>> from our studios in new york, this is "charlie rose." >> we begin with the politics of the ukraine and the lessons of geography. president obama reaffirmed his commitment today in brussels.

he warned that continued russian aggression would result in more sanctions and isolation. >> over the last several days, the united states, europe, and partners around the world have been united in the defense of these ideals. united in the support of the ukrainian people. together we have condemned russia's invasion of the ukraine and rejected the legitimacy of the crimean referendum. we have isolated russia politically. suspending it from the g-8 nations, and downgrading

diplomatic relations. together we are imposing costs and sanctions that have left a mark. russia and those accountable for its actions, if the russian leadership stays on its current course, together we will ensure this isolation deepens. sanctions will expand, and the toll on russia's economy as well as its standing in the world will only increase. the united states and our allies will continue to support the government of the ukraine as they chart a democratic course. together, we are going to provide assistance that can stabilize the ukraine economy and meet the basic needs of the people. >> vladimir putin's annexation of crimea has reasserted the role of geography in the political world. a new book considers the implications of another volatile region, the south china sea. the book is called "asia's cauldron." i'm pleased to have robert kaplan at the table. >> thank you. >> let me start with the ukraine.

how do you see it through the prism of the book you have written about geography? >> there is a difference between analysis and policy. analysis has to be cold-blooded. policy has to be moral. what we have seen with the speech in europe was moral inspirational leadership. here is the problem. here is where the story geography tells. ukraine is thrust so far east, and so developed by russia, the ukraine was where russia started. ukraine matters more to any

russian leader than it matters to the united states, or even leaders in europe. it's president obama's job to inspire the europeans to say no, it matters to us. we die for our ideals through the 20th century. we cannot let this stand. obama knows the difficulties through his realistic analysis. now he has to inspire europe to do more because of geography. europe is meshed with the russian economy. a web work going from russia into central and western europe. countries like bulgaria, or germany, or the balkan states are dependent on russian hydrocarbons. that is going to make it ethical

-- difficult for the europeans to enact real sanctions. >> i want to put in context the conversation i had with henry kissinger. here is what he said. >> i don't think he intends to. the basic problem, the first problem is, no russian i have ever met finds it easy or even possible to consider ukraine a separate country. it was part of russia for 300 years. they have intertwined for several hundred years before that. so, the evolution of the ukraine is a matter that moves. >> it belongs to russia? >> it probably should be part of

the same country. at the minimum, they wanted to be in the russian sphere of influence. >> my question is, can ukraine have it both ways? can they have a relationship with the west, and have a special relationship with russia? >> they can. that has to be the goal of western policy. to make the ukraine a civil society at the same time that russia is assured of a stable and special relationship with ukraine. first of all, crimea is ethnic russian. it is pro-russian. it is essentially part of russia. this annexation formalized what were the facts on the ground. there is no way russia is going to give up crimea.

as i said, where ukraine is positioned on the map, given russian history, ukraine cannot be a normal state without a close relationship to russia. >> here is what you have said in a piece this week. the reaction of academics and officials to vladimir putin's annexation has been disbelief bordering on disorientation. it is 19th-century behavior. the 19th century, kerry calls it, lives on. forget about the world being territory and the bonds of blood are central to what makes us human.

>> yes. technology, rather than negate geography, has made it more precious and cost forward. 100 years ago, people could say africa doesn't matter. south america doesn't matter. now every place matters. every place can be strategic. every place is interlocked with every other place by technology. it is owned by starting with geography that you understand what is going on in every place. arguing for a sequence of understanding, it is not geography or technology. it is not geography or human values. it is starting with geography to understand everything else. it is like my watch. it is small. i can get a smaller watch. in order to understand how it works, you have to disintegrate the gears and mechanisms inside. that means lines of communication. mountains, rivers. >> therefore, looking at the reality of people on the ground. putin in russia, obama in europe.

