>> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> this evening, we continue ongoing coverage of the crisis in ukraine. many of the world top diplomats met in paris. they focus was on ukraine.

for the first time since the crisis began, secretary kerry engaged in face to face talks with his russian counterpart. >> russia can now begin to guess what the situation and we are committed to working with russia. together with our friends and allies in an effort to provide a way for this entire situation to find the road to de-escalation. the united states is ready to work with all parties to make that happen. and to make it happen as soon as possible. we renew our goal for russians to speak directly with the government of ukraine and senate use back to their bases and welcome international observers and human rights monitors. we saw today what happens with the special envoy just how

important it is to ensure the safety of those monitors and those observers. >> also, chuck hagel told the senate armed services committee that it has increased cooperation with nato allies. john amy now is dr. henry kissinger, former secretary of state and national security advisor for resident nick seven. how many hours do you think you have spent with vladimir putin? >> alone or with a small group. >> i would say 30 hours. maybe more. >> to read your books is to know that you look at individuals and how they understand power and the forces that have shaped them. tell me about vladimir putin. >> first of all, let me say i agree with what i just heard.

from secretary kerry. i think the latest move of putin is one that goes beyond accepted norms. but what do i think of -- what is my impression of putin -- he is a man who believes that the disintegration of the soviet union was sort of a catastrophe for russia. and he wants to restore russia to a traditional position, which means a great power. on the other hand, he realizes that this is a different world situation than the one that one studies in history books. russia is no longer very strong.

it is no longer in the position to threaten all of its major neighboring countries. so he is conducting a policy in which he is both assertive and defensive at the same time. >> so he moved into crimea but then he stopped. >> i don't think he intends to annex crimea. in fact, he says he doesn't intend to. the basic problem -- there are a number of fundamental problems. the first problem is that no russian i have ever met finds it easy or even possible to consider ukraine a totally separate country. it was part of russia for 300 years.

the history of ukraine and russia have been intertwined for several hundred times -- several hundred years before that. so the evolution of ukraine is a matter that moves all russians, even people like rod ski. dissidents from the communist system were firm on the view that ukraine belongs to russia. >> belongs to russia or is within russia's sphere of influence? >> it should be part of the same country. but at the minimum, they wanted to be in the russian sphere of influence. i also believe that it would be desirable for ukraine to be in europe. i was not in favor and still am not in favor of ukraine joining nato. what is the outcome that one should think of? one cannot build ukraine without

dividing the country to train its eastern half and its western half. and without creating a series of confrontations of situations. so the ideal outcome would be to look at ukraine as a bridge between east and west rather than whom does ukraine belong to. this crisis started because ukraine applied for associate membership in the european union. i agree with that. and the european union actually brought matters to a head by its

dilatory treatment of this application by getting it mixed up with internal ukraine and domestic politics. >> let me stop you for a second. at that time, was yannick in favor of the relations -- was yanakovic in favor of the relationship with europe? >> yanakovic was in favor of the relationship with europe. i met him the first time in kiev to watch a football game. and then in 2013 at davos. he sought me out to use my influence in germany to suspend the veto that the europeans were putting or some europeans were putting on the membership because he had the opposition leader had been sentenced, probably unjustly, for corrupt practices with the russians.

so the europeans or some europeans made an issue of her liberation, a precondition for entry into europe. i think they had a worthy cause, but they should have pressured for that after ukraine was in. so in that space, yanokovic must have formed the idea that it would be tied to an imf agreement that would produce extreme austerity in ukraine, that he would then try to see whether he could get russian help. one has to remember that that is one of the aspect of the situation. ukraine is really two parts. the eastern part is russian-speaking. the western part is catholic and ukrainian.

and the western part really belonged to poland until 1939. so this is not a long history of a unified country. >> and key of -- and kiev is invoked. >> kiev is in the middle. the dispute inside ukraine, a few say yanukovych against doma oh -- dumecinko. the ukrainians are partly at fault for the domestic divisions. but i think ukraine should remain united.

