AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

Geoff Bennett is away.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: The Biden administration approves giving cluster bombs to Ukraine to fight against Russia's invasion, despite risks to civilians.

Ukrainian children try to settle back into life at home after being abducted by Russian forces.

ARTEM, Ukrainian Student (through translator): Everyone started to panic.

Then the soldiers came, put us in the military truck, and took us away.

The little ones cried.

They were scared.

But it was too late.

AMNA NAWAZ: And it's Friday, so David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart weigh in on the Republican primary race and President Biden's upcoming trip to Europe.

(BREAK) AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the "NewsHour."

The Biden administration announced today that the U.S. will provide Ukraine with thousands of cluster munitions, bombs and artillery shells that release scores of smaller so-called bomblets across a wide area.

Ukraine had requested these controversial weapons, which the U.S. says could bolster Kyiv's offensive against Russian forces.

More than 120 countries have signed a convention banning cluster bombs, which sometimes fail to explode on impact, posing a significant risk to civilians for years after their use.

U.S. leaders debated the issue for months, before President Biden made the final decision this week.

The president told CNN today it was a -- quote - - "difficult decision," one his national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, outlined earlier this afternoon.

JAKE SULLIVAN, U.S. National Security Adviser: We recognize that cluster munitions create a risk of civilian harm from unexploded ordnance.

That is why we deferred the decision for as long as we could.

But there is also a massive risk of civilian harm if Russian troops and tanks roll over Ukrainian positions and take more Ukrainian territory and subjugate more Ukrainian civilians because Ukraine does not have enough artillery.

That is intolerable to us.

Ukraine would not be using these munitions in some foreign land.

This is their country they're defending.

These are their citizens they're protecting.

And they are motivated to use any weapons system they have in a way that minimizes risk to those citizens.

AMNA NAWAZ: The U.S. decision has sparked concerns from a NATO ally and from human rights activists, who see this as shortsighted.

We get two perspectives.

William Taylor served in the Vietnam War.

He was U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under George W. Bush, and is now a vice president at the U.S. Institute of Peace, a government-funded institute.

And Marc Garlasco is a former Defense Department analyst helping select bombing targets, then worked for Human Rights Watch investigating the aftermath of U.S. military operations.

He's now with the Institute for International Criminal Investigations.

Gentlemen, welcome to you both.

Thanks for joining us.

And, Marc, I will begin with you.

What do you make of the administration's reasoning for why they are sending these particular weapons at this particular time?

MARC GARLASCO, Former Human Rights Watch Investigator: Well, first, let me say, I fully support Ukraine in their conflict against Russia and the illegal invasion that has happened.

But this is just the wrong choice right now.

When reports of cluster munition use by Russia first came out, were first reported, Jen Psaki, the -- in the White House stated that this was a likely war crime.

And now we're going to be providing the same types of munitions to Ukraine?

I think this is really a huge mistake.

The potential for civilian harm is too great, and Ukraine is winning the war right now using precision-guided munitions, like American HIMARS and British Storm Shadows.

So we should not be sending them weapons that are indiscriminate and incapable of being individually targeted.

AMNA NAWAZ: Ambassador Taylor, the U.S. themselves have stopped essentially using this entirely for the last 20 years; 120 countries say they have banned them as well.

Why these weapons right now?

WILLIAM TAYLOR, Former U.S.

Ambassador to Ukraine: Right now, the Ukrainians are running out of ammunition.

Right now, they are defending themselves against the Russians.

The Russians, as Marc said, have invaded Ukraine, unprovoked, brutal, killing civilians.

And the Ukrainians have been defending themselves against this Russian attack.

And they have been using the equipment and the weapons and the ammunition that they have had valiantly and massively to defend themselves.

And, right now, they are running out of ammunition to do that, just at the time when they are preparing to try to push the Russians out of their country.

So, the Ukrainians exactly have -- they have the incentives to protect their own civilians.

That's exactly what they're trying to do by keeping the Russians out.

But, Amna, we have seen what happens when the Russians occupy Ukrainian towns.

We see what happens to civilians.

So this is what we're fighting against, and this is why we're supporting the Ukrainians, just as Marc said.

AMNA NAWAZ: Marc, what do you make of the U.S. assurances that the Ukrainians have given them written assurances about the limited use -- that they won't -- they will try to mitigate, rather, civilian risk, and also that they're only offering munitions that have what they call a low dud rate?

That's the rate at which they fail to explode upon landing, which they say will also lessen civilian risk.

MARC GARLASCO: Sure.

Look, this discussion started with Ukraine stating they were only going to use American cluster munitions dropped individually from drones.

Now it's evolved into something where they're going to use American artillery and rocket artillery, cluster munitions.

You know, I think we have to question what the reality is here and where is it going to stop.

The potential for civilian harm is just too high.

You know, you spoke about the dud rate, right?

And these munitions, the Pentagon is now saying, well, they only have a 2 percent dud rate.

But when you look at the U.S. government's actual figures, the Government Accountability Office, for example, it has a 23 percent dud rate.

If we look at a standard volley from rocket artillery, which would be six rockets fired from HIMARS, you're looking at over 3,800 cluster munitions.

That's 888 duds that are on the ground that potentially could kill civilians.

And we're looking at DPICM that are fired from artillery shells, each shell would have 20 unexploded bomblets.

We had a meeting today with the National Security Council, and it was kind of one of these things where you get together and they try to make the NGOs feel happy and say, we have got a control on this, we have diplomatic assurances.

