>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> we turn to the ukraine. the fallout of the downing of

flight 17 over east ukraine continues. the international community is heartening in the belief that the plane was shot down by russian backed separatists using a russian antiaircraft weapon. the russian military officials continued to deny any involvement. earlier today rebels allowed experts to search the wreckage after days of destruction. there are reports of intense fighting between the ukrainian military and separatist. president obama spoke earlier today. >> my preference continues to be finding a diplomatic resolution. i believe that can still happen. that is my preference today and will continue to be my preference. if russia continues to violate ukraine's sovereignty and back these separatist, and the separatist become more and more dangerous, then russia will only further isolate itself from the international community and the costs will only continue to

increase. now is the time for president putin and russia to pivot away from this strategy they been taking. and get serious about trying to resolve hostilities within the ukraine in a way that respects the sovereignty and the right of the ukrainian people to make their own decisions. time is of the essence. >> joining me now is david remnick. he knows russia well. he is editor of "the new yorker" magazine. i'm pleased to have him back at the table. he just return from moscow several weeks ago. welcome. >> good to be here. >> tell me what you know, you know lots of people over there. what are they saying about vladimir putin? >> it's interesting. foreign correspondents tend to meet people like them. intellectuals, good sources. i really made it my business a couple of lisa good to spend day

after day speaking with what i think is the new class, the putin 2.0 class of neo-imperialists, russian nationalists. you are seeing a new wave of putin conservatism. a kind of aggressive rhetoric about a broad, particularly anti-americanism that outstrips anything you might have seen 8-10 years ago. some of these people began in the 1990's as liberals. for one reason or another, because it became disgusted with the elson period, or they are imperialists, the key thing here is information. information.

vast majority of people in russia get their information, their sense of what is going on in the world, whether this incident with the malaysian plane, or the ukraine in general, or the united states, it is state run television. almost orwellian in its reach, and in recent years, since putin came back, it is far more sophisticated, strict, and all-encompassing in this propaganda. if you were to turn on russian television tonight to get a sense of what's going on in the world, what's going on in eastern ukraine, who did what to whom, who's to blame, you would be appalled. you would be shocked. you would be disoriented. >> there's no free television? >> there is very little. there is an internet channel, but it is being pressured vastly.

i was there to see people. their headquarters was being moved to the fringe of town. their access to the airwaves is getting more and more limited. even the liberal outputs, the outlets are feeling the pressure and they are far fewer. the main way information comes from channel one, from russian tv, and everybody watches. >> is this a question about this incident, what happened in the tragic instruction -- just russian of 280 plus lives, the central question seems to be is russia complicit? >> i want to be careful. i think we should, even now, when you put the pieces together, when you see the way who have the weapons to do this,

what is the geography, what are the motives, are other planes being shot down by the separatists? yes. are they being done with the russian collusion? yes. is there communication between moscow and these groups? yes. and so on and so forth. what about the behavior? it was disgusting. i think what has happened overall is that putin unleashed the dogs of war, something very ugly, in the societal sense, this terribly complicated crisis

with the ukraine in the west. he has done it. >> he began with crimea. >> he began before that. it centered on the drama with the conflict of the west. and it is rooted in a sense of resentment against the west that has developed over a decade's time. it has developed with some western errors as well. the singular actor here is vladimir putin. >> it may be out of control? >> i think putin, if we consider him a rational actor, and i do, he has used old tools and it has unleashed very ugly things in russian society. people are starting to recognize, and i had a meeting with one of his political advisers for many years, half the kremlin's initiative has

unleashed forces that have gone beyond putin's grasp. i saw people who have regular access to the airwaves. they make them look like moderate liberals in this country. there's a connection. there are people, like people who run "tomorrow," and he used to be a marginal figure. now he's on national television all the time. this has aroused peoples resentment, there anger at the west. i think we have to remember what happened 25 years ago. people woke up in a country