it should be in europe. i think it should have been handled with more foresight. >> but you have to inject vladimir putin into it before what happened and before you coach -- before yanukovic left. he had righted that she had learned that he had lured him with money and with oil prices. >> ukraine in europe goes against their sense of history and a sense of who they are. so it would be the preference of any russian government to keep ukraine from throwing his future in with the work that's with the

west. >> yanukovic fled to europe. >> i think putin interprets the demonstrations that took place in kiev, which started when yanukovic was moving and instigated by the west and supported by the west. >> no doubt he believes that. >> i have no question that he believes that. >> is somehow we were behind, the west, the u.s. and europe. that the cia and others. >> and i think he probably believes that the high point reached with the connection with the olympics was a deliberate attempt to humiliate him. >> after the success of the olympics? >> the olympics paralyzed him. he couldn't participate in the crisis. so he probably overreacted. >> is he right that the u.s. and

europe participated in the demonstrations? >> no. i don't think -- participated, yes, i think he is right. but instigated, no. support and showing great sympathy and having fairly high the officials joined the demonstrators. >> was it as vladimir putin said, an unconstitutional coup? >> strictly, technically speaking, yanukovic was not removed by the procedures for seen in the constitution. he had been democratically elected and he was overthrown by demonstrations. on the other hand, he had killed

nearly 1 hundred rd testers. -- nearly 100 protesters. >> tell me about the crimea. tell me why it is the weight is. >> historically, the crimea was conquered by the russians in the 18th century, belonging to the turks. >> the ottoman mm prior -- the ottoman empire. >> the ottoman empire. the majority of its population, 60% are russians. and they used to be a very sizable totter minority there. >> and what is that? >> from the money million invasion in the 13th and 14th --

from the month only and invasion in the 13th and 14th century, they established themselves there and probably had some kind of kingdom there for a while. >> the people in crimea speak russian? >> i guess. but the vast majority speak russian. tranmere has never been part of ukraine. -- crimea has never been part of ukraine. it was given to ukraine in 1954 as part of a celebration of an agreement made between russia and the cossacks. and christian f was a ukrainian.

at that time, the regents of russia had no economy. but symbolically to impress the people of ukraine and also maybe perhaps to put more russians in there to prevent the ukrainian consolidation. but there is no historic connection between crimea and ukraine. that doesn't change the fact that is attached. >> i was once told that khrushchev gave crimea to the ukrainians because he was drunk that time. so now we have russian troops there. both putin and labarov deny that there are russian troops. but most others believe that there are. >> that is not a bad sign. >> that they deny it? >> on the one hand, cynical. on the other hand, it makes it easier to come to a solution. >> this is why we really -- >> he does not have to give in

order to withdraw them. they can just disappear. >> so we shouldn't be upset by the fact that he has denied it because it gives him a way to get the troops out of there. >> the last two days have been an indication that they are trying to move far away out because they stopped the exercises on the border. they have said that they have no territorial demands. >> but they have not ruled out military force. >> no. >> in the statement that you consent, they have not ruled out military force. >> because to do nothing -- again, i think what he did is incompatible with international

law so i am not just -- not to justifying his actions. but from the point of view of moscow, to see ukraine slip into a radically pro-western position and after russia had offered it a kind of economic relationship, that is a hard pill to swallow. >> correct me if i'm wrong. i hear you saying that you think the russians know they made a mistake. they went too far and they're looking for a way out. >> i think the russians felt an absolute necessity to show that they are a factor to be taken into account in ukraine.