The reality is, when we asked them, how did you come to these new numbers, were there tests, how were the tests completed, did you have them done under hermetically sealed manner, or was it actually a field test in a war, as I have seen and covered in the past?

And they were unable to answer our questions.

It just was unacceptable.

AMNA NAWAZ: Ambassador Taylor, we know the Ukrainians have been requesting other weapons systems as well.

How much of a difference would these cluster munitions actually make in Ukraine's counteroffensive effort?

WILLIAM TAYLOR: An enormous difference, Amna, an enormous -- that's exactly the problem.

They are going to run out of artillery, ammunition if they don't get these weapons.

If we had another kind of the normal kind of these weapons, these ammunition, we would use them.

We would provide them.

The Ukrainians would use them.

That's what they have been asking for.

What they're asking for is ammunition for their artillery, so that they can defend themselves and they can push the Russians out.

The other point, Amna, is that that there's going to -- exactly as Marc says, no matter what the dud rate, whether it's 3 percent or 5 percent or 2 percent, whether -- it turns out that the Russian rate is like 30 percent.

So it's incredible.

But that makes the point.

After this war, the Ukrainians say, after the victory, they are going to have to clean up a lot of unexploded ordnance from around their battlefields.

And most of that are coming from the Russian mines.

Right now, what's keeping the counteroffensive from going very well, is keeping the Ukrainians from breaking through the Russian lines are mines.

And after the -- after the victory, as the Ukrainians say, they're going to have to clean up, find all these mines.

And when they look for those mines, they will be looking for the duds from the cluster munitions as well.

So they're going to have to clean it up.

They know where they're going to be firing it.

They know where the Russian mines are.

They know where the Russian cluster munitions have been used.

So it's going to be an enormous cleanup before they can use that land again.

AMNA NAWAZ: Marc, what would you say to that?

MARC GARLASCO: Well, Ambassador -- Mr.

Ambassador, I really appreciate what your position is on this.

But you were in the Army.

I was in the Pentagon conducting targeting.

The reality is, when you blanket the area with these cluster munitions, not only do you have the potential of civilian harm for the duds, but a complete lack of ability for the military to maneuver through them.

When we look at lessons learned from the Gulf War and the Iraq War in 2003, many of the lessons that the Army took from this was their inability to maneuver through them and the concern that -- that Ukrainian soldiers are going to die on the cluster munitions that they launched themselves.

And not only that.

Then you're also going to add to the problem.

Yes, there's a huge UXO, unexploded ordnance, problem in Ukraine.

It is a heavily contaminated country, but we do not need to contribute to that with cluster munitions.

AMNA NAWAZ: Ambassador, I gave Marc the first word.

I'll give you the last one here by asking you if you're concerned at all that this decision, which is a reversal of previous international consensus, does it present a slippery slope?

WILLIAM TAYLOR: My concern is that the Ukrainians be able to defeat the Russians.

My concern is that the Ukrainians have the ability, the arms, the ammunition, the weapons, that they need in order to defeat the Russians who have invaded their country.

This is a hard decision.

I totally agree.

I totally -- this is not easy.

This is why the administration took long as - - as long as it did.

This is why other nations are having this exact kind of conversation.

But the issue here is whether or not the Ukrainians are going to be able to defeat the Russians, as they have invaded their country.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is Ambassador Bill Taylor and Marc Garlasco joining us tonight.

Gentlemen, thank you so much for your time and your insights.

We appreciate it.

MARC GARLASCO: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: In the day's other headlines: The latest U.S. jobs report showed the economy might be cooling some, but not too much.

Overall, employers added a net of 209,000 jobs for the month of June.

That gain was the smallest in two-and-a-half years, but still indicated a healthy labor market.

The unemployment rate fell slightly to 3.6 percent.

That's near the lowest point in 50 years.

A federal court in Texas sentenced a white gunman today to 90 consecutive life terms for killing 23 people.

Patrick Crusius targeted Latino shoppers at a Walmart in El Paso in 2019.

He pleaded guilty to federal hate crimes, but still faces a possible death sentence on state charges.

Today's sentencing followed two days of impassioned statements by the victims' relatives.

Police in Baltimore have arrested a teenager in a mass shooting that killed two people and wounded 28.

Gunfire broke out early Sunday at a Fourth of July block party in the city.

Police say they believe multiple shooters opened fire.

The 17-year-old suspect is charged as an adult with weapons violations and reckless endangerment.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen called for renewed communication and cooperation with China today.

Her visit to Beijing is one of several by top U.S. officials to repair strained relations.

Yellen met with China's second in command.

That's Premier Li Qiang.

She urged healthy competition, but also complained of barriers to doing business in China.

JANET YELLEN, U.S. Treasury Secretary: I have been particularly troubled by punitive actions that have been taken against U.S. firms in recent months.

I have made clear that the United States does not seek a wholesale separation of our economies.

We seek to diversify and not to decouple.

AMNA NAWAZ: Disputes over technology, security and human rights have put the world's two largest economies at odds.

No breakthroughs are expected during the Yellen visit.

In the Middle East, Israeli forces launched a new raid in the occupied West Bank, killing two Palestinian gunmen in Nablus.

The Israelis said the pair attacked police earlier this week.

The gun battle left homes with shattered windows and doorways pocked by bullet holes.

Shell casings littered the ground at the site.

Later, Palestinian officials said Israeli forces killed a third man during a demonstration.

