Black Sea and of course it isolates the entire southern coast, if you will, of the Ukraine from the capacity for us to support them across the Black Sea. So, it is part of the strangulation of the country, which is inherent to the campaign the Russians are waging.

PHILLIP: You know, the Secretary of State Antony Blinken says he believes that Ukraine can win. What does that even mean? What does it mean for Ukraine to win in this scenario?

What does it mean if the Russians win? What does it mean for NATO if they do?

ALLEN: Well, in terms of winning, I think the potential that they could hold out long enough that the Russians reevaluate the entire campaign, with respect to they're being bogged down in a campaign where they take constant casualties, the enormous economic stress being placed on the Russian economy, the growing domestic opposition, all of those things together in the end if the Ukrainians can hold out and we're supporting them as best we can, if they can hold out and can continue to inflict damage on the Russian campaign, eventually the Russians may well have to come to the table to have some kind of a long-term agreement with the Ukrainians that ends their aggression, that creates a ceasefire and a withdrawal from the country. But the opposition of the Ukrainian people, the courage of the Ukrainian president, our capacity to support the Ukrainian resistance is going to be critical in combining to convince Putin that this is a lost cause.

PHILLIP: And before you go on that point about our support of the Ukrainian effort, the provision of planes how significant is that potentially?

ALLEN: It's not an insignificant consideration. The whole idea of a no fly zone is complex in ways that we could spend an hour talking about, but the idea of putting a Ukrainian flash on formerly owned high performance aircraft with Ukrainian pilots and getting them back in the skies to deny Russia the capacity to dominate the skies and do what Alex just reported, which is inflicting a massive devastation on the Ukrainian population, this is an option that I think we should be exploring.

PHILLIP: Contesting the skies could be significant at preventing further humanitarian catastrophe.

General Allen, thank you so much for being with us.

ALLEN: Great to be with you.

PHILLIP: And coming up next for us, Putin's threat, he says economic sanctions are akin to an act of war.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:18:11]

PHILLIP: The Russian President Vladimir Putin is threatening the U.S. and its allies, insisting that their economic sanctions are the equivalent of a declaration of war. Putin also claimed that a no fly zone would also be considered an act of aggression.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Any movements in this direction will be regarded by us as participation in the military conflict from a country from which territory threats will be posed towards us. We will immediately regard them as parties to the military conflict, regardless of which organization they're members of.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: And joining us now, Beth Sanner. She's the former deputy director of national intelligence. And Josh Rogin, a foreign policy columnist for "The Washington Post."

So, Josh, a lot of threats coming from Putin as per usual, but it seems that he's basically saying anything that you all do, meaning Europe and the United States, will be considered war, will be considered aggression. Is he setting the terms here? JOSH ROGIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: He's trying to set the terms, Abby.

And there is no doubt that we're in economic warfare with Russia right now. The moves we have taken are intended to punish the Russian economy and punish all of the people in the Russian government. That's economic warfare, full stop.

Now, of course, there will be retaliation. The question is whether or not we believe that we are continually deterring Putin from attacking us. In other words, we failed to deter Putin from attacking Ukraine, but we still deter him from attacking us. In other words, he knows if he goes to war with NATO, he's going to lose. So he is not going to do that.

So, he is playing a game of escalating to test our response and doesn't mean we have to fold every time, but it also means that we can't overreact and that's a calculation that I think our government is making with a lot of analysis and care. But at the end of the day, if we just take all of his threats at face value, then we'll just do nothing and Ukraine will lose and we can't do that.

So, we have to take his threats seriously but not let them paralyze us.

[08:20:01]

PHILLIP: Yeah. I mean, is there a concern -- there's been some reporting that the U.S. is to some extent concerned about taking too many steps, whether it's the provision of intelligence or, you know -- Zelenskyy has been asking for planes, they may be getting those planes, but is there apprehension that taking some of these steps could provoke Putin further?

BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely. I think that the whole idea of the no fly zone is where we're seeing this clear red line that's been consistent with the Biden administration and I think wise. As much as it is heartbreaking and I think it truly is, but the whole idea of U.S. forces or NATO forces coming in direct conflict with Russian forces, that definitely can lead to escalation.

