i'm candy crowley in washington. fareed zakaria gps starts right now. [ applause ] this is "gps," the global public scare. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. we have a terrific show for you today. we will start with an exclusive interview about "the interview." >> take him out. >> for coffee, dinner? >> the movie about north korea's kim jong-un that has created a firestorm. it involves cyber war and the freedom of expression. i will talk to the ceo of sony entertainment, the man with ultimate responsibility for the film and the company that was hacked. then the rest of the

world-shaking news from this week. cuban/american relations on the road to normalization. the collapse of the russian ruble. the resurgence of the taliban. we have a world-class panel to talk about it all. but first here is my take. this has been a week where big news has been exploding. we will get to all of it, but let me tell you about the thing that most agitated me this week. the response to the cyber attacks on sony pictures. now that u.s. intelligence officials say they believe north korea was behind those attacks, the discussion has finally moved away from e-mails about angelina jolie to the real story, which is far more troubling. one of the nastiest regimes in the world has effectively threatened to launch terror attacks in america if an artistic work were to be shown publicly, and stunningly, almost

everyone involved has caved. imagine that the iranian government had threatened a terror attack on u.s. soil if, say, a book were about to be released that parodied it's supreme leader. would we not regard this as an intolerable surrender to threats of terror and a violation of core principles of freedom of speech? yet when confronting an almost identical circumstance today with the sony movie "the interview," the reaction has been very different. >> you want us to kill the leader of north korea? >> yes. >> what? >> after the country's largest theater chain said they would delie the film's opening, sony announced it would officially cancel it's december 25th release. other movie studios did not rally behind sony. deadline magazine reported wednesday another movie set in north korea, a thriller starting steve carell has been canceled. the stars of "the interview"

canceled all their appearances. >> it's worth remembering that when chaplin's movie was being made in the late 1930s according to the document air "the tramp and the dictator," neville chamberlin's government wanted to ban its distribution in britain all in service ever its policy of appeasement towards nazi germany. by the time the movie was released in 1940, britain was at war with germany and everything had changed. why does the terrorist threat from north korea produce appeasement and indifference where threats from islamic terrorists produce courage and defiance and resilience? i suspect that it's because we are fully aware of the barbarism of jihadi terrorists, but we tend to think of north korea in somewhat comical terms. the odd dictators with their strange haircuts, the weird

synchronized mass adulation in stadiums, the massive propaganda and rhetoric. in fact, north korea is one of the world's most repressive and brutal dictatorships. estimates are that it allowed 1 to 2 million of its own people to starve in a famine in the 1990s. the u.n. says that north korea abducted thousands of people from neighboring countries following the korean war and currently imprisons about 100,000 people in brutal labor camps. that statistic comes from a u.n. panel commissioned to investigate the human rights situation in north korea. its report released in february paints a picture of a regime that really has no parallel in the scale of its cruelty and oppression. the challenge that movie studios and theaters face is real because they have to balance the issue of freedom of expression with safety and commerce. but they've made a mistake. i understand it well.

in 2009 yale university press published a book on the danish cartoon controversy but refrained from publishing the actual offending cartoons of prophet mohammed because of fears of retaliation and violence. as a trustee of the university, i was asked to defend the decision, one i would not have made. swayed by my concerns for an institution i love deeply and a group of administrators i respect greatly, i made a statement supporting the university's actions that i have always deeply regretted. the right response then and now must be to affirm freedom of expression. the u.s. government has to find a way to respond to this active aggression on american territory. if not, north korea will have gotten away with the worst signsign cyber attack and the most brazen threat of terrorism in recent times. it will be triumphant and emboldened and surely groups like al qaeda and isis will take

note that the way to scare countries into submission is to threaten these kinds of attacks. at that point the story will be about much more than a hollywood comedy. for more go to cnn.com/fareed and read my "washington post" cl column this week, and let's get started. so let us get straight to sony's side of the story. joining me now is michael lynton, the ceo of sony entertainment as well as the chairman and ceo of sony pictures entertainment. in other words, he is the boss at the company behind "the interview" the movie that provoked the cyber attack and threat. the president says sony made a mistake in pulling the film. did you make a mistake? >> no. i think actually the unfortunate