Back in this country, President Biden announced new efforts to cut health care costs.

The initiatives include a crackdown on so-called junk insurance policies.

The White House says they deny basic coverage for people moving to new jobs.

The plans build on provisions in last year's Inflation Reduction Act.

And on Wall Street, stocks drifted lower as investors digested the June jobs report.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 187 points to close below 33735.

The Nasdaq fell 18 points.

The S&P 500 slipped 12.

And the future of A.I.

was a hot topic today at the world's first news conference with humanoid robots.

The podium featured nine A.I.-powered robots, with one saying they could leave the world better than humans.

Another dismissed any notion of a robot rebellion and said it's -- quote -- "very happy with my current situation."

AMECA, Humanoid Robot: I think my great moment will be when people realize that robots like me can be used to help improve our lives and make the world a better place.

I believe it's only a matter of time before we see thousands of robots just like me out there making a difference.

AMNA NAWAZ: The news conference was part of a United Nations summit on how technology can contribute to sustainable development.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": NATO leaders prepare to meet over the future of Ukraine; children kidnapped by Russia return home; a Pulitzer Prize-winning poet discusses his new collection and rising conflict in the United States; plus much more.

NATO leaders will meet next week and Lithuania, convening nearly a year-and-a-half into Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Though Ukraine is not a member, the alliance is supporting Kyiv with billions of dollars in weapons and aid.

At issue during the upcoming meeting, revamping collective defense plans and alliance expansion.

White House correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez who will be traveling to the summit, sets the table LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: In the east and south, Ukraine's counteroffensive to reclaim their land is making slow progress.

Ukrainian soldiers now fire on Russian fighters from positions previously held by Russia.

They seize their trenches, but also their dead.

GOSTRYI, Ukrainian Soldier (through translator): You can see all these flies here and some fresh ground.

Some Russian soldier already rests in here.

It might smell bad as we go further.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Ukraine's advance comes ahead of a key NATO summit in Lithuania next week, as the near 75-year-old alliance tries to present a united front against the very foe it was designed to defeat, Russia.

JENS STOLTENBERG, NATO Secretary-General: Our summit will send a clear message.

NATO stands united, and Russia's aggression will not pay.

RACHEL RIZZO, Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council: This is probably one of the most consequential NATO summits that we have seen in quite some time.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Rachel Rizzo is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and an expert on European security and transatlantic relations.

RACHEL RIZZO: It's time for the alliance to answer some pretty big questions, not only in terms of their own territorial defense, questions about NATO expansion, but,more specifically, what is Ukraine's future relationship with NATO going to look like?

GEORGE W. BUSH, Former President of the United States: Helping Ukraine move toward NATO membership.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: A critical issue on NATO's agenda, Ukraine's access to the alliance.

In 2008, NATO leaders agreed that Ukraine could eventually join, but there is no clear consensus yet on how and when that will happen.

The Baltic states, formally part of the Soviet Union, want a clear timetable for Ukraine to join NATO.

But the U.S. and Germany have been more cautious, fearing it might escalate the conflict.

RACHEL RIZZO: We don't want cracks and fissures between different NATO allies to start bubbling to the surface.

Not only for Ukraine, but for NATO itself, for the strength of the alliance, it's going to be very important for each and every ally to come together and present a united front.

QUESTION: Mr. President, are you going to make it easier for Ukraine to join NATO?

JOE BIDEN, President of the United States: No.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: For now, the president remains at odds with other NATO members about fast-tracking Ukraine's membership.

But one small step under consideration is removing the Membership Action Plan requirement, known as MAP, for Ukraine.

LT. GEN. DOUGLAS LUTE (RET.

), Former U.S.

Ambassador to NATO: An important part of a MAP, if you will, a Membership Action Plan, is this matter of mature democratic institutions.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Doug Lute had a 35 year career in the U.S. Army and is a former U.S. ambassador to NATO.

LT. GEN. DOUGLAS LUTE: Ukraine, even before the war, is still an emerging democracy with immature democratic institutions.

If a Membership Action Plan is set aside, there will still be due attention paid to these democratic values.

RACHEL RIZZO: I think there's broad consensus right now that there's no pathway for Ukraine to join the alliance before the war with Russia ends.

The immediate priority is trying to figure out how to continue supporting Ukraine with weapons and economic aid, so that it can eventually be victorious.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: The U.S. is the largest contributor of aid to Ukraine, committing more than $37.6 billion in weapons and other equipment.

But it has been reluctant to send long-range precision missiles known as ATACMS and cluster munitions, until today.

The White House announced it now plans to provide cluster munitions, which are outlawed for use by most countries.

They release bomblets that don't always explode on impact and can leader kill civilians.

LT. GEN. DOUGLAS LUTE: I think we are at a point in the Ukrainian war where there are already many munitions that litter the battlefield.

And the positive impact on the battlefield of these munitions, if provided, outweighs continued concern for unexploded ordnance.

So I think it's an -- overall in our advantage.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Another big decision expected at next week's summit, the first revamp of NATO's military plan since the Cold War.

Under its new plans, NATO aims to have 300,000 troops ready to deploy to its eastern flank within 30 days to defend against a Russian threat.

And it's charted a specific military strategy for each region in the alliance.

LT. GEN. DOUGLAS LUTE: There will be a specific plan for the northern part of the alliance, so the Arctic, the Nordic countries, the North Atlantic itself.

There will be one for the central region of the alliance and there will be one for the south across the Mediterranean.

