from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> this evening we will continue our coverage of the crisis in ukraine.

shots were fired earlier today by russian soldiers. vladimir putin gave his first press conference since the conflict began. he saw no reason for russian forces to intervene at the moment. he did not close the door on military action. >> [speaking russian] >> president obama promised consequences for russia's actions. >> from the perspective of the european union and the united states, allies like canada and japan, allies around the world, there is a strong belief that

russia's actions are violating international law. i know president putin seems to have a different set of lawyers and different interpretations, but i do not think that is fooling anybody. everyone recognizes that although russia has an interest in what happens in neighboring states, that the activity right to use force as a means of exerting influence. >> john is in kiev. russia is working hard to create a pretext of being able to invade further. joining me now from phoenix, arizona is robert gates. he was the secretary of defense from 2006-2011. earlier in his career, he was known as a russian expert. thank you mr. secretary. >> sure, charlie. >> when will you lose that race? >> with any luck, in about three

weeks. >> is the president handling this right? >> i think he is. trying to get the allies on the same page and be willing to collectively threaten and then potentially implement severe sanctions against russia for what they have done in the ukraine is exactly what he should be doing. i think that it is important at this stage to be careful with the rhetoric. if you do not say things to look tough, in retrospect, you look hollow. i think the challenge that the president faces is our allies may not be as willing to go along with the sanctions as they

should be. we're hearing from the u.k., germany, elsewhere a reluctance to impose banking sanctions or trade sanctions and so on. i think the administration and the president personally have their work cut out for them in terms of trying to get these guys to actually agree to impose the sanctions and do so in a timely way. >> do you have access to all kinds of analysis of vladimir putin? what is he up to? how far is he prepared to go? >> i am amused by some of the headlines i have seen on tv and elsewhere. he does not understand that it is a new world. he understands exactly what he is doing. he is trying to reestablish russian influence. he is trying to establish a measure of control over the

former states of the soviet union. he does not want to re-create the soviet union. he just wants them in effect to be part on alliance with russia. he wants them to do russia's bidding. he is trying to prevent them from moving to the west. he has been successful in breaking the deal between armenia and the european union. he has been successful in getting the ukraine and yanukovych to break the deal with the eu. they are trying to do this in a way that reflects a long period of history. i don't think he is trying to re-create the soviet union. but he wants russia to be in control.

>> why don't you think he wants to re-create the soviet union? >> poland was never part of the soviet union. ukraine is an economic basket case. so are some of the other states. he wants political influence. he wants these countries to look to russia for guidance on what to do on the international environment. he wants to re-create or create some kind of an economic union. he sternly does not want responsibility for the internal problems. they have economic problems. >> he says that the worst thing was the collapse of the soviet union, but you believe that if he thought he could re-create a

soviet union, he would want to because of all the problems that would go with it. >> he just wanted countries, most of all the ukraine, looking to russia. they want them to be part of an arrangement russia, not the west. he wants to avoid them establishing stronger linkages with the west. he wants them to have much stronger linkages with russia. russia has some measure of control. >> he says that specifically in part, does he not? >> he is a typical autocrat. he has made no secret of what he wants to do. he is doing it. i think he has a clear purpose in mind. he's taking the long view here. he is prepared to play this out. we will see tactical moves. one way or another. i think we need to keep in mind

what his objective is. my view is that he will not back down. he will not bring those troops out of crimea until he is satisfied that there is a government in kiev that looks to russia. >> can we live with that? >> that is a tough question. it is not our desired outcome in this contest for the direction ukraine will go in. we want ukraine to choose its own path. >> at the risk of having you repeat this because we had a technical problem, let's focus on the two objectives. putin on one hand and president obama on the other. what do they hope to accomplish? >> putin has a long game.

he is looking at this in terms of months or years in terms of russia reconstituting its relationship to the former soviet union. i think that is his objective. ukraine is the most important of those states from his standpoint. i think it is a very high priority for him to pull ukraine back into russia's orbit. that is what you will try to do. i do not think he will make any significant concessions. we will see tactical moves back and forth. but i think that you will not see him back away from that fundamental objective which he has been pursuing for some time. our objective is for ukraine to have independence, for it to be a democratic a. for it to choose its own leaders. if he chooses to closely align with the west, it should be able

to do that. those are the objectives that the west has. it is clearly contrary. those that say that has violated international law and that he is playing the old power game, i think the answer to that is yes. he is. that is the way he plays the game. that is the way he has been playing the game. >> you said that president obama should be looking to her three moves out as if this were a chess game. what would that mean? >> i think one thing we need to do fairly promptly is to develop a menu of actions that we can say to reassure other nations on russia's periphery, most specifically those that are nato allies where we have a commitment to defend them that we will in fact fulfill that