So I think Josh put it very well, you know, we have to take threats seriously but we also can't capitulate. I just think on the economic side, you know, we definitely have to keep the pressure up.

PHILLIP: Yeah.

ROGIN: Yeah. I would just say very quickly, you know, if we're going to wage economic warfare, we might as well do it full bore. We might as well go after --

PHILLIP: Have we done that? Do you perceive --

ROGIN: No, we've left the biggest part of the Russian economy untouched, intentionally the energy sector. So, how can we drain Putin's coffers while filling them at the same time? How can the West pay him $700 million a day for oil while trying to starve him of --

PHILLIP: And it's not sufficient, though, to say we are not going to import oil. You are talking about sanctions --

ROGIN: I'm talking about full --

PHILLIP: -- which would mean blocking anybody else from --

ROGIN: It means the western world cuts off oil and gas. Now, what the Biden administration will say is that will drive up gas prices but what experts will tell you first of all, the private sector is already doing that because Russian supplies are becoming unreliable. Also, there is ways to mitigate it. Also, the winter is kind of almost over.

So, I think we have to realize that there is a way to move off Russian oil and gas that we have to do anyway that would be helpful to the war effort if we did it now and the Biden administration just won't go there but the pressure is mounting.

PHILLIP: So, Beth, the specter of all of this is Putin as a nuclear power. He is attacking Ukraine's nuclear plants. It seems intentional whether as a means of threatening Ukraine or just warning the West, but also he is himself threatening nuclear retaliation.

I mean, what are the prospects realistically of that?

ROGIN: Well, I think that we have to separate these things, the nuclear plants in my view are much more about them controlling critical infrastructure in order to put a siege on the population in Ukraine. So I see that as very different than this idea of nuclear war.

I do not think that Putin wants to go there because certainly with us, but I would not take off the table this idea that has been discussed among a lot of experts about Putin maybe having to resort to some kind of battlefield tactical nuclear device in order to blow the stalemate.

PHILLIP: That would be extraordinary.

SANNER: It would be extraordinary. I think not a huge likelihood, but you just can't take these things off the table.

ROGIN: No, I think there's been a lot of loose talk in Washington this week about is he crazy, is Putin off his rocker. I think if we look at his actions, we'll see that he is rational, evil but not suicidal. In other words, if we just watch what he's doing, there is a logic to it, evil as it may be.

So, we can't base a strategy on the idea that Putin is crazy, we have to look at his actions and respond accordingly.

SANNER: Yeah.

PHILLIP: So, this week also the Senator Lindsey Graham put on the table this idea of, quote, unquote, taking Putin out, but at the same time you're seeing Putin tightening control over the Russian society. What are the prospects that there is any pressure that will come to bear on him, to influence his actions? SANNER: Well, I think that in terms of the Russian population if you

look at what's happening on the streets of Moscow today, there are barricades everywhere, there are police everywhere, the crackdown is under way and the Russian population is not getting any good information.

I don't think that there is a high chance at this point in time for, you know, a population uprising, but we still have the Chechen mothers, the Afghan mothers, you know, as things start filtering in, we could see a tide changing there. The bigger risk for him is the oligarchs and the military.

But, again, they have a lot of skin in the game to stick with the system for now.

ROGIN: Yeah. I mean, I don't think Lindsey Graham was suggesting that we take out Putin, he was suggesting that someone around Putin take him out. I think that's wishful thinking. You know, we should be so lucky. There is no doubt if Putin were to gasp his last breath that would be great for Ukraine, for Russia, for the world. He's killing people every day.

PHILLIP: No one is getting close to Putin.

ROGIN: It's not going to happen because he spent --

PHILLIP: At the same time, I mean, this is a man -- you said he is rational and in a different kind of way. He is literally on a call with the German chancellor saying we're not bombing Ukraine. What is going on?

ROGIN: He is a liar. He's lying and that's part of what totalitarian dictators do. They propagandize.

PHILLIP: And he is a spy.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: Once a KGB agent always a KGB agent.

Russia, though, as you were saying, cracking down in Moscow.

[08:25:02]

Russians are fleeing as their entire society crumbles around them.

Are we looking at a totalitarian state and what does the world do about that?