part is in this instance the president, the press, and the public are mistaken as to what actually happened. we do not own movie theaters. we cannot determine whether or not a movie will be played in movie theaters. so to sort of rehearse for a 340e7 moment the sequence of events. we experienced the worst cyber attack in american history and per veer persevered for 3 1/2 w under e are normous stress in t effort of trying to keep our business up and running and get this movie out into the public. when it came to the crucial moment when a threat came out from what was called the g.o.p. at the time, threatening audiences who would go to the movie theaters, the movie theaters came to us one by one over the course of a very short

period of time, we were completely surprised by it, and announced they would not carry the movie. at that point in time, we had no alternative but to not proceed with the theatrical release on the 25th of december. and that's all we did. >> so you have not caved in your view. >> we have not caved. we have not given in. we have persevered, and we have not backed down. we have always had every desire to have the american public see this movie. >> why not release it online in some form or the other, video on demand? >> there are a number of options open to us, and we have considered those and are considering them. as it stands right now, while there have been a number of suggestions that we go out there and deliver this movie digitally or through vod, there has not been one major vod distributor, one major e-commerce site who

has stepped forward and said they are willing to distribute this movie for us. again, we don't have that direct interface with the american public, so we need to go through an intermediary to do that. >> mitt romney says why not just put it on youtube and let the whole world see it? >> that's certainly an option, and that's certainly one thing that we will consider, but, again, all of this has transpired so quickly we're trying to weigh the options as to how we can get this -- how to go forward with all of this. we were taken by surprise by the theaters, which is what we wanted to do first, and now we're trying to proceed and figure out what the next step should be. >> the president says he wishes -- i wish they had talked to me. what is your response? >> my response is that a few days ago i personally did reach out and speak to senior folks in the white house and talked to them about the situation and actually informed them we needed help. the fbi has been with us now for several weeks and has been

great, but i did reach out and explain the situation to them at that time. >> so the president is wrong when he says that you did not reach out to him? >> well, i don't -- when he's asking about reaching out -- >> i wish they had talked to me first is the -- >> right. so we definitely spoke to senior advisers or senior adviser in the white house to talk about the situation. the fact is did we talk to the president himself and talk to him about what was transpiring as the theaters started pulling back and not -- and being unwilling to distribute the movie? no, but the white house was certainly aware of the situation. >> not only did the theaters all pull out, but you couldn't get any of the major hollywood studios to support you. george clooney writes he put out a petition and tried to get support. he couldn't get a single person to sign it. have you been surprised at the fact that nobody has been willing to rally around you? >> i am surprised, frankly. i mean, i understand on the one

hand that my fellow studios and everybody else has their own commercial concerns and they, themselves, are worried about becoming a target, and it did make this entire enterprise to be a very, very lonely affair, but on the other hand, you know, this is a moment where you would expect the industry to rally around and support you. >> is it fair to say or is it your estimation that the theater owners panicked because the north koreans do not appear to have the capacity to launch some kind of major smimultaneous or really any significant trifert atta terrorist attack in the united states. why do you think they panicked? >> what i can only imagine is homeland security came out that day and said there was not a viable threat, and my sense of it having had the conversations was there was enormous pressure put on them by the malls, by the shops in the malls, by the

surrounding neighborhoods who were also threatened in those e-mails to say they shouldn't show the picture, and they basically on the basis of looking at that, they decided they wouldn't take the picture. >> does that mean that dvd release also becomes difficult because you would face the same challenge, which is the walmarts and the costcos of the world would have to agree to stock the dvd? >> again, we don't have a direct interface with the american public, so we would require either through online or in a retail situation, we would need distribution, and, yes, it's fair to say if we can't find one of those large retailers or many of those large retailers to sell our dvds, we wouldn't be able to provide them with "the interview." >> is it fair to say, michael, your hope and expectation is that the movie will be seen -- >> we have always wanted the american public to see this movie. we have worked tirelessly to do

so. so absolutely we would -- that's been the primary objective throughout. >> when we come back, i will ask sony's michael lynton when he knew exactly he had a problem. ♪[ soft holiday music ]♪ can you help me up? [ snow intensifies ] [ sleighbells ring in the distance ] aleve. all day pain relief with just 2 pills. get back to being you. i've had moderate to severe plaque psoriasis most my life. but that hasn't stopped me from modeling. my doctor told me about stelara®. it helps keep my skin clearer. with only 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses... ... stelara® helps me be in season. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections

