autocrat dictator that can be swayed by other persuasions. people say he -- putin is the kind of person you're dealing with. but also not the case and that has led to some really serious underestimations of the kind of person that putin is. the title of the book mr. putin and the kremlin we chose deliberately. putin is another rupture with the russians under soviet power. there's no other leader in either russian history or modern hispanic who have come up through the intelligence agencies so the kgb. people pound to an drop've, who was more previously for many years of thad of the kgb but he came from the communist party. he didn't come up from the rank-and-file. other people that people --

another modern -- always this mention of first president bush having been head of the cia. he was political appointee. putin is a very unique individual, came up through the back corridors to become the president of russia. he okay. up by steering key parts of his identity. ...

underestimating. thinking about them, about. must have all kinds of information.

the thing that he learned in the kgb was have to work with people and how to work with lots of information. a very smart guy. very well briefed and on top of his game. and i guy who has this in other things. if you really think about it very limited to the outside world. some of the reasons why his of popular. his agenda after the russian

people. but his only experience with the outside world from 1985 to 1990. he was very important individuals, important germans. the germans. he talked about the moving in another world. the fall back on his knowledge of the cold war. very little knowledge of the united states.

actually henry kissinger's book. certainly spends plenty of time talking. and that is and that is only figures out the targeting individuals and just everything to them things that went he tells more about you than anyone else. but he also has information. could be anything.

don't have a lot of information about the societies in which we live in. been around everywhere. the people that understand. trying to steal information. so one of the indications. understand how works. the means that the information that he had frame of reference. the conclusions from it. those do not resonate.

>> i think the question we should talk about. is not understand. by the way this is a really a really important aspect of our new book. pretty obvious question clear the country who arguably is the biggest potential threat the only existential threat to the existence of the united states islamic terrorism any of the other things that we spend so much effort talking about couple of uranium possible nuclear weapons, north korea nuclear weapon or to.

already has 8000 nuclear weapons, more than we do. this is the only country in the world that could destroy the united states and 15 to 20 minutes. and yet nobody to our knowledge has asked a question of what he actually knows but the that the united states, what he thinks about the united states. at all interested in the united states. we began we began at that.ask ourselves, many times in this particular arrangement and so we have some degree of contact one of the few women in the group sit beside and. one thing reflecting on that and thinking about the reading over the years with striking no interest whatsoever and no sense of awareness of fascination or otherwise.

is different than soviet leaders. you think back to chris jeff yeltsin had a a similar sort of interest. other russian soviet politicians did. is not an expert on germany according to german to talk to him, but that is because he really doesn't show very much interest in any aspect of how societies work or how systems work. though he does, as fiona pointed he and the pointed out, study very closely the russian mind in order to appeal and when popularity and figure out the slogans and themes. that is that is very different than understanding the social dynamics that are going on.

so this goes on. and so we felt like we needed to try to ask the questions how much does he know and what are his misconceptions. that leads to the question of what do we know about him and his -- i think the question that really is on so many people's mind all the time to asking themselves and telling themselves we don't know the answer. all too many people seem to think they know the answer. what is the all about? all of this alternative proposals a pathological is avarice, greed.

the great phrase you always want to use. trying to resurrect the old soviet union, resurrect the all russian empire. what would you say would be the correct definition and relatively few words of what he really wants? >> we have come to the conclusion. defending what he sees as russia's position. and he believes that was what russia had in the past. we keep saying rush is weak not modernizing. prudent on many many of the

development. never disappeared as many other countries have. it will always it we will always be there and always be a factor. the mayors moreover the intimate picture. were frequently. very clear that he wanted russia's position's european

any kind of encroachment. starting. so this talked about enlargement. and the former parts. the soviet union. medically. by essentially moving in and making that crystal clear about what he had in mind's. what he sees again russia's position as a very offense of defense. the disregard of russia's interest in what happens.

but from his perspective becomes by covering the ukrainians and tried to get this message across again. we may not agree with it. well-rounded. >> i don't want to end this conversation without bringing up the question we rate in a. it connects directly onto the book. the proposal to send arms to ukraine thoughts on ukraine are probably the brookings institution including the president of the brookings institution collaborated on reports that advocated that.

unfortunately unfortunately it was portrayed as the brookings institution wants to give weapons to ukraine. we we felt obliged to.out that not everybody at brookings supports that policy. policy. we wrote an op-ed in the "washington post" last week. discreetly sum up what we argue they're. a couple points we try to get across. i think that single issue is the most urgent want. >> coming in. the rationale for what is going on in the ukraine is hard to figure out. they look at the situation certainly the 1990s but much wilder. the security.

ukraine is not yugoslavia the 1990s. very helpful. about the future. the whole nature of security to the relationship with russia that conflict. but i don't want anyone to think that we are taking a slightly. very clear. so this is not just a matter of academic's policy. outlines not yet. so i think all this. one reason for the questions that everyone's when you make this stuff engagements

and accomplishments what do you know what the response will be back because the idea is to change the conference. and as outlined in the book well prudent has shown and death escalating in many instances where the very beginning's committee has taken great pains to reform so. and in the context of you laid out to me already but nuclear engagement on the table. in the 1980s. it's the theory.

the documents from the 1990s. - the documents from the 1990s. all of those in the public domain. when the united states from the german intelligence. indeed from 1981 until about 1984 the soviet union was on full alert. for them the nuclear weapons that sign. might be mobilizing. it also came out command

1983 nuclear armageddon's. it's this is really. so certain perceptions. in the united states and in the realize. the soviet union. the casino they didn't get the joke. they another. the.is we cannot be sure. he already thinks.

kind of an escalation 2007 on. he genuinely believe the process was furthered by the united states and the west's. that's it. he has come to the conclusion that we want to overthrow the regime. complement. so in a very different mindset from what we may think.

the perception of what should do. it's we should be very careful. is very good. it's very good strategic planner. he is thinking about. so i plan and command you don't have the impact that we expect's not how we thought he would react. about the policy the perceptions have what we will happen's. extremely careful can have a full understanding of what we may be contemplating's. really one of the reasons

why. this is just because we want to sell books. the purpose of workings. to get back in. the difficult situation. it's we are very lucky. came along. a very flexible thinker. the anniversary. and he didn't have a particular.of view.

