assurances that we will act in their defense against any threats. that's what nato is all about. and that's the been the cornerstone of peace in the transatlantic region now for several generations, so we will uphold that, and there will be a series of nato consultations in which we further develop and deepen those plans, but i have not seen any nato members who have not expressed a firm determination with respect to nato members. now those border countries that are outside of nato, you know, what we can do is what we're doing with ukraine which is trying to make sure there is sufficient international pressure and a spot line shined on the situation in some of these countries, and that we are doing everything we can to bolster their economies, make sure that -- through various

diplomatic initiatives that they feel supported, but when it comes to a potential military response, you know, that is defined by nato membership. that's what nato is about. >> john karl from abc news. >> reporter: mr. president, thank you. in china, in syria, in egypt, and now in russia, we have seen you make strong statements, issue warnings that have been ignored. are you concerned that america's influence in the world, your influence in the world is on a decline? and do you think mitt romney had a point when he said that russia is america's biggest geopolitical foe? if not russia, who? and mr. prime minister do you think these sanctions will change vladimir putin's calculation, will cause him to back down?

and where do you see a russian red line, where if they go any further where options beyond sanctions have to be considered? thank you. >> well, jonathan, i think if the premise of the question is that whenever the united states objects to an action and other countries don't immediately do exactly what we want, that that's been the norm, that would pretty much erase most of 20th century history. i think that there's a distinction between us being very clear about what we think is an appropriate action, what we stand for, what principles we believe in, versus what is, i guess implied in the question, that we should engage in some sort of military action to prevent something.

the world has always been messy, and what the united states has consistently been able to do, and we continue to be able to do is to mobilize the international community around a set of principles and norms, and where our own self-defense may not be involved, we may not act that we don't steadily push an against those forces that would violate those principles and ideals that we care about. so, yes, you are right. syria -- the syrian civil war is not solved, and yet syria has never been more isolated. with respect to the situation in ukraine, we have not gone to war with russia. i think there's a significant precedent to that in the past. that d does not mean that russi

is not isolated. russia is far more isolated in this incidence than it was five years ago with respect to georgia, and when it was part of the soviet union. the point is that there are always going to be bad things that happen around the world, and the united states is the most powerful nation in the world, understandably is looked to for solutions to those problems, and what we have to make sure we're doing are that we are putting all elements of our power behind working with our international partners, standing up for those principals in a clear way, there will be moments when military action is appropriate. there will be some times when that is not in the national security interests of the united states or some of our partners, but that doesn't mean that we're not going to continue

to try to make the effort or speak clearly about what we think is right and wrong. with respect to romney's assertion that russia is our number one gee you political faux the truth of the matter is america has a whole lot of challenges. russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength, but out of weakness. ukraine has been a country in which russia had enormous influence for decades. since the breakup of the soviet union, and we have considerable influence on our neighbors. we generally don't need to invade them in order to have a strong cooperative relationship with them. the fact that russia felt the need to go in military and lay

bare these violations of international law indicates less influence, not more. so my response then continues to be what i believe today, which is russia's actions are a problem. they don't pose the number one national security threat to the united states. i continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in manhattan, which is part of the reason why the united states showing its continued international leadership, has organized a forum over the last several years that has been able to help eliminate that threat in a consistent way. >> there is no geopolitical conflict which can be solved without the united states, and

therefore, i applaud the fact that president obama's administration has acted in every arena, ukraine, iran, syria, the middle east peace process and so many other parts of the world. in december i was in the region and spoke with syrian leaders both in israel and the palestinian territories, and they are extremely grateful to america. this is a difficult issue, can't be solve overnight, but progress is being made. take iran, i spoke with the president in january, i was able first dutch leader in over 30, 40 years, which spoke with an iranian leader. was possible because of the international court, and america provided leadership there, and i really applaud president obama's

role in all of these major issues. and it is necessary because united states is leader of the free world. and needs to provide leadership, and it is doing that. on your question about president putin, it's very difficult to judge what is happening in the senior leadership in moscow at this moment. but as i said earlier, the russian economy, which is so much oil and gas dependent, which has not invested in infrastructure or other areas of their economy, and if there is a risk in the financial sector or in weapons or trade, or energy, there could be potential sanctions that could hurt them. and we have to design them that that will particularly hit russia. but we hope we will not need them. and on the red line, i cannot envision this con fliktd ending up in a military conflict.