where an empire had suddenly become one country. the collapse of the soviet union. everything people were taught to believe was black was now white. everything that was white was now black. our enemies are now our friends. our friends are now our enemies. the amount of disorientation and anger and resentment, and feeling that the west is being triumphal, all these feelings have percolated. you see in the rhetoric of putin today. it is popular because he has made a popular. >> and the control of the media. >> we've all read orwell. it is more sophisticated. it is less bland, boring. there's no department of ideology in the kremlin like there was in the party. >> what do they think, these people who should know, how far

do they think he will go? >> he has changed the people around him. there used to be a dynamic, and it was never a pleasantly democratic place. there were some people on the economic side who were very interested in the development of proper market economy. the interest of the club talk receive become so powerful that some of those people are either out of a job living in paris and gone, the people who surround putin, the people from the kgb background, who are like him, there's not a lot of diversity of opinion.

>> what does he want? >> what does he want. sitting in the olympics, and the problems with the ukraine started to percolate. if you tell me he would move in crimea, i would be shot. that he would do stabilize so much of eastern ukraine. >> and get away with it. >> absolutely. when we are talking about all this on the international stage, crimea is a given. >> when you look at where we are. >> the russian leadership, at least pretends to laugh off economic sanctions. the sanctions rarely work. >> is are any opposition to him? does it have a high his ability? >> two years ago there were tens

of thousands of people on the street angry, principally, that he decided to come back and win the presidency in what can only be described as a nontransparent process. who were these people? they weren't all liberals. they were the new class, the new middle class, the creative class, the office class. these people were enjoying prosperity and freedom to travel, and freedom from political assault on their private lives like never before in russia. yet they were politically angry. putin resented these demonstrations like you can believe. as soon as he was elected president he crushed them. instead of making common causes,

he moved his focus and his politics, and his ideology to the far more conservative majority of the country. that is the shift that has taken place in the last two years. putin with rhetoric and resentment, has changed emphasis and moved with the conservatives. >> is it possible this is a turning point, in the use of sanctions he might respond to, sanctions with europe are stronger things and without europe, because of netherlands and germany. >> in order for that to be true, and i hope it is, it could be, it demands that one set of priorities overwhelm another set. the demands that putin recognizes that in order to be a good standing with the international community, to knit itself into the international economic system, his popularity in the early days was built on the fact that he was presiding

over a country with a 70% growth rate. that is what his popularity was. pensions were being paid. debts were being paid down. the middle class was accumulating. they had food. cars, people traveling abroad. a real middle class. that is where the popularity was centered. now, with 0% growth rate, he has fanned up nationalist emotion to pay for it over. that is where the 85 percent popularity is now. it is based on that stuff, and that has no great horizon. it might for a while. this is why i think that he is, for all his intelligence, very poor strategist. this adventure in the ukraine

has been one improvisation after another. the plans for such a move have long been there. to do one thing after another, forget about this final catastrophe, the strategy, where does it go? >> would it have made a difference if europe had acted strongly, the deal would have enabled to have a connection for europe and russia? >> there's no question ukraine itself is a deeply divided society. we have to remember what terrible shape ukraine is an economically. after the end of conmen is in, poland has tripled its economy. ukraine is not grown one bit. the political collapse has blighted drive. everyone, there is not a great hero to be found on ukrainian economical landscape.

>> they were all corrupt. >> which makes the west very wary of sending more aid because you might as well mail it to a swiss bank account. unlike poland in the 80's, there is no great mass political accounting and movement in the ukraine. there had been for many years. in the end it was a failure. you can only hope for the best now. poroshenko, i have to think that his fortune was not related in the most gorgeous way possible. >> there is this question with respect to putin. do they have any sense of

whether he will respond to his own judgment about whether president obama will respond? >> it depends on what responding means. when i watch lindsey graham and john mccain get on tv and demand, this is the result of foreign policy, what are they asking for? tanks? >> they say no. >> then what? >> support for the ukrainian so they can fight. >> more arms. >> but not troops on the ground. >> but we've been to this before. >> places where it turned the bad we put boots on the ground. >> we are looking to step back from armed conflict.