commitment. i am speaking particularly of lithuania, latvia, poland. we must look picture rotation and various gestures of support for those dates so that we send a signal to their populations and their government that we will stand by our commitments to them. it is a signal to the russians not to fool around with these countries that are new allies. we can look at some key word in the future where we would show russia that these moves with armenia and ukraine have longer-term consequences for them. beyond the economic sanctions. >> there are those who argue, and david brooks touched on this today in the new york times, that there is a kind of nationalism that putin is

obsessed by. i don't want to use the word messianic, but it is something akin to that. it may replace rational outcomes. he may be prepared to go further than rationality would argue. >> i do not believe that he will go beyond rationality. i think he is a realist. i think is a very rational person. i think there's no doubt that david brooks has it right. there is incredibly strong thread throughout much of russian history of russia having a special mission in the world. russia was the third rome, if you will. that goes back centuries.

we talk about american exceptionalism, and the russians have their own version. vladimir putin is a russian nationalist. he believes that restoring russia's influence and power is at the forefront of his agenda. he intends to do it. >> how important does it mean to have an exit route. these are the kinds of leverage that we have. you have your own leverage, but we want to provide a way that both of us can with their own integrity and dignity intact, walk away from this.

>> whatever tactical compromise he may make in the period ahead, there's no doubt my mind that vladimir putin intends for there to be a government in kiev that looks to russia. i think he will not give up on that goal. i worry that he thinks -- i believe that he thinks that he holds a lot of high cards in this situation. we need him, with respect to syria and iran and the nuclear negotiations, we still have that northern distribution network. it will bring equipment out of afghanistan. he has significant economic leverage over ukraine. he had some influence in western europe. they still get 25% of their energy from russia. he is sitting there thinking

that he probably holds the better hand here. >> do you believe he will do better hand? >> frankly, based on what i am hearing other western europe, and the reluctance of the europeans to embrace tough sanctions, i think right now he does. >> is the europeans are not willing to go forward with sanctions, are we in a bad place? >> i think we are. >> you've also suggested that some of your fellow republicans should tone down their rhetoric. >> this is a serious crisis that the west is facing. i spent most of my life in the government at a time when immediate crises, people came

together and they were supportive of the president. there was the old line that politics stopped at the water's edge. i think people right now, while the president is trying to get the allies on board facing off with vladimir putin, having people call him weak or criticizing him is not helpful. we need to help achieve the objectives that the united states needs to achieve in this situation that we face. >> is some means could be developed to bring the allies on board, germany, the u.k., a combination of sanctions would restrain vladimir putin from taking the actions he is taking in crimea and in the rest of ukraine? >> i do not think so in the immediate future. i think over time, they could have an influence, particularly

if they have the effect of creating really severe problems for the russian economy. the russian economy is clearly more intertwined with the west today than it was in 1968 when they invaded czechoslovakia. over time, they could have that effect. to expect an immediate effect is unrealistic. i think you will hear more of what putin said earlier today in terms of defiance if there was an effort and if we were successful in getting sanctions put together. >> putting on your historical cap, was it a mistake to push the frontiers of nato? >> i think those frontiers were not pushed into georgia. they were not pushed into ukraine. they are not members of nato.

>> we wanted that, didn't we? >> we certainly want that. it was clear by 2008 that the germans and the french were not going to allow it to happen. as i have written in the book, i think that we probably didn't move too far too fast. i believe we should have immediately admitted the balkan states. i think pushing beyond those lines too quickly violated when i think the russians thought were the arrangements that were made at the end of the cold war. >> do you think he thinks that he understands president obama? do you think president obama is committed not to use force?

in the end, will president obama give him more leverage that another president might not? >> i don't think so. i think if you roll the clock backwards, and let's say the president had used force in syria. he had done some things, or the defense budget wasn't being cut, i do not think that would have changed the calculus that putin has under the circumstances. there are no realistic military options for he was in ukraine. there weren't any when putin invaded georgia in august 2008. let's be realistic about that. george bush was the president in august 2008. no one ever accused him of an unwillingness to use force or not being tough enough. that did not deter putin from

invading georgia. i do not think it would have mattered with respect to president obama either. >> someone wanting this conversation might say that bob gates believes in the short term vladimir putin will get what he wants in ukraine. >> i think that remains to be seen. it depends on how tough the people are. it depends of the west comes together to speak with one voice. it depends on what unfolds over the next few days and weeks. particularly in terms with solidarity in the west and the willingness to react strongly to overactive aggression by the russians in ukraine.

