will leave ukraine. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. the congress is in recess for the week. president obama meets with the palestinian leader tomorrow at the white house. vice president biden is heading to poland and lithuania this week. the situation in ukraine is front and center. the referendum vote is underway today in crimea. a vote that u.s. and leaders say is illegitimate. it is sunday, march 16 and we will begin with the latest on ukraine. a larger question of what this means for president obama american foreign-policy, and our

role in the world. what do you think america possible role in the world should be? the phone lines -- we will get the latest on the investigation and that malaysian aircraft and 2014 midterm election politics. putin may pay dearly for crime area -- for crimea. european leaders are calling it illegitimate. there is also this piece from a brookings institution, an expert on american foreign-policy.

he writes there has never been a more important time to understand american power and leadership. critics decry a last of -- a lack of leadership. american withdrawal is becoming conventional wisdom. is that right? he concludes with these words. "we have the underlying capacity of a powerful ally in structure and favorable international landscape. but there is no time to wait. the longer the perception of american hesitation endures, the more ingrained it will be. the more it will act in ways getting things for the u.s.. we have global interest and

global presence. time for the u.s. to recall we are still the top global power and to project the confidence of our position. bruce jones, a senior fellow at the kings, is available online at huffington post. the question is what do you think america possible role in the world should be? the front page has the vote in the ukraine. some new developments overnight the military staging a provocative new set of aggressions, occupying a natural gas distribution center on a strip of ukrainian lands near the peninsula. ponting kiev foreign ministry affairs to announce a military invasion by russia. the incident marking the first face-to-face standoff against ukrainian and russian military leaders outside the crimean prints of a -- crimean and insula.

all of this coming up yesterday during another special session of the united nations general assembly. these words from u.s. ambassador to the u.n.. >> russia has refused -- russian armed forces are amassing across ukraine's eastern border. two days ago in this very chamber -- russia has rejected a resolution that had piece at its heart. the resolution in the spirit of reconciliation and the desire for peace in keeping with the rule of law in recognition of the facts to promote and preserve stability among nations. only one hand rose up to oppose those principles.

it has blocked ukrainian ships and international observers. russia put itself outside the international norms that we have painstakingly developed to serve as a bedrock for peaceful relations between states. >> that assessment firm samantha power took place saturday in new york city. an samantha power is the ambassador to the united nations. the question we are asking based on the developments in the last couple of weeks and the meeting taking place between president obama and the palestinian leader, what is america possible role in the world? tom friedman in the new york times has this, the three faces of president obama. he writes about american foreign-policy with these words --

on our twitter page -- kathleen is joining us from athens, ohio. caller: good morning. i agree with the tweeter. we walk the talk and the whole world has to be laughing in regard to john kerry, who voted for the 2002 iraq war resolution. we are lecturing about not invading another country when we have this very horrific scene we have left in iraq with

unaccounted debt. the newest reports at 600,000 in 2006. there has been a lot of meyer around that. obama should be playing hardball with israel. if israel wants peace they got to get back to that order. they got to take down illegal settlements. they are heading towards the one person one vote. we need to talk the talk. if you have to lecture russia you have to lecture israel and a big way and stand our ground. the iraq invasion really undermines our position in the world and national security. i hope obama starts playing hardball with israel.

>> when the world looks at america, all it sees is a source of money. angela has an extensive piece based on her new book. himshe will be joining us at 9:15. steve is joining us from illinois. america possible role in the world, what should it be? caller: we are hit her -- we are hypocrites. we went into iraq and afghanistan, we pollute him up just so we had -- just because we had the power to. you guys are not reporting on how many deaths and casualties and bombs exploding.

we caused some little third world country -- you guys are not asking the politicians what is going on in iraq again. now we are going to be cap out of afghanistan. i know their country is going to be in dismay. we have no foreign-policy. here it is, we are going to tell russia what to do? putin should shut off merkel's and gas -- merkel's dass. -- merkel's gas. host: this is from jody who says we cannot afford to be the world police, we are building infrastructure for a smart grid. but he is on the phone republican line.

caller: i am really interested in who is wearing russian uniforms and making more trouble in the ukraine. as i understand it, putin has spent $60 billion to put on the olympics and our failure to even bring the olympians to washington and to tell them we are behind them and their behavior in russia was very important. there was a group that got into russia and made absolute fools of themselves. mostly women. i am absolutely shocked at that. i think that is what happens

when a leader of a nation does not make clear that he is knowing even if it is just for two hours and he supports his olympians. olympians have nothing to do with war. if he was going to spend $60 billion to do anything, why did he spend it on more war material if he was planning to go into another of his former countrymen , he went into georgia and took over part of georgia that wanted to be back in russia. host: later this morning we will take much deeper into the characteristics of vladimir

putin. there is a piece looking at the psychology of the russian leader. we will learn about what motivates him and the russian government. from the washington post looking at america possible role in the world -- the fact is people can make pleas for more intervention after a decade of aggressive and costly american wars in afghanistan. this is available online. alexandria, virginia, democrat line.

caller: good morning. it seems like from a military aspect there was this 2020 vision that had been put out. even if 9/11 hadn't happened, it seems like we have the same face of going after the oil and gold. as him -- it was an increase in military. now we have gone from a star wars aspect to a drone wars aspect. the same route, where

environmental aspects -- it is still the same policy. industrial complexes are foreseeing their rules and their protection, whereas a low wages any country that has their own interests, we are still going after that. we are violating the protection aspect of the world. host: later this morning, the former inspector general for the transportation department will be joining us. she will be with us in 30 minutes. the front page of "houston chronicle," looking at a criminal inquiry as the plane

diverted and flew up to seven hours. that announcement yesterday from the malaysian government. pittsburgh post-gazette has something many americans have been talking about, did winter surprise you? there is this from the detroit free press. georges joining us from florida. thank you for being with us. caller: good morning. i am a retired air force chaplain. one of our major problems in america, before we can do anything else, if we don't get along as people -- black, white all races getting along and putting our differences aside. president obama just happened to be born black cap. -- born

black. i will never -- we need to stop the guys saying i will never vote for a black man. it doesn't matter how smart he is, he just happens to be black. america will be owned by another country and not by one shot. all you have to do is go to the hotels and see who owns them. go to the gas stations and see who owns them. we have to learn how to get together and work together. host: tj has this comment on our twitter page -- a what should america's role in the world be?

we welcome our listeners on c-span radio, coast-to-coast on channel 120. on friday the russian foreign minister is meeting with reporters in london following a nearly six-hour meeting with secretary of state john kerry. here is what he had to say through a translator. [video clip] >> secretary kerry did not voice any threats to russia. as for the sanctions, we are hearing what is being discussed in washington and in europe. let me assure you that our partners understand that sanctions is a counterproductive instrument and if the decision is made it will be their decision. we shall maintain the mutual inferences of businesses --

mutual interests of businesses. we will take any measures. host: a meeting with reporters in london, following his session with secretary of state john kerry on friday. this headline from the new york times. joining us live on the phone is injured kramer, one of the reporters following this story. he is in kiev. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: let's discuss the number of troops in crimea. and this move beyond the crimean region to other parts of the country, what is happening? guest: what happened on saturday

is a group of russian soldiers moved by helicopter to -- it is not exactly the ukrainian mainland. it is a sandbar. there is a natural gas pumping station there. hethey are seizing and controlling important sites, such as in -- such as infrastructure sites. it indicates the russians will not be limited to the borders. host: let's talk about the referendum vote. there are two questions. if one is to become part of the russian federation, the other is to be more autonomous. there is no third option, which is to stay the same. why? guest: this referendum was

organized by the regional legislature in crimea. it was done after the russian forces already had control of the peninsula. really the terms of this referendum were dictated from moscow de facto. authorities say they will not recognize it. in fact, most country say the same. host: is there any question this will overwhelmingly be in favor of russia? caller: it seems that way. anecdotally from earlier reports in crimea, most people say they are voting to join russia. there is a majority of ethnic russian population on the peninsula. [indiscernible] host: do you have a sense of the

turnout today? caller: by noon i have seen a report that the turnout was at 44%. host: what happens next? if they vote to become part of the russian federation obviously the ukrainian government is going to try to block this. i have heard from european leaders that this vote is illegitimate. what is next for the u.s.? guest: the next important step is to watch what russia does. if the russian parliament votes to accept this referendum, i think what will happen is the sanctions will most likely take effect. these are sanctions targeting russian oligarchs. that is how it will play out. host: are the sanctions enough? and could russia hurt the oil

supplier of the natural gas supply throughout europe which would affect germany france, great britain, and other countries? guest: it could play out that way. i think it is an interesting question how russia will react. initially people are likely to rally around a flag. they are patriotic and supportive of their country. once the sanctions started to take effect you will see the elites lose money and assets. while they are concerned about their savings and bank accounts there may be a shift of mentality in russia. it seems most russians are behind their government. host: we were looking at those dramatic pictures a few weeks ago as demonstrations took place in the city center of kiev. what is it like there today?

guest: it is somber auto independence square. -- somber on independence square. people are apprehensive. there are talks that people -- the russians come all the way from tf. there is some concern about that. i would say the predominant mood is one of were we and concern. there is not a clear resolution to this conflict in the near future. host: if you had to predict a headline tomorrow based on what is happening today. what will it be? guest: i think the headline is likely to be that crimea votes to join russia.

this would be a major historical shift for an important region in europe. host: his work is available online at nytimes.com. the headline -- thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: the question we are asking, what should america's role in the world be? daniel larsson has his view, he writes for "the american conservative." he writes -- on foreign policy, the results were surprising. one area of agreement was

whether the u.s. should reassert itself on the world stage. adults surveyed were less likely to support a candidate who wants to see the u.s. assume an expanded role in increasing foreign conflicts and more likely to support one who doesn't. his work is available online at "the american conservative." there is also this -- from texas, lane is on the phone. caller: problem is when you telegraph your punches and announce withdrawal and retreat from everywhere around the world, you are will look that -- you are looked at as weak. kgb colonel putin got in not by the elected -- by the electorate, he got there some other way. our guy, i don't know what he is doing.

he didn't support the limpets, like the lady said. when you show weakness with john kerry -- he went on his own as a lieutenant in the navy. they know where he stands. host: president bush did go to beijing for the summer games. that was an aberration. normally the president does not travel to the olympics. do you think of president obama went to sochi it would have made any difference? caller: not the way putin is working. this is all about fuel. he is going to control europe two. we could stop us but pumping our natural gas all over europe some way. the black seat the crimea region that whole thing is a

bottleneck. it goes through europe. the gas plant move itself was obvious. like it or not we are looked at by the world as the place. host: dd has this point, referring to our nation's debt. keith from boy to vista, new mexico on the republican line. -- from one of vista, new mexico on the republican line. -- from buena vista, new mexico on the republican line. caller: i just want to say the war on -- host: just turn the volume down what is your comment? we are going to move onto sean, independent line. caller: the united states has been at war.

generations to come will not snow peas. no more war. the united states should withdraw as the world's policeman. it is time to step into the 21st century with courage, not fear. we need to set an example for the world. the united states will place its resources at the discretion of the united nations. at no time in history has the power -- have the most powerful nation -- we are the world's leading power and can and should set the example to take our rightful place as the truly great nation we believe ourselves to be. we now honor all of those who have suffered and died to end war. a grateful nation will finally say thank you. host: this is on our twitter page --

robert is a senior fellow at brookings. he is also an author. he has an extensive essay online at politico.com with this headline -- he says -- angry japanese students protesting american imperialism forcing president eisenhower to cancel his trip. he goes on to write it was always the buzzer -- the other aspect of the united states, the one least spoken about.