the overwhelming majority of the demonstrators, one is told, come from the western part of ukraine who do not want to be under russian -- >> and who were opposed to yana coalition the beginning -- to yanukovic in the beginning. >> many of whom are catholic. so to see ukraine slip totally into this, into a government with that point of view would be resented by many russians. a be a majority of russians. i think at a minimum, he wanted to show we are somebody. we have to be taken very seriously. and you can't just, at the borders of russia, 400 miles

from ross -- from moscow, establish any government, assuming that he thinks this whole exercise was started by the west. so that is his motivation. i think it is possible -- i think it's likely that we are moving towards a possible solution. >> what would it look like? >> in my view, the ukraine is free to you -- to join any political association it wishes, including the european union. ukraine does not join nato. ukraine moves towards a solution of its internal problems in some way that does not [indiscernible] and whoever wins tries to dominate the other. and the ukraine internationally takes the position very similar to finland.

independent, fiercely independent, but careful to avoid an inherent hostile position to russia. i would say the finnish model. and on crimea, which is already technically autonomous, to recognize ukrainian sovereignty. it would have to include russia. the ukraine in turn reinforces the autonomy that already exists and the russian naval base in crimea, in sevastopol, which is i think on a 30-year lease, which they would never give up, that this be regularized in some way, that the time limit is removed here because the naval base in sevastopol is the only way in my view the outline of an agreement.

>> and you think this outlined is this -- this outline is doable by all parties, the ukrainian government today, the russians, and europe. >> russia will always be there. and it is no accident that their history has been so intertwined. in the russian mind, the battle of [indiscernible]

where charles xii tried to occupy russia, it fell to ukraine. >> so russia will always be there. a wise ukrainian policy would try to say to themselves that the current ukrainian politics, which are organized according to the language almost that a russian party and a western party, that there be some way of organizing the internal structure of ukraine that it is more conciliatory. that is going to be very hard. but i think it is necessary.

>> what part is hard? to get the ukrainian government -- >> one is russian and one is western. if you look at the american role, in my opinion, we have made the mistake of getting ourselves involved with one side in every one of these crises. and then, as soon as the crisis is over, the competitive ukrainian conflicts take over. in 2004, the orange revolution, we got totally behind the candidate who has since disappeared from the scene. emotion go -- demo schinkel -- timoshenko was supposed to be

our person. and i think an effort should be made. all of us, russia, west, should encourage a foreign-policy in the ukraine that doesn't make ukraine part of either side. >> and that will be acceptable to the russians, you think. >> what the russians prefers for ukraine to be part of russia. so it is the second best choice for ukraine. and i think putin will suffer considerable amount of prestige other than if it ends with the ukraine joining russia, which is out of the question. >> and russian troops will stay in crimea? >> they will stay in sevastopol. the crimea will be organized as

an autonomous entity, either the technical sovereignty of ukraine. but if you run it by democratic procedures, since the russians have over 60% of the population, it should produce an outcome that everybody could live with. >> a couple of things. this is very exciting for me. >> this is not the mood at the moment. everything one reads, it is confrontation. but it has to have an end. >> what is interesting about

what you have said, one, not only the agreement, but you believe putin -- this is not going to end well for putin unless he comes to some kind of an agreement like this. >> and then is not a huge victory. >> not a huge victory, but it would not end well for putin. >> the agreement being overthrown, the agreement being made, and the man which room they have made an agreement has disappeared. >> you said that the united states made a mistake by supporting the forces that led to the new ukrainian government. they should not have taken sides? >> the united states had to think about mass demonstrations.

[laughter] it is always a popular expression. and we don't look at what other forces are involved. in korea, we argued about that and it was natural for us to sympathize. >> you mean in tehran with people in the streets. it was conservatives who claimed -- to blame president -- >> it was natural for us in key of -- in kiev to sympathize with people but it was not inevitable for the assistant secretary of state to join in this. one could have imagined that one says to oneself this will have an end sometime and let's urge some reconciliation on the part of the protesters. and ask ourselves where will this lead a year from now instead of letting it run its course. you can say the same about the russians with respect to yanukovic. so i would think that in these kinds of situations, the united states should look at what happens afterwards and see whether they can use their influence in these demonstrations.