not likely the way she did in terms of figuring out how it's. >> probably running toward the end of time. maybe want to be here and i'm sure many of you do but we did want to give you an opportunity to ask any questions or try to steer the conversation in the direction that might be more to your liking. so let me -- i have a microphone here. i don't know if there are any others. if you can speak loud enough without one if you need one feel free to come up and pose a question's. maybe you can just speak loudly. >> this is been interesting.

when you are talking about how russia really was personality focused. i think i think the kind of turn in his grave. it's pretty well known the oligarchs of the early 2,000's would have been shut down. he has surrounded himself the security people. my people. my impression and understanding was that many of these megaprojects such as the olympics can all these big projects are ways to file money to his friends '. there are still people that he depends on. i like to get your feeling on that. the corollary if you are right it's all about him. the corollary is that the sanctions are kind of useless.

his inner circle. it does not going to happen. >> the question was about does it really not depend on anyone else? and the alternative explanation is that at a minimum he is surrounded by cronies and by people from the security services, maybe the same people whose support he does depend on. we have one that supports the corruption that has been described in various books. if that is not true and if he is, in fact, is in fact, not dependent on their favors, their support than the sanctions policy which at least in some people's mind was designed to punish those people and have them then put pressure to back down and did not seem to be effective. the latter statement is absolutely true. the sanctions policy, people have different versions.

basically most of it is what i like to call sanctions theater. we had to do something. cannot accept what he had done. it's sanctions are great idea. some kind of some kind of warfare. but it is warfare. the russians regarded as such. the experts on our side realize that the non- kinetic warfare. blow people up. but the fact is for many people that was the logic. somehow by punishing people targeting individuals around the that he would back down every that goes back to what i said about the notion of describing russia's as a plutocracy. in order to steal. and that is simply not true. they are plenty of people

that are stealing in russia. they have always been. and they are doing a lot of it now. one thing that we stress in the book and probably did not do it adequately adequately understand the difference between the with regards corruption and the way we might regard corruption's. we would regarded as an ill that needs to be removed from an economy or society because it undermines that economy. and and it would be good if we could get rid of. for it's an instrument. it's what he is doing his background, you have to understand who he is. there's no such thing as private enterprise. it's what i use the word

control i use it in the european sense. it's monitored. on top of the spirit of the direction you want it. the kgb this is what where it started. on the streets of leningrad, st. petersburg his mission would have been to make contact with the police's which is a different institution in the kgb. he would ask the police if they had rounded up lately any new criminals, especially economic, those engaging in economic crime most notably illegal currency exchange. it was illegal to change rules and dollars. if you did you faced stiff penalties. but it was widely practiced. the police would inform the

kgb about the ones they had rounded up. it's' potential to rise in the ranks of the criminal networks, the mafia with the kgb had files on a knew exactly what was going on. they would target individuals, actually promote them in the criminal network. ..

into a currency exchange situation and then report that back to the kgb, and the kgb would have the tools to review the that individual with the threat of blackmail to become an informer or sleeper or whatever for the kgb. that's what you have to understand.putin's background. that's the skill. that is one of the skills he learned help only had one career before he came into his position in st. petersburg in the 1990s, and that was as a kgb agent. that is basically the way he has deviced a system to control the entire country. every one of the oligarchs before he came to power he had the files on them, and i won't go into the details. they're in the book how he operated win august of 1996 when he came as a completely unknown figure to moscow until the time in 1999 three years

laider to when he was appointed prime minister and designated as yeltsin's chosen successor. he moved from a succession of positions that all, every single step of the way, had to do with collecting information protecting the information, and creating eventually a monopoly on this incriminating, especially economic and financial information. now, in that situation, you need to make people vulnerable. you cannot have clean people. a clean person a person who doesn't commit a crime, you have in leverage over them. so every single person -- i'm not exaggerating -- every single individual who is in the putin regime, in any way, shape or fashion, including in the private companies and corporations in russia, is under that kind of pressure.

and they know it. and they would never be able to go against putin. the top guys at the very top oligarchs who he inherited from yeltsin. he learned quickly to control -- essentially offered them a deal whereby he would protect them against the population and against his colleagues in the kgb who were eager to prosecute these guys and take their property. putin said i'll protect you as long as you follow my rules and they will be fairly loose rules. might have too tighten then up but you have to follow the rules. they eave no independence, never had. they were under his control from the beginning and never been independence. noun these crony oligarchses that are there, they're no different. they're all under his control.

he relies on a handful of those people, because he needs to get things done, and he does not believe in at least up until now, that the state ownership is creating a huge central planning bureaucracy, and he reals the soviet union failed and he believes he started a system that can get the job done, but at any time that i the leader needs to control them i know how to do it through this blackmail forms, and just to give you an anecdote. mikhail, the most famous of the oligarchs, was in washington a couple of months ago, i was at a lunch with him. and he presented his case about reforming russia and he end up to q & a and one of my colleagues, another russian person here in town, asked the same question you asked and

said yes but how about the oligarchs, going to feel so much pressure by the sanction that's put pressure on putin and rise up against him. i was signature right next to mikhail and i saw him roll his eyes the way russians do when stupid americans ask stupid questions. e he just said. >> have an an aquarium? my colleague said no. he says, national your have an aquarium and there's fish in there and you poured vinegar in the aquarium would the fish be happy? that was it. that's all he said. yeahing are right, okay, they wouldn't be happy so what? of course the oligarchs are not happy but they're not going to do anything. so he is regretably very aware of how the system works since he was the victim of it. he was on the inside of the club from the beginning but broke the rules.