this was as the defender of the oceans and the world's trade routes and the keeper of the global balance. as the guarantor of economic and clinical order benefits for widely enjoyed -- that is from robert kagan. the piece is online at politico.com. toning is joining us from st. petersburg, florida. caller: good morning. i would like to touch upon the economic impacts of the u.s.. in the shove the u.s. trying to be the world -- of the u.s. trying to be the world's policeman. the u.s. spends 39% of the world 's military expenditures.

and yet we are five percent of the world's population. it we spend more net -- more than the next nine nations combined. what has this obtained for us at home? the u.s. has far inferior infrastructure now than many of the nations. canada and germany spends far less than we do. we have not put our money into rebuilding our economy especially our infrastructure. it has led to the rise of the nsa, the cia, the perpetual military. all of these are institutions that did not exist in america prior to the nine team 50's -- to the 1950's.

they are both -- their denture mental to those -- they are detrimental to both our freedom and economic progress. the biggest force to centralized -- to make power for the central government is the whole military-industrial complex. host: thank you for the call. robert says president obama should have gone to sochi. this editorial in "the washington post" --

next is steve joining us from georgia. caller: i am just flabbergasted by the neocons. they can't get the story straight. on one hand, they say president obama is a tyrant, he is a dictator. and then they say he is a weak leader. which is it the echo is he a tyrant or -- which is it? is he a tyrant or a weak leader. ofhe invaded georgia while george

bush was still in office. did he see some type of weakness under george bush? can people please get your stories straight because this is so ridiculous tillotson to -- to listen to. time you has been a part of russia throughout history. -- crimea has been a part of russia throughout history. putin was prompted to move into crimea. host: thank you for the call. l says this. -- bill says this -- bill kristol has this from today's "weekly standard," the essay is called "war weariness"

national he says the u.s. is poised to be the only world economic superpower, calling it "fortress america." "they are not driven by the federal reserve's easy money policy, though many of the positive changes taking place in energy, manufacturing, technology, would not occur if ben bernanke did not save the economy from an economic depression. the u.s. energy revolution, a manufacturing renaissance, a rapid technological innovation, and a major recovery in residential real estate. that assessment on the world's economic role in the world.

long island, new york, republican line. good morning. daniel, are you with us? caller: [inaudible] host: we have a poor connection. let's go to there'll in long beach, california. -- to darrell in long beach, california. caller: if i were one of the powerful politicians i would have to be a millionaire to associate with these people. we have 2 million people locked up in jail, 400 bases around the world, we went to places and afterwards went books, we should not have been there. you're asking yourself who are these people in charge? i think the whole entire congress should be impeached and start over again.

host: this point based on some earlier twitter comments and phone calls -- can join the conversation. let me go to the peace in the new york times, the three faces of president obama, including this picture from crimea where there are pro-russian protesters in crimea. the final point from tom friedman is as follows -- he goes on to say the crazy dysfunction of our demographic identity is --

mike is joining us from massachusetts on the democrats line. caller: the country is $17 trillion in debt. i don't think we can afford to be policeman in the world anymore. russia has troops in crimea and they are allowed to keep up the 26,000 troops by treaty. they had a lease on the black sea port until 2032. for them to relinquish that port is like relinquishing the naval base in san diego. it about victoria newman and the $5 billion as he says the united

states has used for the ngos in ukraine? i think we have to stop meddling in other people's business and take care of democracy in our own country. host: there is this from one of our viewers -- what should america's role in the world be? this is based on the latest developments in ukraine and the ongoing situation in syria. president obama meeting with the palestinian leader tomorrow. on the st. patrick's day weekend, the chicago times has this question -- another headline looking at the economy out west.

the headline from "the arizona republic." we've go to tina next from huntington, west virginia. caller: in regards to the question of what should america's role be in the world i feel like the united states needs to withdraw troops overseas, stop fighting these wars and getting involved. a we need to focus -- we need to focus on the united states and i would like to see more humanitarian efforts. stop funding a lot of countries that backed terrorism. host: we will go to john in alabama, good morning. caller: for one thing, as a

policeman of the world i think we have to keep soldiers here and there to keep our presence in case something happens. i watched how afghanistan was pumping money in there. it's no good. that money needs to be stopped. if they are going to kick us out we need to take care of our people here. i work for a military contractor in arizona. people think the warm is mainly because of -- this country has so many military contracts with security and all that. right now the war is the biggest

thing to have -- to help this country turned back around. they are giving them a cut of missiles and giving them good wages. and do not think if the president went to the olympics it would have changed anything. people are tired of the president. i don't see how we can go in without causing a big war. host: the polls are still open in crimea. that southern peninsula section for ukraine. secretary of state john kerry had this to say. [video clip] >> we presented a number of ideas which we believe can

provide a path forward for all of the parties. after much discussion the foreign minister made it clear that president putin is not prepared to make any decision regarding ukraine until after the referendum on sunday. united states referendum is clear. we believe the referendum is contrary to the constitution of the ukraine, contrary to international law, in violation of that law that we believe is illegitimate. as the president put it, illegal under the ukrainian constitution. neither we nor the international community will recognize the results of this referendum. we also remain deeply concerned about the large deployments of russian forces in crimea and along the eastern border of russia, as well as the continuing provocations and some

of the hooliganism of the young people who have been attracted across the border and come into these, as well as some of those who -- -- those who live there. host: "the post-closed quote makes this point -- -- "the post" makes this point -- joseph hill has this point --

last word on all of this from bill from george on the independent line. caller: i think we have forgotten that crimea and that part of the world is next to russia. it is none of our business. basically we got involved with serbia under president clinton. no need for us to deal with that again. hewe got involved in libya. we ended up with four dead americans. who knows. that is some silliness over videos. he should be arrested and put in jail for what he did. this crimea business is none of our business.

>> this point, does week mean use military intervention first and think about it later? thank you for all of your calls and comments on this question, what you think america's role in the world should be. we are going to turn our attention to the situation with that malaysian airliner, being turned into a criminal investigation. mary schiavo will be joining us. she's a former inspector general. and later the democrat's campaign and their influence in the 2014 elections. we will speak with david leventhal from the center for public integrity. here are the programs that can be heard on c-span radio heard nationwide on xm channel 120. nancy callow is in the c-span radio studios. good morning to you. >> good morning to you. on today's tv talk shows the

topics will include more on the situation in crimea as they go to the polls today. cia spying in congress, the missing malaysian airliner, and politics this year's election. you can hear rebroadcasts of the programs beginning at noon eastern with nbc's "meet the press." today's guest include dan pfeiffer, dick durbin, and republican senator jeff flake. up at 1:00 it is abc's "this week." with peter king of new york, democratic senator chris murphy of connecticut. on "fox news sunday until michael mccaul, chairman of the homeland security committee, and the chairman of the foreign relations committee bob menendez. cnn's "state of the union" follows with john mccain republican national committee chairman ryan priebus, and commander william marks, spokesman of the navy's seventh

fleet involved in the search for that missing malaysian airliner. mike rogers, chairman of the house intelligence committee and former national security advisor tom gone along. they are brought to you as a public service by the network and c-span. the rebroadcasts begin at noon eastern with nbc's "meet the press," abc's "this week," "fox news sunday," state of the union , and face the nation from cbs. listen to all of them on c-span radio, at 91 point fm. up -- at 90.1 fm. you can download our free app for your smart phone or listen online at c-span.org. >> the suggestion is when we say freedom of choice, let people go their own way, what i think we

often mean is they know best. the government doesn't know best. the notion of autonomy, a pretty elaborate word, is basically a one-word way of saying that people know better than outsiders do about what will make their lives go well. this sounds kind of academic and abstract. i think the stakes are real and concrete. that is the question when we think about our policies. are people going to be sick? are they going to be miserable? are they going to be dead? if we have some policy, whether it involves savings for retirement or privacy on the internet or air quality, if we can think of some way that makes them less likely to be miserable

or dead while also letting them ultimately go their own way that is probably a good bargain. >> tonight at eight on c-span "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: the headline says the missing jet diverted from relations -- from malaysia opens terminal inquiry. she is a partner at the law firm motley right. thank you for being with us. guest: good to be with you. host: based on everything you have been following over the last eight days, what are your various scenarios? what the you think happened to flight 370? guest: all until yesterday i was

absolutely convinced we were looking at a mechanical, because of the flight path and because of one shred of evidence being unable to definitively say that it has been taken over or eight highlights suicide or hijacking sabotage -- or eight highlights suicide or hijacking sabotage -- or pilot suicide or hijacking sabotage. often that convene you have a catastrophic failure on board an explosion, a fire rapid compression. people were remember a low hot airlines -- a low hot -- aloha airlinses. yesterday was an interesting day. the malaysian authorities announced that they believe without a doubt that the system on the airplane that sends

messages about the plane back to the airline -- that that was shut off. not stopped transmitting but was actually shut off. that happened before the last pilot communications to aircraft control. when pilots communicate with air traffic control -- by the way the transponder, in other system that tells both air traffic control and radar where you are it sends out a radio signal with the number saying this is us. that was still on. if the pilot was so able to communicate with air traffic control, he was still fly the plane. and he could have said the code word. airlines are usually trained to a code. they say it if you are in dire

strain and can't squawk the hijack code or do anything else to let them know you are in trouble. we know all right, good night the last words of the pilot could have been a hijack code. it was very ominous to me. now they are saying they think other people were on board. there are theory, and this is one that is difficult to copperhead -- to comprehend, somebody entered the belly of the plane and turn off a piece of equipment that let people know where the plane is. you don't get to that electronics they from the cockpit.

you get through it from the passenger cabin. to be able to do that, somebody would have to go to the carpeting, access that area, which is post-9/11 -- which in a post-9/11 20101 world -- the passengers would have fought back. for 11 years we investigated and litigated passenger cases. they have plans to fight back on every single plane. you need a crew on that plane to take it over, going to the electronics pay. keep the passengers under control to fly the plane and to manage the navigation. one school of thought is it was going over the himalayas. i had a difficult time with that scenario because there are 100 peaks in the himalayas over

23,000 feet. according to radar pings -- that is it. all we have are pains from various locations. they believe the airplane altitude varied. it was between 43,000 feet at the -- feet and at times dipping down to 23,000 feet. 18,000 hours as a pilot is a huge amount of time. we have major captains on major airlines that don't have anywhere near that kind of flight time. the other possibility they are looking at is the plane went south. it went to its assigned point where it made its last communication.

there is a way points, kind of like louise in the sky. you have these different points of view are navigating. he fly to these points and then make a turn and keep going on. that is probably at a to because we know the hijackers in september 11, 2001 had a gps. they had actually gone to new york with their gps and more at various sites in new york city checking it out with their gps is. he ever went north over the himalayas or south into the most desolate vast expanses of the indian ocean. there is the indian ocean and then there is antarctica, which

does have an airstrip but you cannot land there in march. you have to land in december and january. scenario now that the u.s. persons believe it went into the deepest water and its vast expanse of water there is. there are many holes and problems and disconnect in this theory, not the least of which is this, they are relying on satellite data that has not yet been smoothed out. there -- they are undoubtedly feverishly working. they're going to take the white noise out of the data. maybe they'll have better idea of where this claim went. right now the malaysian authorities are moaning their chief theory, it was intentional behavior. they are looking at hijacking or deliberate sabotage.