SANNER: Well, it has been authoritarian for a long time, it's getting worse and worse and worse. There are no limits really on Putin's ability to do what he wants inside that society. And I do worry about this brain drain, you know, the people who have means, the people who are smart, the people who might challenge Putin over time are the ones leaving and the people left are the ones who believe state TV. So I do think that we have to look ahead at what we might be dealing

with and frankly we do need to figure out how we can have a discussion about European security.

ROGIN: I would put a finer point on it. I think we need to examine the idea that democracies and dictatorships can coexist.

PHILLIP: Can coexist you're saying.

ROGIN: Even should coexist.

PHILLIP: Must coexist.

SANNER: They have to.

ROGIN: Even, is it desirable that they coexist because in the end, this project of bringing Putin into the fold and we can apply this to China, too, has failed. The idea that they would participate in our system, which is based on an order that's meant to preserve our values, has failed. That's clear on the battlefields of Ukraine.

How we go forward is that we realize these dictatorships are not in the business of working with us. And so, in the long run, it may be that we have to win and they have to lose or the other way around.

PHILLIP: That's very interesting. Thank you, Josh Rogin and Beth Sanner, for being with us this morning.

And coming up next for us, how the Ukraine crisis is shaping and reshaping Joe Biden's presidency.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:30:13]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He thought the west and NATO wouldn't respond. He thought he could divide us at home in this chamber and this nation. He thought he could divide us in Europe as well. But Putin was wrong.

We are ready. We are united and that's what we did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: In just 11 days, an international crisis has replaced the global pandemic as the defining issue of Joe Biden's presidency. And he's gotten bipartisan praise for his handling of Putin's invasion of Ukraine but lawmakers in both parties are pushing for more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): No more Russian energy should come into the United States for the duration of this bloody, horrifying, and unprovoked war against Ukraine. So the president has said I'm going to use every tool in the toolbox. Mr. President, this is a tool.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: And joining me now with their reporting and insights CNN's Kaitlan Collins, Tarini Parti of the "Wall Street Journal", and Alex Burns of the "New York Times".

So Kaitlan, Biden is now effectively a war-time president, we don't have boots on the ground but we are in this sort of battlefield mode. But at the same time the White House is worried about the domestic front. They are worried about the impact on gas prices and on Americans' pocketbooks.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And they've been very blunt about that. You know, what you're hearing from Senator Murkowski there saying that there is this other step that they could take. They do have other tools in the toolbox.

The White House feels like that is the really extreme step because their concern of course, if they do ban Russian oil imports, for example, is that it's going to affect the global market and it's going to raise prices here at home when we already saw the new national average just came out over $4 a gallon. And so they are weighing that.

But Congress may force their hand here because you are seeing this bipartisan push coming up against this. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying she favors a ban on Russian imports. The White House has said they're listening to that. Of course, they're talking to these lawmakers behind the scenes.

I think questions about sanctions on the Russian energy market is another step that they feel that maybe --

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: And that would be a step --

COLLINS: Even further.

PHILLIP: Much further as we were just discussing. But we don't import actually that much Russian oil.

COLLINS: Right.

PHILLIP: It's a pretty small portion of what we consume as a nation. However -- and it may already be priced in, frankly -- but the White House is still concerned about the effects of it. Yet this has 80 percent support among the American people. As you mentioned Pelosi supports it.

Why won't the White House just take the win and do it if it's going to have, you know, compared to some other steps, a minute impact on oil prices.

TARINI PARTI, NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": I think there are two reasons here. One is that because we import such a small percentage of Russian oil they actually don't think it will have that much of an effect on Putin because he can just sell that oil then to India or China.

So the drawbacks of -- or advantages of, you know, Americans facing potentially rising gas prices wouldn't really have that much of an effect on Putin. So that's sort of part of the calculation.

The other thing of course is also Republicans are already attacking Democrats on gas prices while also then calling on Biden to ban Russian oil. So you know, there's sort of a weird --

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: -- both sides of the game here, which is not the first time.

But President Biden is also, you know -- he is long-time chair of the foreign relations committee. Foreign policy he views as his thing. What's your sense of how he is approaching this moment, which, as we discussed, is a big deal. I mean, even beyond just the domestic considerations, we could be facing a pivotal moment for the global order. How does he see it?

