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

Russia's invasion of
Ukraine is now in its
10th week, and overnight,

missiles hit the capital
city of Kyiv as the U.N.
secretary general was
visiting. Russia claims it

destroyed arms factory,
but Ukrainian officials
say a residential building
was hit. That comes

as growing fears are really
expanding because the war could
expand beyond Ukraine's borders.

On Wednesday, Russian
President Vladimir Putin warned
the West that any outside

interference in the
conflict could be met with
a lightning fast response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN
PRESIDENT (through translator):

If someone intervenes in
events, they should know that
our response to counter strikes

will be immediate, quick.
We have all the instruments
that no one could brag about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALCINDOR: And on
Thursday, President Biden
requested an additional

$33 billion from
Congress to help Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: The cost of this fight

is not cheap but caving
to aggression is going
to be more costly if we
allow it to happen. As

long as the assault and
atrocities continue,
we're going to continue to
provide military assistance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALCINDOR: Joining me tonight
to discuss this and more,
Michael Shear, White House

correspondent for "The New
York Times," and here with
me in studio, Nikole Killion,

congressional correspondent
for CBS News, and Hans Nichols,
political reporter for "Axios".

Thank you so much all for
being with me on what is

a busy night in Washington.
You are all partying
with us at this table.

Michael, I want to start with
you. Overnight, there was
news that broke that Russia

had sent a missile -- hit a
missile to Kyiv, of course,
the capital city of Ukraine.

That came as the United
Nations secretary general
was visiting, as we noted.
That also came after

the U.N. secretary-general was
meeting face to face with Putin
just a couple of days before.

I wonder what you make of the
significance of this attack
happening and the timing of it.

MICHAEL SHEAR, WHITE
HOUSE CORRESPONDENT,
THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Well, look, I think it
underscores what has been
pretty true for the last
several weeks, at least

in the United States
in Washington, but in
capitals across Europe
and elsewhere, which

is that this war is not
ending any time soon. To
the extent that Vladimir
Putin pulled out of the

areas around Kyiv and is
focusing his attention
on the south and east of
the country of Ukraine,

that was really a reflection
of how poorly his forces had
done in its attempt to capture

the entire country, but if by
no means, I think, signifies
that this is about to end.

And, you know, I think one of
the things Putin is particularly
good at is sending reminders

that this is not over, that he's
not done. That he -- you know,
for all of the poor performance

of his military, that they still
have lots of capabilities to
inflict pain. You know, perhaps

they will be able to
seize a good chunk of
Ukraine on the east,

but even if they are not able
to do that, their weaponry
allows them to inflict damage

as far as they want across
the country, if its in
the north, in Kyiv, in
the west, or in the east.

So, you know, I just think
it's -- it underscores
that reality and, you
know, helps to explain why

the allies, the United States
and others, are bracing and
requesting and finding more and

more resources to supply to Kyiv
and to Ukraine because they know
it is not about to end soon.

ALCINDOR: Certainly.
And when you think about
it, you're talking about
this idea that the war

is certainly not going
to be over any time soon.

And in some ways, Hans, I
want to come to you because
the defense secretary raised

some eyebrows or really raised
my eyebrows when he said
that the U.S.'s goal here,

what it wants to see is Russia's
military capabilities weaken. I

wonder what your reporting
reveals of sort of the proxy
war that's going on right now.

HANS NICHOLS, POLITICAL
REPORTER, AXIOS: Well,
it's very clear that the
administration is being

very deliberative about
talking about Russia's
battlefield losses and
what is actually happening

on the ground. There's
almost a cadence to what
is happening where we have
the nightly briefing from

Zelenskyy in Ukraine
and every other day,
you get a deep Pentagon
debrief on just narrating

what's happening in the
war and narrating it in
a way that does not cast
Russia in a great light.

It seems as though this is sort
of the one-to punch in terms
of the internal bolstering the

people from Zelenskyy and
externally what you're
getting from the U.S.,
the warnings to Putin,

the messaging to Putin,
but it does seem strong,
and it does seem unique.
And as Michael is noting,

the Russians still have
some cards to play. They
have a lot of capabilities,

and as we all know,
there are some scary
capabilities out there.