if the west don't act strongly and takes a number of the measures we have been talking about, then i think we are in a good place. putin also feel strongly about his objective. that is why i say this is an important crisis. this is a face-off over a huge country in europe. both east and west have a significant stake. i don't think anyone knows how it will turn out. >> but you think putin has more leverage than the present. >> i said that he thinks he has the high cards because of syria and iran. >> you said you do? >> i do in the short term. and based on what i am hearing out of europe, he believes he has high cards. if the west and implementations

quickly, i think maybe his cart not look so good anymore. >> are you convinced that sanctions can work? none other how tough the leadership, they will respond to universal sanctions that are applied well? >> this is one of those areas where i think you have to think 3-4 moves out. what would be required, what actions will be required by russia to lift those sanctions, what must they do to lift those sanctions? do you lift them partially or entirely? people must be thinking two or three moves out. if we do this, what will he do?

>> it comes to the question of, what will we demand that they do? what should we demand for them to do to lift the sanctions? if they are imposed with full coordination between the united states and europe. >> i'm skeptical that the europeans will get behind serious sanctions. i have watched this in one of the things i worry about is that if we press as we did in georgia, there was a number of stronger things that we wanted to do and was onto georgia. but by doing them alone, we would have isolated ourselves, instead of the russians. that is one of the risks for the president. if he pushes too far.

he looks behind them, and none of the europeans are there. we risk in isolated. i am not optimistic about how this will turn out. in no small part, because i do not think the europeans are prepared to take the steps necessary to put the pressure on putin. >> that is a bad omen for the future. >> i think so. >> secretary gates, thank you so much. a pleasure. >> thank you, charlie. ♪ >> we turn now to mikheil saakashvili. he joins us from kiev, on skype. he was the previous president of georgia. many have compared his current invasion to the invasion of georgia in 2008. i am pleased to have him here on this program from kiev.

tell me what you think the russians are up to and how far they will go. >> putin wants to grab the crimea for good. he wants to advance his political agenda. he wants to feel like a strongman all over europe. there is one basic reading crimea. there's shale gas. crimea has almost 100% of ukraine's shale gas reserves. ukraine would be a big exporter of shale gas. that would mean that russia would lose its biggest customers in europe. europe would get a major alternative source of energy. putin basically killed the whole idea of energy independence for

ukraine. not many people talk about this. there are american companies that have interest in the shale gas. it is really a big political gamble. for the rest of ukraine, there is long-term destabilization. >> what does the west have to do to stop this. >> there are lots of things at stake for the west. there are big challenges. what is really happening now is that ukraine is 10 times bigger than georgia. if he is not stop here, he will go further. there is an american website that publishes something based

on u.s. diplomats from 2008. i was predicting the precise time of the crimea operation. i hate to predict it this way. but my next prediction is that if he gets oil, he will go into the baltic states, even if they are members of nato. this guy wants to restore the soviet union. it is a destruction of post-cold war in europe. in one of the main beneficiaries of this work. one of the major challenges for long-term stability. there are lots of things that

need to be done and cannot be done to stop it. people are faced with this outrageous challenge. >> what is the lesson from 2008? >> the main lesson is that the west continues to be business as usual. it is decided by the european union. the problem is that europeans are not talking about the occupation. they are saying that there is an escalation. there are lots of possibilities. they may have one less military outpost. and europeans may say, by doing that, so what?

that is a catchphrase. they should not be talking about escalation. they should be talking about occupation. this trouble is not going away. [inaudible] it is like how nazi germany grabbed the sudeten land. chamberlain was -- some people in the west may say the same thing about ukraine. we are in post-weimar europe. this is a challenge for everybody.

>> the united states have the political will to stop mr. putin if his agenda is as you describe? [inaudible] it will cost vladimir putin. he thinks it is a zero-sum game. it is not a zero-sum game. the problem will be that americans have lots of other things to do. it will go from a serious citizen nation -- it will go into a three situation that affects financial markets. this is something that is really major and big. it will get bigger.

their visit -- there is a huge, desperate need for intervention. this is not usual. in a way, i have a hope that this will end. it is terrible. [inaudible] i had my last meeting with putin in the run-up to the work. he made some nice promises, but they were never delivered. he is very clear. he does not want to be here. he wants to be here. >> notwithstanding everything that you have set and all the people i've talked to in the

united states, the question remains, is he prepared to go a long way in pursuit of these objectives? what does the west and the united states have to be prepared to do? does it require actions beyond economic sanctions. beyond going into some meeting of other western countries. >> first of all, targeted sanctions are a big deal. i am not sure the west is prepared for that. it will lead to collapse of real estate. the west should go beyond that.