ALEX BURNS, NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, "NEW YORK TIMES": Look, I think that really hits the nail on the head. I remember during some of the dark months of the Biden for president primary campaign hearing him -- I think it was at a high school auditorium in north Las Vegas talking to voters about Russian interference in the Donbas. And that's not what folks --

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: And people are looking at him like what?

(CROSSTALK)

BURNS: So yes, I think this is very much a moment that is in sort of the -- when you look at the long sweep of his career very much in his wheelhouse. And I think that his focus on European alliances and on the unity of the West has been a characteristic of Senator Biden, chairman Biden, vice president and President Biden.

I do think that clearly plays into the thinking on fuel imports, too, that the White House has been very careful to not do anything that gets too far ahead of what our allies in Europe is willing to do. And cutting off Russian energy all together is not a place where they've been willing to go just yet.

I think Abby, I would just add when you look at the first year of the Biden presidency you see a guy who is not historically a big thinker on economic issues trying to present himself that way to the country.

[08:34:56]

BURNS: The mode he's in right now, it's a heck of a tough political moment for him, but it is a more natural sort of role for him to be playing. PHILLIP: This is potentially his core competency, although, you know,

plenty of people will quibble with Biden's, you know, foreign policy judgment in the past, but this latest poll post State of the Union from NPR seems to indicate that Americans are giving Biden the benefit of the doubt, more than the benefit of the doubt on Ukraine, a change of 18 points on his handling of Ukraine.

And, you know, maybe this is impacting their perception of him in other ways -- the pandemic, the economy, he's getting a bit of a bounce. We know that this sometimes can be temporary and fleeting, but is this an opportunity for Americans to give Biden a second look?

COLLINS: I think it's also interesting for the White House because this is not where they expected to be.

PHILLIP: For sure.

COLLINS: They did not think this was what was going to be looming over the second year of his presidency. They had kind of viewed the State of the Union as this chance to reset, to try to improve those numbers on the economy, improve the numbers on COVID-19.

And now they have the Russian invasion being first and foremost. And it's looming over every aspect of his presidency. He held a cabinet meeting at the White House this week and it was extraordinary to see this be the topic at hand. This is not what they had predicted a year ago.

And to hear how it's affecting the Treasury Department, the Commerce Department, all of this -- State Department, the Pentagon as well.

And so it's kind of affecting every single part of his schedule. The aides were describing, you know, typically they have set aside time to get a briefing on COVID-19.

Ukraine is looming over everything. He is getting near constant updates for it. And so I do think there is a chance for that. I think there is a real question of the united response to this and how that is affecting people seeing Biden's leadership as they've been able to effectively unite Europe, which is not something that they were totally confident they were going to be able to do.

PHILLIP: Yes. I just want to raise something because the State of the Union this week he gave kind of two speeches. There was the Ukraine part and then there was like the rest of the speech which was about a list of domestic concerns and where he notably kind of pivoted to the middle. Is this what he was hoping to do and are there risks for that strategy with his base, with progressives?

PARTI: It does seem like what the president is trying to do here is using this sort of relative unity that we're seeing on Ukraine to push this more sort of centrist image. He's trying to reclaim kind of how he ran in 2020.

You know, we saw in 2021 talk of transformational agenda, especially on the domestic economy front. And now we heard him talk about prescription drug prices, child care, things that have sort of more broad bipartisan support.

He also talked about, of course, not defunding the police, which is something that he might face some opposition from his own party on, but he did take a very clear position there, which was interesting, of course, ahead of the midterms.

BURNS: Look, I think it's crucial if the president continues this pivot that he actually deliver the items that he's talking about. If you're telling your own party, look, folks, we are not going to transform the domestic economy, we are not going to implement the most ambitious social justice agenda in generations but we are going to get prescription drugs and child care and renewable energy done, then boy, you had better get prescription drugs and renewable energy and child care.

PHILLIP: If you're going to go piece meal, you better get the pieces that you're promising. That's a very good point.

Coming up next for us though, a criminal conspiracy? The January 6th Committee says there is evidence that the ex-president, Trump broke the laws with his attempts to stay in power.