host: 18,000 flying hours, which meant that the pilot spent his entire career working as a pilot or malaysian airlines. the investigation is focusing on him. abc news is reporting there were also pilot's flight simulator. what can we learn from that? caller: a lot. as a bus that had a microsoft flight simulator in our houses and cut the various versions of it -- you know, it is very telling because you can put in any airport in the world and practice landing there. you can program in various waypoints so if the pilot is the one -- they are also saying the waypoints were not -- they were on their way to beijing, where

they were supposed to go. who knows if this is reliable news. they have released the news that those have been program before the flight. his simulator had these routes practiced, these various waypoints practices going to and going over, landing in runways in can't extend where they are talking about abandoned airfield. there is apparently one even in the south indian ocean. then they think that there was someone practicing this and why would someone with 18,000 hours need a flight simulator? >> well, a lot of us have flight sim later at home. it wouldn't mean anything for us but it would if you were

training someone else. and also looked through possessions at his home and looked to see where they would suspect pilot sabotage or suicide they would look at recent life insurance policies, debt, suicide notes anything that would indicate that you would have an alternative plan other than going to work. so they did sees the flight computer and bags that people observing couldn't see but that's what they were looking for at the pilot's house. host: we're talking with mary schiavo. she served as the inspect o of transportation and currently a partner at the law firm motley rice. another theory is that the pilot was able to lower the

plane that would allow him to kill off the passengers while he was able to keep the plane airborne. do you buy that theory? guest: no. this is why i don't buy that theory. the planes are pressurized and the last event where they knew everything was fine when he said hurt, good night. the plane was at 35,000 feet which means it's pressurized. if you had a rapid depressurizing event, the pilots have in the cockpit emergency oxygen equipment but at 35,000 feet they have 30 seconds or less to get that on before they start getting disoriented. after that it's hard to think and eventually you die in pretty short order. but what happens is they pout on the oxygen masks and it

would drop for the passengers. if the pilot went down to 35,000 feet, this is still -- you would live, but not long, and depressurized the plane so you don't have oxygen and then went back up to 45,000 feet if they had their oxygen masks on, that would kill the passengers. well, you know that's taking a pretty big risk, because according to these very unreliable pings by the way, they were not at 45,000 feet very long and the problem in climbing to 45,000 feet. when you climb up to those flight levels above what the plane is intended to fly at a couple things happen. you have to climb to those flight levels slowly, if you climb quickly you have engine flameout, because the engines

have to take in the air and they have to climb to that level slowly. you don't just pop up and climb like you're on top gun. and in doing that they could have had a dual engine flameout and it's very difficult to re-light those engines. you have to basically dive and get them spooling again. you can try an in-flight re-light. so that if you're doing it slowly, some passengers could acclimate. you cannot fly at 45,000 feet -- the biggest is whether these data pings from the satellite are right. the directional pings on the satellite, they feel pretty good about. the altitude pings, not so much. so i wouldn't put a lot of stock in that right now. but if you were going to get down in the cargo or the

electronics bay in the belly of the plane and mess around with the plane, you would have to think of a way to control the passengers because that's why people have the theory that they killed the passengers. host: another theory is that the plane may have landed somewhere. this is a picture or graph from the "new york times," possibly could have gone as far as kazakstan. on that theory, what are your thoughts? guest: well, i have one question that so far i've asked everyone to try to find this answer out and that is did the pilots call for more fuel before they took off. because if you're a pilot with 18,000 hours and you're going to deliver this plane to somebody in kazakstan, that means you're basically a world war ii history buff you have got to fly the hump. you've got to take this plane up and over the himalayas.

unless you go a long convoluted route. but if you have to fly you have to make sure you have enough fuel because there are head winds and tremendous things that could make you run out of fuel. this plane has a range of 7 50,000 miles if you're using the wing tanks. the pilots you can say well, i'm checking the weather, we've got some head winds and you can call for more fuel. and my question has been did they call for more fuel? because if they didn't, a pilot with 18,000 hours probably would not take this plane past its range over the himalayas. you wouldn't be assured you would ever make it if you were really delivering this plane anywhere in the stans. so then that leaves the very awful thought that they didn't take on more fuel and we don't

know who did this if anyone. we still don't have a black fwocks confirm the communications equipment was positively turned off and that it us just stopped working. but the intention is that they didn't take on more fuel and didn't intend to go to kazakstan or anywhere like that and they were just taking it to the indian ocean to ditch it. obviously that's a horrible sad thing and i hate to even say that for the families that are holding out hope but the second theory is not promising for any survivors. host: measure -- mary schiavo who served is joining us from south carolina a partner at the law firm motley rice and a veteran of the department of transportation as we look into what happened to flight 370

that malaysian airline flight now being called a criminal investigation. herb is joining us from springville new york. good morning. caller: yes. good morning. accidentally let me first say that on the news last night ma laceya stated that no additional fuel was taken on. but let me go back to my point, ms. mary schiavo and talk about the transponders. as we know on 911 ten the highjackers on all three planes, one of the first things they did was turn off the trance ponder. and i'm told by the experts on a legitimate flight a pilot has no need whatsoever to turn off transponders so why haven't the aviation industry and the security people got together after 9/11 and said let's take the on/off switch out of all

commercial planes, but we will leave in the sos switch on the transponder, but the on/off switch will be totally taken out. why wasn't that done? guest: boy, you have hit the nail on the head. not only will they not do that, but this gentleman obviously knows flying but the american public is shocked to learn that you are not required to have a transponder at all to fly around the united states of america and a great november aviation planes don't have one. you don't have to turn one on or unless you're going into a controlled air space and landing at certain airports. the big passenger service airports, you can fly around and basically are a u.f.o. because you don't have a transponder and don't have to squak your code, now the

transponder puts out a number and on september 11 there was great difficulty once they turned them off to determine where they were because they were saying flight 93 was lost for a time. i was working at the newsroom in nbc at the time and we were scrambling, where do you extend crews? to cleveland? akron? but the other issue that came up after september 11 is not only why do we allow transponders to be turned off or literally why do they have them where they cannot turn them off but they talked about additional cost but if you can afford a plane you can afford a transponder. be why don't we do this deep ocean search for black boxes when we have the ability to do streaming like on air france

447, we knew what happened on air france 447 within a couple days because that plane streamed its data on this system status update putting out messages saying here's what's happening with the plane. the plane did it all on itself. this system is spooling down and this system is spooling down. so on that plane we knew something was seriously wrong you can stream this information we don't need this fran tic search for sonar if we allow data to be -- and the cockpit voice recording will only last for two hours and so if it was a seven-hour flight nothing would come up. it would be silence and onboard video periodically streaming video as to what's going on in the cockpit or cabin, that was

objected to as an invasion of deprive criticism. i'm a lawyer and let me tell you there's no right to privacy an commercial jet carrying 239 lives. so i don't think the arguments against this technology make any sense whatsoever, but the simple reason is we don't have them because the federal aviation administration and other aviation authorities around the world because we can only control our pilots and airlines, nobody's ever ordered it. if they ordered it, it would be done. host: marie has this question if they can use detectors over the ocean to find the plane? guest: no. not at this point. 59 this point they have to go strictly off of satellite coordinates and listen for the signals emitted by the black boxes. they call them pings, they have a pinger but they emit a radio signal that can be picked up by at this point they have to use

submersibles. because it's very deep there but once the pinger is gone. and this happened with air france the battery lasts about 30 days. help the they have to look for it with a submersible on value jet 592 divers found them and on twa 800, same thing, submersibles and divers. so just because they don't find it within 30 days, and i'm not saying they won't but they can still find it with submersibles and divers. but this is the best hope unless they can find information on the flight simulator that they have seized or from information at malaysia air or witnesses or a suicide note or any of these number of things, that's the sure guesswork. host: pat is on the phone for mary schiavo. good morning. caller: good morning. ok.

i had two questions. i think one of them you answered, and it was fuel. the plane has x amount of fuel. it's only going to take them so far, and i think you said 7,000 or a little over 7,000 miles. and that's about five hours of flying. but my second question was have they heard anything about the investigation into all the passengers that were on the plane? i do know it was mentioned there were three americans on there. but are they looking into all the passengers? i mean -- guest: they are now. now, after because they spent 11 years on the 9/11 cases. on 9/11 everyone was suspect immediately after the crashes. they were looking at innocent victims and passengers as possible suspects. the federal bureau of investigation was tracking down just based on a name sometimes but quickly trying to look at who was on that plane because

of the phone calls from very brave passengers from those planes that he had lot of clues really early on. remember the phone calls got out flight 93, my goodness, they gave so much information. those passengers were just great detectives. kudos to them but we got phone calls out from every plane that dave them clues they were looking for men and men of a certain age and men that looked a certain way. but we have none of that here. so at this point now a week into the investigation malaysian authorities have announced they are looking at literally everyone, and they have to be, because if it was a takeover situation, they needed a highjack crew. it's not a one-person operation. host: this is from "the new york times" going back to your point about the investigation relying on perfect tools, making the point that the lack

of four ordinary ways of finding a plane. primary radar secondary radar automated transmissions to a plane and four is an oral report by radio from the cockpit. guest: that's right. those are the four ways, and we're down at this point to one of them. we're down to the satellite coordinates that they are trying to smooth out and get better as they work on the data and of course they are calling in other satellite data too there's literally a traffic jam of sat lights up there. so what they are trying to do and the reports are that both u.s. and chinese and malaysian authorities are trying to get as much data and smooth it out and get better coordinates and the terribly sad way which is look for the black boxes after the crash. host: what about the malaysian government and their response

to this in your assessment? guest: well, there's lots of things to me that was a disconnect but i'm going to assume they haven't worked an accident like this before and there is some jurisdiction warfare. each nation has its own laws they follow and nothing tells each nation what to do but if an accident happens in international waters, it's where the plane goes down and if not it's whose nation's plane that is but the rules say it's malaysia's don't work. they may be thinking back to egyptair that went down after taking off from the united states. egypt turned over the investigation to the united states ntsb which was smart because in my opinion it's the smartest in the world. but after that ntsb concluded

it was a pilot suicide and egypt didn't like that so they took back the investigation and so there was a turf warfare so if they were remembering that, a country might want to keep control of that investigation. so if they didn't have the expertise and nobody does at the ntsb. the ntsb has so many cases and we were the lead inertia aviation for so long that they just have tremendous experience worked literally thousands of cases so i'm going to write it off to inexperience rather than coverup. however, if the there's a they were saying and they started saying the sabotage or highjack theory they didn't look at their own pilots until yesterday as a possible cause but in they really believed it was a highjack theory and had the type of crew they talked about, somebody that could get down in the cargo bay and

perform operations, they needed to look inside malaysia air and if the errant way points were prepramsd, programed they needed to look inside malaysia airplane and if they were not investigating them by persons in the 5eur8 then i don't believe they take their own there's a buzz after 9/11 everybody was looked at. and we looked to see if there was complicity within the airline if they had operatives in the airline or the airports in can a hutes, certainly if head to get they had evianics tools on the plane then they had to have security so malaysia is finally looking at everything within malaysia, flight engineers and eight days a lot of evidence can disappear in eight days. host: if you're just tuning in or listening on c-span radio

our conversation with mary schiavo, former director of department of transmission talking about what happened with the malaysian airline flight 370. jimmy from greensboro, good morning. caller: good morning all. yes, my question is around the satellite imaging. and i'm confused a little bit about satellites. one claim is that we are capable of reading license plates from satellites and so my question is how do we locate this plane? are we going to use a satellite to find this plane? guest: well we -- very good question. and i used to work before the department of transportation i worked in other government departments and yes, some of the satellite photo's are amazing. you can read so much, but that's aboveground.