and increase your risk of infections. some serious infections require hospitalization. before starting stelara®... ...your doctor should test for tuberculosis. stelara® may increase your risk of cancer. always tell your doctor if you have any sign of infection, have had cancer, or if you develop any new skin growths. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to stelara® or any of its ingredients. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems- these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. serious allergic reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you or anyone in your house needs or has recently received a vaccine. in a medical study, most stelara® patients saw at least 75% clearer skin... ...and the majority were rated as cleared or minimal at 12 weeks. stelara® helps keep my skin clearer. ask your doctor about stelara®.

we are back with my exclusive interview with the ceo of sony pictures michael lynton about the north korean hack attack against his company and the threat of terrorism. michael, let me ask you to go through the sequence of what happened. when did you first realize that you had a problem? >> the first time we understood that there was an issue with the north koreans was back in june of last summer when they came forward with various e-mails and statements and actually i think they were in touch with the white house itself and described their disfavor with the movie. at that point in time we actually reached out to experts at various -- at think tanks, within the state department, to try to get a proper understanding of whether or not there was a problem here and whether or not we were providing a security risk, and we were

told that there wasn't a problem here, and so we continued to proceed. >> including the u.s. government told you there wasn't a problem. >> the u.s. government told us there wasn't a problem, that's correct. >> when people ask the north koreans threatened you, why didn't you take this seriously? >> we did take it seriously. we went to the people who we thought were most expert in the area, people in the u.s. government, people in various think tanks, and inquired as to whether or not this would be a problem and they told us it wasn't. that actually is for the world to see as my stolen e-mails have been presented in public. >> there was an e-mail between you and somebody at the rand corporation -- >> and somebody between me and the state department, correct. >> right. when you began to experience the cyber attack, what was your response? because there are a number of people who wonder why did this happen? did you have weak malware? did you not have the kind of

cyber security you needed? >> no, we had absolutely sufficient cyber security. both the fbi and mandiant, the experts who we brought in, basically said that the malware was so sophisticated that 90% of american businesses would have fallen prey to what happened to us. so, no, i don't think we were inadequate at all in our cyber security. >> so what that means is this is at a level that the -- that the attack is at a level of sophistication that very few companies, perhaps no company would be able to withstand. >> that's what i have been given to understand, and as a result, they stole all of our data, wiped it -- wiped our computers clean, and then destroyed the computers and the servers, all of which is in the fbi report that came out today. >> what is your estimate of the damage of that cyber attack to sony? >> we haven't come to an estimate as of yet. >> but certainly in the tens of millions. >> it's very significant, yes. >> variety of reports that you will lose $75 million on this

movie. is that accurate? >> you know, we don't get into the exact numbers of it, and by the way, it still remains to be seen as to how we and if we can get the movie out at which point whatever the loss is or the gains might be are still to be realized. so it's too early to determine. >> could you collect insurance on this? >> there is insurance as it remember tans pertains to the cyber attack itself so we could find ourselves in a situation where we could collect some insurance, yeah. >> there are some people who feel this movie should have never been made. it's a movie about the assassination about a sitting world leader, a country that has nuclear weapons, that it was in poor taste, that you should not have made this movie and risked sony's credibility. >> well, a couple things. first of all, we made the movie because we thought it was a funny comedy. secondly, there is a long history of political satire in film, and this clearly falls

into that realm. but i would also say that fundamentally isn't the issue here. the issue here is that having made the movie, we feel very strongly of that it should have been in theaters for the american public to have seen, and we did everything in our power to make that happen. we did not cave. we did not back down, and we continued in that pursuit right up until the end. >> how damaging has it been that your e-mails, your personnel records, are out there in the open? >> you know, it's hurtful to everybody at sony pictures. everybody, and by the way, many of the folks who work with us outside of sony pictures. that part has been damaging and hurtful. it's not nice to have your e-mails exposed to the general public. it has had a real effect on the mora morale of the company and many people are frightened because of it. we'll recover. we've worked very, very hard to