>> americans, they are looking at afghanistan and iraq and saying we spent -- >> and his reluctance about syria. >> here's the question, regardless of that. if you look at crimea, we did nothing. is it possible that he has a calculated judgment about president obama, that he can split the west, and withstand, and he'll be more risky? combine that with the messianic instincts he has to restore russia. >> complicated no doubt. the europeans are much more reluctant about sanctions. europe is far more knit into the russian economy than the united states. >> depend on russian energy. >> exactly. i don't see any, beyond the hysterical rhetoric, and it is a

tiny minority, i don't see anyone a reason thinking greater military rhetoric or action at any place in the conflict. crimea is well known. most russians, even liberals that i know in russia are very happy about that. he gave it away. this is russian land. eastern ukraine is another matter. a russian world in which the center that russia should control every russian place with russian speakers, that edges into something else.

>> one more question about this. you close your peace with this question. what is vladimir putin's next move? do you have an answer? >> i can hope. a murky retreat. that is the best that can be hoped for. he can't throw up his arms and say, considering his own audience, which he has with into a frenzy, he feels he can't get on micic about this. and just say my bad. i don't know what i was thinking. empowering a nut. he should, but he won't. a murky, semi-diplomatic language withdrawal. peace at home.

>> changing the subject. everybody knows the magazine is part of the digital revolution, having to define revolution, you cringe a new website read what did you try to accomplish? where does the magazine find itself? >> for us it was different than the experience at "the new york times." you took what was in the paper and transferred to digital. then there were bells and whistles. you have those skills in your newsroom. now you have it online. i'm not underestimating the complex city. "the new yorker" is a staff of people mostly used to doing an entirely different thing with

this, spending months on a single project to go deep on things, also fiction and humor. that is the heart of it. the web comes along. the first thing we did was put that stuff online. i didn't want to give it away for free for obvious reasons. for us, it wasn't the same thing. we had to figure out what would be the proper way to, given this way to more quickly respond to the world, how can we do this, and what measure? i don't want to be a b level new york times. i want to be the best we can be in print and online. what you got today when you go on "the new yorker", and is much more accessible, you have everything available to you. everything that was in print. all the archives.

everything beautifully done since 2007. right now, for the next little while, you can have it for nothing. this is a time to see what it is like. >> if you like you will pay for. >> someone compared to it like drug dealers. first they give it away. this is something much more interesting and identifying and it will help your life. it has to do with the people online, they are rightly very demanding. they want to be able to surf things more quickly and easily. >> what does it mean for sales for you? >> newsstands is the most

challenge. i think it is going away. subscription, this is the great part of what is happening. subscriptions in print continue to go up. not astronomically. but they continue to go up. online has taken off. amazingly, people are reading on your phone. who would have thought it? so many things you were told were so 10 years ago turned out to be the opposite is true. one of the big principles, when i would be invited to a web event, i was told over and over again, no one would read anything of length. one of the most popular pieces we've had is the 25,000 word piece on scientology.

evan osnos' long profile of joe biden, inevitably people want the best of what we do. >> it's always about the writer. absolutely. >> it's the wine, not the bottle. >> thank you. stay with us. ♪

>> it is a huge business story. 21st century fox run by rupert murdoch is planning a takeover bid for time warner. if successful the combination would bring under one roof some of the biggest sources of content, including hbo, fox broadcasting, warner bros., and more. the initial offer was rejected by time warner after late discussion. it decided it was not in its best interests for shareholders to accept the proposal. where this goes next is yet to be determined. join me now, mario gabelli of gamco investors. henry blodget of "business insider." and, andrew edgecliffe-johnson

of "the financial times." i'm pleased to have each of them here. since you are a stockholder, let me begin with this question. why does rupert want time warner? >> that's interesting. back in the early 1980's, rupert came after time warner. it was called warner. a year ago -- [indiscernible] he couldn't control a television station. that's an easy way to do it. a year ago, there was an analyst meeting in los angeles where fox share their vision. they said look, we're going to do the following. over the next 10 years, you have a rising middle class in india and china. that gets you a need for

content. content is king. rupert's timing, he talked about the satellite business. skye, deutche-tv. merging those together. there was a discussion that is what happened. in anticipation of what was going on in the immediate conference that was going to take ways, a proposal. a lot of these proposals come with a price that is open for discussion. that was the dynamics as far as we could tell. >> isn't always true with rupert, he makes the final offer at the beginning? as he did with other transactions. >> they go back on the dow jones. >> give me the personal dynamics of this in terms, 83 years old.