what does putin want that obama is prepared to live with? >> i think that putin's intelligence services failed him in the ukraine. he thought he could manipulate ukraine's democracy under former president, who was a neo-czar. he had a pro-russian orientation. that didn't work. russia could not control it area he essentially lost the ukraine to the west. >> would that have worked in he went through with the early conversations that he had with europe, and europe had been more urgent making that happen? >> it might have. now, what putin has to fall back on is getting crimea.

undermining what the west has apparently won. ukraine is pro-western. putin will do everything to undermine the state. the eastern half of the ukraine is heavily orthodox christian. heavily pro-russian. he will use the east against the west. he will cut off trade. he will start fights with ukraine on natural gas deliveries. he will use every geographical advantage that he can to make sure what president obama said about making the ukraine prosperous and stable doesn't work, until there is a negotiation between russia and the west. >> that is the way this will be solved. >> this can only be solved by having a ukraine that is developing institutionalized, civil society. that makes a pro-european. it has a special relationship with russia. >> can you imagine that putin, because of sanctions, and other

circumstances, and his vision for russia, will be accepting that. >> there is always these diplomatic controversies. they consider ukraine has a brotherly relationship with russia. at the same time they develop a western parliamentary system. >> it underscores the power of geography and politics. russia is a continental country stretching across a land mass. every criminal leader has been obsessed about protecting the periphery from invaders. russia has security interest. this is not about them. this recent ukraine drama did not start with geography. it started with people inside the orbit trying to get out. this is an exodus story, not an invasion story.

>> here is how i would put it. there was a legitimate groundswell of support inside kiev. the values of the eu -- it is about states, not nations. states are about individuals living within laws. nations are about protecting ethnic solidarity. the eu is promising an escape through states. this was attracted to the people of the ukraine. the problem is where they are located on the map, and the relationship with russia, and it makes it hard to have a total escape rate another problem that has gone unmentioned in the media, we are in the sixth year of the economic crisis.

this means the eu has lost significant geopolitical band with in central and eastern europe. the russians have been buying up infrastructure and other properties throughout central and eastern europe. people from estonia in the north to bulgaria in the south feel threatened. the eu doesn't have the influence that it had a decade ago. >> the russian ambassador to the united nations is here. he looked at me and said, show me $60 billion coming in here. it seems the russians don't believe they have the will or

the economic resources to do that. >> europe, russia is making a bet that europe is too linked in with russia because of its energy needs. russia is now the top dog in the world of natural gas market. 5-10 years from now that will not be the case. it is now. the web work of pipelines going into europe compromises europe. and makes it impossible for the individual european countries to enact the sanctions and level of punishment on russia that president obama would like to see. >> are we looking at a president, the reason he came into office was to get his out of war and conflict, and not engage in conflict because he wanted to give it to asia, and do some nationbuilding at home.

>> yes. the pivot to asia is 20 years late. after the berlin wall fell, the americans wanted to pivot to asia. the problem was saddam hussein invaded. he had to be kicked out. then there was the no-fly zone instituted by the air force and navy. after that came 9/11, afghanistan, and iraq. finally we are out. we are getting out of afghanistan. the american security bureaucracy wants to pay more attention to asia. the problem is, we're in a geopolitical world where we have a rivalry only with china, but with russia and the middle east. >> you argue that tribes and younger can become more important because of the arab spring. >> yes. exactly. people thought the arab spring was about democracy. i disagree. it was about the collapse of illegitimate central authority. the illegitimate central authority. the collapse doesn't mean that there is an institutional and bureaucratic basis in these

countries for stable democracy. we have seen syria collapse. tunisia is a surviving democracy. i call it a potential arab portugal. it took portugal 13 years of instability before it started to get going. >> others will argue that tunisia, islam and democracy have come together, and have a government that seems to be functioning and democratic and islamic. >> yes. but it is very weak. >> they point to tunisia as the best example of what the spring could have been. >> except the tunisians cannot control its borders. tunisia has been a state in one form or another since antiquity. it is an age-old cluster of

civilizations. it has a state identity. libya, syria, iraq, yemen are not states. they are geographical expressions. when they are suffocating dictatorships collapse, there was nothing there. it is not an accident that tunisia has relatively succeeded compared to some of these other countries. >> let me turn to asia. this is called asia's cauldron. a lot of the world's eyes are focused on the missing plane. >> malaysia is a misunderstood country. i write a long chapter on malaysia in the book. 30 years ago malaysia was poor, downtrodden, barely a country. it wasn't even a british colony. it was federated states controlled by the british. it had ethnic violence between indigenous chinese and indigenous indians, and muslims, and in the last third of the century, it has come together, institutionalized, it has had six percent economic growth rates every year.