we have self interest. it is a very short time. >> you think putin is desperate and this is an act of desperation to cover up failures at home? >> he knows better than everybody that he has troubles of russia. there are some crazy protest movements. he is also very paranoid. for instance, he is convinced that the ukraine was involved with the cia. they are guessing how it happened in ukraine. the reality is that putin has the power. there are some well-founded the

race. [inaudible] he grabbed georgia's territory. putin is taking a pause, but it will ignore the vigilance of the westerners. he will play it down and then go for something out. next week, it will be the baltic countries. you will find the members of nato. this is article 5. ukraine has currencies from the west. it is big countries and small countries. the only thing that is regulated is international law. and if that has flown out the

window, we are facing chaos. big powers like the united states will be in danger. >> thank you for coming. it is good to see you. i hope we will see you when you come back to the united states. ♪ >> we turn to the middle east.

president obama welcomes benjamin netanyahu to the white house on monday. it was part of the president's efforts to take part in the israeli-palestinian peace efforts. on march 17, complicated policies in the middle east. joining me from washington is jeffrey goldberg. he interviewed president obama ahead of his meeting with benjamin netanyahu. i'm pleased to have them back on this program. why do so many of us who want to interview president obama, he only wants to talk to you? >> i have a nicer tie. i don't know charlie. [laughter]

>> i think it says something about his mind. these are not short interviews. he takes his time and he feels like he has a chance to talk to you. my guess is there's some sense of how he sees the nuance of israeli-palestinian issues and his own genuine concerns. >> i have been interviewing him for a while on this subject. since he was in the senate. the thing that is remarkable about him to me is the level of detail he masters. even in this period, where he has not been as engaged, not like the secretary of state. he has this deep in his bones. i think you are right. there is a deep concern.

you can see him as being anti-israel and just trying to eat it up. or you can see that he is very concerned about the course and direction of the conflict and he wants to raise these concerns. exactly. since we have done this, we have had this type of conversation before. it seems like a good thing to do. it is true. i spent one hour with him talking about this subject. we got to iran and syria, but they are a small part of the globe. >> did you learn anything you did not know? >> i did. in a way, i have been traveling around -- the first conversation i had with him was seven years ago. it is not that the gloves are coming off. i do not know what you would call -- the mask of diplomatic language is coming off a little

bit. he does not have to run again. he is not concerned. he doesn't have to give speeches. it is not a group that he likes. he does not particularly appreciate it. he was more specific about the problems that he sees down the road for israel than i had ever heard that before. the israelis have been is very blunt. i thought it was couched. it was a very specific talk about how israel is going to cease to be a jewish democracy at a certain way. it was a very specific talk about how he is having a harder time defending israel. i asked very specifically if he were unwilling, or unable. he said it is not willingness.

he was careful to say that the u.s. and israel's relationship is undying. the u.s. will always be there for israel. we have policy differences, but the love remains. but he said that israel is growing more isolated. we cannot defend it in the same way. it was a little bit of a veiled threat. >> it was a threat from the united states or what? >> it was almost up there with nice little jewish state you got there, i would hate to see something happen to it. it was, look, i want to help you, but you are not helping me help you. there's only so much political capital it will expand in the u.s., with the eu, with the arab league, on your behalf. >> tell me what you think about

the relationship between benjamin netanyahu and barack obama? >> it is filled with joy. [laughter] very clearly. >> i have opinions about this. go at it. >> from your interview, the president has a certain grudging respect for the prime minister. >> oh yeah. >> he is in a historic position because of his political skills to do things. he pays him that respect. >> i have rehearsed this theory. i think obama shares his theory. there are three themes in the zionist pantheon to mix the zionism and paganism for a moment. there is the idea to turn israel into a state.

they want to make israel a permanent entity. it was supposed to be integrity. that was supposed to be ariel sharon. four years ago, obama and his people believed that netanyahu was a passing phenomenon. they were just waiting for someone else to take over. they were under the impression that the meeting would be off the stage. this thinking may have shifted to a remarkable degree. it is about how essential he is to this process. he was doing this interview with me and he was boxing him and, saying that time is up. you have to move. but he was also bucking him up in a way. he was boxing him in and bucking him up. you are the man. you are the only one. you are the guy. that is how he is working the

situation at the moment stop >> is there any hope of any agreement as part that agreement? >> i used to be ethical. i am not that pessimistic about getting to a framework agreement. john kerry will not leave them alone until he gets that agreement. it is an amazing thing to watch. he really pushes this as hard as possible there is a little bit of good cop, bad cop going on. this is very smart. he made a list. what are the things preventing netanyahu are moving forward? he is moving through the list.