[08:38:29]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIP: New developments from the January 6th Committee investigation could signal deeper trouble for former president, Donald Trump. In a court filing this past week, the committee said there is evidence that Trump and his allies engaged in a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election.

And meanwhile, in a speech to GOP donors in New Orleans on Friday, Trump's former vice president seemed to take another swipe at his old boss. Mike Pence said there is no room in the party for, quote, "apologists for Putin".

So Pence once again may be creating some distance between himself and Trump. What is the strategy here at this point? For someone who -- I mean it seems clear that if Trump runs again he is not going to be anywhere near the ticket.

PARTI: Safe to say.

BURNS: That's right. Very clear.

PHILLIP: Or maybe not. Maybe he will be --

BURNS: Under the campaign bus I think is the more appropriate spot. Look, this is in the sort of very gradually shaded Mike Pence transformation away from being a sort of Trump footman into whatever it is that he wants to be next. I think this is definitely a new shade.

For the longest time the Pence way of disagreeing with Trump was to simply pretend that Trump had said something different than he had actually said and respond to that and agree with that.

Now we are at a place where he's willing to disagree with something thematically that Trump is saying though he's not going to say Donald Trump is wrong explicitly, right.

And that's a place where in this way I think Pence is emblematic of basically all the ambitious, conservative, potential presidential candidates is, you know, the folks who were willing to take on Trump directly are people like Larry Hogan, Chris Christie, people who come much more from the ideological middle of the party.

And the big question to me going forward, and you talk to any Republican strategist and this is sort of looming large for 2024, is there somebody who is a down the line ideological conservative who will say point-blank Donald Trump is wrong and there is a better way of doing this?

COLLINS: And I think one of the most interesting things about his comments was not even the Putin apologist part which obviously he's talking about Trump, but before that he said where would we be in this situation right now with Ukraine if NATO didn't exist, if more countries were not in NATO, if NATO had not expanded.

[08:44:51]

PHILLIP: He knows as well as anyone else that Trump wanted --

COLLINS: Trump's number one target.

(CROSSTALK)

COLLINS: And there are -- you hear from people who even worked in the administration who said they don't know if the U.S. would have stayed in NATO had Trump won a second term. So it's unclear what that situation would be like.

Obviously, it's a hypothetical, but Pence taking that, something that Trump railed against all the time was really notable, I thought, as well.

PHILLIP: I just want to play this because, you know, with the point that you're making in part is that Pence doesn't have a whole lot of credibility on this.

Listen to Pence back in 2016 as he was the nominee for the Republican vice presidential position.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PENCE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think -- I think it's inarguable that Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: So, I mean, look, he is maybe not going to be the best messenger if the goal is to distance the GOP from Trump, especially on this issue of Putin and Russia.

PARTI: And also to be clear, he didn't actually mention Trump. You know, it's clear he's making sort of not-so-subtle digs at the former president, but he didn't quite call him out explicitly. And it will be interesting to see if he gets anywhere close to that as we get closer to 2024.

But also, you know, the filing that was mentioned that related to the January 6th Committee, we saw a lot of Pence aides sort of cooperating with the committee on that.

So we're seeing sort of some daylight, a little bit at least, between Trump and his allies and Pence and his former staffers, January 6th, of course being one of the places where there's clear daylight between the two, and then Russia.

PHILLIP: And exactly on that point, the filing is sort of riddled with all these interviews including from Pence deputies, but it is strongly signaling that this is a committee well-organized, full of very organized and detailed lawyers, teeing up potentially a criminal investigation to send to the Justice Department.

What will that do for garland? What will the administration do if there is potentially a criminal referral from this committee?

COLLINS: The pressure on Garland is only going up. I mean that is how I read this. Because obviously the January 6th Committee is not charging anyone with a crime, they don't have that power, but they are going to basically lay it out and make it really difficult for Attorney General Merrick Garland in this position of basically saying here is what we do believe could be criminal activity, could be charged with that and it's an audience of Merrick Garland, I think, when you read this filing and the pressure that has already existed on him in the last year that he has been in this position.

But it's only going to increase, I think, as the January 6th committee becomes more public with what they know.

PHILLIP: There is a lot of questions, I think, now about whether any of this will really have an affect on Trump, his decision-making or the Republican Party, but a criminal referral is a criminal referral and that's still something to be contended with.