it has built a strong, stable economy, where there is still ethnic tensions. they are negotiating. there hasn't been any violence there. malaysia is the most prosperous of the major countries in southeast asia. >> including indonesia? >> it is much more bureaucratically stable. things work and malaysia. like singapore? >> it is a city state. i have traveled all over malaysia on buses. the airports are wonderful. it is just not up to the level where he can handle a crisis like this. >> talk about the south china sea and japan versus china, what the implications of that are.

>> china sees the seas as an extension of their continental landmass. they see these the way we solve the caribbean in the 19th and 20th century. we became a great nation by dominating the caribbean. dominating the western hemisphere. allowing us to affect the balance of power in the eastern hemisphere. the chinese seek to dominate vietnam, malaysia, the philippines. japan and east china sea, unlocking the door to the wider pacific for their navy. which encompasses the entire arc of islam. the chinese are importing more and more oil and natural gas from the middle east across the indian ocean through the south china sea. they bristle at the idea that the americans would come from half a world away with their navy and air force and seek a balance of power in the region. the chinese feel they should dominate the region. >> they recognize the united

states is a power in the region. >> they do. they are very realistic. they recognize -- china may be authoritarian. it is a technocratic regime. people, not the way russia is. what china bristles that is it doesn't want to make compromises to what they considered these small countries like vietnam and malaysia that have claims in the blue water of the energy rich south china sea. it bristles with japan claiming the same in the east china sea. the chinese can live with the united states as a great power in the region. what they can't live with is the idea that they will not be the preponderant power in the

region. >> japan has had relationships with almost everyone in the region. >> absolutely. >> all of that leading up to world war ii. including south korea. it is a huge economic power. is the possibility that those countries will get together. >> japan is just trusted. he never properly accounted for what they did in world war ii. therefore, they are distrusted, especially by south koreans. japan occupied what is now south korea. not just for the war, but until 1945. throughout the region, the japanese are distrusted. increasingly, people see the japanese as a hedge against the chinese. in other words, japan is slipping out of its pacifistic

phase and now has four times as many major war ships as the british royal navy. >> what do you make of the fact that just this week they announced they would change their nuclear philosophy? shipping nuclear enrichment to the united states. >> they want to reassure the united states. they need u.s. diplomatic and military support in the region. they are a treaty ally. maybe our most important treaty ally in the world. the philippines is also a treaty ally. it is a much weaker state. japan hosts tens of thousands of american troops. it is going to be hosting a nuclear power. [indiscernible]

south korea as well. japan is our anchor in northeast asia. in south korea, we have much less ground troops. much fewer. >> when you say china wants to [indiscernible] making these countries like finland. >> during the cold war. they had a long border with the soviet union. it was an independent capitalist country. it's foreign policy was compromised by moscow. >> because of geography. >> it didn't do anything in the foreign policy realm that was hostile to the kremlin. what united states needs to fear between two extremes, we cannot allow china finlandize malaysia. at the same time, we cannot allow the nationalists, the hot-blooded nationalists, the

philippines, vietnam or example, to get us into a military conflict with china. our relationship is so important for peace in the 21st century. it is a matter of steering between those extremes. >> the book is called "asia's cauldron." geography is his thing. he looks at the impact on geopolitical events. there is a lot to be argued and understood. ♪

>> next month, eight hundred million voters will cast their ballots in india's general elections. it will be perhaps the largest democratic exercise in history. it may mark a political turning point for the world's second most ppopulous nation.