the whole issue of recognizing the jewish state. we believe that it is making the palestinian leader very nervous. john kerry is working overtime to get other people on board. i don't mean to be a middle eastern conspiracy monger, but if there is a hidden message in the interview, that the president gave to me last week, it was a balancing out. he wants the palestinian leader to know that it is not only you who are under pressure. i am putting some heat on the israeli or both you should not feel as if all we are doing is making benjamin netanyahu happy. >> there is speculation that the kerry deal calls for a capital for the palestinian state in a separate jerusalem.

>> they closely hold the details of this. neither the israelis nor the palestinians have leaked very much at all. that is the miracle. we have heard that kerry floated the idea of calling this area out of jerusalem, extending the boundaries of what jerusalem would be, and saying, this could be your capital. that caused -- we are dealing in secondhand information, but apparently that may be palestinian president very upset. from the palestinian perspective, that is nonnegotiable. the jews already have their capital, and we will have our capital in east jerusalem. that is one of the things that they are arguing about at the moment. i have this idea of the jewish

state and that all? have they come to some agreement? >> that is an enormous philosophical question. on the negotiating standpoint? i think it is unrealistic to expect that a palestinian leader in an opening round is going to say, we are going to give up our narrative. that is what this is about. netanyahu wants the palestinians to say that israel is a legitimate jewish homeland. he wants the palestinians to a knowledge that the jews are also from there. that is the whole thing. the palestinian narrative of abbas's, is that israel is a

foreign implant. you cannot be a colonial enterprise if you are returning home. for the palestinians to come out and say, the jews are actually from here and this is their country, that is a huge deal. it signals to the four or 5 million palestinians who are refugees or descendents of refugees from 1948, it basically tells them, you may have dreams of going back. you may dream of going to the village for your grandparents are from, but that is not happening. we are actually knowledge and that the jews are from there. you'll have to find your peace and your citizenship in this new state of palestine. >> where are their differences on iran?

>> i guess i would divided into two categories. there is the practical category. netanyahu wants completed the -- complete capitulation. president obama, like the europeans, would be happy with iran that was perpetually 6-18 months away from producing a nuclear bomb. there is that technical issue. i think the broader issue after what happened in syria, the broader issue is i am not sure the prime minister believes that barack obama would ever use force to stop iran from gaining hold of a nuclear weapons if they actually succeeded in getting close to it. it is the continued argument of

barack obama. it is something we have talked about a couple of years ago. i did an interview with the president on the iran issue. he said, i am not bluffing. he says that you will do what he needs to do to keep iran from getting a bomb. the issue is the israelis and the arab allies. they do not believe that obama would ever use force. >> especially after the redline in area. >> right before ukraine went sideways. america's adversaries are not scared of america's president. [laughter]

you have to ask the questions you have to ask. i knew there were areas of sensitivity. do you care if they think you are top? and the second question that caused him to lean forward a little bit was the question, if you -- what does bashar al-assad have to do to his people before provoking an american military response? and the second part of that is i asked the president, do you regret -- would you have done something differently. what you have given help to a more moderate syrian opposition. >> the interesting thing from my standpoint, does he feel like the clock is ticking? does he feel like he is running

out of time to make some significant difference? >> there are three issues he could one-day point to and achievement in the middle east. apart from the obvious killing of osama bin laden and pulling out of troops in iraq. the chemical weapons, he wants them out of syria. that would be a victory. that would be a victory for his muscular diplomacy. a victory for threatening force and getting through diplomacy, because of those threats, what you want. then there is a nuclear agreement with iran. it is a 50-50 shot. that would be huge achievement.

that is one of the reasons his critics are so worried about the process. they know that it would count as a huge achievement. the third one is that it remains the biggest enchilada for anyone. the nobel peace prize. obama already has one, but john kerry might want one. maybe he wants to go forward with this and figure out a way to make it work. >> thank you, jeffrey. great interview. tell him next time that there are other people who would like to interview him. >> charlie, you have pretty good

access. i am not worried about you. >> thank you very much. ♪ >> live from pier three in san

francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west." we cover innovation, technology and the future of business. prime minister benjamin netanyahu is visiting silicon valley today. he will be joining us live to talk about israel's booming tech scene and his views on silicon valley. we will also be speaking with the cofounder of andreessen horowitz about the three big trends he is watching in the world of startups. we want to talou