and if the explain aboveground i mean above water and sitting somewhere, yes, i pane the satellite technology. as long as our satellites are focused on it. we know where to look. and i think if the explain anywhere in the mideast and the stans as they say and places where we have key interests i mean you're right. you could read the serial numbers on the wheels of the plane. but the fear, the you know sad realization is that the plane is probably under water, and to give you a comparison of what they have to look for, a couple other planes that went into the water, for example silk air was a flight in thyland that went into the water. they said that hole into which that plane went as it dove into the water, was something like 260 feet by 260 feet. i mean it's a tiny area that that plane actually

disintegrated into as it dove into the ocean at such a high rate of speed, so the satellites can find thing, but this is a very small thing they have to find if it went into the water and deep in the water you wouldn't be able to see it. host: which leads to mary schiavo your professional opinion do we find this plane anytime in the near future? guest: well, i'm going to put my hopes on the united states navy and i think -- this is my personal opinion, i sadly think they are looking in the right spot. i don't think now that we know there was no additional fuel taken on i don't think they would have then a plane north over the himalayas. not without additional fuel. i don't think they would have had assurance that they would have made it if they had a mission to deliver this plane somewhere, so i think they probably need to look for the plane in the indian ocean and

bet on the united states navy and sonars to find it. i don't know in a it will be in a few days but remember it took two years to find air france's black box. but it's important and important not only for the families. i mean, what they must be going through is really unthinkable. iman, you can't even hold those thoughts in your mind. but it's important for aviation safety. because remember accidents like u.s. air and united's cases were uninvolved solved for four years. years into the case they were still blaming pilot suicide or one they theorized is the pilot may have had a seizure. well, the pilot had no history of seizures but theorized the pilot stamped on the -- by accident. so what we really need to find out. and it's a public service and

what we do. we try to make things as safe as possible. we need to find those black boxes because if on the chance something was wrong with the plane, we have to know and the black boxes will tell us. the triple 7 has one of the most advanced black boxes ever. there are thousands of parameters so many pieces of data on that black box it's an absolute treasure trove of investigation for aviation safety, and we need it. host: to this point why steal a plane and crash it in the ocean? of course that's a question we don't know yet the answer "the washington post" has a depiction of what the black box looks like as we listen to scott from mason west -- mason, west virginia. caller: i've tried to call two times on the other subjects but

on this subject 2007 government looking for this, i'm sorry for the families but we have a lot of problems going on over here, why don't we just pay more attention to stuff over here and let other governments take care of their plane and help out ourer government and the families and poor people over here and start doing stuff for us instead of doing stuff for other people and try to get our stuff on track instead of helping everybody else? host: scott, there were three americans onboard that plane. caller: i apologize to the families, but i've been working for 25 years and i got laid off and my uncomboment stopped on the 28 and now me and my 8-year-old is living in a tent because the government doesn't want to help over here. guest: off comment on that. my heart goes out to him. when i was in the government

every day we had to make decisions and i was a federal prosecutor and we had to make decisions do we prosecute this crime or that crime and do we do this case or that case and in the government we have to realize where to put our resources. that's a question for congress and every day they have boone dogals and build one thing at the expense of another and just talking about department of transportation money because i was there for so long. they build bridges to nowhere instead of taking care of infrastructure that is falling or build a bike path next to a highway that nobody uses. these are questions kong has to answer but in this case it was a bowing aircraft. and we all fly on bowing. as an american, a lot of us are on bowings a lot of the times so it's not just that there were americans onboard but it

was an american airplane so it is important that we find out because so many of us fly on bowings. but an ntsb took four years and they put the plane back together and learned so much and still in a hanger inform virginia if you do to a training course you will see it and learn from it. and i want to say one more thing about stealing a plane, and this is so interesting to me after i what i did working on 9/11, on-base percentage on -- osama bin laden bought a plane -- we covered so much stuff in that 11 years. he bought a plane and had it transported to him in the middle east and were going to use it. they had code words and talking about delivering potatoes which were bombs or explosives and

accidentally crashed it, and the pilot that accidentally crashed the plane was so afraid he fled. but anybody can buy a plane so if a terrorist really wants a plane to pack it with explosives go buy one so that's an interesting thing as to why you want to do this to steal a plane when osama bin laden bought one. host: next from massachusetts good morning. caller: hi i'm just calling to say about that plane, i think they slept on the plane because they were saying on the news they snuck on a false i.d. or whatever. host: you're talking about the

two passengers with false i.d.'s? caller: yes. guest: you know, the false passport thing is so interesting, because there was another crash in 2010 and it was an air india plane and on that plane there were 10-13 they still don't know the exact number but 10-13 persons on that plane with fake or stolen passports, and in that case they broke an indian ring for providing false passports and interpoll released a thing saying there were like a billion passengers with fake documents over the years. i think it's a rampant problem, but i think realistically what we're going to find is malaysia air didn't have a lot of security at the airport so two

people with fake passports? there might be even more on the plane or people who didn't even bother with a fake passport and cruised past security like what happened 19 for 19 they cruised past security with box cutters, knives and pepper spray, so you might not even need fake documents. host: let me go back to the time line on the "washington post," the plane that took off at 12:41 a.m. on march 8 and at 8/11 a.m. a satellite still detecting the plane was believed to be airborne and i want to focus on this turnover indian ocean the u.s. navy leading the investigation along with other may have thal vessels, what tools are they using to look for a downed

airliner? >> well, they have a lot of tools. guest: they have surveillance and helicopters but at this point what they just absolutely have to look for and try to hear are those black box pingers, because that's where you're going to get a lot of information. now, at this point eight to nine days later what's still going to be floating? life vests? some parts of the plane, a wing, a tail, food carts sometimes float. shoes float pieces of luggage floated, the life raft that will inflate when they touch water. so there are some things that will still be floating. strangely enough a flight manuels and flight cases. just debris from the plane, but based on other accidents, those are the kinds of things that were still floating some time after the accident, so what they are looking for is the debris field but most importantly listening for those

black boxes. host: and so far nothing correct? guest: nothing. host: from florida, good morning. caller: mary aren't the f.a.a. and airline industry actually co-conspirators in crimes? i remember back in 1998 watching the senate floor the there was legislation to seal the cockpit doors on airliners there were many against it so aren't we real good at hindsight 20/20? guest: well, we had a saying in the government that we called the f.a.a. a tombstone agency because they would propose new things after people died but in the united states we kind of do that. we legislate by anecdote and latch on to an issue and solve the problem even though all

sorts of minds in the aviation industry in washington say why don't we fix it before it starts but before 9/11 they the warning bells were going off. it was imaginable they knew there was a problem coming. the airlines were warned the f.a.a. warned the airlines so many times in the summer of 2001 that they had to buckle down and do security better, and they just didn't. but like i said, that's kind of how we do it. we do it accident-by-accident, and that transponder issue, the lack of ability to get the black boxes, i can think of a dozen instances where we had this fran tic deep ocean search for black boxes where we have gone on this frantic ezz can a paid when all we have to do is download the data as the flight goes along, put a streaming video in the cockpit. by the way that would help for other things. pilots who fall asleep, pilots

with a heart attack. it doesn't have to be just sabotage, but no. the industry is against it, and for so many things privacy rights were raised. anybody who goes on camera homohow many times? so i'm frustrated with our lack of forsite on things but it's a very intrackedible bureaucracy. host: from the democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning, ms. mary schiavo, i would like to hear your thoughts on the fact that none of the passengers texted any distress messages or sent any phone duels loved ones. thank you. guest: yes. and since it's not a violation anymore, many times i've left my equipment on by accident and occasionally something will come through. even once the phone rang.

and it is hard for me to fathom that didn't happen. now, they wouldn't be using wi-fi or onboard cell, because this plane was not equipped with that so this would have to be an errant catching a signal but if the passengers didn't know what was going on that when they crossed back over malaysia, if they had to turn around and go back over land there would have been a chance that something would have come through but then once they are out over the totion chance that you would catch a tower is remote but the reason they weren't sitting in their seats wi-fiing and texting, etc. is because this plane was not equipped for that. host: a member of the house intelligence committee and among the issues we talked about was this investigation into malaysia flight 370 and what it means potentially for

the u.s. and the airliners. here's what he had to say. >> the one that leaps out at me most is the gaping hole that we have in terms of people flying with stolen identification. as we all know there were two people on that plane at least two people flying with stolen documents. now, they may have had absolute lie nothing to do with the disappearance of this plane and probably did have nothing to do with it, but it has revealed many people board planes without their identity being vetted and that's a problem, because even if these two were not involved in the disappearance of the plane others may take advantage of the fact that most countries don't check with interpoll to find out whether the documents people are providing are in fact their own documents, so that's something we really need to focus on correcting. host: you can watch the entire interview at 10:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span and espn radio our conversation with adam

schiff mary schiavo, your reaction to his comments? guest: i agree with him completely and not going to get into anything out of my subject area, but not just the world but us too we're pretty lax about identification. we get all up in arms about the passports are fake and this is fake but we have that here too. and we allow you if you want to do certain things, you have to show all sorts of identification and not for other things and we allow people with -- without proper documentation to do things. we have real political schizophrenia about proving you are who you say you are. and i don't want the go off on a political tangn't but i am outraged that lives can be risked because political decisions are made not to check

documentation and ensure documentation. and that is one of my biggest -- it's an anger point for me, because people's lives are at risk every day for that and someone makes a political decision that we're not going to stop fraudulent use of things it's not just around the world. we can't just point fingers at malaysia. we have it too and you can do it very easily biometically by the way. host: should americans be worried the next time they board an international flight? guest: they should be. whether they will be or not, that's what's going to happen. but what is going to happen. certainly americans and me and anybody who has thought about, this they are going to try to get on a u.s. carrier. because we at least check our passports and screen our pilots for psychological problems.

we at least try. but the question i have for the u.s. authorities is ok, we're checking ours. we're scrubbing our pilots. we have a pretty good feel about who is in our cock pits. what do we do about the planes coming in? the next time a flight comes from malaysia, are we going to turn them around because we cannot trust their identification systems? if i tran f.a.a. i would say until you fix your identifying system you're not going to land here but we know that's not going to happen because it is a treaty problem but i don't think we're tough with foreign airlines. but if i were american i would make my flight right here. that's probably going to be the effect for a while.

host: final question because we have to let you go but in terms of terrorism. if it was, so far nobody's claimed responsibility. another theory is that this could have been potentially a test run for something bigger. your thoughts? guest: well not claiming responsibility is not that unusual. there have been many, remember the downing of pan am 103 the libyans denied involvement for 20 years. so not claiming responsibility right now doesn't particularly seem odd to me. if it was a test run, they have pretty much blown it, because now everyone knows so that theory is looking less and less likely. i guess the only thing that would be throughout if there was a huger terror plot is that if this plane turns up something, and so far, i don't think so. like i said, the theory that this plane was taken somewhere or was being taken over the him lei yaste and landed --

himalayas and/or landed somewhere in the middle east or some place further but we now know the plane only had a range barely over 7,000 miles. i think it's in the ocean and if it's in the ocean i don't think it was a test run. mary schiavo can be followed on twitter@mary schiavo and currently a partner at the firm to motley rice joining us on this sunday from charleston, south carolina, if you so much for adding your expertise to this story. we appreciate it. >> thank you. host: we continue this sunday morning. we're going to turn our tonings to our attention to politics and the koch brothers. dave levinthal from the center of public integrity will be joining us and at georgetown university, she has a piece this morning in "the washington

post" and will be joining us to talk about what motivates russian president putin. meanwhile, on the road as we look at the history and literary life of florida's capital city, tallahassee. today at 2:00 eastern time on c-span 3's american history tv. you can catch one of our history seg means including this look at mission st. luis. here's a look. >> the circular plaza here at the mission of st. luis is the center of town and all are organized around this plaza. the three main ingredients if you will of the life of the village. the council house of the native americans and the their continuing heritage and customs. diametrically opposed across is the catholic church and the religious complex. the reason in many ways why

this particular spot was organized. here they are sort of facing off each other door-to-door. and at the same time to me their possessions or positions respect mutual respect that each honor the traditions of the other. the mission st. louis they will often speak about the council house. it is so impressive. this was the center of a latchy life. their governance note consider complaints and from various villagers against one another. the a latchy law was pretty much intact, although the spanish law over time became more often referred to. but the chiefs and subchiefs would meet along with other elders of the a latchy to hear the various issues of the day and to make decisions.

host: that's just a portion of our weekend look at tallahassee, florida part of c-span's global content vehicles as it travels around the country. you can check it out all weekend an book tv and that you saw airing at 11:00 on the west coast on c-span 3's american history tv and check it out at any time at c-span.org/local content. >> i think what happens to hoor as the depression deepens and remember people didn't know it was the great depression at on day one. they thought it was probably a typical cyclical event. but when that pattern did not hold and when the depression deepened hoover found himself facing increasing pressure from the left for greater expenditures and he started to hold the line against that and became very much a fiscal

conservative and the gold standard republican in the last year or two of his life and that perceived ridge itty on his part is part of the reason he got attacked as supposedly not doing anything. he was quite the activist at the time including policies -- on the other hand he was valiantly struggling against a total status turn such as he saw coming in the new deal. >> george nash in the missing link of herbert hoover's memoirs. and in a few weeks form former defense secretary bing west will take your calls and questions about the mideast and wars in iraq and afghanistan live from 2:00-3:00 eastern. and join the discussion on the byeography "stokley" go to the chatroom.

"washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome dave levinthal the political writer for the center of public integrity, your work available online at public integrity.org. i want to begin with the comments of harry reid, this has been an almost daily speech delivered on the senate floor taking aim at the koch brothers. here's senator reid last friday. >> mr. president i'm not afraid of the koch brothers. none of us should be afraid of the koch brothers. these two multibillionaires who spend billions of dollars of their money rigging the political process for their own benefit but that doesn't mean we have to lay down and take it because we're not going to. they make us believe whoever has the most money gets the most free speech. mr. president, it's wrong, unfair and untrue. i'll do whatever it takes to expose their campaign to rig

the american little system to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. host: the democratic leader last week and politico has the, if the democrats want to make the billionaire koch brothers their 2014 version of mitt romney. they are trying to paint charles and david koch as trying to buy the election for shady special interests and big business. what's going on here? >> the koch brothers have become the boogie man for democrats beyond any shadow of a doubt, but this has been going on for several months fundraiser after fundraiser. email after email from democrats to their supporters to their potential bank rollers. it's all been about the koch brothers and their names are probably mentioned more than any republican candidate who is running in the race you would almost think the koch brothers themselves were trying to seek

public office. but there's no way to get around the fact that they are one of the biggest forces in electoral politics today and certainly through the reporting that's been done from our organization ando political organizations it's clear over the past several electoral cycles the koch brothers and others associated have pumped likely hundreds of millions of dollars particularly into non-profit political organizations. and this is where it really gets technical but also gets very important in the sense that these types of organizations which are not supposed to have a primary purpose of engaging in politics are still spending tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars collectively to engage in the political process, and this is really where the row begins. where the argument that harry reid and plenty of other democrats have articulated saying fine, play politics, get

in politics but we should know who truly is behind it. can either of us put a dollar figure on how much money the koch brothers have put in the system in in part no, because we don't have the information by law to put such a dollar figure on their pending. host: based on that let's take a step back. who are the koch brothers and how do they make their money and why are they so act i've and who are they aligned with? guest: they are two of the most wealth i didn't individuals in the country and industrialists in the broadest sense and involved in oil refineries, georgia pacific, the paper company and a variety of things throughout the country under the broad umbrella of koch industries and libertarians at heart. you might not really associate them first and foremost with the republican party because so much of what they are about philosophically speaking of what they are driving for are

free markets free enterprise, the ability to do business in this country without rules and regulation and government intervention that's going to prevent business from being successful, from earning money, so much of the money they are donating are going to these non-profit groups and a lot of their detracters call it the koch-topus where it's just a nerve center with arms spread out throughout the country with all these organizations and groups that effectively try to involve they musts in certain issues that support the koch brothers philosophies or elections supporting candidates who in turn will support those types of philosophies, the center to protect patient's rights and the future fund and several different organizations that demonstratively that we have been able to track and other organizations have been able to track back to the koch

brothers donor network or the koch brothers themselves. so it's ooh very, very massive network that then able to put in place and they have been very successful for the large part to secure the identities and the dollar figures of their donors, of their supporters. we don't know a whole lot about some of these groups. we know what they do and support but who is actually running them and behind them and pulling the levers and how much money they are injecting in it is difficult to ascertain even though we have had success in ferretting out where the money is coming from and where the money is going. host: based on the historic citizens united ruling everything they are doing is perfectly legal. >> yes. guest: and another point you made earlier, who are the koch brothers? a lot of people, particularly liberals on the democratic side would like to paint them as these mono crow matic

aforementioned free market but at the same time, too, it's important to note that there's plenty of shades of gray here. there's a bit of a stratification in the operations that they are interested in. for example, in definite fairness to them, they are some of the biggest backers particularly david koch of the arts. he loves the ballet and the arts in new york city. he has donated tens of millions to them, if you ever watched nova on pbs, a particular big supporter of that too so as individuals they go beyond the political sfeer and have more many years although their political involvement really is at a height in the 2012 election cycle and the 2014 cycle we're now in. host: but to give a sense of how the democratic party is reacting this is a website it's called koch addiction.com is the it the dscc says

republicans are addicted to koch and keeping track of where they are spending and background information on the koch brothers themselves. >> and this really points to the idea that the 2014 election cycle is largely at least early on going to be about trying to demonize not a particular candidate on the republican side or the republican party in and of itself but using the koch brothers as the foil to try to number one on the senate side try to regain control of the senate which democrats desperately want to do although it seems difficult to maintain the house but all the while the koch brothers have been very much at the heart of this all as a fundraising and motivation tool. you need an enemy. you need a vinl. they have found their villain and enemy in the koch brothers and until further notice expect home the keep pounding that

drum as hard and fast as they can go with it. host: and this is how they are doing it. meet the koch brothers. car christian against and greenhouse gases and also the website pointing out no obama care, lower wages no social security. tax breaks for billionaires and who will gain much from the koch brothers? corporate tax breaks looser regulations tax loopholes and outscoresing jobs. guest: you can talk about issues until you're blue in the face and all those issues very key and important to democrats strategy and the heart of their philosophy in 2014. but if you don't have somebody to personify those issues or again a villain to present to somebody who is fighting against the issues that you care about oftentimes it's very difficult to connect with your voter base, with your potential supporters, the people who will elect you in

november when the midterm elections come around and it's also important to note too that the democrats are playing this game to an extent too. they do in a different way but still an important key way have plenty of billionaire backers or multibillionaire backers who are playing this political game of unlimited money. sometimes a lot of people like to call it dark money. forthcoming money into non-profit groups or less dark if you will funneling it boo super packs which are these types of organizations that have only been around a few years that can nonetheless raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to for or against a political opponent. one has been adamant about getting involved in the political sfeer even environmentalists so in a way democrats are holding him up as an elicksor to fight dollar for

dollar with the koch brothers but somebody who is going to be very supportive of environmental issues and at the same time they don't -- the party -- don't have direct control over his actions so he is in a way a free agent doing what he sees fit using the laws instituted in this country particularly in the aftermath citizen united sers verse federal election case in 2010 which really set all these things in motion and animated the political system we have right now. the democrats are getting smart to it and read if they don't engage and play this game then they do so at their own peril which is why you see more and more democratic aligned super packs, non-profit organizations that are getting politically active that are very liberal in the way they operate. they may not be matching the republicans or conservatives but definitely playing the game at a much more aggressive level than they were in the 2010

election cycle and even in the 2012 presidential election cycle. host: go going back to the george soros s of the world, can we expect a campaign against these bundlers helping out the democratic candidates? guest: maybe but not in the way the democrats are going after the koch brothers. the republicans have always held wealthy democratic supporters as being their foils on the other side but you're not seeing anything at least in the 2014 election cycle coming from the republicans going after the democratic donors in the way you're seeing it going the other way around. the republican sort of have their own problem right now with outside money in the sense that we reported recently that during the first two months of 2014, that of all the money that has been spent to directly advocate for or against candidates running in the 2014

midterm cycle, about one out of err five dollars spent is coming from demonstratively conservative organizations and attaching republicans with it, those groups are actually spending more money attacking republicans than democrats during this early portion of the 2014 election cycleso it really speaks for the fight tea party versus main stream and conservative verse vs. more moderate or pain stream as well. and you have these primaries in kentucky with mitch mcconnell and several other key federal primaries throughout country where there's just a heck of a lot of infighting going on. some might say it's tenant amount to a republican civil war. if it's not to that level it's at least to the level of significant battles all across the country and broadly to the

idea of the tea party struggle within the republican party and whether the republican party wants to move more to the center or to the right. host: dave levinthal with politico a graduate of syracuse university and now with the public -- center for public integrity. from ohio, good morning. caller: i'm from athens, ohio. but i'm glad to be on here. i'm glad for somebody to stand up and talk about the koch brothers and this is the national ji graphics one day about they told all about how putin gets back in there, he has been in there trying to tell them to invest in the united states. they own 2/3 of the united states. they can -- george bush had come in and won 2006 if i'm not mistaken he turned up -- donate anything, open money to the

campaigns for political elections. why can't that be stopped about donating so much? there was on there about so much you can put in on political but he got koch brothers got case again near ohio. we watched the video where the elections are 15 minutes down from taking all of them and the koch brothers come in and even told them they put in 145,000 votes for him. he was not elected here. he was bought. host: abby, thanks very much for the call carolyn had this point as well along the lines. money is not speech. it's assistant amount to briarry and buying rep re-sentation. to both these points david lauter? guest: first of all, in this country you can still not donate unlimited amounts of

money directly to a candidate. if i am a rick donor and i want to give you a million what i can do is take that million dollars and say all right, i'm going to use that to buy television advertisements and facebook ads and twitter ads and going to independently support your candidacy. that's pretty much the way that it's working right now because of the way the law reads in this country because of that continual prohibition in being able to give unlimited amounts directly to a campaign. but in practical terms it's the second best thing for political operatives or political actors being able to independently use the money to run in a way a pair level campaign. so that's where that particular situation is working right now. >> and nick makes this point.