early polls predict a win for opposition leader. joining me, sadanand dhume, milan vaishnav, arvind panagariya, jonathan shainin. the significance of this election? >> this is a historical election. one of the most important ones. i would compare it to the 1977 election. the last 10 years have seen governance of the kind which has not done great for india. >> it is about corruption? >> it is both. there have been numerous things

that have come out on the corruption from. we had economic reforms, then there was turnover. >> someone explain to me how elections work in india. it is not over in a day. it takes how long? >> six weeks. the country gets divided into voting stages. you said it could be the largest democratic society. every four years. the numbers for this one, 100 million new voters join every election. there'll be 6-8 voting days. the counting happens only at the end. i think i agree, this looks like what we might think of as a wave

election. the prospect of a large realignment here. the congress party, at the head of the ruling coalition, looks likely to be reduced to its lowest number in several decades. >> will there be a likely clear winner? >> yes. it is likely it will emerge as a single largest party, and win more seats than it has in its history. >> the bjp is the [indiscernible] party. he is likely to emerge as having led his party to its biggest victory ever if the polls are to be believed. >> he is controversial. >> he is. the main controversy goes back to 2002 when there were riots on his watch in 2002. a thousand people died. the shadow of the riots has

stayed with him over the last 12 years. >> he has not been in the minds of many people given a clean bill of health. >> he has been given c lean bill of health by a supreme court investigation. many people clearly have given him a chance given how well he has done in the polls. there is a small but significant minority that sees him to the prison of the 2002 election. >> the congress party is the ten-year incumbent who has been controlling india. it is a political dynasty that has been around for 100 years. they are going into the election unpopular. people are upset with the state of the economy. they are upset over corruption. i think they are upset with a

lack of direction. the country used to be talked about the same breath as china. now it is seen as a backwater, which takes many to the period several decades ago. >> what happened? i went in 2009 to interview the prime minister. this was when india, everybody was talking about india. he had some credit at that time for the economic growth. it was like it is india and china, take your pick. the two powerhouses. what happened? >> fundamentally, the reform agenda which starred in the 1990's, ran its logical course.

>> the congress party seemed unwilling to push on reforms. when you couple that with massive malfeasance in government that the prime minister, though perceived to be upstanding, honest, his administration engaged in the corruption, those are coming together to be a powerful vote-getter for their opposition. >> the reforms were followed by years [indiscernible] those reforms delivered very rapid growth for the first alignment. in the second term, lots of mismanagement. the reforms had run their course. infrastructure came to a bottleneck.

4-5%. that is where the backlash has begun to form. the government had begun to believe that growth was to be taken for granted. they put all they needed was to spend money on the poor. they did so. if you forget about growth, europe and it begins to slow as well. >> where is the ghandi family in all of this? >> basic resident congress has been the dominant party. you see something like what the amc looks like now. something what the labour party was until 1977. what has happened is for various reasons, unique to india, the gandhi family has not gone away. i think they managed to continue to use their family brand for a time the only thing that was

seen as able to hold the congress party together. gandhi was assassinated. she has been the power behind the throne. the relation between sonia has been misunderstood. no one apart from the two of them have access to the conversations they have. >> anybody disagree? a relationship between her and the prime minister? >> it may not be understood, but it is widely seen as him being her employee. people use on kinder words. it is seen as a one-sided

relationship. the real question is can gandhi, the heir to the family, whose father was assassinated, so far he has shown little aptitude for politics. the crisis the party faces, they have only one means of succession. family rule. the chosen heir doesn't have an aptitude for politics. >> alongside, on the other party, a charismatic leader. an effective leader on the other side, and unaffected leadership. on the other. >> you have a powerful, charismatic leader who has run a state for 10 years. that gets left aside. this is a historic thing, to

have someone in india who ran a state, who then tries to use that as a springboard for national office. that happens all the time. you have governors running for president. this is a new thing. he has a track record. you can look at what i have done. i have been a leader. you can contrast that with gandhi. that contrast has been unfavorable. >> let's assume that moody wins. what government will we expect? the kind of relationship with the u.s.? >> i would add one thing. the one thing that is remarkable in the context of indian politics, anyone can correct me, india has never seen a campaign like this. >> how so? >> one thing you hear is that it is a presidential style campaign. the leading candidate of each party has been put front and center.