well i won't go on further. >> i think this illustrates -- you're right about stalin putin is not stalin in many respected but it's this kind of knowledge of the system is what makes it so personal because didn't quite have the same kind of arrangement around him. by the way there's a great book about stalin, an even bigger book than this -- i think we'll compare how much stalin and putin rack up against each other. i want to say, the kind of style and technique that putin uses are not that bizarre when you think about it from a law enforcement point of view. what is really worrying about the whole situation, which is why it's so difficult to explain, it is happening at the very top of government, because usually the kinds of sting operations and these kinds of manipulations usually happening in law enforcement, the fbi, and

they're trying to infiltrate various groups. in this case it's the government that is doing it and one person is at the top of it to minister the whole situation. and it's so difficult to grasp from the outside about just how how the system works. all the russians get it clearly. books have been written about the system. and it's a hard leap to make about that because they're saying it's not corruption the way we think about corruption. there's a kind of rewarding themselves for running in a certain way, not part of the nation of the whole system as well as perks. >> i think it's very interesting about the corruption aspect that is so different, but to try to get to the root of what is in

putin's mind and the russian people, think that's the sacrifices that russia made in world war ii and and the huge numbers of deaths of his people do you think that plays into this psyche as well and remains in the sick see of the russian -- the psyche of the russian people, that feeling of pride and ownership of the nationhood? >> for those in the back who didn't hear, the question about beyond all these issues of the kind of corrupt nature of the system about the history with russians especially of world war ii and and the question actual very important. i think the point of view of the united states is a bit hard opposite you appreciate just how much russia lost in the world

war ii. i'm from the united kingdom and we have a different feeling about world war ii. we talk about normandy and leaving -- you know, dunkirk. world war ii history is different. not running over for private ryan. the dunkirk evacuation and then the blitz and the whole churchill thing. another very important part of the british knowledge is the atlantic convoys, and this is why i'm studying russia too. my great uncle charlie was in the atlantic convoys in the 1940s, and his ship was sunk. this is the supplies for the soviet union during world war ii and he was plaque. fred the sea with the soviet navy and was in a naval hospital for some period of time and was badly injured. he took a long time for him to

recover and was never quite recovered. his perspective of world war ii is if it weren't for the soviet union leaving the nazis and dying, and 20 million people dying in the soviet union, in world war ii and staggering cost. the total devastation. we may had a very different outcome. everyone has their own -- and europe is a realization that the soviet knowledge is very much -- the people who share in that and in the united states, it's very different. i'm trivializing is but a the united states came in for different ropes came in after pearl harbor and the hawai'i yap -- hawaiian islands and

especially -- [inaudible] -- quite aagree on the anniversary over world war to and his own history about the -- at one point -- invite putin to take part but did not go unnoticed. the analysis of world war ii is very important, and putin himself, his financially went to lenin grad, one of the most devastatinger and yeps of world war ii. this is his personal history. his parents were in -- his father was behind enemy lines as part of a battalion from the nkbb the arm of the kgb, to fight the enemy behind their lines. modern-day estonia.

you can imagine the reverberations from that. destroy anything that the nazi troops could have used and his father -- his team were bow-be betrayed by some locals to the nazi, and he tells about his father hiding and breathing through a straw underwater. the putin family also left a son. putin is a survivor in many respects. the only surviving son of the family and he talks a lot about that about history, about suffering, and it's part of one of the most -- the story of -- in many respects for putin the story of world war ii. he didn't think very kindly

about ukrainians or estonans all of this who came under nazi occupation, because of the history and his reading of it his view that many of him and the people in the nazi occupation were collaborators. the people of the sovietonon who fought and also for various reasons and some of them are quite justified at the time back to the bleak history of the soviet period so initial period it was -- found themselves also under the occupying forces. a very complicated history that plays out in many ways, and we have missed an opportunity in the runup to the war in ukraine, we missed an opportunity to embrace the world war ii shared history. i think we could have meat -- made a lot mo -- any uncle

charlie, the canadians this u.s. and the dutch as well and many others who were supplying the soviet union and fighting with the soviet union and really accomplishments -- sacrifices at stall -- stalin grad and leningrad. and we could have played this in a different way. >> one more question. [inaudible question] in >> the question here about a russian political thinker called alexander duggan, many of you may not be aware of him but he

is a -- something called a neoeurasian, an idea of russia that fuses together russia's history, the turkish people and the russian territory and justified in various ways but one that has always been under attack from the outside. a -- the question is, does he really have an influence on putin's thinking? i have to say 20 years ago i had a very bizarre endless dinner with duckan and talking about the german journalists, and we were up there the past week, they were talking about that dinner 0. who would have thought -- nobody heard thereof duggan at that point. much less see him being this ideological figure in russia.

and i don't actually think the doingan has influenced -- geopolitics for an extraordinarily along time, and never shared much interest until relatively recently. and why we think there are reasons, the idea of the eurasian union and picked up on convenient ideology that were already there people think that putin nationalist but duggan's ideas are different than that. the great empire and permanent quality and -- [inaudible] -- trying to put away ukraine, and about the policy and feeding the idea that russia is protected, is really the body of

his thinking and the thinking of many other people. putin has not previously shown any great interest. i find it unlikely that putin is really -- the great works -- [inaudible] -- a lot of people in the kremlin who -- how they're making -- the cliff note version. so putin has been about something -- >> well, actually the temperature -- story of someone like duggan and many voices in russia speaking out and then being portrayed and wanting to be portraited by western media as important or influences on putin is part of a bigger story that we talk about in the book how putin actually strangely,

maybe achronically allowed many different voices to be heard in russia. the press and the media in general are quite diverse. putin doesn't seem to really care. he doesn't really care that much about critical voices in the media as long as they're kept politically impotent. you can say anything you want to and also, on the other side. these more extreme nationalist views, putin is by no means -- anybody who is under the illusion that the best thing that could happen is to bring down the putin regime and let the russian people choose who they want is making a huge mistake. he is more moderate than the median russian voter, and certainly more than many many influential figures speaking about issues of nationalism extremism, racism, and all kinds of other things. i think what you can say about putin is that he ultimately is a russia firster of an extreme

stripe. everything else is just usable for him. the idea that there was a soviet union -- this is not peculiar to putin. this goes far back in russian hoyt elm ussr and its satellite states in central and eastern europe the russian empire extended far beyond territories that had russian majorities or even russian populations. the idea was really defensive. the idea that russia is convinced to this day and there is some historical justification, for being afraid that everybody else wants to get them. they want to bring russia down. they maybe want to invade russia but certainly want to bring russia down. russia is the largest territory in the world as you know and it is very exposed. there's no oceans to protect russia from its enemies. it's always vulnerable. and if you're territorially vulnerable like that, the only real appreciation real

