Clip: Democrats try to tackle inflation as the GOP centers on culture wars ahead of midterms

Alcindor : Good evening and welcome to "Washington Week."

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is now entering its eighth week and the fallout over the atrocities committed by Russia`s military against civilians has reached new levels.

This week, President Biden for the first time called the actions of Russian President Putin a, quote, genocide.

On Wednesday, President Biden announcing additional $800 million in new military supplies to Ukraine, including heavy artillery and helicopters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

John Kirby, Pentagon Press Secretary : All of them are designed to help Ukraine -- as we talked about -- help Ukraine in the fight that they are in right now and the fight that they will be in, in coming days and weeks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Alcindor : That comes as Russia warned that U.S. and NATO shipments of weapons to Ukraine could bring, quote, unpredictable consequences.

Meanwhile, in a dramatic new step, European Union officials are drafting a proposed ban on Russian oil products, though no agreement has been reached yet on the issue.

Still, President Putin rejected the idea that Russia can be cut off from the world economy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

Vladimir Putin, Russian President (through translator): We are not going to be isolated. No one can be isolated in the modern world. Moreover, it`s impossible to do it to a country as huge as Russia.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Alcindor : Joining me tonight to discuss this and more, Peter Baker, chief correspondent for "The New York Times", Eugene Daniels, White House correspondent co-author of "Politico`s Playbook", and Marianna Sotomayor, congressional reporter for "The Washington Post".

Thank you all of you for being here.

Peter, I want to start with you. You were a Moscow bureau chief for a long time. We now saw, of course, the big news is that President Biden changed his language and for the first time called what is happening in Ukraine a genocide.

Take us inside the decision to change his language here and what impact, if any, it could have.

Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent, THE NEW YORK TIMES : Well, the important thing to remember is it is a political statement rather than a legal statement, right? So, President Biden is saying that in his opinion, this counts as genocide. It`s not a legal determination.

There is a whole set of international law here that lawyers will apply at some point or another. There is some debate about whether this would qualify. Genocide, according to the law, would be trying to wipe out an entire people. You can debate whether that is what Putin`s goal is here.

But it`s certainly true that Vladimir`s goal is to wipe out the idea of Ukraine as a separate nation and of the idea of Ukrainians as a separate people. That is a broader definition of genocide then we have traditionally talked about.

You`ve seen him talk about that in public. He wrote a piece that was published last year saying Ukraine is not a separate nation. He wrote it is simply a part of Russia and they shouldn`t get -- you know, they shouldn`t get status of being their own people. So, in that sense, he is trying to wipe out the very idea of it.

Now, what he is doing, President Biden, is escalating the rhetoric, whether you call it genocide or crimes against humanity or what-have-you, he is putting Putin on notice that there will be accountability when this is over. Now, we don`t know how the accountability will take place. It doesn`t look like you can send international cops to Moscow and arrest Vladimir Putin and put him up in a dock.

But there is this idea that, you know, Russia and Vladimir Putin will have to be held accountable for the crimes that have been committed in Ukraine these last few weeks.

Alcindor : And, Eugene, Peter is talking about escalating rhetoric. There was increasing aid this week.

How much of this language change and this wanting to call it a genocide do we think influenced the idea and the decision by President Biden to send more aid to Ukraine as the country is continuing to plead for even more weapons?

Eugene Daniels, White House Correspondent, POLITICO : Yeah, one of the things have seen as this conflict, this invasion, has continued, you are starting to see President Biden getting ahead in his language, the administration. This is one piece of this, and when he talked about, you know, basically kind of gotten rid of Vladimir Putin, they have made clear, the administration, that these are not changes in the way that they viewing, no change of policy. But it does show you that as he gets more frustrated, we will continue to give more aid to Ukraine, more military assistance to Ukraine and Ukrainians.

So, that`s what Ukraine and Volodymyr Zelenskyy want to see and they talk about that, is that they want to make sure that America continues to keep the coalition of European countries and NATO together, to continue to put pressure on Russia. And I think one thing that`s really interesting, and we saw Vladimir Putin there talking about not being able to be cut off, he`s also been surprised, Vladimir Putin and Russia writ large about the resilience of Ukraine and the amount of assistance given from both the United States and European countries.