i don't think that's likely. and i totally agree with president obama's answer on article 5 when the conflict will be taken to the borders of one of the nato countries, but luckily at this moment that is not the case. >> question for [ inaudible ]. >> reporter: you met a lot of leaders here. many were angry about the nsa story. have you fixed the relationships with these leaders? and the second question is many are shocked by the extent of which the nsa collects private data. today we read in the "new york times" that you plan to end the systematic collection of data of americans, but can you address the concerns of the dutch and the rest of the world about their privacy? >> well, first of all, we have had a consistent unbreakable

bond between the leaders of europe over the last several decades, and it's across many dimensions, economic, military, counter terrorism, cultural, and so any one issue can be an irritant in the relationship between the countries, but it doesn't define that relationship, and that continues to be the case and has been the case throughout the last couple of years. as i said in a speech that i gave earlier this year, the united states is very proud of its record of working with countries around the world to prevent terrorism or nuclear proliferation or human trafficking, or a whole host of issues that i think all of us would be concerned about. intelligence plays a critical role in that process. what we have seen is that as technology has evolved, the

guidelines and structures that constrain how our intelligence agencies operated, have not kept pace with these advances in technology. and although, you know, having examined over the last year, year and a half, what has been done, i'm confident that everybody in our intelligence agencies operates in the best of intentions and is not snooping into the privacy of ordinary dutch, german, french, or american citizens. what is true is, is that there is a danger because of these new technologies that at some point it could be abused. and that's why i initiated a brood-based review of what we could do. there are a couple of things we could do that are unprecedented. i announced for the first time under my direction, that we are

going to treat the privacy concerns of non-u.s. persons as seriously as we are the constraints that already exist by law on u.s. persons. we're doing that not because we're bound by international law, but because ultimately it's the right thing to do. with respect to some of the aspects of data collection, what i have been very clear about is that there has to be a narrow purpose to it. it's based on a specific concern around terrorism or counter proliferation or human trafficking, or something that i think all of us would say has to be pursued. and so what i have tried to do then is to make sure that my intelligence teams are consulting very closely at each

stage with their counterparts in other nations, so that there's greater transparency of what exactly we're doing, what we're not doing, some of the reporting here in europe as well as the united states, frankly, has been pretty sensationalized. i think the fears about our privacy in the age of the internet and big data are justified. i think the actual facts people would have an assurance if that -- if you are just the ordinary citizen in any of these countries, that your privacy in fact is not being envieded upon. but i recognize that because of these revelations that there is a process that is taking place where we have to win back the trust, not just of governments, but more importantly of ordinary citizens, and that is not going

to happen overnight, because i think there's a tendency to be spectacle of government a and -- skeptical of government and skeptical in particular of intelligence services. so the steps we took that was announced today, i think is an example of us slowly systematically putting in more checks, balances, legal procease se -- processes. and the core values that america has always believed in, in terms of privacy, rule of law, individual rights that that has guided, you know, the united states for -- for many years and will continue to guide us into the future. thank you very much, everybody. thank you again. >> okay.

ladies and gentlemen, that was the last question. thank you very much for coming. you have been listening to the president of the united states addressing reporters at the hague in the netherlands talking about three topics at length. ukraine, he talked about the mud slide in oso, washington, 14 dead now, more than 170 cases where penal are said to be missing. we always talked about the nsa, concerning ukraine saying that we are not recognizing, officially recognizing what happened in crimea, also saying that he does not believe that it is a done deal, and it is now up to russia he says to act responsibly, and concerning any indication that russia might go further, he said that article 5 provides protection for nato nations. he said the world has always

been a messy place. we'll go live now to randall pinkston in washington. your thoughts on the president's comments today? >> i think the headlines in the lust be his response to the question about whether or not mitt romney was correct when romney said that russia was america's most important, most serious geopolitical foe. the president in his answer at the hague today stuck by his guns, saying that he did not agree with that assessment, that america had many challenges around the world. he described russia and president putin in particular as being a regional power, which is acting from a position of weakness, not strength with respect to its neighbors, specifically ukraine in this particular instance. he also made it a point of saying, again, that there is no contemplation of american military boots on the ground in the region, but that the u.s.

and its allies will continue to work on economic sanctions as a means of trying to get putin not to continue with his aggressive behavior with -- with his neighbors. there was the question about whether there was the possibility of putin moving into moldova, for example, or the baltic states, as well as ukraine. and finally, the president said that his primary concern with respect to geopolitical threats to the u.s. is the possibility of a nuclear bomb going off in manhattan, which is why he convened the summit of nuclear non-proliferation some four years ago, why he has attended today's session, and touting the success that they have had in giving -- nationing agreeing to give up their nuclear proliferations. >> randall pinkston stand by. the president also going on to