you can share our thoughts. alex from new hampshire on our line. caller: thank you for taking our call. and thank you for the facts on the koch brothers. two quick questions. i'm concerned about the mainstream media not mentioning how much george soros, unions bar associations donate nearly 100% of their money to the dnc and the democrats and that kind of volume of dollars pails in comparison to the koch brothers. and the second point is why are people not offended and why is harry reid not excoriated for constantly giveing the floor

and excoriating the law abiding citizens? >> guest: the caller makes a very good point that there are little rab democratic donors putting money into the citizens. a lot of democrats like to demonize the citizens uniteded as a terrible thing but they are gaining from the rule because to know if it takes 30 yards for them to get a first down and ten yards for the republicans in a cash sense they're going to be in big big trouble and they realize that in no uncertain terms in 2012 when one of the biggest critics of citizens united president barack obama effectively said i give my blessing to have a super pac formed on my behalf to raise and spend money to support my election. he realized like a lot of democrats that even if they don't like the decision, even if they disagree, they're going to have to abide by the law in

order to stay competitive with republicans. but to speak to that caller's point and your previous caller, the i.r.s. is going to be a big player going forward in the way that the rules and regulations may or frankly may not change for future election cycles. right now as we speak, the i.r.s. is considering a whole new slate of rules that would cause these so-called 501 c 4 organizations, nonprofit groups, that are supposed to exist to ben fift the social welfare or not engage in politics as their primary purpose, the i.r.s. is considering saying, look, none of that any more. you're not going to be able to be a 501 crrn 4 and work in the policecal sphere and work in the way you are right now. but it's very controversial and a lot of liberals and democrats don't like the potential rules because in a way it goes farther than that and doesn't speak just to political activity advocating for and against but talks about voter

education, voter registration drives having a candidate come to your nonprofit group and speak before them immediately before an election season. so there were tens of thousands of different comments that had been sent to the i.r.s. and had been logged with the i.r.s. during the comment period that was open in preparation for the i.r.s. to considering these new rules they've proposed and most of those were negative even coming from a lot of liberal and democratic groups in addition to republican groups. so this is not a black and white issue, not just republican versus democrat, conservative versus liberal. people want to win. if you're in politics you're going to use the tools at your dispostal. oftentimes the rule that you have that you have to play by or not. you're going to use them to the best of your ability to get what you want at the end of the day, which is to win elections in november. >> the last couple of weeks the senate democratic leader has gone to the senate floor taking aim at the koch brothers, part of a larger effort by the

democrats to use the koch brothers as what politico is calling the 2014 version of mitt romney what we saw in 2012. one of our viewers saying republicans are not addicted to the koch brothers, republicans are owned by the koch brothers. let's let's listen to mike. caller: thank you for taking my call. i never know where to start. i can't ever cover all i want to cover but what i want to say is i'm glad a lot of the previous callers have recognized between what's the difference between soros and the koch brothers as far as directing their money? and i was a republican for a long time and i registered independent about part 10 years ago for the reason the republican doss not strategize like the dracts do. all they're doing is trying to redirect somebody else's attention on or direct the attention of the low-information voters on the moral bankruptcy of obama. that's simply what is their

point because soros is doing the very exact same thing that they claim the cokes brothers are doing. but they're doing it conservatively. host: thank you. guest: hillary is a fascinating case in the senses that she is not a registered candidate. most people think she is probably going to run for president in 2016 but she hasn't yet. it may be another year before she decides but yet there's multii believe super pacs that have germ nated and sprung up over the past year and are raising millions of dollars because they have the ability to do so to support a potential hillary clinton campaign. so yes we're in the 2014 mid term election cycle and yes the 2016 presidential election is nearly 3 years away but we already have because of the way the laws read in this country the ability for groups such as

ready for hillary, which is the primary super pac, that's supporting hillary clinton to set up an entire operation typically backed by 10, 20 years ago if you wanted to start up the potential campaign that you want to start, if you want to create a proto campaign you would have an exploratory committee. you can still do that today but you can also have your supporters go and raise a whole boat load of money and get together and organize and go and start a super pac which no better case than probably ready for hillary of the way that things work in this brave new world of outside money and the post-citizens united. host: political writing about tom stire who is pushing for climate change issues and the story pointing out that he is putting forth up to $100 million in his own campaign push on climate change issues. and another viewer ed williamsson saying that the

koch brothers have become public enemy number one to use their own money to support their own political views nothing more. sam from georgia. good morning. caller: i want to say harry reid is george soros monica lewinski. soros wants to take the dream away from black americans martin luther king's dream and give it to illegals across the border and that's not right. guest: whether it's any issue from immigration to environmental, you can be an environment list you can be the biggest deregulation fan in the whole world. we're not here necessarily to argue who is right and who is wrong. but when it comes to the process, the ability to advocate for your own personal special interests. if you're a billionaire and you've got a whole lot of money that you're willing to spend on politics, on races on

campaigns to support candidates that you like, or for that matter attack candidates that you don't like, you have more ability regardless of whether you're a conservative or liberal. and democrat or republican, than perhaps you've ever had in modern u.s. political history. so you can go as an individual and fund these groups to whatever degree you choose. you can either do it in a public way and have the note right that's associated with donating to a group like we talked about a super pac or if you want to do it behind the scenes and make it very difficult for the public to find out that you are truly the one who is behind a particular political effort, a political campaign, then you can do it at least for the time being through nonprofit entities. these 501(c)(4) social welfare groups, 501 c 6 business trade organizations. these are the two types of vehicles right now that are frequently used in order to launch political campaigns in support or against candidates. but at the same time largely shield the donors from scrutiny

that will come with, gren, the note right of donating $1 million or $10 million or $100 million to support the cause you're fighting for. host: laura makes this point. let me pun an example one way that we're seeing the koch brothers and the response from the democrats. this is in one of the races likely determine the control of the u.s. senate in 2015 alaska where mark ben yitch is seeking a second term. we'll begin first with this ad. >> i trusted the president and senator begich. lots of promises were made to pass obamacare. they knew the real truth. now millions are losing their health care. some are even losing their doctors. for too many of us costs are going way up. senator beg yitch didn't

listen. how can i ever trust him again? it just isn't favor. alaska deserves better. >> call senator begich. tell him no more broken promises. stop obamacare. host: that ad which was released just about a week-and-a-half, two weeks ago, i want to go back to the response from the begich campaign. and this i believe is one of the first ads going directly at the koch brothers. let's watch. >> first it was the dc actress pretending to be an alaskan. now ads attacking mark begich have been called false and not true. who is behind the attacks? >> the koch brothers. >> the billionaire koch brothers. >> they come into our town. >> just running it into the ground. >> a lot of alaskans are losing jobs i'm definitely concerned about the drinking water. >> i don't tell them what to do. i don't expect them to come to alaska and tell us what to do. host: dave, what's behind this

very direct response? guest: nothing else straits the way that the democrats attack the democrats are taking with the koch brothers and perhaps a situation in alaska they see the koch brothers as the best proxy to tar republicans, to go after republicans, to try to defeat their political enemies. so the strategy right now whether it's through fund raising, whether through advertising, through campaigns such as that, is to hit the koch brothers, hit the koch brothers hard, go after them, because the feeling is -- and i've talked to plenty of democrats who have been on the periphery of this strategy they feel that if the koch brothers can really be demonized in the way that they're hoping to, then by virtue of that, the republican party is also going to be demonized as well in the hearts and in the minds of voters. but there's another race that just occurred. it was down in florida, special election in florida's 13th congressional district, this is

one where alex and david jolly the republican, sink the democrat, wrr fighting in a very, very tight race. ultimately david jolly won, the republican. and but both sides came in and at the end of that race, with the information that we best have available to us, through the end of february, it was effectively even when it came to candidates spending and outside spending democrat to republican. so there was the best example that we have right now of what the greater 2014 election may look like. the republicans had a little bit more of outside money. that was coming in to support david jolly. alex sink had the advantage when it came to money that her campaign raised but both sides went in, spent a hoke of a lot of money. it was one of the more expensive special elections that we've seen in history. $13 million for that one particular race in a district that not a whole lot of people would have paid attention to

otherwise. just shows what both sides are willing to do to score political victories and what is going to be a very tight mid it have he remember election. >> host: and this comment, the koch brothers spending is for their own financial gain. george soros and others spend on things with social or environmental benefits. our last call on the republican line. john you get the last word with dave leventhal. caller: thanks for taking my call. i believe thanks to c-span gain. i do believe that i believe with many callers that the wealthy seem to be increasingly dominating the political agenda. when they have the capacity to write a $1 million check. the politicians certainly do cater to their interests. if there's one thing though that all of these billionaires appear to agree with, really i don't know an exception to it,

mark zuckerberg, george soros paul sinnedler, former mayor bloomberg, shell natalson, they all agree on the so-called schumer-rubio senate comprehensive immigration bill, which is really a -- for workers. he's promised to spend $50 million to get more h 1 v waivers to bring in people to replace american workers at cheaper prices to make more money. host: thanks for the call. guest: the caller makes a great point. if you have a significant amount of money that you want to spend on politics and you have a pet issue whether it's immigration, gun control, you name it, the economy jobs, any issue that we're dealing with here on capitol hill, if you've got the money to spend, then

you can spend it on that particular issue. and suddenly your ability to be a player be a factor in political elections goes up just because of the money that you have and the ability for you to spend it. a lot of people ask, why don't we reform the campaign finance system? why don't we do something completely different and in just say, citizens united is wrong, we're going to get rid of it? the fact is that is going to be extremely difficult to do whether you agree or disagree with it. the supreme court has comb do you know with their law of the land. you could amend the constitution. that has not been done for any issues in 22 years. something so politicized as the issue we're talking about today. there could be bills passed that the work around the edges of this. but congress is not really willing to do much of anything these days when it comes to controversial issues. so don't hold your breath is the point. this is not something that is probably going to change and if

anything does change again you've got to keep your eyes on the i.r.s. going forward. they may have the greatest ability, for better or worse or however you feel about the issue, to affect change in the short term although these things with campaign finance issues and political influence issues they do have a way like the pendulum proserbal pendulum swinging go back and go forth campaign finance along this country really never stay it is same and -- for long for really a significant period of time. >> one final quick point. the great part of this program is the feedback from our c-span audience and one of our viewers saying that the jolly-sink races in florida attracted as you said 12.7 million less than a third came from the candidates. >> and that's reporting that we did in fact. one of my colleagues had a wonderful report exactly how it all broke down and that's a great point that with one third coming from the candidates themselves where was the rest coming from? it was coming from a small

extent from the party committees but the lion's share was coming from these independent outside groups nonprofit corporations, super packs that are related to the parties, that support democrats and republicans but are not controlled by the campaigns or the party committees. they can operate as free agents and pump as much money as they want to into these races for whatever interests they have whether it's the candidates or whatever they can do it. >> host: dave leventhal, thanks very much for being with us. guest: thank you, steve. host: we're going to take a very short break. when we come back we'll turn our attention to russia, ukraine, and inside the mind of president putin. one person who knows him well is angrily stent. she also has an extensive piece this morning. she has a piece this morning and is out with a new book. her perspectives coming up in a moment. but first, a look at the other sunday morning programs all of

which can be heard on c-span radio. >> good morning. on today's sunday tv talk shows topics include today's vote in crimea c.i.a. spying, the missing airliner and politics. and you can hear rebroadcasts on c-span radio beginning at noon eastern with nbc's meet the press. guests today include white house senior adviser dan pfeiffer democratic senator dick doiben and republican senator jeff flake. and this week republicans representative peter king of new york is one of the guests including democratic senator chris murphy and bill gealingts. at 2:00 p.m. it's fox news sunday including texas republican mccall, bob menendez and republican bob corker the ranking member on that committee. cnn state of the union follows at 3:00 with arizona republican senator john mccain republican

national committee chairman and commander william marks, a spokesman for the navy's 7th fleet which is involved in the search for the missing jet. at 4:00 p.m. it's face the nation with republican representative mike rogers, chairman of the house intelligence committee. also on the program former national security adviser. the sunday network tv talk shows are on c-span radio and brought to you as a public service by the networks and c-span. again the rebroadcasts begin at noon with meet the press this week, fox news sunday cnn state of the union, and face the nation. you can listen to them all on c-span radio on 90.1 fm in the washington, d.c. area. across the country on xm satellite radio, channel 120. download our free ap or listen on line.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome angela stent. an expert on russia. formerly with the national intelligence council out with a new book called the limits of partnership. u.s.-russia relations and the 21st century. this morning an extensive piece titled the cold war is cool again. good morning. >> good morning. great to be here. host: let's talk about president putin and the relationship or lack thereof between our president and the russian leader. how would you assess that? guest: i think the relationship today is pretty bad. it did not get off on a good footing in july of 2009 president obama visited moscow, of course medvedev was president then but he met with prime minister putin and he asked him a simple question. how did we get to this situation where we are now? and mr. putin gave him a 1-1/2 hour lecture on all the wrong thing that is the united states