protection you have is to have buffer territory between the heartland, russia, and the outside, hostile outsideword and you create buffers around it. that's the story of the cold war and the story of what the russian empire tried to achieve. unfortunately, that's to some extent what putin is trying achieve today but i will point out he is under no illusion he hat no aspiration to resurrect the soviet union, especially not the network of satellite countries. they cannot afford that. he knows that was a big mistake by the soviet leaders to do that. i come back to the answer of my question about how he controls people. his ideal is if he can control countries around russia's border, not by occupying them not by installing puppet government as stalin did, but by using the method that fiona was describing about targeting

individuals, targeting people, targeting the leaders of these countries, and essentially being able to blackmail them through many many nonmilitary means as well as the ultimate threat of use of military. so it doesn't necessarily become more reassuring to know he is not trying to conquer these countries because he will absolutely be sure that he has leverage over them so they cannot pursue policies either directly voluntarily. thes or be pressured by his enemy, the united states to pursue policies that would threaten russia in any way, and he will use all the methods at his disposal and in this final analysis, his military force if needed he would not hesitate to do it. but putin does not, and he is not alone among top russians, inside or outside the government, he simply does not believe there is such a thing at small medium sized sovereign

states in today's world. if you cannot protect your own independence, if you need to be part of an alliance to have someone else to protect you, you're not sovereign. therefore, when he says ukraine, said to george bush directly ukraine is not a sovereign country. that jest a statement of fact. it's not a value judgment about ukraine. ukraine could never defend itself against one side or the other, so as many russians have said, fee own no and me, if we don't protect them if they're not under us, they're going to be under the other guy and there's no middle ground. if you think back to the cold war that's the story. you had finland, austria even their positions are relatively clear. that is why the cold war was relatively stable because there were no real gray zones. today we don't have that. that's why it is very much like the leadup to world war i, with all kinds of shifting alliances

and client states that were not really under the control of anybody and you would be alive with a country that could do thing that would endanger you but you can't tell them not to do that. this is maybe more like the early years of the cold war, after world war ii, before the iron curtain was slammed down, and not in the worst-case scenario but very bad and maybe likely scenario is that we do move step-by-step towards a new iron curtain that goes through europe. a different location but trying to figure out who is on whose side and nobody is allowed to be in the middle. >> well, unfortunately i'm not trying to talk -- this -- i think what we tried do in this book is lay this out why he thinks in this way. why are we now in this dilemma

and hopefully by having contributed something to this understanding we can figure out how to avoid this. this is one of the purposes of writing this book. so analysis and speculation and questioning about putin and whats to he want, where is he coming from, why does he not behave in the way we think, hwa why do the we need the checks and beams and what might be the goal. the other challenge is figuring who we are as far as the west and the europeans and the u.s. and how too we avoid all of these great tragedies. about going back to the great conflict of the 20th century. we don't want to have retch television -- have a repetition of 1915 and don't want those of the 1940s. we have to be smart here and make sureey know why it is they

feel so much on defensive. this is a defensive situation that we are dealing with now. which makes it again extremely difficult. so we're going to have to figure out how we deal with them. [inaudible] >> we're delighted to talk to people. thank you. thanks very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> here's a look at upcoming book fairs and festival happening around the country. this weekend booktv is at the virginia festival of the book. look for these programs to air in the coming weeks. from march 25th to the 29th 29th the city of new orleans hosts the tennessee williams literary festival. on ain't 18th and 19th booktv will be live from the university of southern california for "the los angeles times" festival of books, and this year's publishing industry convention book expo meter, will be held may 27th through the 29th in new york city. and let us know about book fairs and festivals in your area good we'll add them to our list e-mail us at booktv booktv@c-span.org. >> ron garran is a former fighter pilot and astronaut who spent 178 days living on she

international space space station. he'll talk about what he learn about international cooperation and problem solving while living with people from 15 different countries. this is a little over an hour. [applause] >> how is everybody doing? >> very good. >> i woke up this morning in houston, and i don't know what the high was today but yesterday it was 80 so the reason why i bring that up this is cold for me. i want to thank everybody for coming ought here on such a cold evening to hear about this book and i'm really happy because i really appreciate the opportunity to share with you really a profound sense of hope that was serious in my awareness from my time living and working on space, on the international space station and i really left

space with a call to action a call to help share and spread this perspective that i believe has a potential to have a profound positive effect on the trajectory of our global society and i call that perspective the orbital perspective and that's as you heard the title of the book that just got released ten days ago and it's the topic of our conversation today. so this is a book right here. it's broken down into the sections. each section has three chapters. the first is skyward, then looking earthward, and looking forward. this picture is the international space station. might wonder -- you can see space shuttle endeavor docked to it right there might wonder how the picture was taken. it was taken by a crew mate as they departed in a soyuz spacecraft to return to earth, and this is the international

space station, built bay 15 nations, all working together. some of these nations weren't always the best of friends. some were on opposite sides of the cold war and the space race. but what is amazing about this thing -- i'll just quickly share a story with you. on my first space mission, i did three space walks and on the last spacewalk, i had my feet clamped to the end of the arm to the robotic arm on the international space station, and with my attached to the arm we flew a big arc across the top of the space station and back and at the top of the, a is was 100 feet above the space station, looking down at this amazing accomplishment of humanity against the backdrop of our inscribe blue beautiful earth, and what dawned on me or hit me like a ton of bricks, if we can do that. if nations can set aside differences and do that in space, this is arguably the most complex, complicate structure ever built.