>> when we look back on that dow jones deal, a lot of people say this is his legacy deal. he wants to go to his grave with "the wall street journal" on his tombstone. now we look back on that and laugh. this is a 10th of the size of deal of the time warner deal. this is the ambition. there is s also two sides to innovation. aggression in confidence, or anxiety. to mario's point, content is king, we're seeing these new kings emerging. comcast is night and neck with disney for the largest media company.

we've seen john malone mopping up cable networks in europe. distributors actually get a lot more powerful. >> the new source a distribution, the internet. if you're a owner of great content, you have the option of going to the internet to serve. you get another huge check for your content. that is only going to continue to grow. >> when will we see another offer from rupert murdoch? >> likely in weeks according to my sources. probably not months. what's happening now is that the fox side is listening to shareholders like mario. they've not called you yet to

find out what it would take to get a deal. a bigger cash component seems to be consistent. more voting at the table? a higher number, which is universal. >> i don't there's any problem. exchangeable in a bond, one of the ideas i picked up 25 years ago, or allow shareholders -- we think the fox side will go to $64. if they get this deal done, he's laid out the numbers like everybody else, he could offer that option or a convertible preferred. no cash laid out. 3% coupon. that's a number. $40 a share in cash. there is some taxable dynamics to it. that's ok. >> what's in the mind of time warner? >> i think he's a rational ceo. he's not known as a man driven

by ego. >> he is a man who spun off properties. >> the cow that keeps giving. he's been phenomenal as to what he's given back to shareholders. >> he's made to companies smaller. he spun off time warner cable and aol. he's made it a much more edible target. the first thing is putting to bed the strong case. what we are going to see, early august, we've now done the hard work. the businesses, we now have a focus on warner bros. movies, and hbo, and this is how we are going to cut cost from that. >> the other thing, knowledge

they give value to the shareholders, but 1.2 billion shares, we think it is worth $135. it is a simple concept. >> the board will say, give us our present value today. that is the best. >> what do you think the present value is? >> the old story as you need a stalking horse to get the higher bid. if you want to cut a deal yet to sit down and talk. >> it seems to be folks are coalescing around $100 a share. both sides would say they are unhappy with that number. that gets you to something that seems printable.

>> let me ask two things. the spinoff of c&m. he doesn't want to look at the combinations. is it worth $10 million? >> it will ultimately be worth what a buyer is able to afford. he would look at it if it came up for grabs. i think it is one of the great franchises in news. they have trouble in the ratings. it does have real value. >> there is this argument. it's the idea that if they wait, 2-3 years, comcast will have got off the spinoff, it will be ready to make a bigger offer. >> that's a non-starter deal.

>> they would not be interested. >> no. john malone has more interesting content. i don't think comcast is a player for this down the road. cnn is different. cnn is global. you think about sports, news, entertainment, and news read al jazeera paid $500 million for asset base. i don't exclude bloomberg. this is chump change. you have google up there with $250 billion. >> there are three reasons, at that point we'll be in a great position to put ourselves on the block to many potential takers. they are viewing google and apple as potential buyers. that is a stretch. there is a huge chasm in terms

of the dna of silicon valley technology companies and big media companies. jeff bucher is has gotten the company to a position he wanted to be in. he is 62 years old. he is doing a great job. he would like to be ceo of this company going forward. not ready to sell. >> there are real questions whether there is a potential white knight two or. years down the road. will apple buy movie studio? the problem with the theory, ou buy one movie studio, the others don't trust you. the cultural question, i think there are real hurdles there. >> this is likely to happen? >> yes. >> there's no are you for not happen?