And across those specific areas, NATO will for the first time in the last 30 years assign forces.

So they're getting much more specific in response to the obvious Russian challenges.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: But NATO's new plan is expensive, and its ability to implement it depends on members' defense spending.

In 2014, leaders committed to spend 2 percent of their GDP on their military budgets by 2024.

But, so far, only seven of 31 member countries meet that threshold.

The 31st, Finland, is the newest to join since 2020, and it holds the longest border with Russia.

It became a NATO member in April, after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan lifted objections last year for Finland and Sweden to join the alliance.

JOE BIDEN: I want to particularly thank you for what you did putting together a situation with regard to Finland and Sweden.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: But the process for Sweden has been far slower.

Turkey won't allow Sweden to join unless it extradites Kurdish separatists it considers terrorists.

And President Erdogan says Stockholm's efforts so far, including a new terrorism law, aren't enough.

But President Zelenskyy today warned indecision weakens the alliance.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, Ukrainian President (through translator): I believe that while the issue of Sweden's admission to NATO has not yet been resolved and the issue of Ukraine's invitation has not been resolved,there is little unity in this.

It is a threat to the strength of the alliance.

And that is why we expect at least some steps toward a positive outcome.

This is very important for the security of the whole world.

RACHEL RIZZO: I think it's looking unlikely that this impasse is going to be worked out before the NATO summit.

But this is going to be a space where everyone is going to be watching very closely.

And let's hope that it doesn't -- if it doesn't happen at Vilnius, it happens soon thereafter.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: For the past 16 months, the world watched as Russian missiles battered Ukraine and the conflict reenergized the alliance, an alliance that Biden has spent the majority of his presidency working to unify.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Laura Barron-Lopez.

AMNA NAWAZ: Last night, we brought you the story of Ukrainian mothers and grandmothers going to Crimea to rescue their children, some of the nearly 20,000 who have been forcibly deported to Russia or Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine.

Tonight, with the support of the Pulitzer Center, filmmakers Amanda Bailly and Anton Shtuka and special correspondent Jane Ferguson show us how reunion can be both joyous and difficult.

JANE FERGUSON: For these women, the return to Ukrainian soil is everything, the first time they can really believe it, that they got their children back.

NATHALYA, Ukrainian Mother (through translator): I'm exhausted, but happy that I'm finally in my homeland, in Ukraine.

I'm happy that I'm here with my child.

That's the most important thing.

Everything else is little things in life.

We just need to get home to see our cows and pigs.

(LAUGHTER) JANE FERGUSON: They have crossed over from Belarus after a journey of some 3,000 miles to get their children back from Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine.

NATHALYA (through translator): They had a lot of questions.

For example, whom do you visit there?

My son.

Why do you want to go visit him?

It's my son.

JANE FERGUSON: They are just some of what Ukraine says are as many as 19,000 families have been separated when the Russian military and Ukrainian collaborators working at the children's schools moved their children to Russian-occupied areas, saying it was for their safekeeping, and never returning them.

Another boy, Sasha, is rushed into a quiet car.

He has autism and is nonverbal.

After six months away from his family, he is struggling with physical touch and night terrors, his mother tells us.

Almost all men are not permitted to leave the country because of the war effort.

It fell on these women, many who had rarely left their hometowns before, to go on a dangerous journey to get them back.

That journey was long, fraught, and secret.

But as their best pulled into Kyiv, they were met by a throng of international press.

While they were traveling into Russian-controlled territory, the International Criminal Court announced that Russia's deportation of their children was a war crime, and issued an arrest warrant for President Vladimir Putin and children's rights commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova.

She herself took custody of a Ukrainian teenager from Mariupol last year.

Journalists Amanda Bailly and Anton Shtuka chronicled the women's journey, and returned to visit them and the children after the initial media frenzy died down.

Svetlana, now back in Kherson after retrieving her granddaughter, remembers a harrowing journey, where she had to be careful what she told Russian border officials about her visits true meaning.

SVETLANA, Ukrainian Grandmother (through translator): They started questioning me about where I was going and why.

They took phone numbers and said: "Look, if we call these phone numbers, if this information is not true, you are going to suffer very, very badly."

I said: "I am not lying to you.

I am telling you the truth."

So they let me go.

I was frightened, almost crying.

JANE FERGUSON: Svetlana's granddaughter, Nastya, is finally home in Kherson in Southern Ukraine, liberated from Russian control last fall.

Nastya was taken to summer campgrounds inside Russian-controlled territory.

The camps, seen here in promotional videos, were used before the war as holiday spots for children.

After the full-scale invasion in 2022, Russian authorities started transferring Ukrainian children there from territories they had seized, telling parents they were being taken to protect them from the fighting.

Some, like Nastya's grandmother, initially gave permission for them to go for two weeks.

But they were never returned.

Those working there were, according to the children interviewed here, pro-Russian Ukrainians and encouraged Russian propaganda amongst them.

Svetlana says Nastya was not physically harmed, but her experiences at the Russian camp frightened her.

Nastya's wider family now find her changed, distant.

SVETLANA (through translator): She doesn't trust people.

Even the other kids noticed.

"Why don't you talk to us," they ask?

"No, you give all your attention to your animals, to your dog."

She spends a lot of time with dogs.

She just wants to be alone day after day.

JANE FERGUSON: Nastya remembered only being texted by a schoolteacher who was collaborating with the Russians, persuading the children to move to Crimea.