to bring about a post-demonstration situation that is more permanent. it was natural for us to be supportive. i think what we should do, if it were possible, and if we had the right communications, which we don't have, is to have a conversation with putin. >> they talked for an hour and 15 minutes on the phone. >> the first thing is, you know,

i am out of office for a long time. >> but you know history. and you know the russians. >> i have done my utmost to prevent the presidents for whom i was working from talking on the phone in the middle of a crisis with the head of state of another country, even more an adversarial country. because to become president of any country, you must have a highly developed ego. but you put the video egos into confrontation with each other and if there is no agreement, to whom can you appeal? i think it is really at the general rule of diplomacy that heads of government should not encounter each other unless they have defined ahead of time with the parameters are unless it is

a general philosophical meeting. with an hour and 15 minutes, you ask yourself within terminators -- with interpreters what is needed. one ask oneself what are we tried to do here, both of us, and what are the limits that both of us can accept. as you pointed out, i have had many conversations with putin. there'll substantive. i have no relationship with him whatsoever. and what he wants to discuss with me at least is an

understanding of the situation. and looking at his position, this is not a superpower. they have a lot of nuclear weapons. they don't have a huge or a hugely effective army. they have a border with the middle east. they have a declining manpower. >> an aging population and economy that is not in good shape. >> so for all of these reasons -- this is what should take place. it could be done by kerry also. but i don't think lover of -- i don't think loborov is a policymaker during he is a policy executive. either putin or the head of the presidential administration tended to talk.

>> somebody who is part of the head of the administration. >> somebody that obama trusts. >> who would be that in this government? you said it shouldn't be kerry. >> no, i said it should be kerry. the trouble with having it as a kerry-laborov is a [indiscernible] >> so you need somebody who's making policy to be talking with each other but it cannot be the respective heads of state during -- state. >> the danger of having heads of state in dialogue with each other unprepared is that, when

they misunderstand each other, there is no one you can appeal to to rectify it. and done through an interpreter, you don't know what they understand. and you can create the atmosphere. that would be my instinct here >> lome go back to putin and his intentions. lots of people quote the statement that he made in the 20th century when the soviet union collapsed. for him, that was the worst moment in the 20th century. >> my relation with putin, you

would ask why i had some many meetings. >> why? >> he was deputy mayor of st. petersburg. i said to him -- he was not a huge -- i said to him can you as an old kgb person explain to me why gorbachev rejected negotiating about eastern europe and then gave it for nothing six months later? and he considered that a hugely significant remark. so his view is that russia has indicated, because of the incompetence of its leadership, and it gave up 300 years of its history and they are right back to where they started. so he wants to restore --

>> how does he carry that agenda? you said that you don't believe that he wanted to take over ukraine or he realized he couldn't because the west reacted. >> he wants a eurasian bloc, the state of the former soviet union, plus what all girls -- plus whatever else is available. and then that would probably give him the option of playing with russia and playing with europe -- playing with china and playing with europe. >> what do you make of this?

many people have said at this table and said to me he has more leverage than we do at this moment. there has been an influence with ukraine. his army is there as a base. and he just had the success in the olympics. he is influential in terms of syria. we need him there. we need him with iran. so we really need to have an -- a relationship with him. so maybe he has a better hand than we do. >> if this is taken in a very confrontational way, then he may dig in. my estimate is that, if we treat him with respect and not as another version of european dictators and not with the point of view of teaching him a lesson but from the point of view of testing limits to his actions, i think it will slide into the thought of agreement. and i have not had any conversation with any russian so i have no idea if this reflects

any russian -- >> you have not had any conversation with any russians on the idea of what the americans want to do. >> i may have mentioned that ukraine is free to join anything. any grouping. and for them to agree to a -- >> that is a real confession. >> that would be a bitter pill to swallow. and for them to recognize them as part of ukraine, even if it gets limited i some autonomy. >> why do you believe newton will accept this? >> because my instinct that he is governing a country that in its history has identified the importance of its government by its ability to look as if it is defending the country in a serious approach. secondly, he is a good analyst and he knows what the relationship affords us. so if think -- if this thing turns into a real confrontation projected into many years, sure, we need him with syria and with

iran, but he doesn't want to be left alone with the middle east. from that area, [indiscernible] >> he is worried about terrorism. >> what kerry said to me -- said today is the right way to talk. i think if we cut down on history lessons, it would help.