if we can do that in space imagine what we can do by working together to solve the problemes we all face on the planet? so the purpose of the first section of the book is to use that example of collaboration and bring it down to earth. use that example of international cooperation that built the and sustains the international space station and bring it don't to earth and put it into the context of our increasingly developing hyper interconnected global society. that's the purpose of the first section of the book. then in the second part of the book, we take the focus and turn it around and point it back at the earth. and in doing so, some things become clear. if we can take a pick -- a big picture and a long-term view and although it wasn't born out of a single moment in space, there were specific moments over the course of many months in space, in that context, i think really developed this thing i

called the orbital perspective. i describe it as an epiphany in slow motion. i want to share you a moment, but without telling you with words i want to show it to you. so about a month before i left the space station, i flew to this part of the space station called the cupola. it is this windowed observatory on the bottom over the space station and this is a picture of me in the cupola, and i went there because i wanted to take some photographs for a time lapse video project i was working on and is a was taking these pictures one picture caught my i. you'll see a long line snaking across a large land mass for hundreds of miles. and i didn't know what this was. really intrigued me. thought it might be a reflection of moonlight on the river. i've always been one of this astronauts to say you can't see borders from space. apparently i'm wrong. what this actually is is a manmade border between india and

pakistan. and seeing that had a profound effect on me forker the 50 plus years humans have been flying in space, they've comment how beautiful and tranquil and peaceful and fragile our planet works from space. ...

and i want you, 2011 with this belief that we have all the technology and resources necessary. another it's a bold statement. over six months on the space station. any available free time we had working and pondering that question. and i believe the primary reason why lies primarily in our inability to effectively collaborate on a global scale. what he saw and the video is the global scale.

they set aside their differences and work together toward common goals we now we now have the capability to enable through worldwide collaboration. not only worldwide not only worldwide but world changing. the real challenges and demonstrating just how valuable and vital collaboration truly is. there are literally about 20 million organizations around the world working to improve life on earth. for the most part these organizations are not engaged in a unified coordinated effort. what that means is lots of the good that these organizations could be doing otherwise. so in the 3rd section, and this is a picture that i took in 2,011 of somalia ethiopia, and human. it's a beautiful picture if i have to say so myself. if you were does he meant in

the microscopic details of this paragraph what you would see is a a canadian leading the convoy of hope to help save lives in drought ravaged somalia which is a pretty amazing story. what is more amazing is that was the 1st time that amanda returns to somalia after spending 460 days in captivity enduring unspeakable torture and abuse, and she abuse, and she returned because you promised yourself that if she were to return if she was to be freed she would return and help to try and alleviate some of the issues that affected her kidnapping and the 1st place. and so i i heard about her story. actually talking to her on a cell phone. obviously express my admiration for what she was doing and placed my support. the only thing the only thing i could do was send

pictures out like this to try and highlight what she was doing. so one of the things that we try and stress and you heard in the opening video, you don't have to be in orbit to have the oral auto perspective. i use examples of people who are engaging in what i call elevated empathy engaging and actions that demonstrate that they have the oral perspective. and in that section we acknowledge that all things are possible. we acknowledge that by working together we can accomplish anything. we reject the notion that we have to accept the status quo. we reject the idea that the way things are other way things have to be. and really the objective of

the final part of the book is to leave the reader with hope and optimism that it does not have to be the way it is right now. there really is a sobering contradiction between the beauty of a plan on one hand and in the unfortunate realities of life on our planet of the other. how do we fix all this? the key is is to set aside our differences. so this picture, on the 50th anniversary from italy. from russia. and so really approves the.that by working together we can make our push anything.

does anybody know does anybody know what this picture is? exactly. i think when you can look at things that a big picture perspective things become clear. it becomes clear that we have been acting in a very two-dimensional way. weather pleasant us under them, if one sideways the other side loses. right here where we tend to demonize those poor ostracize those that don't agree exactly with us. we tend us. we tend to discredit anything american somebody else's view as opposed to looking for common ground to read and so this photograph is 25 25 years old, a really zoomed in part of a bigger photograph. what this photograph is is the spacecraft. at the request of coral sagan as the spacecraft is

leaving the solar system about 3.7 billion miles away from a trend the cameras away. inside the blue circle, that's us. if you if you ever have a chance to read what he said about that i encourage you to take a moment. but i we will take an exit out of it. i think it stresses the.here he said, for the moment the earth is where we make our stand. there is perhaps no better demonstration than this image of our tiny world. to me to me it underscores our responsibility to do more kindly with one another and to preserve and cherish this pale blue dot dot the only home you never know. and so by the way we're going to do that by working together. i want to tell you a a quick story about the power of cooperation and collaboration. this is a picture, a series series of pictures from our launch because extent. and

on the night we were going to launch from a was a cold air believing i stood at the base of a rocket. with my two russian military crewmates, previously top-secret soviet military installation. i spent the 1st 15 years of my adult life training to fight the russians. from the cold war sitting when the russians were going to come and invade. invade. to me looking up at those rockets, white house of oxygen rolling out the want to think the very large bed that he launched from 50 years prior to his name and picture on the side. as side. as i looked up, fully integrated member and i i was pretty emotional. i was going to get lost in

the space. i i was more emotional our celebration of american flag side-by-side. there's a lot we disagree with. especially lately. the.i'm trying to bring out is one of the secrets to collaboration is to find the things we have in common embrace those, accelerate those, expand on those because what happens when we do that, personal relationship start to be built, personal trust starts to be built. then then we can start working on the things we don't agree on. what we tend to do is the exact opposite, take the things we agree on and use it as leverage. that simply doesn't work. just really quickly i want to talk about how the landscape has changed. we have been working for decades and decades to solve the problems that face our

planet and to make great strides, but i still think most of us will agree will not decline. we have serious potentially species annihilating problems. the reason why we still face so many critical issues in spite of all those decades of research research and hard work and development, during that timeframe we can work together, collaborate together, we had an excuse. up until recently we really did not have the technological tools to enable universities and citizen scientists groups and governments and ngos to collaborate across industries and stovepipe sundials. we do now. we know longer have that excuse. we excuse. we now have the capability to enable true global collaboration. the internet has become kind

of the nerve center of spaceship earth. it has become a way for us to take discrete points of innovation, discrete points of creativity and combine them into unified action. once we connect the 5 billion people on the world that don't have access and connect those problem problem-solving minds ideas can come from anywhere. has never been easier to economically and seamlessly incorporate the ideas people across the other side of the planet regardless of political ideology geographic location. we don't have to be in order. we need each other. love being open partnerships solutions can come. we can find radically different solutions. we will have to be open to this because the landscape of our

entire society has changed drastically. making it possible to do that. but you have a wonderful warm. not as wonderful as it could be. i think that we have the capability to affect real change. the statement is important because the 1st step to affecting real measurable, sustainable changes to believe that's possible. i want to share with you a few things i believe a possible. it's possible to possible. it's possible to live in a world without poverty and with a live in a world where everyone has access to clean water, no one goes to bed hungry every night for no one dies from preventable or curable diseases. i think these are possible. the possibilities are only limited by our imagination will to act. that's because nothing is impossible. that's another big tenant.