had done, how i had hat not respected russia, how it had betrayed promises it had made. so that didn't go too well and it hasn't gone well since then. host: there is a piece this morning from the london telegraph looking into the mind of russian president putin and one of the assessments from this article in great britain is that at every turn we have miscalculated president putin. guest: i think we didn't know what to make of him when he first came to power. who is this man? he had a kgb background he worked in foreign economic context. we didn't know much about him. in the beginning people underestimated him. in the beginning he did give the impression that he would like russia to be more intzpwrated into the west, that he wanted better relations. but he feels fundamentally that after he supported president george bush after the 9/11 attacks, and in the war in afghanistan, that we didn't

respect russia. he expected in return the support that we recognize russia's sphere of privileged interest as the kremlin likes to call it in the post soviet space where ukraine comes in. and he feels we just disregarded russian interested. of course there was the iraq war, the revolutions in ukraine and in georgia. where he feared that the u.s. was deliberately trying to bring regime change in his backyard and possibly to russia. so he definitely for his own reasons feels that the u.s. has disrespected russia and i think we probably have maybe misjudged how strongly he feels that. and you see that today in the way that russia is dealing with crimea and the furies with which they've reacted to the events in kiev the recent eventses in kiev. host: i want to get to that and the votes taking place. it's a photograph that's been getting an awful lot of attention in recent weeks. it was reprinted in the "washington post." as you can see from moscow

president reagan withgoer bachoveshanging the hand of a young boy. behind that, a lot of speculation, is that putin? guest: there's a speculation these were quote/unquote tourists and the person whom people think is putin was allegedly a tourist but he of course was then working for the kgb so he could have -- there could have been some other reason why he was there. on the other hand, he wasn't stationed in east germany from 19 5 to 1990. so i would have -- one would have to question. but i looked at the picture it's hard to know whether that is in fact mr. putin. host: the vote taking place in crimea any question as to what the result will be tomorrow? guest: i think nobody questions that. everybody knows that they're going to vote overwhelmingly in favor of becoming part of the russian federation. i think we can question what the numbers are. and then the real issue is going to be what's russia going

to do? what is mr. putin going to do? i believe there's going to be a discussion in the russian parliament about it on tuesday. what are they going to do? are they going to incorporate it and face the consequences? host: this is from time magazine, to look at they point out what putin has already lost. in looking at the economic factor in all of this. that on the gas exports account for about 50% of the government revenue and an embargo could have a significant impact russia could lose as much as $100 billion a year. also its currency has tumbled, the ruble and its growth rate is stagnant and falling. guest: it's already not in good shape. its economy is 1.3% maybe growth rate this year. it's still going to be exporting gas because the european customers need that gas. but if there are these strong sanctions and banking sanctions it will lose more. there will clearly be an economic impact.

but i assume mr. putin believes that his popularity has gone up more than 10% in the last couple weeks. 71% approval rate, something our own president would be please to have. i think he is assuming that if people feel a little economic pain this is going to be counter acted by their feeling of pride, their feelings that russia has reunited with crimea which was traditionally a part of russia. host: our phone lines are ofmente angela stent is our guest until the top of the hour. the numbers are on your screen. what tools are left for the u.s. to respond to russia? guest: we really have limited tools. we have some economic tools. we don't have a very important economic relationship with russia, it's $40 billion of bilateral trade a year. let me point out that with china it's $500 billion.

but we do, we have some businesses that are involved in russia quite heavily and they're going to suffer from this. u.s. businesses. but of course the russian economy will suffer also from these sanctions. but that's about all we have. we're not going to go to war with russia. we're doing some more nato exercises near the border. we're trying to reassure our allies that we stand by them, we are in an alliance together. but we're a long way away and from the russian point of view ukraine is a top -- is the top priority for russia. it's not the top priority for the united states. host: you mentioned puten's popularity. there's a piece this morning in the "new york times." this photograph on this sunday in moscow, a mass show of support for ukraine including the punk rock group pussy riot a group put in jail by president putin. as you can see from this photograph it does look like a very large crowd inside moscow opposing their own government. guest: in moscow that's of

course where all the demonstrations broke out and the december of 2011 when putin announced that he was coming back to power. he is not that popular in moscow. so you did have by all accounts tens of thousands of opponents of the war including people from different political parties and you had a very small demonstration of people dressed all in red in favor of the referendum in crimea. so yes in moscow there certainly is opposition to this. but i'm not sure that it's translated to the rest of the country. host: how worried is president putin if he is at all about what happened in ukraine with now the former president is potentially could happen in russia? guest: that's his worries because all of these post soviet systems look rather similar throughout the countries and of course there's this concern if they can overthrow a leader whom they perceive to be corrupt and repressive there it can happen in russia, too. and ten years ago when there was an orange revolution in

kiev and they overthrew what would have been a false fid election with mr. can cove yitch that was the russian fear then too. so there's that real fear if it can happen, it can happen in red square too. >> host: this is the photograph from the london telegraph. is futuren a bully? guest: well, i think a number of people would say that he is a bully. other people would say he is a strong russian leader in the tradition of the czars and some of the soviet leaders. so i think whether you believe he is a bully or not believe on where you sit. host: we know he has two children and we know he was at least married. what is his personal life? guest: that is is shroudd in mystery. he has two children, two daughters but nobody knows officially anything about them because they're never photographed, there's never any information. there's a lot of speculation but again no hard information. this again goes back to it's certainly a soviet tradition and even a russian prior to

that tradition that people do not believe that the population of russia has a right to know anything about the personal lives of their leaders. host: let's go to eric joining us from milton, new york with angela stent. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. first of all, we had a situation back in the 1990's where united states essentially said we are not going to expand nato up to the russian border, yet we have extended nato to the russian border. we have engaged in this ridiculous missile defense in poland and we came up with this incredible motion that this would be to deflect missiles from iran, when we all know that mission defense -- missile defense in poland -- these are provocative actions the united states has taken over

the years. of course mr. putin is going to react the way he has reacted. some of these revolutions, for example in georgia, one could argue weren't fired were inspired by foreign intelligence agencies, all alla the cia. though i have no proof. how can we blame putin for doing the things he is doing when he has had no provocation on the way? guest: i have to agree -- disagree with those points. the united states and nato never promised mr. gorbachev or his successors that nato was not enlarged. i have looked very carefully into this. i talked to all of the major policy people involved. i think mr. gorbachev understood in the spirit of things when germany was unified that there was going to be a closer relationship between russia and europe, but there were no commitments. all the secretary of state said was at the time of unification

there would be no nato troops stationed in the former east german territory. so there were no promises made. i believe, and i think a lot of people believe, that countries like poland, the czech republic, hungary, and the baltic states -- they have the right to choose to be in an alliance with the united states. having said that, i do think more could have been on in the 1990's to give russia a stake in the new euro atlantic security system. we do have a nato-russia council, but it is never worked very well. i do fault u.s. administrations for not being imaginative enough, doing more to try to include russia in the system, but we did not make any promises . we never made those promises. missile defense is -- whatever you think about the program and whether you think it works or not, it is designed to counter the threat from iran and north korea. it has never been directed against russia.

that whole system could not ever threaten russia. we words to modify the whole system twice under president obama. we try to come to an agreement with russia, a cooperative agreement. we nearly came to an agreement in 2011, but it is not work out, so that assist not directed against russia. but we know that the russians say that they can get them directed at them but it is not. that is not what it is about. as for the revolutions in ukraine and georgia, those were largely the result of populations, again, who were rebelling against what they perceive to be correct repressive authorities. there were inngo's operating. some of those had support from the u.s. and other european countries, but again, they are not engineered by foreign intelligence agencies. these are things were the population themselves once change. host: you elaborate on your

first point in your new book titled the "limit the partnership," and a chapter 11 you posed this question -- why has it been so difficult for the u.s. and russia to create a productive post-cold war partnership? how do you answer that? guest: >> i think we've had fundamentally different understandings about what a fundamentally, good relationship would be. from the u.s. point of view, we have not spent enough time putting ourselves in russia's of you, and we assume -- rusissia's view, and we assumed they would accept our direction of which the world to be going in our way of looking at the world, and the russians have a different view. to them, it is very important and it fact it does come back to the previous caller's question, to being treated as an equal by the united states, even if russia was weaker after the soviets wake up and even if we

have not respected their interest. they get to be so question of whose interests are legitimate or not. it is a fundamentally different way of approaching the world and i think from the u.s. point of view, probably not as enough willingness to understand russia's unique preoccupations in this post-soviet world and to maybe go some way towards trying to assuage some of their fears that the u.s. and its allies are really trying to create regime change in russia's backyard. host: one of our viewers making this point. the only thing they can do against russia is saber rattling. putin has total control of energy, which gets to the larger point that you write about us morning in the "washington post ," and that is that we are not training about -- training the next iteration. can you explain? guest: during the cold war years when i studied russia and the

soviet union, there was a lot of government and foundation money available. so we trained groups of people to be an x for it in this area we trained some very fine people, then suddenly when the soviet union collapsed, i guess people in the government decided we do not need this answer sees anymore. we were focused on the arab world, and china but they somehow thought if we are supporting that, we don't need to focus on russia, so the number of students studying russian and interested in these issues declined precipitously, and now we are in the situation where we really don't have a robust cohort of the next duration that is going to come along and understand this part of the world. and we are now at another juncture where we have a coalition in the house particularly on the republican side who do not want to support giving money for international education. you have people in the department of education in the

obama administration who have other priorities so it has been this interesting coalition of people, and he never sold is it has been an increased struggle. they slashed the budget for government support of russian studies. it is too bad the you have to have a crisis to make people realize how important it is to train the next group of people but i hope this will maybe that people will set up and realize we have to have the next generation of people coming along. host: which is what our guest angela stent, writes about in the "washington post," the outlook sessionction -- the cold war is cool again. iv is joining us from georgia, our line for independents. caller: good morning ann thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to your guess. ma'am, i have been something i've been wondering about for the last month or two. i would like to suggest that we are not looking deeply enough into russian history.

just look at the flags that are being waved at the olympics. half of the flag with the old russian state, the flag of these are in the empire, putin seems to be expanding back into the borders of the old empire so the baltic states are relatively safe because they were not a part of that, but georgia, ukraine, mulledoldova -- they're not say. belarus and others states have agreed to closer ties with russia. and russia in its blood list -- bloodlust incursions of both georgia and ukraine have shown a strength for us at home, especially in the caucuses. guest: i think those are excellent points. obviously, putin is a very avid student of russian history. he talks about that. of course, he has also made the remark that the class of the soviet union with the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th union.