So, as we -- as this continues, and it does not seem like it will end anytime soon, every official I talked to here in the United States says that is going to continue to up. Every time it gets worse, we will continue to give every kind of aid that we can without increasing the dangers for Americans and NATO.

Alcindor : And, Marianna, Eugene is talking about this sort of prolonged war and this going much longer than a lot of officials thought it would go. I wonder, of course, Congress was out this week, I know that`s your beat. So I want to ask you, what is going on in terms of Congress for where lawmakers` minds are when it comes to what`s due next, and is there sort of bipartisan agreement on the way forward?

Marianna Sotomayork, Congressional Reporter, THE WASHINGTON POST : The fact that this is going to go on for a long time is exactly what is at the forefront of their minds. Right now, they are not necessarily talking about how much money they should be sending to Ukraine. They already did that in an aid package last month.

But they are starting to think that at some point, they are going to have to do that again, and what that looks like is probably going to start to be under discussion when they come back into session at the end of this month into next month. That, of course, can look like funding for military equipment. That is something big that you all previewed earlier, where Zelenskyy has been really making that plea. Not to mention the fact that they need that humanitarian aid as well.

Zelenskyy has done a really good job anytime he has briefed lawmakers to really make an emotional appeal. That is, as we have seen the last couple months, really triggered members into action. And it`s very rare nowadays to see anything pass in a bipartisan manner or have overwhelming support, and you really see that here on this issue.

So, it`s likely that more things will come up as this issue continues to be at the forefront.

Alcindor : Peter, as Marianna is talking about the thinking of lawmakers, I want to come to you as our Russia expert to talk about that thinking possibly of President Putin. We see Russian military forces regrouping. Just this week, we saw an important Russian warship sank. Russia is saying it is an accidental fire. Ukraine is saying based they hit with missiles.

But overall, what do we know of or what we do know about President Putin`s thinking of the overall war as a possible miscalculation?

Baker : Well, it`s a good question, and we don`t know what`s in his head. That`s part of the problem here, of course, has been a serious miscalculation on every front. They thought they could simply waltz into Ukraine and within a few days or weeks, have it all wrapped up. We reported this, that 30 percent to 50 percent of the Ukrainian army, they thought would switch sides. Simply join the Russians to say, yes, we`re on the side. It didn`t happen, obviously.

They thought that they could drive a wedge within the West. In fact, it`s been the opposite. NATO is more unified today than it has been in years. They thought they could drive the United States and the West out of Eastern Europe, or at least send a signal they should get out. Now you see Finland and Sweden who never joined NATO during the Cold War, now talking about joining NATO now.

So, on every front, Vladimir Putin has succeeded in doing the opposite of what he says wants to do. Now they are regrouping, as you say. They seem to be focusing more on the east, looking for some way of getting a win out of this. If they can carve out part of Ukraine in the east and say, this is the part where Russia speakers live the most and therefore, we`re going to focus on that.

That may be his plan B at this point. Ukraine won`t accept that. President Zelenskyy has made clear that Ukrainian territory is Ukrainian territory. It was bad enough they have had to live for eight years with Russia effectively seizing control of both Crimea and the eastern Donbas area. They`re not going to accept a larger share of their territory being permanently occupied, or sort of you know, kind of a guerilla resistance.

So, he is I think put himself and his country in a place that is unenviable and without an easy out.

Alcindor : Unenviable is a way to put it, when you think about Russia`s stance here and their position.

Eugene, I want to come to you because these atrocities that we continue to learn about are just heartbreaking. Just this week, we saw the bodies of 900, more than 900 civilians were found in areas right outside Ukraine`s capital.

I wonder whhen you think about it, as this war deepens, what is the Biden administrations thinking when it comes to possibly sending an official over there to be on the ground in Ukraine?

Daniels : Yeah, one of the things that my colleagues at "Politico" scooped this week is that the administration was having internal discussions about sending a high-level official to Kyiv to show support for Ukraine, upping the amount of FaceTime we have been giving to Ukraine. Who that is, it is very unclear. We are talking about high-level officials that make sense. You have obviously President Biden, though Jen Psaki yesterday at an event said they were not sending President Biden to Ukraine.