ALCINDOR: And there are some
who are wondering whether
or not this -- if all

that is happening at the
administration might be moving
closer to direct conflict

with Russia. What's your
reporting reveal about that?

NICHOLS: There is still a red
line there of actual direct
conflict, but let's just

look at where it shifted, right?
I mean, remember the debate
in the Obama administration,

no lethal weapons. Well,
that seems like it was
decades ago, right?

Five, six years ago, now,
we're all onboard with
actual lethal weapons.

The president of the United
States, a Democratic president,

is going to a defense
contractor Lockheed Martin,

to watch Javelins coming off
the assembly line, or where they
build Javelins, right? That is a

little bit stronger than just
plain rhetoric. Think of the
images and backdrop of that.

And this is a White House
that wants to -- as you
just heard the president
talk of that, they want

to spend money, they're
prepared to spend whatever
it takes. In this context,
guys, $33 billion is

a lot of money. That --
I mean, you look at four
military sales to Israel,
I think it's the highest

out there, it's about $3 billion
a year. This is 10 times that
and maybe even more compressed

timeframe. So, a lot of
money and a clear signal
of intent they want to be
in this for a long haul.

ALCINDOR: Yeah. Nikole,
Hans described $33 billion
is a lot of money. It is,

of course, a lot of
money. What's Congress
and lawmakers there -- how

do they see this request
from the White House?
Is there support there?

NIKOLE KILLION, CONGRESSIONAL
CORRESPONDENT, CBS NEWS: Well,
at this point, it seems there

will be bipartisan support from
both Democrats and Republicans.
You know, I did have a chance

to talk to Congressman Michael
McCaul, who sits on the House
Foreign Affairs Committee,

a ranking member, and
asked him, is this figure
eye-popping to you,

because that's what some
Senate Republicans have
said, and he said, look,
you know, we got to go

through this package, but
he feels strongly that
Ukraine needs all the
military might it can get.

And, of course, Democrats, too,
want to move forward with this
package as soon as possible.

Majority Leader Chuck
Schumer says he plans
to make it a priority.

NICHOLS: And there's also some
economic assistance as well,

right? I think there number
for direct military assistance
in the $20 billion range,

some economic assistance,
some food security. So it is
not all military, but again,

it is the broader point,
and that is that they want
to bolster the government

and make sure the Ukrainian
people have what they
need to survive, endure,
and hopefully succeed.

ALCINDOR: And, Nikole,
you talk about Schumer,
Senator Schumer, of course.

There's some talk the
Democrats want to tie this to
COVID. We're going to get a

whole block on COVID, but
just talk a little bit
about what the challenges

could be there and how
much of a gamble it
might be for Democrats.

KILLION: Well, I was going to
say, the devil is in the detail,
it's not so much this package,

but really how they get it done.
We have seen, especially when
Democrats try to link packages

in the past, it has not
been so successful and --

ALCINDOR: Just putting
it lightly, yes.

KILLION: Mildly. But, you know,
this time potentially could
be no different. Republicans

are certainly balking
at the idea of tying the
Ukraine funding to COVID
funding, and really the

premise behind this for
Democrats is the administration
has been clear that they

also want this COVID really
funding passed. That this
will help for future pandemic.

It didn't succeed before
the recess. So, they want
to bring it up again.

And just today, Speaker
Pelosi said she does
believe that they should be

tied together. So, this is
something that could potentially
bug both packages down.

ALCINDOR: And, Michael,
the White House has
indicating that this

money -- this $33 billion
would last five months.
I think that's obviously

at the end of the fiscal
year, but that's also a lot of
money. What's your sense Inside

the White House, what
is your sense of what is
motivating officials to
make this ask to Congress?

SHEAR: I think -- I think
it's two things, right? On the
substantive side, I think they

recognize that the war will be
over soon. So, you don't want
to be in a position of having

to go back to Congress over and
over again with a bunch of small
asks if you know or think that

it will be a costly
endeavor that is going
to last a long time.

I also think this is all
playing out in a political
context. It is an election year.

You know, I think President
Biden wants to be seen
as solid and determined

on an issue that does
have bipartisan support.
There is a lot of support
across the aisle for

Ukraine and for not letting
them falter in the face
of the Russian invasion.