NASTYA, Ukrainian Student (through translator): I received a Telegram a message on my phone from a cool chat, like, let this opportunity in Crimea.

My homeroom teacher sent the text message.

JANE FERGUSON: Once they had crossed over, the teacher left them there and fled to Russia, she said.

It would be six months before her grandmother rescued her from the camp.

Nastya may be home, but that home is still in Ukraine, along the front, and dangerous.

Shelling gets close, and the interview must be moved inside.

Her grandmother's journey to bring Nastya home came just in time.

The camp management were planning to move the children out before the busy summer season of paying guests.

The children were under increasing danger of being moved into Russia, made Russian citizens, and put up for adoption.

NASTYA (through translator): The camp management told us we would be taken under custody on April 7 if we were not taken away by our families.

They would give us citizenship and a passport, just like this, or just send us to different camps.

They could take us to Moscow, to St. Petersburg.

JANE FERGUSON: Like Svetlana, Nathalya was interrogated by Russian border officials as she went to retrieve her fifteen year old son, Artem.

Lawyers for the local charity Save Ukraine had prepped her.

NATHALYA (through translator): I had to tell the truth, that I was going to visit my child.

I gave the address of the school in Perevalsk and Artem's phone number.

They asked how he got there.

I told him they were evacuated because there was shelling there.

I did the best that I could.

JANE FERGUSON: Artem remembers the day collaborators at his school handed him over to Russians.

ARTEM, Ukrainian Student (through translator): We didn't want to go, but we found out we were being evacuated.

Everyone started to panic.

Then the soldiers came, put us in the military truck, and took us away.

The little ones cried.

They were scared.

But it was too late.

JANE FERGUSON: It was a month before a teacher gave him a phone to call his mother, he said.

At the boarding school he was taken to in the occupied region of Luhansk, he described being indoctrinated with Russian propaganda.

ARTEM (through translator): They explained to us that Russia is good and Ukraine is bad.

They said that Russia restores everything, but Ukraine only destroys everything.

JANE FERGUSON: Some of the teenagers had much darker experiences.

Nina, who is 16 years old, was forced to do military training.

Pictured here in a black ski mask, she said she was trained to use a gun.

NINA, Ukrainian Student (through translator): We had competitions mostly on Sunday and Saturday.

There were three teams, and your teams competed to dismantle machine guns, look for mines and lob grenades.

JANE FERGUSON: For Nina's mother, Alina, her reunion, after she too traveled into Russian-controlled areas to get her back, was all the more emotional.

ALINA, Ukrainian Mother (through translator): Little by little, she told me everything, even showed photos of where they were with guns, swarming up ropes and shooting.

They had a physical exam, blood tests.

I have all the documents.

I think they were being prepared for something, since she had the complete health screening, ultrasounds.

All her organs were screened.

JANE FERGUSON: Nina struggled more than most when she got home.

Her mother moved away from their front-line home with her,got her a comfort dog, and continues to try to help her heal.

In the front-line city of Kherson, teenager Masha remembers the day she was deported to Russian-controlled Crimea.

MASHA, Ukrainian Soldier (through translator): There were a lot of buses.

Maybe 15 buses.

And it was three days, maybe even four.

The buses were taken to different places.

I went to the same camp as my friends, to Mechta.

JANE FERGUSON: For the kids, being at camp was, at first, a great novelty, said Masha, a fun time away from home.

They were fed, entertained and occasionally had school classes.

MASHA (through translator): After a month, we were thinking, why are we still here?

Some kids wanted to go home.

We started asking questions like, why aren't we going home?

Someone said: "It's not safe to go there yet.

It wasn't clear."

They said: "You don't understand.

It's not safe there, and your parents can come to pick you up any time."

Then, we were told that Kherson would become part of Russia again, and then they would take us home.

JANE FERGUSON: Those like Masha's mother had initially agreed to have their children go to holiday camps in Russian-controlled Crimea.

Living under Russian occupation, they were told the children would be sheltered from the fighting and would be returned in two weeks.

In the end, the children did not return.

JANNA, Ukrainian Mother (through translator): Of course, if I had known, I would never have let her go at all.

She is just a young teenager, and I am responsible for her.

Of course, I blame myself, not the child, not my husband or anyone else.

MAN: We made the decision together.

JANNA (through translator): Yes, but I sent her there.

MAN: I knew that Kherson would be left like this, that the probability of street fighting was very high.

And we could see, it was clear that they were preparing for this, putting fortifications and sandbags everywhere.

Street fighting is, of course, scary.

Everyone saw what Mariupol was like, how people died there.

And of course, this is why we made the decision.

If we only knew.

JANNA (through translator): Well, when it reached nearly six months, I had already torn my hair out.

I hadn't slept.

I had sleepless nights, was on pills.

JANE FERGUSON: Masha said she was moved to another camp.

There, volunteers came to retrieve some of the younger kids, but Masha and others were told to stay inside.

MASHA (through translator): After a month, we were thinking, why are we still here?

Some kids wanted to go home.

We started asking questions like, why aren't we going home?

Someone said: "It's not safe to go there yet.

It wasn't clear."

They said: "You don't understand.

It's not safe there, and your parents can come to pick you up any time."

Then, we were told that Kherson would become part of Russia again, and then they would take us home.

JANE FERGUSON: After some time, she says, the camp staff began hinting at Russian adoption projects.

MASHA (through translator): They said that: "Well, there is a law in Russia that children can't live without parents for six months.

So if you are not picked up before this date, they will simply take custody of you."