sometimes an election party will go to elections without specifying who is going be the nomination. i would go further back. the american political scientist talk about the invisible primary. that romney is running, he is meeting donors. he is talking to the party faithful. he is trying to line up inevitability. starting in 2005, 2006, moody began to do things in a way that hadn't been seen in india before. he started hosting these huge investments. people would pledge -- i want to build a factory. i'm going to bring my car plant. it was a very clever, and he sets himself up anyway that we haven't seen before to show that his track record was going to be appealing to voters. that i think has raised expectations high.

there are a lot of liberals in india who it is safe to say are afraid of him coming to office. >> why? >> they see him as autocratic, possibly authoritarian. they see him as communal. someone who is a majoritarian, who will dog whistle in terms of making muslim voters feel unwelcome. it is something that is debated fiercely. others may disagree. i would say one thing. when i have spoken to liberals who feel this way, i think it can be overdone. if he becomes prime minister, he is going to find himself running what you could call a byzantine government. i don't imagine him running over his opponents.

>> briefly, if you look at him through the prism of the riots, that is where this starts from. you look at him after that for the last 12 years, he has run a business friendly government not discriminated against anybody. that has allowed him to go from being a fringe figure to the dominant national figure. why would he be stupid enough to endanger that? >> go ahead. >> in the last 10 years, since 2002, the history of any discrimination, if you look at the numbers, muslims in rural india have the lowest rate of poverty.

he stands for development. development is for everybody [indiscernible] and, that has the kind of track record he has established. >> on the issues personal? or are they about bigger issues about him? or are the issues about india's future? and how each of them will impact the future? >> it is the number one issue on everyone's mind, the economy. they saw india growing at chinese growth rates. those have split in half. inflation has run amok. corruption is a big issue. people have seen their wages, which have increased, you wrote it because of inflation.

there was this myth and politics that good economics did make for good politics. how you could get away with a lot of stuff if you are the right cast. i think that is starting to fray. voters are behaving as they do in most democracies. it's the economy, stupid. >> three big things about this election. one of them is it holds out the possibility that the nature of the voter is changing. indian politics has always been more transactional than what we see today in america. often a certain community and a certain place. what can i get from the various politicians. this is almost done formally. the community will meet with each candidate and offer various things. more and more, economic growth, good governance is coming into that package.

the other thing is that, for the first time in a while, the competition between two different visions. how to shake india out of this. what's the difference of vision about a view about investment and development? state versus private? >> a think that the campaign is the development plank. unless we have growth, we can't take care of our poorest. if the congress could be said to have a coherent counterargument to that, they are saying we have to take care of the poorest. >> in the last 20 years, if you compare to the previous 40 years, it has doubled. the voters today, they have seen this massive growth. that has made all the difference. he promises that growth. the return to reforms. a different kind of government. >> fundamental differences, the

first is the idea of indian secularism. >> is it about religious minorities? >> the third is, dynastic politics. is indian politics going to be preserve the family, or can someone who started life on a railway station the prime minister? >> you think india's prepared? >> it looks like it is that. >> what happens to the gandhi family?

family? >> it is a question mark. they have been around for a long time. we have made a comeback before. i don't think losing one election will hurt the family. it raises the question mark about the family. if he loses another big one, you are not so sure. >> why as his mother never have a public, she was the most important person in the party. why had she never wanted to run? >> she realized that she could have more power. in 2004, the congress won a surprising victory over the bjp. the congress party, love and loyalty forever the leader is, and these people cried and rendered the garments. she said her inner voice had told her she should not run the country. he can he asked and most clever move you can imagine. for a long time.