he did say that if you don't miss the soviet union, you have no heart, but if you want to restore it, you have no head. i don't think he is trying to restore the soviet union, but certainly what you see under putin is a desire to gather in some of the traditional russian lands. and -- in 2008, mr. putin told president bush at a nato summit that ukraine is not really a country. that is what he said. the western part of it was part of eastern europe, but most of ukraine belongs to russia. so certainly for mr. putin and for this current term, his third term of presidency, his focus has been creating something called a eurasian union. where not quite sure what that would look like. it has economic aspects but political wants too. he clearly would like to draw more of these post-soviet states back into russia's orbit and also as in the case of georgia and also mulledoldova and now

presumably crimea make it more difficult for states to operate within their territorial boundaries because their territorial integrity has already been compromised. again come easy diane georgia, m -- again, you see that in georgia, moldova and now in ukraine. this is reestablishing russian influence over there. host: mary says a guy like putin, an ex-kgb, how can he not urine to restore soviet union, remake the russian empire? guest: he sees himself as a restorer of russia. he has said on numerous occasions, and i am part of a group that has met with him on several occasions, he said he came back and he restored russian stability. russia was crumbling. the russian economy was in terrible shape and he came back and russia is now a strong,

stable state, and he sees himself as back on the world stage as this restorer. of course, part of that means reestablishing, maintaining russian influence in the post-soviet space and specifically permitting organizations like nato or the european union for making incursions into what is considered russia's fear of -- sphere of influence, particularly ukraine. the baltic states, they are out of this now because they were never a part of the soviet union for as long. they are regarded somewhat differently. i think any russian looking back at history for them, this is art of russia's traditional sphere of influence in keyiev a millennium ago. host: in those dinners, what is the demeanor in the room? what is he like with you and what is your impression? guest: it is remarkable that a world leader will meet with a

group of experts from other countries. his demeanor is usually self-confident, knows lots of facts and figures, never asks any of his aides for information, particularly when he is talking about energy economics. he knows all of those figures. and he listens. he answers all of the questions that are asked him. he occasionally shows some humor post of the also shows sarcasm but he usually is very serious. very forthright and very good at defending russia's interest. quite how does he -- host: how does he view the u.s.? guest: he will be respectful of the u.s.. i heard in the earlier dinners he had very positive things to say about george bush. i do think that that personal relationship worked until sort of the second bush administration when it did not work so well, but with president

obama, he is seen as somewhat more restrained about what he has said. he is critical of some things that the u.s. does but he is pretty respectful, the way he talks about it, at least with our group. host: our guest is angela stent. i want to ask you about this photograph on the cover of your book, "the limits of partnership ," and it is the president of russia and the president of the united states, hand extended, about to shake each other's hand. why did you choose that photograph. guest: because i think it shows the limits of the partnership. they look as if they will shake hands, but they're kind of reluctant to shake hands. there is this definite -- if you look at both of their faces there is a sense of restraint there. and this is not a warm working relationship between the two presidents, but it is also indicated the wariness with which both countries view each other. host: when george w. bush looked into putin's eyes and call him a

good guy, did he misread what he saw? guest: i think that a first meeting he probably did not because this was -- the summit was in july 2001. mr. bush had just made his first trip to europe. a number of the european leaders were rather -- they were unfriendly toward him, they were suspicious of him, and then he met president putin and president putin was very respectful, according to people who were at that meeting with president bush. so i think at that point -- and they had by all accounts an interesting and good conversation about ranging over a number of issues. i think at that point it was not a misreading, but president bush and his own memoirs said he later came to regret that remark. host: our guest is angela stent. she has a longer at the state department and academic. she is the director of the eurasia russia east european studies at georgetown university, a graduate of cambridge university, also studied at the london school of

economic than harvard university. her new book is called "the limits of partnership." sully is joining us from san francisco. good morning. caller: hi. thank you so much for taking my call. i had a question about those living in crimea. would you think their reaction would be to the referendum once we basically know the inevitable -- a decision will come down that the crimeans want to rejoin russia? guest: thank you for the question. they have lived in crimea for many centuries. they are a muslim group. they were deported by stalin in 1944, accused of collaborating with the germans. they were in exile in central asia and they have only been able to fully come back and reclaim their ancestral homes since ukraine became independent. my understanding from what i have read today is that many of the topafas avoid this

referendum. they do not want to be part of russia given their experience certainly any soviet days. they prefer to be part of the ukraine. they lived quite well in the ukraine since the ukrainian independence. what with their options be a e> ? russian sent some to try to assuage their fears, saying you are fine, you can practice your religion in russia, you will not be persecuted. turkey has that if you really feel threatened, come and live in turkey, although turkey has other issues with syrian refugees. they will not be happy if russia incorporates crimea into the russian federation, and then there that limit will be will they stay in their ancestral home that they lost for decades in the 20th century or do they leave crimea and the russian federation and go and live in a state where they think they will be better treated? host: michael at this better question for you -- has the

media -- has the western media ever presented any story that is a true representation of who putin really is? guest: i think what are the questions is it is very difficult to know the answer to that question. we have many people in our own government and foreign governments who try to figure that out because the way he rules is charted in so much mystery and people are very tightlipped. they do not talk about it. and this of course is not new in russian history. it has always been like that. i think different people have different views, some very positive, some very negative and in the range of between. there is just a lot we do not know. host: from cumberland, maryland, steve is next. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the point i would like to make is that it seems like in the last 15 years to 20 years whenever we have had a democratic administration and

all that things happen within the world, we draw a red line and then we step back from it. during the clinton era, we had a united states warship bond, we had indices bombed, -- warship bombed we had embassies bombed, we had attacks and other places, and as a country, we did nothing of it. now with president obama, he has said if you cross this line, we are going to intervene. we have not done that. because of these things, our country is looked up by the rest of the world as being weak, having no resolve and letting anybody do what they want with no kind of repercussions. guest: ok. i guess i would begin to answer that by saying in my book, i look at the policies of

democratic and republican administrations since the soviet union collapsed, and basically there is a lot of continuity between them. because the problems, the issues that we face with russia remained the same, and they have to do with the post-soviet space, they had to do with nuclear weapons, they have to do with what is happening inside russia, with proliferation things like iran, north korea -- so we have at a set of issues where we have to and have dealt with russia, and those issues do not change. in fact, there is a lot of continuity. i would say, remember the russia-georgia war broke out in august 2008 when president bush was president in the u.s. cannot do anything about that either. the simple reason is russia and the united states are the two remaining nuclear superpowers. we never went to war with russia during the cold war because it would've meant mutually assured distraction, and we will not go to war with russia now for the same reason. i do not think there will be

that much difference between the way that russia reacts to republican or democratic administrations. there may be differences in the relationships between their leaders, as i was pointing out before, but i think that we don't have credible redlines to prevent russia from doing what it has done in crimea. because for the russians this is a top priority. they know we are not going to go to war with them. they understand there will be economic sanctions and presumably they must have calculated this before hand, but it is more important for the kremlin, for the russians to have crimea have this boat, to have ukraine essentially dismembered by taking part of it away than to worry about the economic sanctions. i think you are really canceling any -- you cannot really blame any u.s. administration because we are limited in what we can do. host: we are talking about

president putin, the vote taking place in crimea, and what is next for u.s., european, and russian relations. this past week, a warning of potential fallout based on the vote today in crimea and what is next for ukraine. [video clip] >> and this is not the crisis just between ukraine and russia. it is worse. this is the global crisis. as in case of russia moves further. this will definitely undermined the entire global security. and i am wondering about the goals of russia. to draw the two revised the outcomes of the second world war, to restore the soviet union, or to preserve peace and stability in the region and against international obligations. host: the entire speech on our

website, c-span.org. aa dire warning. guest: it is a dire warning. as mr. arseniy yatsenyuk was saying, if it does become part of the russian federation, it is essentially serving notice that it is not accepting entire post-cold war settlement. after the last of the soviet union -- for instant, and ukraine's case, it was the third nuclear power after u.s. and russia. russia and united states and ukrainians in great britain find an agreement where by ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons, and in reaction got the recognition of its rhetorical status quo and its sovereignty and everyone signed on to that agreement. now russia is saying that is no longer valid. well, if you can question the validity of the of something

that has lasted for 20 years and where ukraine thought it had an agreement that its territorial integrity would be respected all the time, you could question anything else. where is it going to stop? that is what worries the european, is what worries the united states, it is apparently what worries the chinese too because they abstained on the vote instead of vetoing it. so it is the principle of where do you stop. where else could roche ago -- could roche ago in the post-soviet space is a we do not accept that, that was made 20 years ago, we are going to revise it? host: dmitry of a hollywood florida, good morning. caller: good morning ann thank you for taking my call. host: are you from russia dmitry? caller: i am from that region belarus, and i listen to this program and currently am disappointed because nobody

wants to listen to the people from that region, and the majority of people are actually scared of this new government because nobody elected the government, and the majority of people -- it is random, the democratic alal way for people to say what they want. this new government was not elected the democratic way. and if you look there, independence square, people were there because they are not believing this new government. my question is -- why is the united states supporting the wrong side? host: thank you, dmitry. guest: well, you have the revolution in ukraine. after mr. yanukovych did not sign an agreement with the european union, and instead was quantitate a $15 billion loan

from russia and move closer to russia, hundreds of thousands of people went out in the streets and this went on and on, and so eventually -- violence was used, 100 people died by all accounts. so then you had european foreign ministers and the representative of mr. putin went to kiev, and they signed an agreement saying they would move the presidential election of two december. mr. yanukovych was part of this agreement and then he left. he disappeared. nobody really knows why he disagreed -- why he disappeared. they had all signed an agreement together. and you're left with a situation where he is no longer there. even mr. putin has said in his rest conference that he does not think mr. yanukovych is going to go back and be at the president of ukraine, even though russia of course it's not recognize the interim government. so the outside world -- you have to deal with some structures there, and i mean the main goal is to try to stabilize the

situation in ukraine prevented civil war from redding out, and ukraine is in dire economic states and it needs to have some money lent to it by the united states and by the europeans. it needs to come to grips with its own internal problems. so you have to deal with what is there, and we are dealing with this government. there will be elections in may. and then the russian media and the media in crimea have really played out this threat that is emanating from kiev. there is no threat. nobody threatened the crimeans. nobody said anything was going to happen to them. it is true that the interim government, the parliament in ukraine passed a law, which they should not have passed, demoting the use of the russian language, but that is now being rescinded. that is not in operation anymore. it is not clear what these threats are to crimea the ones that they are using as a justification for this referendum and if the u.s. and

the europeans were not dealing with the government in kiev, who would they be dealing with? host: one of our viewers -- bingo, the elected leader was driven out and no one elected the new leader we recognize. guest: revolution. host: let's go to shirley in iowa. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like all the good folks out there to get out there world mouth and take a look at the crimea. the crimea is russia's only water port. if you get up that map and look at it, you would understand why putin is so crazy about keeping crimea in their clutches. guest: well actually, russia does have a warm water port in syria, which is why it also reports mr. assad. no one is saying that russia has to leave crimea.

they have a leasing agreement, a basing -- a basic agreement that last until 2022. as far as i know, maybe a couple of extremist scum of the nobody in the interim government in kiev has said anything about to renegotiateing the lease. nobody was going to change the status of crimea, and now you have a referendum being held at the barrel of a gun. host: what is next for the u.s.? the referendum does a we want to become part of the russian federation, can we do anything to stop it? guest: we cannot do anything to stop that. it probably will become part of russia. i think the real fear is that this will spread. there've been some provocations already in eastern part of ukraine. several provinces that border russia where people have said well, we would like to join russia, too, so where does this stop? crimea gets all of its energy from ukraine. and we saw a gap been taken by

the barrel of a gun by different forces. the major is to make sure this is that, that there will not be any more referenda or that other parts of the eastern ukraine will not try and join russia and a civil war won't break out because that is still very dangerous. we are in a tripwire situation there. host: angela stent, next for it on u.s. russia relations, her new book is "the limits of partnership," -- u.s. russia relations in the 21st century," and herpes available this morning at washingtonpost.com. thank you for being with us. we will continue the cover station tomorrow as we do every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. our guest is michael allen, a book called "blinking red." we will look at congress and u.s. intelligence agencies. kyle cheney, health-care reporter with politico, will be with us as we look at health issues every monday on "washington journal." and philip swaglel will get a

new mortgage assistance program for at-risk homeowners. that is tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] host: this week marks a birthday. we turn 35 years old. 35 years ago you can share your thoughts and comments for the 30th anniversary. thank you for being with us on the sunday. we hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great weekend. ♪ >> "newsmakers" with adam schiff