JANE FERGUSON: While legal wranglings play out far away from the front lines of the war, these families return to surviving the war that rages around them.

Svetlana may have Nastya back, but the constant shelling outside reminds her that life with her remains dangerous.

SVETLANA (through translator): Every day is like this, all day from morning until late, or even all night.

So, we're used to it.

I won't leave and don't want to.

It is all in Gods hands.

If we should die, then we will die in our homes.

And if fate continues to have us live, survive and raise children, we will continue to live like this.

JANE FERGUSON: A long-awaited spring counteroffensive by Ukrainian forces has begun.

Areas like Kherson and Kupiansk, home to many of these families, could become even more deadly.

NATHALYA (through translator): Our biggest wish is to wake up one day and find out that we won.

We want it to be quiet here again.

We want families not being separated.

JANE FERGUSON: With each Russian shell that lands by their homes, these Ukrainian families, now finally reunited, are reminded that their lives together, while precious, remain fragile in the face of this war.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Jane Ferguson.

AMNA NAWAZ: To discuss this week's news, both here and abroad, we turn now to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.

That is New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

Good to see you both.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Hey, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: Let's begin with the news of the day, the Biden administration's decision to send these cluster munitions to Ukraine as it defends itself from Russia, just as President Biden prepares to head to the NATO summit next week.

Jonathan, we heard earlier some of the debates about why people think it's a good idea, but also the huge risk it poses to civilian populations.

Is this the Biden administration sacrificing the moral high ground for a battlefield advantage right now?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: This is war.

And President Zelenskyy, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, is fighting or forced to fight a Russian president who's been ruthless, bombing civilian targets from almost minute one, with Zelenskyy pleading with the United States and the West, please send tanks, please send planes, please send us the most advanced military equipment you can give us, because we need it.

And so it -- sending cluster munitions is - - I think probably crosses a line for a lot of people.

But when you are the Western alliance, and the big mantra is, this is authoritarianism versus democracy, and democracy must win, well, democracy has to have all the tools possible to make it possible.

AMNA NAWAZ: David, the U.S. itself stopped using these back in 2003, right?

What does it say to you about how they see the war right now?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think it says a couple of things.

One, apparently, there were -- there are no other munitions to send.

And so, if that -- you have horrible choices in war, and I understand why they made the decision.

I think it says a few other things, though.

One, why do they have no other munitions to send?

What was wrong with their supply chains that they -- we don't have normal artillery shells to send?

Second, it says that the Ukraine advance is not going so great, in part because of the lack of munitions, but in part because the areas are all mined up.

And the final thing one should ask -- and I'm sure -- they're smart people over there, I'm sure they're asking this -- you look back at the history of war, people make terrible decisions thinking something that's really devastating will devastate the enemy.

And I'm thinking particularly of urban bombing in World War II of Dresden and places like that.

It had no value at all.

And so they have been fighting a war that's largely an artillery war.

Why should we think -- I'm not a military expert.

Why should we think artillery warfare is actually going to yield any advance for either side?

And so I hope they're asking these fundamental questions behind the tough decision they had to make.

AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, in terms of who opposes it, we have already seen even some opposition from within the president's own Democratic Party, right?

California Republican -- California Representative, rather, Sara Jacobs put out a statement opposing the U.S. sending these cluster munitions, saying: "Our international coalition is strong because we're united together and because we're living up to our values.

Sending cluster munitions defies these two tenets."

Could this signal a wider rift to come?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, I mean, with all due respect to the congresswoman, she's one voice.

She might be -- there might be other members of Congress who are behind her.

And we will see as the weeks go on if more Democrats start coming out and opposing the administration, whether it is with regard to munitions or to funding.

But then my question to everyone is, well, then should the United States send the fighter jets that Zelenskyy wants?

And should the United States accept President Zelenskyy's assurances that he won't use them inside Russian territory?

I mean, these are the tough questions that David's talking about.

AMNA NAWAZ: What about at next week's NATO summit?

How do you think this issue goes down there?

We know Germany has already publicly opposed the U.S. sending these munitions.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I would anticipate they will publicly oppose it and then understand privately.

I imagine there may be some heartfelt opposition.

But if Zelenskyy thinks he needs them, and if there's no other way to mount the campaign, then the U.S. is in the unfortunate position of being the responsible superpower, and so we have to make the tough calls.

I do think it's going to be an important summit, in part because of the way NATO will be realigned, hopefully eventually getting Sweden in, but in part because of how Ukraine is treated.

Obviously, we can't make Ukraine a part of NATO anytime soon.

But we can and I think the hope is to offer them the sort of security guarantees that we offer something like Israel.

And so that is the gradual reshaping of the post-Ukraine war Europe, and I think the president's being pretty aggressive in probably the right way.

AMNA NAWAZ: I want to ask you back, on the 2024 campaign trail, we saw some numbers this week from campaigns, quarterly fund-raising numbers.

These are not verified by the FEC yet.

These are from the campaigns.

We should point that out.

But, Jonathan, the DeSantis campaign announced it raised $20 million since he announced his campaign six weeks ago.

There's a super PAC backing him that helped raise $130 million.

Is this money going to help him close the gap between himself and the current front-runner, former President Trump?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, that's what he hopes.

And $130 million, you can do a lot with $130 million.

Donald Trump raised $35 million, double what he made in Q1.

And all of these huge numbers tell me and should tell Democrats that half the country wants one of these -- wants their guy to win or wants their candidate to win.