this idea that nothing is impossible. we tend to think things are possible if they have never been done before. they are also a little bit crazy. and for probably thousands of years of human history people would've thought it was impossible to fly to the moon and back. if we can fly. 7 million bring bring them safely to earth incredibly capable huge orbiting research than imaginal we can do. i want to end with some questions. it asked this question in the form of a really cool music video that i i like. this is one of 12 videos. the enhanced e-book version. but before i do that i want to set the stage and tell you a story. after after about five half months in space climbed into

the same spacecraft. it's really small. like three guys in the trunk of a car. we will ourselves and our speeds. knees and her chest. close the hatch, undocked from the space station. as we back away from sitting in the right seat. i strained as much as i could to catch the last classes of the space station because i realized in all probability i would never see that again. and as we undocked we did a couple of laps around the planet and returned for spacecraft around to.backwards. this fiery ride through the atmosphere of the parachutes opened, we went slamming to the ground. we went bouncing flipped over, hold on our side. as we rolled on our side i was on the bottom.

the capsules on the right side. and now my window was pointed at the ground. out of the window i saw a rock flour, and the blade of grass. i remember thinking to myself distinctly that i'm home. i was really cool about that i was in cows extent. to me at that moment my home was no longer houston texans where live with my family for new york were growth. my home was earth. with that i want to leave you with this question. what kind what kind of world do you want? we have run out of audio.

♪ ♪ ♪♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

steve. ♪ ♪ ♪♪ >> following are some holding up some signs. in front of the rocket. two or three days before we launched. the purpose of that video and the reason i showed it to you i hope that you not only saw the beauty of the planet we have been given but the cooperation from citizens from many different countries around the world that came together to do this wonderful thing. so i no that you are all doing a lot.

i want to thank you advance for all that you are doing. i also want to don't know how many times a service. you don't have you don't have to be in order to have the overall perspective. thank you for your attention. [applause] i think there going to open it up for questions. >> what are >> running from office.e you running for office? >> running from office. i have it. i >> running from office. i have it. i don't know. has been 26 years working for the us government. >> is that a reason to do it or not to do it?

>> i think at this time in my life i felt that i could make more of an impact outside than inside. that's just me personally. another are a lot of people doing great stuff within the government. >> raise their hands. >> there are a lot of aspects to that question. one is how do i personally make a difference. i think that one is easy. you just commit to making a difference. people think they have to make a big difference. intimidating or that they can make a huge difference. but. but i think the other part of that question is how we

make a sustainable real difference is by taking in the big picture. what are what are we doing that has a lasting impact? there are times where well-meaning people around the world have tried to intervene and have done may be good in the short term but in a long-term with the people there were trying to help worse off than they were. i have a chapter in the book called arrested development that talks about the perverse incentives that have limited our ability to create real progress. there are a lot of them. this overemphasis. if i use the example from the book, more emphasis is put on putting water pumps

and the maintaining them. and so things like that. being able to take a big picture perspective, looking at the whole area command don't look at the next quarterly report or election cycle that the 20 20 or fifty-year plan and beyond and see what will make a real difference. we tend to not have the patience to do that. >> piggybacking on the question apart from the election what is your advice and suggestions as to what kind of action and behaviors make a a difference? >> one of the things is to practice a little empathy. you know we live in a really complicated world. we live we live in a world that

has terrorism and famine and war and all kinds of really bad things. we also live in a world with compassion and generosity and ingenuity and creativity. it really it really sometimes is very difficult to make heads or tails to be able to navigate all that complexity's. what we tend to do is build a framework through which we view the world and put things in little cubbyholes. things are not things are not -- the real world, three-dimensional world we actually live in, not the flat plane we think we live in is not that simple. simple. and so what we tend to do is log groups, people's into certain people that live in a certain country and groups of people who belong to a certain political party entities cubbyholes. and cubbyholes. and what that does is it prevents us from seeing the merit in other people's

views. part of the lessons of the space station program gave us come in the initial partnership between the united states and russia both sides tended to discredit the other side. when once i made a big contribution the other side tended to downplay. it was not until we started working together and we started to develop a personal relationship, trust that we were able to give each other credit and to work more like a fully integrated team venture groups of people who are forced by the national political leadership to work together. so i think one of the big things we can do as average citizens is look at things from a bigger picture.of view. going back to what we said before don't think that just because you can't make a huge impact that means you can't make any impact because really at the end of the day solving the problems

facing our planet comes down to what extent do each of us individually on a person-to-person basis commit to making a positive change no matter how big or small. [inaudible] over the course of time when did you 1st and what makes you get involved from a cop of ideas? what test you and what made you realize? >> well, -- >> a lot of facets to the answer that question. one is an experience we had with others. the grand canyon and not being able to take a picture of a picture a timely about it. so i was fortunate to have an incredible experience number of incredible experiences.