say that what vladimir putin did in crimea, was not a sign of strength, but a sign of weakness, and he was more concerned about the issue about a bomb going off in manhattan. we want to play just a little bit of what the president said earlier. this is what he had to say concerning the threat of nuclear proliferation. >> one of the achievements of our first summit was ukraine's decision to remove all of its highly enriched uranium from its fuel sites. had that time happened those dangerous nuclear materials would still be there now, and the difficult situation we're dealing with in ukraine would involve yet another level of concern. >> and he went on to say that he believes that what russia is doing in crimea is a violation of international law that he believes can be solved or band

aided, or remedied if you choose by diplomatic sanctions. let's listen. >> there's no expect that they will be dislodged by force, and so what we can bring to bear are the legal arguments, the diplomatic arguments, the political pressure, the economic sanctions that are already in place to try to make sure that there is a cost to that process, but i think it would be dishonest to suggest that there is a simple solution to resolving what has already taken place in crimea. >> as he has been out there this crisis, phil ittner is in kiev. and joining us by phone. phil, your reaction to the president's comments at the hague. >> well, there is an awful lot that he talked about. what jumped out firstly is

did -- that crimea is not a done deal; that they -- that the united states would like to see russian forces off of the crimean peninsula and reforcing what they see as ukraine's territorial integrity. and sanctions on sectors as opposed to individually. the president talked about hitting the financial industry, the trade industry, and arms industry. that is something that the europeans have been reluctant to do. but never the less the president saying if the russians take any more aggressive steps that the united states at least is willing to look at more pervasive sanctions programs. so a lot to digest but certainly

those jump out. >> and phil an awful lot of people indicating that they do believe the united states these days is acting from a position of weakness, the president responding saying the world has always been a messy place, indicating that perhaps the new war of the 21st century is sanctions. what are you hearing about people thinking the sanctions that will be imposed are tough enough? >> i think ukrainians would like to see stronger sanctions, certainly. whatever can be done to punish russia for its actions should be done by the west, as far as what they can -- you know, they can rerealistically expect, i think many ukrainians know there is almost no chance that the west will get involved directly militarily. but we have heard them speaking and requesting from the west

more assistance in terms of their military infrastructure. the ukrainians want to rebuild their military, and they are looking to the west to do that, but they want to see stronger action from the west. del. >> phil ittner thank you very much. randall pinkston standing by in washington. the president just addressing reporters at the hague, speaking on a number of topics, the nsa, the situation in ukraine, and also talking about the mud slide in washington. we're going to take a break.

borderland only on al jazeera america >> i don't really know as much as i thiugh i did. and this possibility is that it could be something welcome back. i'm del walters in new york. the president of the united states just moments ago addressing reporters at the hague in -- the netherlands. i want to show you the numbers on wall street. as the president began to speak,

there were triple digit gains. right now those numbers have fallen. meanwhile russia racing to bring crimea under the kremlin umbrella. nike spicer has more. ♪ >> reporter: they are rocking in russian. nothing new here in the russian speaking majority here. but they are now ruling russian style too. people here are registering to get russian pass ports. the happiness and high expectations are hard to miss. but concerns do linger. >> translator: they say the pensions will double. but that's only true if the prices stay the same. i don't know what we'll do if both the pensions and prices go up, but i think it should all work out. >> reporter: to administration

crimea along russian lines the kremlin is seconding in top ministers from the different ministries. and in a highly symbolic move, clocks on march 30th, will advance by two hours to moscow time. this young couple as just found out they are going to be parents. the birth of a new crimean is another source of joy. the future mother says of course the russian government will pay, and it will be even more than before. her husband says russia supports young families, and he has no doubt everything will be fine. a big change will be the shift to the ruble, officially starting in 2016. but what exchange rate will be used for people's savings, pensions, and salaries? possible source of discord in

the future, but for now the russian speakers appear happy with the promises that moscow is making. ♪ top of the morning to you all, a major snow storm is on the way. right now we have snow coming down around washington, d.c. we have a frontal boundary bringing a couple of showers to key west, but our focus is across the mid-atlantic where the snow is coming down heavily. this is going to rapidly intensify as it continues to push across the ocean into new england where you can see the pressure is going to be very, very low. we're looking at these lines of equal pressure, which means it is going to be very, very windy winds. the equivalent of a category 3

hurricane. we're talking about up to a foot and a half of snow, and also up to 18 inches of snow across portions of boston. >> thank you for watching. i'm del walters in new york. >> my administartion has a very strong human rights element. >> his perspective on the conflicts facing the world in the state of america. on al jazeera america

welcome to al jazeera america. i'm del walters. these are the stories we are following for you. president obama using the nuclear security summit to reiterate russia's invasion in crimea is a problem for the international community. compassion that i shared and their priority of putting our family first will help us get through this together. >> passengers on board of flight 370 dealing with the loss of their loved ones. and the death toll in that washington state mud slide continues to go up.