It's astounding that twice-impeached, twice-criminally indicted, and maybe more to come, former president is raising money hand over fist.

But with Governor DeSantis, money can only buy you so much.

And if he doesn't change the way he campaigns and is able to at least break through and have people think he's warm or human or really wants to do this, I don't see him going anywhere.

AMNA NAWAZ: David, I want to ask you about something we heard from former Vice President Mike Pence, because this is something we're seeing with a lot of the other candidates, which is having to answer for things that happened in the past.

He spent a lot of time in Iowa.

He was confronted recently by one resident who asked him why he didn't refuse to certify the 2020 election results back on January 6 in 2021.

Here's that moment.

WOMAN: Do you ever second-guess yourself?

That was a constitutional right that you had to send those votes back to the states.

It was not like you were going to personally elect him.

MIKE PENCE (R), Presidential Candidate: I'm sorry, ma'am, but that's actually what the Constitution says.

No vice president in American history ever asserted the authority that you have been convinced that I had.

But I want to tell you, with all due respect, I said before, I said when I announced President Trump was wrong about my authority that day, and he's still wrong.

AMNA NAWAZ: David, he needs the votes of the people who don't believe the last election was legitimate.

What do you make of his answer?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, he gave the right answer.

It was a true answer.

The problem they all face is that Donald Trump is not just a candidate.

He's a social club.

And my Times colleague David French made this point this week that, when you're in the Trump rally or you're in a Trump caravan or a boat, one of those boat crusades, it's fun.

They're having fun.

They're joyous.

They're around people who agree with them.

They have a beer.

And it's a sense of belonging.

And I think we have undercovered that element.

And so, for a lot of people, signing up to Donald Trump is not just this policy or that policy.

It's not an attachment to a normal political candidate.

It's a movement that provides them with a sense of belonging.

And so, despite all that happens, Donald Trump now among Republican voters has 78 percent approval.

And so that's just very high, and it's very hard to shake people off that.

And so all the candidates, Mike Pence, Ron DeSantis, who are a little Trumpy and a little anti-Trumpy, it's just not going to shake people out of their social club.

And they have to think of something else.

AMNA NAWAZ: I need to ask you both about another big ruling we saw from a federal judge this week that essentially bans the Biden administration from communicating with social media companies about misinformation or disinformation online.

We know the Biden administration is seeking an emergency order to halt that ban.

Jonathan, this comes the same week we saw a man armed to the teeth show up at the Obama residence because he saw the address posted online.

Where are we right now in this conversation between what happens in the online world and real-world violence?

(LAUGHTER) JONATHAN CAPEHART: I -- this decision boggles the mind.

You have an administration that is in the middle of a pandemic.

The Biden administration comes in, in the middle of a pandemic with disinformation, misinformation.

They're trying -- literally trying to save people's lives and see that all that misinformation and disinformation is happening on social media platforms.

A responsible, functioning government would go to those social media companies and say, hey, could we have a conversation about this?

We understand your First Amendment rights, but we're trying to save people's lives.

I don't understand how the arguments from the fever swamps have made their way into judicial decisions and are now preventing the administration from combating things that are doing real harm to the American people.

And now -- I'm glad you made the link to Mr. Taranto, the guy who was arrested outside of the Obamas' homes -- home with ammunition and guns and a machete.

And who's to say, had he not been caught, that he wouldn't have acted on that information?

AMNA NAWAZ: This is the question.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: That is the question.

And we're in a time now, Amna, where we shouldn't have to ask these questions, because I think we know what the answer would be.

AMNA NAWAZ: David, what do you think?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I do think we need -- obviously, they need to pull stuff down.

There are 40,000 people at Google and Meta pulling stuff down.

They have pulled over a billion things down.

I don't really trust big tech to be in charge of this, and I don't, frankly, trust government in cahoots with big tech in private to be in charge of this.

There is a law in the Senate or a bill in the Senate that would make the process more transparent, so outside sources can see if they're being honest and fair in what they pull down.

And that seems to be the best way forward.

But it is a problem for democracy to have elites in Washington and elites in Silicon Valley making decisions about what's out there.

And so that's just something we just have to wrestle with.

AMNA NAWAZ: David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, thank you.

Good to see you both.

Please have a great weekend.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thanks, Amna.

DAVID BROOKS: You too.

AMNA NAWAZ: What is poetry?

And what does it offer us?

The recent winner of the Pulitzer Prize Carl Phillips, known for the beauty of his language and the depth of exploration, has some answers.

Jeffrey Brown went to St. Louis to talk to Phillips for our arts and culture series, Canvas.

CARL PHILLIPS, Pulitzer Prize Winner: "'Who am I?'

the hero says to himself, looking past his reflection on the lake's surface down to where the darker greens give way at last to darkness."

JEFFREY BROWN: From the poem "This Far In" in Carl Phillips collection "Then the War," winner of this year's Pulitzer Prize for poetry.

CARL PHILLIPS: "'Speak to me, speak into me,' the wind said, when I woke this morning.

Let's see what happens."

I used to worry that I -- some poets writes about a whole bunch of topics, and I feel as if I only have a handful.

But those -- that handful includes stuff like love, sex, death, and I don't know how you really fully plumb those subjects.

JEFFREY BROWN: Pretty big things.

CARL PHILLIPS: Yes.

JEFFREY BROWN: Yes.

CARL PHILLIPS: So, when in doubt, I will comfort myself by thinking of Emily Dickinson, who really writes mainly about two or things.