do so and we're in the process now. >> when you look at this, this is one of the great episodes of crisis management in really management history. what is the lesson you take from it? >> i take a couple lessons. you know, first of all, i take the lesson because it's gone on now for about a month, you need to keep a cool and clear and sober mind throughout the process because everyone in the organization is looking to you to have that attitude and to have that point of view and to be a clear thinker. you also need to make sure that you keep your eye on what the objective is going forward, and the objective for us has always been and will always be to make sure that the creative artists who work with us can continue in their endeavor whether that be making television shows or films, and that we be able to the best of our ability distribute those out to the public. and i think we have continued to

pursue that objective throughout this period. yes, we were thwarted at the end when the theaters chose not to show the movie, but the objective remained very clear in everyone's mind throughout the process. >> when we come back, i will ask michael lynton whether as a supporter of the president he was disappoint eed by what he heard from him. nearly half a million cars were stolen in 2012, but for every car stolen, 34 people had their identities stolen. identity thieves can steal your money, damage your credit, and wreak havoc on your life. why risk it when you can help protect yourself from identity theft with one call to lifelock, the leader in identity-theft protection? lifelock actively patrols your sensitive, personal information every second of every day, helping to guard your social security number, your bank accounts and credit, even the equity in your home -- your valuable personal assets. look.

your bank may alert you to suspicious activity on your credit or debit card. but that still may leave you vulnerable to big losses if a thief opens new accounts in your name or decides to drain your savings, home equity, or retirement accounts. and your credit report may only tell you after your identity's been compromised. but lifelock is proactive protection and watches out for you in ways that banks and credit-card companies alone just can't, giving you the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. whenever the patented lifelock identity alert system detects a threat to your identity, you'll be notified by phone, text, or e-mail, helping you to stop identity thieves before they do damage. you even get a $1 million service guarantee. that's right. if your identity is ever compromised, lifelock will spend up to $1 million on experts to help restore it. you wouldn't leave your car unprotected. don't leave your money, credit, and good name unprotected. call now, and try lifelock risk-free for 60 days.

act now, and get this document shredder free. that's a $29 value. ♪ or go to lifelock.com/go. try lifelock risk-free for 60 days and get this document shredder free -- a $29 value -- when you use promo code go. call now.

we are back with the ceo of sony entertainment to get sony's side of the story and to hear from michael lynton, the head of the studio. you are well known as somebody who supported president obama. >> yes. >> were you disappointed in what you heard today? >> i would be fibbing to say i wasn't disappointed. you know, the president and i haven't spoken. i don't know exactly whether he understands the sequence of events that led up to the movie not being shown in the movie theaters, and, therefore, i would disagree with the notion that it was a mistake. it's a generally held view by the public and the press that that's what happened, and maybe that's how that view was held by him, but knowing as i do the facts and how they have the unfolded, you know, we stood extremely firm in terms of making certain that this movie would appear in movie theaters.

>> do you feel that the u.s. government, the fbi in particular, and i gather you have been in touch with other agencies, the cia, the nsa, have they been helpful? are you happy with the kind of cooperation you've gotten? >> the vast majority of the interaction has been with the fbi, and they have been absolutely spectacular throughout. they came and stayed with us for the entire period. they came to a resolution as to who was responsible for this in a record amount of time. i can't speak more highly of the agency than that. they were really the folks who we were in touch with in this process. >> would you make the movie again? >> yeah, i would make the movie again. i think, you know, for the same reasons we made it in the first place, it was a funny comedy. it was -- it served as political satire. i think we would have made the movie again. knowing what i know now, we

might have done some things slightly differently, but i think a lot of events have overtaken us in a way that we had no control over the facts. >> and you're saying you still want the public to see this movie. >> we would still like the public to see this movie, absolutely. we have to explore options as to how that might happen because while everybody comes forward and says, release it digitally, do it on vod, do this, do that, all of these things are in their own way complicated. many people don't want to come near the movie because they fear that in some way, shape, or form their systems, their servers, might be infected with a malware that came to us. so, you know, it's not -- it's not for -- what we really need to do now is evaluate the best way forward for all of us, and that's what we're in the process of doing. >> you've been at sony pictures for while.