But you also have vice president, Harris, who was in Poland and Romania recently, you have Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and the secretary of state. So, all of them seem like people who make a lot of sense. If they are going to send folks, they probably are not going to tell many people when that -- if they do pull the trigger on that. What we are told is that can also change, depending on how the war continues to play out, how dangerous it is or how safe it can be made for our high-level officials.

I will say the administration does feel pressure -- external pressure, when you watch Boris Johnson walk the streets of Kyiv, with Zelenskyy, when you see the E.U. commissioner there as well, to do more and to say, okay, sit there, foot on the soil, and see firsthand what we have seen in pictures and videos ever since because as this war continues, one thing that administration officials happen thinking about is how do we keep the coalition together?

One of those ways is to continue to show extreme support, continuing to show that you are willing to do more than you were doing before, and this would certainly be an escalation when it comes to symbolism in this invasion.

Alcindor : Marianna, what is Congress thinking about what they can do to do more, when you hear Eugene thinking about what the White House thinking as? What are lawmakers talking about? How can they make this even more painful for Russia?

Sotomayork : Well, you know, to that exact point, Congresswoman Spartz, she`s a Republican from Indiana. She`s also born and raised in Ukraine, she has been asking the administration to send someone to be a point of contact in Ukraine. So, that is something that she`s been unilaterally trying to do.

But in terms of what other things Congress has been talking about, what they could help in the short term are two different things. One, the Senate has actually already passed this procedural legislation that would help ease and streamline any arms shipments the U.S. may want to send to Ukraine. That is something the House may consider in these upcoming weeks when they are back in session.

Something else Democrats both in the Senate and the House have been talking about, some have introduced legislation on, is how can they undo some tax breaks for American companies that are still doing business with Russia? They are trying to find other ways to hurt Russia, even though Vladimir Putin has said, you know, in any sanctions, any economic setbacks aren`t really being felt. The United States is still trying and Congress, in particular, trying to be ahead and trying to find those ways to hurt Putin and Russia where it can hurt.

Alcindor : Peter, I want to come to you because there is this news of European Union officials looking at potentially drafting a proposal to ban Russian oil. How significant of a development is this?

Baker : Well, if they follow through on it, it would be significant because Russia sells a lot of energy to Europe, and Europe depends on Russia. They have been very reluctant to cut them off entirely, because, in fact, they would pay price. You know, it is easy for politicians in Washington to say, let`s cut off Russian oil here. We don`t depend on it. We`re not going to have our lights go off and our homes cold at night if we cut off Russian energy the way Europe does.

So, if they have to follow through on it, it is a big deal, it is an economic pain for Russia because that is where they get a lot of their income from overseas. But obviously it involves pain in the part of Europeans and they are looking at ways to mitigate that through other sources of energy. That is something Washington has tried to talk to them about. The Biden administration is trying to find ways to help them substitute energy for what they would lose if they did.

It would be a huge statement and potentially a big economic penalty for Russia.

Alcindor : Peter, in the last couple seconds before to the domestic, because there`s a lot to talk about there, I just want to ask you quickly about this reporting on Ukraine as a sort of IT war. They have a defense minister working with social media influencers to tell the story of the war, to be on social media keeping it front of mind.

One report even described Ukraine as a tech company and Russia as an old rusty tank. What can you tell us about the different strategies here?

Baker : Yeah, no question that Ukraine has been a case study in the modern form of warfare. Beyond of bombs and guns, there is an online war going on in which Ukraine is fighting for the hearts and souls of the world. And their digital minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, has managed to use Twitter -- there is an example, to shame companies and to stop doing business with Russia, to appeal to companies around the world for help to Ukraine. They`ve literally sent thousands of businesses contact to seek help or to cut off Russia.

They have used that sort of platform to bring their case around. Obviously, the videos they can post. The President Zelenskyy`s ability to talk to the world through Zoom, through video contact, it is so different the last the time we had a war in the `90s, in the Balkans flared up, and it really brings that war home to people`s living rooms and I think helped Ukraine basically made their case against Russia.

It is surprising that Russia has not seemingly been able to use it to their benefit. That might be a sign of preparation done in advance of the war by Ukrainians with American help, or maybe they are holding back and there is cyber power from Russia we have not seen yet.

Alcindor : Well, it`s certainly an interesting, interesting thing we will want to keep talking about.