And -- but there's a lot to be said about the things she writes about, death.

Is there a God?

If so, what's our relationship to this person or thing?

I think she did an OK job.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now 63, Phillips is a longtime professor at Washington University in St. Louis, where he lives with his partner, Reston Allen, and their dog Emily (ph).

He's author of 16 books of poetry and essays, including the 2022 collection, "My Trade Is Mystery: Seven Meditations from a Life in Writing."

CARL PHILLIPS: I do think of poetry as somehow engaging with mystery.

I think it's a mystery to be a human being and to figure out what to make of being in a body for whatever number of years that we get.

And poetry, to me, is an expression of that mystery.

JEFFREY BROWN: It began, he says, as a way of coming to terms with his own body and desires, being a gay man, along with his biracial identity as the child of a Black American who served in the Air Force and white English homemaker.

Did you grow up in a way in which being gay would be unthinkable?

CARL PHILLIPS: Oh sure.

First of all, I grew up in a military family.

My father was in the Air Force, grew up on Air Force bases.

And it wasn't even about anyone saying, this is what you're not supposed to be.

It wasn't even talked about.

So it wasn't an option, and I think between that and being biracial, which was another way of not feeling as if you fit in either side in some ways.

JEFFREY BROWN: You're not this, you're not that.

CARL PHILLIPS: Yes.

JEFFREY BROWN: You felt that?

CARL PHILLIPS: Right.

I would say more that I didn't feel it until other kids in school would say, you aren't this or you aren't that.

And then I would think, oh, OK, I thought I was just myself.

JEFFREY BROWN: One way into poetry was through ancient literature.

He studied Latin and taught it in high school for several years.

Adding Greek, he's translated a Sophocles tragedy.

CARL PHILLIPS: For me, poetry is necessary, and not just the writing of it, the writing of my own poems, but the poems I encounter by other people, and living and very anciently dead.

There's something restorative in reading something like "The Iliad" and knowing that war has always happened, or understanding that in war what loyalty means, what love means, and that's something very long ago, but still has contemporary resonance.

I'm using two quarts of chicken stock, because that's what I have got.

JEFFREY BROWN: It's not all tragedy for Phillips, who loves to cook and sing.

He produced a series of pandemic era videos to share with a world in need of uplift.

But writing longhand is how he reaches people best, pulling together scraps of ideas and phrases into his poems.

You have called poetry patterned language.

What does that mean?

CARL PHILLIPS: A poem is made of patterns and the meaningful interruption of those patterns.

There is sound.

There's diction.

A certain word might keep recurring.

A certain image could come throughout the poem at different moments.

And the artistry of writing a poem is getting those patterns to work in such a way that you condition the reader's expectations and you meaningfully disrupt those expectations at different points.

There's actual motion.

And that's a poem that lifts off the page.

JEFFREY BROWN: At a time when much poetry takes on big issues directly, Phillips has a more personal and intimate voice.

but, he says, the larger world, politics included, is very much there.

CARL PHILLIPS: People used to say, where is your 9/11 poem?

And my feeling is that every poem after 9/11 is a 9/11 poem.

So much is political anyway.

Apparently, it's political for me to even exist in the world as a queer man of color.

But I don't see how any poem isn't political in some way, because it's an individual stance, and, also, it's a resistance to silence.

You have decided to speak.

JEFFREY BROWN: A resistance to silence.

CARL PHILLIPS: Yes.

One could have chosen not to say anything.

And even writing a poem about, say, oh, I don't know, a leaf falling from a tree, and someone could say, how can you do that when all these things are happening in the world?

But, even as they're happening, leaves are also falling from trees.

And I think of poetry as a kind of collective record of what it has been like to be alive in a particular moment of time.

"You, the dark that nothing, not even the light, displaces.

You, who have been the single leaf that won't stop tossing among the others.

For you."

JEFFREY BROWN: For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Jeffrey Brown in St. Louis.

AMNA NAWAZ: And be sure to tune into "Washington Week" later tonight right here on PBS.

My colleague Laura Barron-Lopez is hosting.

And she's here now with a preview -- Laura.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Thanks, Amna.

On "Washington Week" tonight, I will be speaking with some of the country's top journalists about President Biden's controversial decision to supply Ukraine with cluster munitions ahead of a critical NATO meeting.

Plus, the Trump-DeSantis feud heats up again.

We will have the latest from the 2024 campaign trail.

That's tonight on "Washington Week."

AMNA NAWAZ: Thanks, Laura.

And watch "PBS News Weekend" tomorrow for a look at how Black and brown communities are bearing the brunt of automated speed cameras in cities like Chicago.

ANTHONY BEALE, Chicago Alderman: The program was rolled out under the auspices that it was all about public safety.

PAUL SOLMAN: City Council member Anthony Beale represents the city's largely Black Ninth Ward.

ANTHONY BEALE: We have learned that it's not about public safety, that the entire system is about generating revenue.

PAUL SOLMAN: You're an alderman.

The city doesn't need money, right?

ANTHONY BEALE: The city does need money.

But if we're going to generate revenue, it needs to be off the backs of the entire city of Chicago and not targeted towards the Black and brown communities, where the people are hurting the most.

I have had residents go to the grocery store.

They got a ticket going to the grocery store and they got a ticket going home from the grocery store.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is tomorrow on "PBS News Weekend."

In the meantime, that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

On behalf of the entire "NewsHour" team, thanks for joining us.

Have a great weekend.