you ran penguin press. is this a very dangerous blow against freedom of expression? >> it is. you know, i came to penguin a few years after the publication of salmon rushdie's book, and in that instance it was a very -- for one thing it was pre-9/11 obviously, but even there with the fatwa and some people were killed in that instance, there were -- the entire industry came together around penguin. the publishers, the book sellers always stocked the book, and the authors all came out and supported the book. that did not happen in this instance. in this instance we stood alone in trying to get a movie out. i think now part of the reason for that i suspect is because the conversation got caught up in all of these e-mails, many of them were deeply unfortunate, a

lot of them involved selects and people didn't understand what the real issue at stake was, and the real issue at stake was we now discover it's north korea, but we had a group of individuals who were hell bent on making certain that this movie not show up in movie theaters, and we were hell bent on making certain that it did show up in movie theaters. and the problem was in part that that support that i sort of saw at the very end that was there for satanic verses, and i wasn't at penguin at the time but came there right after my predecessor as the publisher, that kind of support was not there for this movie and part of the reason was everybody got caught up in all of this -- all of their attention being spent on these other things which frankly are a side show in the whole affair.

>> do you worry what this has done to sony's brand? you're one of the great electronics companies in the world. >> no, i recognize that. i think we can recover as a brand or, you know, we have to assess what it means to the brand. i certainly think that we can recover from this, yes. i think we have, you know, strong relations within the creative community. i think many of them understand now what it is that happened and are sympathetic to what it is we've had to go through through this process. >> somebody asked the president at his news conference, would he watch the movie? are you going to send it to him? >> if the president wants to see the movie, i would be more than delighted to send it to him. it would be my pleasure. >> michael lynton, pleasure to have you on. >> thank you very much. >> when we come back, the rest of all the news this week. i have got a great panel to talk about it. cuba coming in from the cold. russia's ruble collapses, and the taliban's cowardly attack on a school in pakistan. type 2 diabetes affects millions of us.

and for many, it's a struggle to keep your a1c down. so imagine - what if there was a new class of medicine that works differently to lower blood sugar? imagine, loving your numbers. introducing once-daily invokana®. it's the first of a new kind of prescription medicine that's used along with diet and exercise to lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. invokana® is a once-daily pill that works around the clock to help lower a1c. here's how: the kidneys allow sugar to be absorbed back into the body. invokana® reduces the amount of sugar allowed back in, and sends some sugar out through the process of urination. and while it's not for weight loss, it may help you lose some weight. invokana® can cause important side effects, including dehydration, which may cause some people to have loss of body water and salt. this may also cause you to feel dizzy, faint, lightheaded, or weak especially when you stand up. other side effects may include kidney problems, genital yeast infections, urinary tract infections,

changes in urination, high potassium in the blood, or increases in cholesterol. do not take invokana® if you have severe kidney problems or are on dialysis or if allergic to invokana® or its ingredients. symptoms of allergic reaction may include rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing. if you experience any of these symptoms, stop taking invokana® and call your doctor right away or go to the nearest hospital. tell your doctor about any medical conditions, medications you are taking, and if you have kidney or liver problems. using invokana® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase risk of low blood sugar. it's time. lower your blood sugar with invokana®. imagine loving your numbers. ask your doctor about invokana®.

it was a wild week in world affairs between the unexpected news about cuban-american relations, the ruin of the russian ruble, and putin's robust defense of, it the dastardly attacks in pan stakis. anne-marie slaughter and richard haas were from the state department. anne-marie runs new america and richard runs the council on foreign relations.

rana foroohar is "times" assistant managing editor for business. and bret stephens is the pulitzer prize winning columnist for "the wall street journal." bret, let me start with you because what stuck me as odd with regard to obama's opening to cuba and the call for the relar relaxation of the embargo is "the wall street journal" for 20 years has been calling for the end to the cuban embargo, but when obama did it, of course it turns out he's done it all wrong and the journal has a robust editorial explaining how this was all the wrong way to do it. it does feel as though if obama were to say the sky were blue, the journal would say there was something wrong with that. >> i think it was a subtle editorial that made the point that 20 years ago what we called ago was lifting the embargo for the sake of helping the cuban people at the expense of the cuban government. i don't want to come out and simply flatly oppose what obama