>> cut down on history lessons? >> saying that russians are conducting themselves like 19th-century russians. >> thank you. my best to nancy.

>> we want to talk about books this evening. if you bought a suspense thriller in the last year, there is a one in five chance it was written by james patterson. he is the author of more than 100 works of fiction. he holds the guinness world record of the most titles on the best seller lists. all told, he has sold more than 295 million copies. he is also a tireless advocate for children's literacy programs and he is giving away 2 -- giving away $100 million to bookstores across the country. so these are books under your name. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 cents september. how do you do this?

>> i will write a 70 to 80 page outline that lays out the book and then i will work with somebody. i want them to contribute to the outline because i want them invested in the book. and then, unlike a publisher, i like to get work every two or three weeks. and we will hold it and just keep going or it's off the tracks. i just love to tell stories. >> does it reduce any of the pleasure for you that you are having someone else take your outline and make it into an end product? >> i love to tell a story.

there is no way i could ever have this can about what if i was working by myself. of course not. so the idea of getting this many stories created -- and obviously, if i don't like the end product, it is not going out there. so just stop or, in some cases, not these books, but i've rewritten three or 45 or six drafts after i got the draft from the cowriter. i just love getting stories out there into the world. >> at your stage, with 295 million copies, you have made a ton of money. >> yes. the money has been just fine. >> you're not doing it for the money. what are you doing it for? >> i just get a real kick and i think as people do out of doing something as well as you can do it. and this is as good as i can do it.

i think with the kids books in particular, which i am not as well-known for, but i think they are actually my best books, i think that is my sweet spot. they are funny. i am funnier than people would expect here in unfortunately, with the thrillers you can't -- i think part of it is you grow up -- where i grew up, we both grew up in small towns. in terms of where my parents came from, my father grew up in a poor house. he lived with his mother who cleaned bathrooms. i think it has taken to this point for my confidence to keep growing in terms of what i'm capable of doing. what can i do? it's just a confidence. i can do that. i can do thrillers. i can do romance. i can do kids books. i can be responsible for trying to do something good in the country in terms of some of the things i'm doing, scholarships

and the indie program. >> let's talk about the indie program. you can give away a million dollars -- >> or more. >> and the idea is you say to them -- you select the best responses. tell me how you spent $50,000? >> one of the books that i just gave money to said this is great for our store, but what is better from this point of view is you are setting a light on the situation. we are in this country because of the de-book phenomenon, publishing is going through some big changes. that is fine. the world changes. but bookstores know we will never be the same. it is all changing. publishers are being threatened. american literature, i mean, we need publishers right now. we need good publishers.

we need good editors are they will not find the next "to kill a mockingbird." so we need that. so i want to try to help to make that transition to wherever we're going a smooth and healthy one. >> and your small-town project is what? >> which is terrific because it is a movie. a documentary movie. and it started because my wife and i do a lot of -- palm beach county is actually very poor. we support a lot of the middle schools in palm beach county. we have teachers who stayed from 3:00 to 6:00 just helping the raid. -- helping them read. on the far western side of palm beach county, there is 40% unemployment and a lot of violence. but i met these people and they are traffic kids, great people and they are caught in this

mess. when you have 40% unemployment in a town, bad things are going to happen. you will have a lot of young males running around. they are very frustrated. and i just wanted to draw attention -- in the town that i grew up in newburgh, which is more of a mixed bag, but there are a lot of problems there. >> so you want to draw attention to them or do something about their plight? >> i want to, one, humanize, get people to understand that they are human beings there. they are very likable, lovable. when people watch this film, they will go i like these people and i feel for them. next week, i am going up to