on the one hand i feel a responsibility to share it that that i have been given this opportunity and need to share it and secondly it just makes the experience better by being able to share it. fragile relations was born out of a desire to take people on my mission not as spectators but as fellow crewmates and it really did work out. interaction interaction with people on the ground that became part of the crew. the other thing is you know if we have this profound perspective the joint space allows us to have and if we don't do anything with it. and. and a guy named frank white professor at harvard wrote a book. the 3rd edition just came out. i don't i don't remember how many astronauts he interviewed, but a bunch. he documented the shift in perspective that some astronauts describe. and at the overview effect

the shift in perspective that astronauts have for seeing the earth from space and in space, the overall perspective is what you do with that, the call to action that comes from that. to me that is the next step in this understanding of this part of humanity. >> thank you for being here. come to see you. i was touched. we have an incredible amount of optimism that i'm happy to hear. a wonderful thing. the initiative. in my initiative. in my experience thus far. i have not been the space

can i come to the conclusion that people are the same wherever they are. the same needs the same fears. and i am absolutely amazed that in spite of this awareness you are sharing with us which you call the global awareness, we know that. you know in a place like this where you have literally people from all over the world anybody with a certain kind of conscience can realize we have more in common. my cynicism comes from the people who govern us. whether here in the united states, in europe i don't see that they are interested in what you have. i think you are preaching for an audience who i think we share your view. we want to be confirmed maybe in our belief. but i genuinely want to ask

you how much do you personally have faith in politics, and government, and people who would do anything, including terrorizing the earth and environment? how do you keep your faith? >> that's a really good question. again, it is it is a deep question with a lot of facets to it. i we will try and shut check them off one at a time as best i can. by nature i am a impatient person. that that doesn't serve me well in this perspective because we look at these -- at the big problems facing our planet. that is a hard thing to swallow. part of the reason is because we want to see it tomorrow. we want to see if

this year. one of the examples i use is an asteroid deflection mission. if an asteroid was coming toward the earth and we knew about it fine about we wouldn't a bruise was to man up and blow it out of the sky with a new. give that asteroid a little bit a little bit of a knowledge which would translate to hundreds or thousands of miles of miss distance. we need to start thinking along those terms. but we need to do is realize each and every one of us can apply that knowledge can i can be that knowledge on our global trajectory. and we won't reach that wonderful place anytime soon but we are going to -- all we are responsible for his tonight global society in the direction that we should go. so go. so that is one aspect of that question.

the government. so i spent a i spent a lot of time in the book talking about how i don't i don't think our solutions will come from governance. governments can help us. the end of the day political decisions are made for lots of reasons. if we ignore all the negative reasons of personal gain, corruption put that off the table for a 2nd and a 2nd and just look at well-meaning politicians making decisions and what they think of the right decisions every country on the face of the earth when faced with a choice between a choice between doing what is in the best national interest of that country and doing what is good for the global community at the expense of the national interest of that country, they will pick national interest every time. that is that is why they are hired, to propel the national interest in these countries.

international cooperation occurs when national interest of more than one country a line. the the international space station is an amazing accomplishment of humanity. what made that possible in the 1st place is those 15 nations that made a conscious a conscious decision that it was in their best national interest to do it. that is why i make the argument that it's more likely for a collection of individuals to make the kind of real change that we need than a collection of governance. but the but the good news is we live in a world where that is possible to where you can start a global movement around the cause of iran and effort around measuring the global. so i'm not saying that government doesn't have a role. they a role. they have a big role. the other aspect is transparency. they're becoming a much more transparent society, and i think open transparent collaboration will be an economic engine. we have corruption secret

of dealing destructive competition and all these things that limit what we can do as a species. but i don't think we will be able to attack those head on be the bruce willis. i think we can make them obsolete. we can make corruption obsolete by creating these systems that become economic engines and then those individuals and organizations that engage in secret of dealing car corruption see themselves being left behind and after evolving have to evolve and take on a much more cooperative and collaborative mindset. ways to navigate our trajectory to more positive happen at it.

[inaudible conversations] so because i we will talk about it. as you mentioned in your book the role of nations to

do something. and while i think those guys have really good ideas it is concerning to me that a falcon launch gets more attention than an orion launch. the reader of your concerned about the lack of -- what seems to be a lack of american interest. >> well, there are a lot of parts to that question. commercial spaceflight. i am a strong proponent of commercial spaceflight. i kind of equate it to the barnstorming days. days. i don't think this is limiting the government space exploration. it is

propelling it, enabling it. if we can turn operations and low orbit over to commercial activity that frees up a large government space program to push the envelope to try to explore the solar system. i am system. i am all for that. the other thing you mentioned was the lack of interest. you can't really compare a commercial launch that has at its disposal all the puerto rico and advertising that it can muster versus a government agency that is to some extent prohibited from doing that we will feels like it is prohibited doing that. now obviously nasa has the ability to tell everyone what they are doing but they don't have the resources or the charter to self promote. can't do that. wish it could but they don't.

so i think some of what you have seen as far as interest is just and the inability of a a government agency to promote itself like a commercial activity can. i think when we go to mars though, really though, really cool stuff that will promote itself. the back to the mound. better yet. >> we know where it is. [laughter] how do you selectively show? the overall approach. @the overall approach. >> is a site where we try and help promote efforts that are making the world a better place. it trying to make the world a better a better place. we don't care where you are

from, what you are doing my government are in jail. that's the whole. we have all these organizations. we need to start having them work together. data sharing is a big part of that. humanitarian organizations are actually very averse to sharing a real kind of data that enables collaboration. that is something that we are hoping to overturn. as one of the things that we are promoting, open data sharing. [inaudible conversations]

>> that's a good question. a good question. this is the 1st book presentation i've done. what i hope is that everyone here help spread this message, help spread the word. i would love to see this. going to speak to some students on thursday up in new york. and i think this is something that they probably understand better than we do. they have been -- and not been top of the possible yet coming from i really would appreciate the help to get the word out and start spreading this message. i really do think that this is a labor of love for me. it could be nudging that astrid away from the earth. hopefully we can make that happen. >> the spaceflight.