has done. what my concern is, is that after this flurry of engagement, of an opening, good headlines for the president, we are going to find that the castro regime or its successor is going to be much more obstreperous than we had imagined. the liberalism we seek won't materialize. how do we go about constructing a step-by-step process that consistently gives us the leverage we need to move the regime in the right direction to end its police state controls? the model here or rather the cautionary tale here is burma. opening burma was the achievement, was one of the great achievements of the obama administration in the first term, and what we discovered was simply setting up an embassy, opening commercial relations wasn't enough. the regime was keen on maintaining its power. it's been more and more difficult for us ever since. let's not give up our -- too far

of our leverage at the start. >> you can say the same thing of china, right? we opened to china in the '70s. we have robust economic relations. it hasn't changed the regime's hold on the society. so i think colin powell said this morning, of course, we should have relation was cuba. we have relations with many countries that are equally oppressive. it's still better, better for the cubans and better for us, and it's very important for our relations with the rest of latin america. this has been a steady thorn in our side in working with other latin american countries, and they are overjoyed, and this is going to allow us to do more in latin american politics overall. >> either this works and by having this limited relationship, getting more internet in, more telecommune cases in, a bit of economic engage get, it sets in motion the kinds of trends we want to see. this is the trojan horse model that essentially we set cuba on a trajectory.

it doesn't, bret can relax because we still have the embargo in place. we can have a three-way negotiation among congress, the administration, and cuba and say we will only relax these elements of the embargo if you undertake these explicit reforms. this is not you unconditional engagement. we have a lot of tools that can only be released if cuba passes a lot of hurdles. i think it's well designed. >> picking up on what you said about china and technology. a great first step would be to help cuba build a more robust intnt. that would be a great first step. >> in general china is a much more open place today than it was in the 1970s. the idea that economic freedom is not real freedom it sometimes puzzles me conservatives have -- >> no. >> economic freedom is freedom. >> you're acting as if i'm inalterably opposed to the move. i want to strike a cautionary

note about the execution going six months forward. it will be easy to forget a year from now if there isn't the kind of follow through we need. look, this is not china. cuba is frankly not an important country. there's not going to be an economic bonanza coming our way even if cuba liberalizes as much as possible. >> but it does help the u.s. a lot more than cuba because we have many more companies that can do business in cuba than cuba has companies that can do business -- >> even then the scale, let's face it, is relatively minuscule. cuba is a small island in a relatively small island in the caribbean. above all our concern should be the human rights and civil liberties of the cuban people which continue to be repressed under the castro regime and its minions. >> and this probably empowers civil society more than almost anything else we can do. >> and i actually -- cuba itself might be a small island, but if you think about the mediterranean -- i'm sorry, the caribbean as a whole and you think about our hispanic population and you think then of

a growing economic area, the caribbean is an area of a lot of investment and cuba is a key player there. >> is it fair to say that this is the kind of thing obama supporters would say, this is the kind of stuff he does. you know, he's willing to be bold. he's willing to work outside of conventional wisdom. that, you know, hillary clinton for a long time supported the cuban -- the embargo. only last year switched her position. that, you know, he has been more bold on things like this and burma than even another democrat would have been? >> i won't get into the democratic politics of it. i would say this is an area under our constitution, our political system, he has tremendous latitude. diplomatic relations and the like. he doesn't need congress to sign onto this. he has the advantage that the cold war has been over for 25 years. cuba is no longer a soviet or russian strategic outpost. the existing policy hasn't worked for 50 years. the administration is making a

bet that interacting with cuba is more likely to bring about a more open cuba than isolating it. it's not a bad bet. if it works, it's a success. if it doesn't work we still have the safety valve of the embargo in place. i think it's a justifiable move, and there's a decent chance it actually will set in motion a dynamic that the cuban government won't be able to stop. t it's one of the positive effects of lower oil prices. the fact that venezuela is not going to be able to sustain the kind of subsidy -- i think the cubans understand that the era in which the state could control things to the degree it has is over, so they are accommodating that reality. >> the falling prices i think in cuba has been crucial because they would replace the soviet union, which used to give them subsidies in the cold war, with venezuela. and venezuela needs a very high oil price to break even. i think iran needs it at $130 or so dollars a barrel. venezuela may be $120. >> virtually no dollar reserves. they're stretched.