interview a kid in prison. about a year and half ago, we shot a -- he sought -- he shot a storekeeper. he had never been in trouble before. the bullet bounced and killed the storekeeper and now he is in jail for life. i wrote him a couple of letters and finally this letter came. here is a letter from the prison and he goes, you know, how are you doing, mr. patterson. and then he writes his letter and he said come up here and i talked to my dad about it. this kid -- and this is so sad. i have seen the tape. his father came into the jail and he got the confession from his son. they knew that his son had done it but the kid had not confessed. >> he confessed to his father. >> it was heartbreaking. he is a very nice man, the father. and the father said i'm never going to see you again outside a prison. and he was heartbroken. a terrible thing. but that is what happens. that is the kind of thing that

can happen in these towns. >> roll tape very -- roll tape. [video clip] >> this is a crack house in belgrade. this is as bad as it gets. i'm glad you are not here because you wouldn't appreciate the smell. a lot of drugs done here. a lot of damage done especially to the kids in this town. that is somebody's gold shoe. this did not come from the wizard of oz. this all reminds me of the bad parts of my hometown newburgh. what the hell happened? what happened? we just stopped paying attention. you know, so much in this country is where the money is. we have the problem with the banks. the money is there.

the money pours in to solve the problem. we have a problem with automobiles. the money is there. we have fixed the automobile problem but we haven't fixed detroit. governments aren't willing to do with -- i was very lucky. a couple of weeks ago, i spent an hour and a half with my wife and bill clinton. we talked about this during the whole thing with these towns and he talked about detroit. >> he is a good listener. >> obviously he is very bright. he said, if it was up to him, he would try to get detroit to institute homesteading. you have block after block after block empty. so there is the kind of thinking. so how do you get that done in a town, that kind of thinking, big thinking, imaginative thinking. things can get done. >> how do you choose the people to write your books with? >> maxine 90 from advertising. she had written a couple of novels.

we did the women's murder club together and confessions. she is a turf at person. i thought i could work with her. when i was in advertising, i would only hire one kind of person, talented and nice to be around. the end. and it is the night -- and it is the same thing could >> talented and nice to be around. talented is not enough. >> it can be. it depends on what you are doing. in some parts of silicon valley, it is just talented and they just live with it. i don't like to do that. there's nobody that i work with who i don't enjoy. >> and what is your core competence? >> i think i am a very good storyteller. >> how many great stories are there? >> i think the other piece of it is is right brain/left brain. >> how does that work with you? >> to be able to have a lot of ideas and be able to sit back and that one, that one, not those two. and i think a lot of people don't have both sides.

you run into it all the time. you run into in any creative business. we have people who are very imaginative and they really can't tell which of those -- they really can't. and then you have certain people who are very analytical but they don't come up with very many ideas. i think i have both. >> what had you fail that? -- what have i failed at? i don't think about failing really. i just keep charging forward. i am sort of the anti-congress. but with this documentary film, we are just doing it. i hope it will be terrific. i think it will be. it will be very emotional. but i don't know if it will work. i have confidence that i will put together a documentary story. >> you look like you were a very good storyteller there. >> i think it is going to be a

good film. >> when you look ahead at the documentary project, the million-dollar project for libraries, do you think we will fix the publishing business? >> well, it's not broken. that is one of the problems. every publishing story, they say it is broken. there was an editorial in "the new york times" about how we are sort of taught to be critical thinkers and critical and that is supposed to show that you are smarter because you are critical. and right now the headset on a mission is that it is -- on publishing is that it is broken.

it is not broken. it is not living up to the potential. and it is in danger right now because we haven't established whatever would replace the publishing system that we have. >> well, that is the point. you have the necessary of dealing with the new realities. >> there are not enough innovators in the publishing business for sure. >> great to have you here. >> live from pier three in san

francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west" where we cover innovation, technology, and the future of business. i am cory johnson. coming up, we will talk to eric schmidt and google ideas representative jared cohen. build get their take on everything from robots to nsa surveillance. samsung, defeating ale