Thank you all for being here with us this morning.

And coming up next for us -- from seized yachts to financial crackdowns, sanctions are making life a little tougher for Putin's friends, the Russian oligarchs. But will it make a difference?

[08:47:58]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIP: The big question for the world today, can sanctions stop Putin? A week ago, the U.S. and other NATO nations crippled the Russian economy by essentially throwing them out of the global financial system. During the week, the west targeted Russian oligarchs taking properties, planes and yachts. And this is a nearly 300-foot ship seized in the south of France, and it's valued at $120 million. And right now the administration is debating whether to block Russian energy imports.

Joining me now is Greg Ip, chief economics commentator for the "Wall Street Journal". So Greg, a big question here not just about whether sanctions can work against Putin, but really do they work at all? But this is probably the most significant effort to curtail a major nation, a major economy. Do you think this will have an effect on Putin's decision making?

GREG IP, CHIEF ECONOMICS COMMENTATOR, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": It's got to have some kind of effect. I mean it's true that in the past, sanctions do not have a great track record. We put them on North Korea, no effect. We put them on Venezuela, no effect. We put them on Iran, gotten to the negotiating table when we cranked up sanctions and left the deal, no effect.

Putin clearly knew that there would be economic punishment for invading Ukraine, so he was in some sense prepared for this. But I don't think he was prepared for the extent of the sanctions, how sweeping they've been, the fact that his war chest of reserves has been basically taken away from him, that so many companies would voluntarily withdraw.

We're looking at a catastrophe for the Russian economy. It's got to play some kind of role in his calculus right now. If he's looking for a solution, you know, a ceasefire, any sort of thing, this has got to be playing a part there.

I think the big question is what we don't really know is just how determined is he to achieve the aims he started out with to get in there, to basically destroy Ukraine as a viable independent country.

And if that's the case, then I don't think they will.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: Yes. I mean I think he seems pretty determined, frankly. And his demands are we want everything. But there are downsides to this, obviously, for the west. Sanctions go both ways, impacts on energy, but also just the war itself in Ukraine having an impact on global food supply.

So this is something that -- there's a big question how long can the west hold on to these sanctions when they're affected as well?

[08:54:55]

IP: It's a great question. There's a reason why we carved out things like energy and certain exports like commodities from the sanctions. It wasn't because we were trying to spare the Russian economy. It's because we were trying to spare our economy, especially the European economy which is very dependent on imports of European gas and oil. So if we actually tighten the sanctions or voluntary embargoes, which we're seeing, tend to cause even more upward pressure on inflation that we're seeing right now which is very high, it means weaker growth in Europe. It means higher inflation in the United States. I think the thing you worry about is that a few months from now when some of the current urgency wears off, does this start to chisel away at the unity and the public support in the west.

PHILLIP: Right.

IP: So it's a delicate balancing act.

PHILLIP: And in today's world, I think there was a view in the past that globalization would produce peace because we're all dependent on each other. Is that going away? Are we moving to a more protectionist world?

IP: I think it's clearly happening. It didn't just start with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It started with the decoupling that we saw during the trade war between China and the United States which was itself driven by China's own sort of aggressive behavior on the diplomatic front.

You've seen protectionism under the previous president, the current president wants to make more stuff in America. You know, Britain leaving the European Union. This is dynamics under way for a while. But this invasion is the coup de grace. We're going back to something that looks like the economic blocs that divided us during the Cold War when the east and the soviet bloc and the west just didn't really do business at all.

PHILLIP: Yes. Just one more reason why this is such an extraordinary moment, not just for Russia and Ukraine, but also for the entire globe.

Greg Ip, thank you for being with us this morning.

IP: Thank you.

PHILLIP: And that's it for INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY. Thank you for joining us today and don't forget, you can also listen to our podcast. Download INSIDE POLITICS wherever you get your podcast. And just scan that QR code at the bottom of your screen.

Coming up next for us on CNN, more coverage at "STATE OF THE UNION" with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. Jake's guests include Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Republican Senator Marco Rubio.

Thank you again for sharing your Sunday morning with us on a busy news day. Have a great rest of your day.

[08:57:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)