>> what do you think -- you know, what is going to happen with these low oil prices ? we're going to talk about russia in a second, but what happens in a world with oil prices at $60? >> there are economic consequences and political consequences. the economic consequences are, first, in the u.s. and in a lot of countries it's good news. it's like a $100 billion tax rebate for consumers. that's going to help the recovery here. it's very bad news for petro autocrats. you see putin under pressure. you see the fact that the saudis are willing to pump more and keep the prices low puts iran under pressure. there's a lot of fallout for those countries that's negative, and the negative fallout tends to be more intense than the positive effect. >> when we come back, we'll talk about one petro dictator in particular, vladimir putin, when we come back. can you help me up?

[ snow intensifies ] [ sleighbells ring in the distance ] aleve. all day pain relief with just 2 pills. get back to being you.

...the getaway vehicle! for all the confidence you need. td ameritrade. you got this.

thank you. ordering chinese food is a very predictable experience. i order b14. i get b14. no surprises. buying business internet, on the other hand, can be a roller coaster white knuckle thrill ride. you're promised one speed. but do you consistently get it? you do with comcast business. and often even more. it's reliable. just like kung pao fish. thank you, ping. reliably fast internet starts at $89.95 a month. comcast business. built for business.

and we are back with anne marie slaughter, richard haass, rana foroohar and bret stephens. bret, it feels as though i'm only slightly teasing because you have this book out about america in retreat and how terrible obama has been. obama set in place a policy toward russia which is we are going to put sanctions on them, three rounds of sanctions, got the europeans to do it, got the europeans to finally talk seriously about diversifying

from energy. clearly this is part of the reason russia is under pressure. the price of oil has dropped but the ruble has also dropped and the price of your currency is a sign of people's confidence in the regime. isn't it fair to say that the obama strategy of pressuring russia and making it pay some price has worked? >> i think it's fair to say that sanctions, which came -- tougher sanctions which came a bit too late certainly for the people of donetsk and luhansk is affected as part of a larger reality which is the extraordinary transition in the world oil markets, the rise of the united states to its place as the premiere producer, and the decision by saudi arabia for really unrelated causes not to put a floor on the price of oil. and this combination of factors is creating a happy -- sort of a happy confluence of events which is putting great pressure on putin. how he reacts to that i'm a little bit concerned about his way of getting out of this. >> so that's a very important

question, richard. if you look over the last ten years, as the price of oil went up, putin got bolder and bolder. when you were in government and george w. bush now explains, i have seen this in a couple places, that he thought when he met putin he could trust him. he looked into his eyes and saw his soul. because the price of oil was i think something like $30 a barrel. putin was two years out of the russian default and was being very accommodating. that as the price of oil went up, he became less and less accommodating. so would the reverse be true? >> short answer is we don't any. harold brown once said about nuclear weapons, when we build, when they don't build, they build. there's a certain constant in soviet policy. it's possible putin will use the current economic problems, he'll get uneasy with it, and he'll do a wag the dog scenario. create an international distraction, possible, unlikely. the more likely thing is he slightly pulls in his horns.

>> how bad is the russian economy right now? >> i think it's disastrous. i think russia is a failed state economically. it's a petro state. 75% of the exports come from oil. so when you have oil prices like this and you don't have diversification which is really one of the tragedies of russia. there's great human talent there, human capital. it's like cuba in that respect. there's a lot of wealth of experience in science and technology, but there was no effort made governmentally to diversify. >> what do you think about putin? >> so i think putin's very weak, and i think, indeed, he was weak before. i really see his move into crimea and into ukraine as the result of weakness not just economic weakness but political weakness. if you go back to 2011, he was really shaken at the amount -- the number of people who came into the streets in moscow, and he has been feeling -- >> protesting the election. >> protesting the election and really opposing him. so i think he's weak.

