TIM MCPHILLIPS: As Russia’s attacks on Ukraine continue, the U.S. joins its global allies in
figuring out how to best respond. What is the U.S. willing and not willing to do to help Ukraine,
and how can it best impose punitive measures on Russia,
without provoking a larger conflict? To help us understand how the U.S. is navigating this crisis,
I spoke with the PBS NewsHour’s foreign affairs and defense correspondent, Nick Schifrin.
To help us understand how the U.S. is navigating this crisis,
I spoke with the PBS NewsHour’s foreign affairs and defense correspondent, Nick Schifrin.
NICK SCHIFRIN: The main US goal when it comes to the war in Ukraine is to make sure that Russia
loses strategically. That means militarily, the US and its allies have been flooding Ukraine with
weapons with which Ukrainian forces have been able to generally keep Russian troops on the back foot,
TIM MCPHILLIPS: But, the U.S. levied some of the most punishing sanctions against Russia
ever seen. For that, I turned to NewsHour
congressional correspondent, Lisa Dejardins. LISA DESJARDINS: All of the sanctions that the US
has placed on Russia since it invaded Ukraine came from executive power, from the president himself
and from a little known law to most people that was passed in
the nineteen seventies. It's called IPA, which is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
LISA DESJARDINS: [00:01:42] Congress has power over a few very big decisions,
like the power to declare war and the power to set the overall funding level, how much we're funding
the military. But essentially, the president decides everything else. [00:02:00][17.3]
TIM MCPHILLIPS: And the president’s sanctions are meant to isolate and punish Russia.
NICK SCHIFRIN: The Russian economy is relatively small...but they are integrated, most notably
through their Russian oil and gas exports. So the US took a step to ban any of those imports from
Russia. The Europeans have not taken those those steps yet, but clearly the US is trying to rally
the West to try and not buy any Russian exports. TIM MCPHILLIPS: Beyond oil and gas,
these sanctions have also been aimed at hurting Russia’s military capacity.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Russia relies on Western technology. Much of its military
relies on that technology. And so the US has cut off not only American chips,
but American design chips and any chips or any technology that actually has any American IP.
And that means that long term Russia will have a very difficult time trying to supply
its own technological aspirations, but also frankly, trying to resupply its own military.
TIM MCPHILLIPS: So the U.S. wants to isolate the Russian economy, and degrade Russia’s
military capabilities. While simultaneously providing military support to the Ukrainians.
NICK SCHIFRIN: The US and the Europeans have really mobilized one of the largest
arms support to any non-NATO country that we've ever seen in NATO's history.
TIM MCPHILLIPS: The U.S. and its allies
have sent everything from body amour to anti-tank Javelin missiles.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Also anti-air missiles. So these are missiles called stingers that can
target Russian helicopters and low flying jets. TIM MCPHILLIPS: The U.S. has also found ways
to help Ukrainians with more familiar weapons systems too,
sending Soviet era SA-8 surface to air missile systems, and S-300 air-defense systems acquired
at the end of the Soviet Union to Ukraine. But, there are a few high profile maneuvers that the
U.S. stopped short of promising, For example, blocking the transfer of fighter jets to instead
send drones. The United States has also blocked a ‘no-fly zone’ over Ukraine, over the same concern.
NICK SCHIFRIN So the Americans have tried to draw a line between defensive and offensive weapons,
and the American administration defines an offensive weapon, essentially as a weapon that can
cross borders. That has a range that's long enough to be more than just a weapon to defend territory.
NICK SCHIFRIN: At the end of the day, the US and Europe have provided Ukraine a lot
of the air defense systems that Washington and Brussels and London say are a 00:09:50][11.9]
TIM MCPHILLIPS: While the end goal may be clear, this tension,
between how strongly we back Ukraine, and punish Russia, has fueled some debate at home.
LISA DESJARDINS Members of Congress have wanted more action more quickly than the White House has
throughout this conflict, especially at the beginning. Members of Congress
from both parties in public and behind the scenes were pushing the president to issue
tougher sanctions and to do it more quickly. TIM MCPHILLIPS: But, so far, there has been
unity in the overall objective of our approach. LISA DESJARDINS: There are still some divides
over things like how we could have helped Poland, for example, send some Soviet era planes, MiGs,
to Ukraine. But there's no difference in whether to support the military and whether to support
Ukraine. So this is an area where members of Congress generally see eye to eye with each other.
It's a kind of an issue of American patriotism in some way that crosses both parties, even as that
term patriotism is itself so political. In this case, when Russia is the adversary, it's not.
TIM MCPHILLIPS: Yet, this approach could change as the war rages on. Since Russia invaded Ukraine
more than a month ago, Ukrainians have provided strong resistance, and on Friday April 1st,
Ukraine allegedly attacked an oil depot in Russia. NICK SCHIFRIN: The Biden administration has been
very concerned about Russia and Vladimir Putin as his back is up against the wall,
as President Biden put it recently, resorting to non-conventional weapons. So most obviously,
that would be chemical. The reason that chemical is on the top of the list is because
the Russians have used it in the past. NICK SCHIFRIN: As for the nuclear fears?
Intelligence officials say it's not based on any particular intelligence that they've picked
up.... But still, the Russian doctrine calls for the possible use of nuclear weapons. And again,
Russia's conventional weapons have really failed them in terms of their effort to overthrow Kiev.
And so that's why the U.S. is so concerned about they're resorting to non-conventional weapons.
TIM MCPHILLIPS: And as the U.S. and its allies continue to navigate this,
the human toll is mounting. he United Nations estimates there have been nearly
1,300 civilian casualties – but state the actual number is likely much higher –
and over four million Ukrainians have left their country in search of safety.
For the PBS NewsHour, I’m Tim McPhillips