it's the commercial launch. [inaudible conversations] was different in what respect. if i understand your question correctly the difference between those two, nasa was contracting for service, take the astronauts to the space station of the moon versus nasa contracting to build a specific spacecraft the very detailed specifications. in one case nasa puts the entire bill. and the other case nasa might contribute to the development but as a partner

a partner the company itself has to make some investment. by doing so they have more say in what the designers and in some cases complete saying the design. i i don't know if that is the question your asking. >> the design. >> if you're going to design a spacecraft it has to be able to dr. this doctor this docking port, me certain human requirements for safety. we want quantify this many people. this is what we want the spacecraft. however you want to design it will be great. i'm oversimplifying quite a bit,

but you get the idea. >> going to scrap the shuttle. >> i obviously i obviously have mixed feelings when we decided to retire the space shuttle. what made it makes sense to me was the fact that we were tired the space shuttle program so that we could pay for them and program. we were going to establish a presence on the moon. to me i think the next logical step of human exploration is to establish a a transportation infrastructure between the earth and the moon. again, this is taking the

orbital perspective. the long-term vision of exploring the solar system, what makes sense from a long-term.of view is to create an transportation infrastructure between the earth and the moon that enables routine travel between earth and his closest neighbor. there are tons of reasons why that is the right thing to do next including that enables us to go to mars and never else. so when we were canceling the space shuttle program to enable although i didn't want to see the space shuttle know, i understood the vision and it made sense. then we subsequently canceled the moon program and i think that was a little shortsighted putting us into a situation where we are canceling the space shuttle without viable replacement coming down the pipe anytime soon. i think will be okay. it's going to work out. you know and i think the people who are making those decisions are making the best decisions in the political climate in the financial climate that they could but i wish we didn't

go down that path. i path. i think it was a mistake. >> if you don't want to run for office, how about nasa administrator? >> one of the things i talk about in the book is the bureaucratic inertia. people that have at the top of big bureaucratic organizations they may see what needs to be done but don't have the real power to make it happen. happen. i'm not saying that's the case that nasa. it's very difficult. [inaudible question]

[inaudible question] >> but let me just back up for a 2nd. i do think that we need to retire the space shuttle. it's time was coming. maybe it it came before it should have, but we were going to retire the this shuttle. just out of curiosity, can you guys raise your hand if you either work for nasa or

otherwise are associated with the space program? all right. incentives. we have had a lot of success with incentives like the x prize. a monetary incentive for mobile we are also finding that there is a lot of power and non- monetized incentives things like hacker fonts that i no that we have about 8000 participants they come together to solve problems in a collaborative a collaborative way over the course of the weekend. and so their incentive was community. they were there to solve problems i think what we're

finding is if we give citizens the tools to help they we will. we have the technology that we could really have always envisioned by the forefathers of our country. and things country. things that are developed by the people themselves besides the monetary prizes which have shown to be very effective how powerful they are. it gives meaning and value.

if you give people the tools to help most well. [inaudible question] the russians and quit the space station program. we're mad at you because your mad at us. we don't want to commit to go past 2020. 2020. that gets spun into there leaving the space program. it's there is research being

conducted on the space station that simply can't be connected anywhere else on earth. have the breakers. climate change many things that have a direct effect very tangible benefit. it's worthwhile to keep it going. [inaudible question] >> i think a lot -- on our last in the space with the belief that we have a a responsibility to leave the planet better than we found it.

going to space did not give me the orbital perspective. it confirmed for me and made it obvious in concrete right in front of me. it was like zero, yeah. i guess that's true. it's interesting. i interviewed i interviewed thirtysomething people for the book. spent a lot of time on the space station. when your up there for a while and you start looking down at the earth and see places you've never been never heard of any look down and start to wonder, i wonder what life is down there. as soon as you start that process he start becoming this global citizen and start doing this full picture of you and thinking about things other than what is over the next hill. [inaudible question]

>> the basic human needs of all people. [laughter] >> i mean for my think it's absolutely ludicrous the 5,000 children die a day because they don't have access to clean water. why is that acceptable? and part of the overall perspective allows us to do that. i use a more complex example. everyday people die in traffic accidents. every city in the world people live traffic accidents. it's so commonplace that we hardly even hear that. but

if that. but if you zoom out to the overall perspective you realize 1.3 million people a year die. that's the that's the equivalent to wiping out the entire population of dallas, kampala. that's a large city. every man woman and child is wiped off the face of the earth every year. the intricate details of the situation. the positive parts with look look at the record of the city, what the traffic lights are like maybe enforce laws. that's good. the overall perspective and look at the bigger picture. we look at ways to instead of building automobiles to better withstand the crash build automobiles the don't crash in the 1st place. have sensors that react thousands of times faster.

you can't -- one single car company, government, nation can't affect the type of massive changes at that level of infrastructure. has to be a big global movement. we can reduce traffic fatalities to zero for literally zero worldwide. if we did that and incorporated smart traffic, things like that but to get rid of traffic increase fuel efficiency reduce fuel consumption etc. that looking at the big picture. access to healthcare and water. we all take a big picture. that would enable everything else. the 1st one is about 17,000. okay. time for one more.

>> the big picture. [inaudible question] [inaudible question] [inaudible question]

>> i think the answer is simple for state and hard to execute. the execute. the answer is defined those things that we agree on and start when working on those. i think the vast majority of the people in the world and the vast majority of the organizations in the world to find something that they agree on. i'm not saying all of them. there are some that probably can't find anything. and that's the exception, not the norm. the the norm is that we all have things we agree on. if we find those things we agree on and start working on those that we start to develop personal relationships. that is where the trust comes from. when you say your going to do something and do it and i learned that i can trust you and maybe we should start working on those things we don't agree on. as the answer. find the common threads and work on those. and that takes courage because we are not -- we

have been ingrained indoctrinating to not deal with certain people. that's the problem. once you put them in the cubbyhole with those people you're not supposed to deal with but not supposed to publicly praise or collaborate with our cooperate with the nets were you have a problem. if if we can rise above that and find those things that we agree on we can hopefully with the rest follow. that is really what happens. it really is a fully integrated partnership. there are modules but it's one fully functioning space station with control runs all around the world. [inaudible question]

>> again, with the united nations what i think it's a great idea. once once you layering levels and levels of bureaucracy it slows you down. i talk in the book about different collaborative efforts that initially started to be very productive, very effective, very efficient but then eventually at some.the bureaucracy catches up and they start to slow down. hopefully your gun to the. where you can basically use that foundation that was built in a more fluid phase to carry you through the bumps in the road, the crises which is exactly what happened in the space station program. a lot of bumps in the road, a lot of crises and we had to come through this is a team and we did because we had that opportunity in the beginning that's all we have time for. again my a big round of

applause. >> thank you. thank you. [applause] >> you're watching book tv on c-span2. ..