this makes him weaker. i think the saudi point, the saudi arabians are not just lowering oil prices for iran. they're also doing this against russia. you have to remember that saudi arabia a fighting russia on syria, and this is a very deliberate effort there, too. so i actually see them as being diplomatically attacked in the middle east as well as in europe. i see putin as weak. the real question is at what point if he doubles down, i don't think he will but if he doubles down and becomes more aggressive, at what point does his own party decide they've had enough. >> the issue is there's one area where he is strong. he retains major public support in russia, and going forward -- >> that's right. we were talking in the break, he's not really a dictator. he's an il-liberal democrat. >> how do you construct a policy

that disenchants a sizable number of russian people from putin, from that mystique of the strong man? you know, confident tigers are dangerous. wounded tigers are also dangerous. how do you persuade russia the source of their problems is not the west. it's not some conspiracy. it's coming from the kremlin? >> that's tough, too, because in russia and in many other emerging market countries, i think there's a younger generation that's nationalistic that is -- he has popular support for that reason. >> he controls television dramatically which makes it very hard to break through. the only other thing i would say about putin is at the height of the cold war, there was a bit of collective leadership. the hardest thing to figure with putin is he's now consolidated power to a agree around his own person that's without precedent in the history of not just russia but the soviet union, in some ways since stalin. that makes it hard to predict how he's going to react to this pressure. >> his popularity though has been tied to the fact he's

increased the standard of living for the majority of russians four-fold. that's not happening. russia is in recession. you're already hearing some leading economic figures speak out against him in ways they weren't before, local governors. so i think we have to watch the economics there. >> is there anything to say other than just, you know, the marvel of the complete brutality of the taliban's attack on the school children? >> well, i mean, it's a reminder -- the enemy in plain sight. the main point is this, i think this is a wake-up call to the pakistani intelligence and the pakistani military that they can't continue to play this game that the pakistan taliban is bad but the afghan taliban is good, that they can continue to support the so-called resistance fighters in kashmir. they just released on bail one

of the masterminds of the horrific attacks in mumbai. they have to understand terrorism is a unitary threat and join forces with prime minister modi in india and go after this as if they're all pieces of the same puzzle. >> haven't they gotten like 20 wake-up calls? >> i hope you're right but i see no historical evidence to support that. you have a weak, divided state. it's not a failed state but it's almost an endlessly failing state. they have had endless opportunities do this. it's the reason, quite honestly, pakistan remains in many ways the most frightening country in the world. 200348 people, 150, 200 weapons. many of the world's most dangerous terrorists all within a state unable or unwilling to expert its authority in large chunks of territory. this is the nightmare country in many ways in the world. >> pakistan is another one of these failed economies. it's a tragedy because actually in many ways it's the same human

capital as india. >> absolutely. huge strengths in technology and science. and, again, i think there needs to be a popular wake-up call, that this isn't about isolated incidents of terror. that's what -- when malala was shot in 2012, it was about a brazen school girl. in 2013 it was shiites are a separate group. it is a deep terrorist threat in the middle of this country. >> it's like russia. pakistan, part of the tragedy of pakistan, is they have chased their best people away. you find the most erudite pakistan pakistanis in the diaspora. they have to find a which to bring them back. >> as often happens in these situations, the beneficiary of that flight is the united states. thank you all very much. wonderful conversation.

and a ha nasa put five people together in this small dome in hawaii for five months to see how they got along. not for the benefit of tv reality viewers but to learn what they could about what life in the isolated red planet would be like for the astronauts. you learn about that in our special airing next sunday in this time line. it's called "moonshots for the 21st century." we'll tell you about doctors who are trying to 3-d print a human heart, physicists trying to build a star to power the planet, aeronautical engineers and how their work could some day get you from new york to london in one hour. and neuroscientists who are trying to map the human brain. don't miss it.

for viewers in north america, that's 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. eastern time next sunday, december 28th. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. this is cnn breaking news. >> good morning. and welcome to "reliable sour s sources." we're standing by for any new developments on the assassination of these two new york city police officers. my heart is aching for my city this morning. and we will keep you fully informed on this throughout the day here on cnn. we also have breaking news about another major and fast-moving story, that is the sony pictures cyber attack. it is an attack the u.s. now believes was instigated by north korea. in an interview on cnn's "state of the union" this morning, president obama told candy crowley that it was an act of cyber vandalism, a very costly one at that. and he said the u.s. will respond proportionally. now, as we come to air this mo