there was good will toward her because she had handed the crown over. >> people are speculating he is positioning himself to do the same thing. he will be the power behind the throne. the problem is there is nobody to hand the crown to. >> foreign policy. does the united states favor one candidate over the other? >> it depends on who you talk to. >> the administration? >> after 2002, the united states government had no relationship. because of the rise that happened, his visa was revoked. he was denied a new visa. a couple of months ago

ambassadors would meet with him. the u.s. government sees the writing on the wall. he is the most likely person to become the next pm. it would be awkward if these partners who had this relationship didn't have a relations. that has been pragmatism. a push from the harvest sector saying he has done good things. we think he could scale the model up. let's give him a shot. >> they grow to like him. >> it was a big advance under bush and the nuclear deal that was included. you could say that after many years of non-alignment, the u.s. and india had come into the orbit. it was very much military cooperation, defense sales, trade. a lot of people in india feel the obama administration has

taken its eye of the ball. >> was india the first? the president has said a lot about the fact he has been to india. >> the larger question about u.s. foreign policy. the pivot asia. the idea that obama was going to fulfill this balance, and tilt, the names keep changing. because of the middle east, that focus has changed. it is india and a other asian countries. >> the united states would have a series of relations with asia other than china. not so much to contain china, but to have strong relations. >> the indian economy started to flag. as india seemed more of the mass of corruption that people in america may be started saying, india's going to be our counterpoint? this is ridiculous. we bet on the wrong horse.

i think in those people, they would prefer a stronger india. >> pakistan. kashmir. will the new leader make a difference? is that going to be there forever and ever? a central issue? >> there are two views. the first is that this person comes from the right, he is a hard-line nationalist. he cares about terrorism. a terrorist attack could derail relations between india and pakistan. the second view is a china view. only a person who comes from the right with a strong leader, a backing of elements of the indian population that are more hostile. >> does he have the backing of the military? >> yes.

>> i would propose a third alternative. between these extremes, what you seem since the last attacks, the development of thought process in india that says pakistan is a basket case. our best bet is to let them work out their problems and not necessarily -- you had efforts to do these grand peacemaking initiatives. i think it is stalled now. people would be happy to see it continue. >> in terms of politics, in terms of divisiveness, rich, poor, urban, rule. >> the divisions exist. if you look at polls, across all categories, except for muslims, and people above the age of 60, all of them are leading. they are not necessarily being reflected in the election.

>> would i be ill informed if i said that probably in most countries the relation between india and hindus and muslims is better than it is in most places where there is a strong divergent and relations? >> that is true. they were side-by-side for millennia. the events that happened, violence breaks out. it is a big country. 4.2 billion. that gets into the focus. it leaves out a lot more. if you look at the order, it is correct. i grew up next to a mosque. the muslim community. we had the school classmates who were from the muslim community.

>> do most of you believe that hindu will regain its economic mojo? >> i believe so. >> something that is underlying this, it has been obscured by the incompetence, a question. only in india would you have a high profile tabloid spat that between two competing teams of economists. on one side, you have [indiscernible] the debate was partially about do we need welfare or growth

it was about how intractable are the problems in this society now? is it just that the congress has mismanaged things, or have they dealt incompetently? one of the things people will be waiting to see, do some of the same problems that persistent poverty in some places -- duties continue to go on? if he can work with growth, starts mooning over these things, people will say it was just the congress. they messed things up. >> in a way, yes they are going to continue. the question is, is he going to -- does india get momentum again? is it moving in the right direction rapidly? that is the question. >> alternately, it is the same. the problems you are describing have existed. a good prime minister comes

along, we have a series of reforms. [indiscernible] >> what about women in india? we have the publicity about rape. the place of women in society. >> i think it is changing. women are forcing the issue. if you look at the recent state elections, the men are turning out at higher rates than men. it is a phenomenal thing. there are two things in this election. one, rising female turnout. the second, the bad economy and high inflation. in india, the women in the household know where the money is going.

they know what the price is. if they are upset at the economy, those things are going to play the oppositions favor. >> thank you. an interesting debate. 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. a big day at microsoft. satya nadella takes the stage for the first time as ceo. we speak to tim armstrong about his plans to shake up the online ad business. but first, your bloomberg headlines. turkey has blocked access to youtube a week after blocking access to twitter.