>> there's independent board. if they can get closer to resin value, what with the company be worth to somebody? >> i'm so naïve about this stuff. is it possible they would say to jeff bucher, we want to make this acquisition and we want you to run it for four years. >> i don't know. >> rupert murdoch wants his kids to run it. >> that's not a problem. i own fox because i understand the voting stock. i've owned it for a long time. >> why is fox stock going down? >> people are worried that murdoch is going to overpay. they look at dow jones and say

he would pay anything. he got obsessed with it. the concern is he's going to pay a big number to win it. the fox side is doing a good job of saying that's not going to happen. >> the other concern is some of his purchases haven't paid off so well. >> he doesn't regret it. >> he's enjoying it hugely. >> you have $10 billion in debt in four years. even 20 times, fully diluted. the family was still control it. everybody would be happy. >> who is the largest stockholder of time warner? >> that is a public company.

i have the list. august 15 everybody has to file. at that point in time you will know every shareholder. the etf's are the big holders. state street's, blackrock. >> the last time i looked it was capital group. >> they sold a big piece. >> why did they sell? >> i don't know. they are not my client. >> you have opinions even when it is not your client. >> that's why i get paid for. >> are we looking at the beginning of consolidation. disney and comcast and fox.

>> there has been real consolidation on the distribution side. you're a scene the contents i do the same thing. >> all of them split off. viacom separating into two. >> that's an interesting strategy. some textbook will be written several years from now. did the comcast team, taking distribution, was that the right strategy? or was selling distribution and focusing on content and buying back stock? which is the better strategy? he is the global fingerprint that is out there everywhere. and trying to get into content.

>> he says he buys these cable companies because of broadband. >> of course. >> that's his reason. >> i would agree on that. >> look at these big opportunities in china and india. they're not going to build out cable. they're going to build out internet. >> it is such a great story. because of rupert murdoch. the whole dynamic of a man whose that remarkable years, had a difficult time in london because of the hacking scandal, has emerged with that and making what some might believe is his last great offer, but others would say i would never say last. >> he's elephant hunting all the time.

clearly this is an important dynamic. >> rupert and warren are the same age. >> [indiscernible] we don't need to have hand eye coordination. he's got judgment. >> on that, thank you. great to see you. >> it has been a summer of turmoil. gains by the islamic state of iraq threatened regional and global security. eric holder, the u.s. attorney general called the terrorist groups a partnership with bomb makers more frightening than anything he has seen. the breadth of global instability now unfolding hasn't been seen since the late 1970's.

joining me now, ian bremmer. the president and founder of eurasia group, a consulting firm. i am pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. you tend to agree with that "wall street journal" piece, don't you. >> i certainly do. i think those things are connected. they are connected because the united states does not want to be the world's policeman. there is no one else to play that role. there are lots of countries in eurasia and the middle east that believe that they would love to be the local share. they are acting that way. but they have different views than other neighboring countries. we are experiencing a level of geopolitical creative destruction. we are going to see a lot more conflict as a consequence. when the chinese look at the u.s. and the lack of u.s. response to russian military action, that absolutely informs the way they think about vietnam, which is not an

american ally. >> to take action against japan or the united states. >> less so japan. certainly vietnam. the chinese think the ability to take relatively risk-free military steps to test the status quo is an interesting idea for them strategically in a way that a few years ago it would not have been. >> if you accept the premise. >> there are lots of things that have happened at the same time. americans across the world ideologically have had a hangover with iraq and afghanistan, and we have a president who was not elected for foreign policy. >> to take us out of war. >> and he would say that his biggest success to date on the foreign-policy front has been

iraq and afghanistan. we have europe led by germany, much more than france and britain. distracted by the internal challenges they have had, and continue to have these days. germany's international orientation is much less geopolitical. much more vile lateral. >> does he look east or west? >> merkel is in beijing and in the middle of that trip is talking about u.s. surveillance and espionage on the ground while she is standing next to -- she is engaging in more hedging than we have seen from the germans in a long time. >> was the damage this spy story does to try and smooth over the damage of edward snowden? likes i don't think it's done much damage in asia. in brazil it has hardened relations.