And, you know, I sort of
second Hans' mentioning of
the trip next week to the

plant where they make these
Javelin missiles. I mean, it is
remarkable that that is a trip

that this president is going
to take. He never wanted
to make a trip like that.

This is a president who wanted
to spend the next several months
before the election focused

on the economy, focused
on job creation, on the
so-called bread-and-butter
issues that American

people care about. You
know, the fact that he
is going and doing this
photo op tells you all

you need to know about
where he thinks he needs
to position himself
politically at this moment.

ALCINDOR: It's certainly
going to be striking when
we see President Biden
next week in Alabama.

I want to talk you,
Hans, because even as the
American people say they
want to talk about red

and butter issues, there
is the Russian foreign
minister who is saying
specifically that the more

that the West they say meddles,
of course, the West would say
-- helps Ukraine, the more there

is the risk for nuclear war.
Did you talk to your sources
-- national security officials?

NICHOLS: Yeah.

ALCINDOR: How concerned
are they about it?

NICHOLS: It's troubling. And
you -- I mean, I wish I had a
better barometer for talking to

national security officials
for how concerned they are
because they toss around phrases

that troubled me, if I am
kind of honest about it,
right? And you talk about
the potential for chems,

for nukes, for tacticals,
and just the ease with
which officials are,
especially the former side,

they're tossing these terms
around makes you think that
this is quite serious, right?

I mean, no one -- none of us
know what moves Putin is going
to make. We are in a difficult

position here, and it
is troubling when anyone
threatens and that's
what -- let's very clear

what's happening. They
are threatening to use
weapons of mass destruction.

They can hide behind caveats,
but they know exactly
what their intent is.

And that to me
seemed significant.

ALCINDOR: That is
absolutely significant.

KILLION: I was going to say,
even Senator Lindsey Graham,
who is always very hawkish,

said in an interview this
week that he thinks that
a nuclear strike could
be a possibility or that

the Russians may be
contemplating that. We
do not know if there is
intelligence to necessarily back

that up, but we know there
is concern among members
of Congress as well,
and the implications.

ALCINDOR: And to think
about something - - thinking
about these concerns,

not only now as I listen
to Hans sort of scare me
about nuclear weapons and
what could happen there.

NICHOLS: Yeah, look,
I don't -- I mean, I
obviously do not have a

roadmap to Vladimir
Putin's mind. I don't
know what their intent.
It could be some strategic

bluffing taking place, it could
be a whole host of things. There
are people much smarter than I

at the Pentagon who have Putin's
psychological profile. They
have excellent intelligence.

I mean, one thing that we
sort of learned about this
entire process is that

most of the intelligence,
at least the predictive on
what Putin was going to do

has been accurate. So there
should be a fair - - you know,
some acknowledgment of that.

Look, I mean, you have
conversations with
Lindsey Graham, I mean,
people are just sort

of talking about it as though
this is a real possibility, and
then I don't know how quickly

Lindsey Graham pivoted
to other issues, but it
seems like a moment when
you have Democrats and

Republicans on Capitol Hill
even entertaining this. And I
think it tells us where we are.

I mean, I don't know what
they're saying in the
hall ways. You spend all
your time down there,

what you're picking and just
kind of sidebar conversations.

KILLION: I think it remains
a concern, ands, you
know, for all the reasons
you explain. You always

have to be prepared for
that worst-case scenario.
And I think whether it's
the Pentagon, whether if

it's the Hill, whether
it's the administration,
you know, you have to be
prepared for the worse.

Hopefully, it does not get
to that point, but certainly,

it's clear Russia is not
done, that they could escalate
things, especially with this

symbolic victory day coming up
in just another week or two.

ALCINDOR: Yeah. And, of course,
now -- go ahead, Michael.

SHEAR: Really quickly,
the one thing I would
caution so listeners do
not get totally panicked

is that the U.S. military, the
allies, they have not changed
our own nuclear posture,

right? Which would be --
you know, you don't have
the sense that any on
this side have actually

taken fundamental steps to
change the military readiness
vis-a-vis nuclear weapons, which

gives you some indication
that it is not as imminent as,
you know, people might think.

ALCINDOR: Certainly.