>> after snowden, in trying to address that, the president said were not doing this anymore. the germans kicked out the cia director. they also have accused german nationals of spying. >> the u.s. was yelling usa, usa, and the germans were yelling nsa, nsa. these are continual headlines every single day. it matters a lot. they had a problem with iraq. they had a problem with libya. they have issues with the way the united states projects power around the world. the way the french and brits are more comfortable. >> the way they projected that

germany wants u.s. to do what? >> germany wants us to be more multilateral. they want us to be much more willing to accept constraints on u.s. military power when other countries aren't as comfortable. they want us to be much more qualified in what we do and don't do not just in terms of surveillance, but drawing use and boots on the ground. the germans relationship with the chinese is bilateral, focused on their own commercial gains. they don't talk to us about concerns of industrial espionage from china. they don't talk to us about the concerns of china's increase security footprint and the threat that causes to east china, our ally in the philippines pretty germans to have a lot of interest in that. what we really want the germans for is the creation of this big

trade deal. the german response has been at best, lukewarm. they see the americans using hegemony of the dollar to put sanctions against largely european banks at the tune of $10 billion. the germans don't like that. nor do the french. the french know this game and no they were caught red-handed. all fall the relationships that have been damaged with the united states, and we've taken some hits, germany is the one that is the most important. the ability of the germans to look elsewhere, both now coordinating with us, and being able to work closely with china. >> we need the germans more than most. >> we need the germans more than anybody.

>> the saudi's are saying to the sunnis, disengage from these guys. from isis. we are not much influence they have. sunnis have tried to disengage before but came back. you do see that. they have bonds and resources. >> the most well-financed terrorist group in the history of the world. that has to concern us greatly. >> wherever they take the town may take the banks. >> you have hard currency and gold sitting there. >> at the same time, you have the saudi saying to them, don't get involved. they were thing than the

beginning. all those people would rather be with isis than be with maliki. >> it was a trade-off. >> i think the saudis have been surprised. the kurds are in a good position. they've taken 40% additional territory in the course of the last several weeks on the back of isis fighting with maliki. they have taken critical oilfields and kicked out local operators in those fields. now you have the kurds doing it. they are talking about declaring independence. they don't need to. they just need to sit with what they have. >> the united states would like to have some government in baghdad they could support. as a force against isis. a government that would allow

sunnis to be a part of it, so that partition would not be the only way to find a solution. >> i think we can get a government that certainly will oppose isis. getting a government that is sufficiently oriented towards the rest of the country that we can support, given how little reason the kurds would have to join such a group him and how hard it will be. the kurds have boycotted cabinet. they will make significant commands on changing the nature of how the money is accrued to them as the oil is pumped. they are going to become a state. i really do. >> how many years? >> within five. i think they will be okay. a lot of the fighters are now back in iraq.

i don't think the terms have a problem there. it is all a relatively stable price -- place that is making money. i think the united states will engage in military action on the ground. i think we will. the notion that we've got 700 folks on the ground right now, military advisers, they are special forces trying to understand where the border abilities are. if we consider isis to be a terrorist threat that is growing not just against iraq, we are not going to sit there. if the u.s. doesn't take the lead on that issue, what you will seize the much bigger proxy war in the region. we don't want to see that. >> thank you. ian bremmer.

thank you for joining us. ♪

>> live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west," where we cover technology, technology, and the future of business. i am cory johnson, in for emily chang. apple had a 13% jump in iphone sales, the 12% rise in third-quarter profit in a year-over-year races, and the ipad is starting to be an area of concern for some. kobe bryant looking to the tech community for in -- inspiration as he tries to expand his brand. he talked about how he f