healthy, and they are continuing to do their professional duty but it's only natural that they find the opposition and the other people who oppose them. some of our intelligentsia are not used to that. some of those believe what they say and that is the absolute truth and when they hear an objection, they become , they become very emotional. situation the last couple of months in crimea, yes, intellectuals want defeat for their own country. and they think it would be better. and that is also part of our tradition. if you remember the bolsheviks during world war i also called for the defeat of their own government or their own country, which led to the revolution. know, there is just oracle continuity here and not the best

one. -- historical continuity here and not the best one. i agree we should not use extreme forms of discussion or fights. we should not smear people for their position. and i will try to do my best to avoid that. on air for over an hour. let's take some of the phone calls. thank you, caller. we have calls coming from .kraine, crimea, border regions borders with ukraine. we are now going to take a call russia --coats, from rkutsk, russia.

roman. i would like to ask you, is mr. supports the idea of bringing russian troops to the ukraine? of >> we should not be euphoric about what is happening and onuld always use our actions the reality. the makeup of ukraine is different from these south southeastern russia. those territories were given to ukraine in 1920's and then until 1954 when crimea also was given to ukraine for some reason, the ethic competition makeup was approximately 50/50. the final decision to return

crimea was only made after i had seen the south of the referendum. -- results of the referendum. we couldn't have made any other choice. here, the southeast of ukraine situation is not that clear but i know for sure that we need to do the best to help these people protect their rights and independently define their destiny. this is what we're going to fight for. federation council of russian federation gave the president the right to use the armed forces in ukraine but i do hope that i will not have to use this right. so politics and diplomacy will be able to resolve all these issues that we have today in ukraine. >> mr. putin it's not only the

southeast of ukraine that's suffering, but there's the new government on the other side. so i've got a text message. what is russia's chance on the currency situation? the parliament asked russia to recognize its independence. >> this is one of the most complicated problems we inherited after the collapse of the soviet union. it is true they have a , population about half a million people if i have -- and people are really -- there are a lot of russian citizens there. they have their own idea about how they should be building their future. and their destiny. it's nothing else but the russians of democracy.

if we allow for these people to do what they want. of course we need to find out from moldova and ukraine -- we need to intensify the negotiations according to the five plus two , and the five and the five countries that participate in that association. it in the final analysis , think we need to immediately remove the blockade from ukraine. this has consequences for people living in the south eastern between moldova and ukraine. nationalistic armed units, and of course, that situation should be stopped as soon as possible.

and finally, people should begin -- be given the right to decide their own destiny and that's what we're going to work on it with our partners on the basis to live there. >> tatiana, you have the floor again. >> mr. putin, another interesting question. russia actually made an annexation of crimea. so does this mean there is any guarantee of sovereignty in the world? >> russia didn't acquire ukraine by force. russia created the conditions of the conditions for forces and armed forces but we created the conditions for the free expression of will of people living in crimea but the decision about joining russia was made by crimea itself. russia responded to that call and accepted crimea into our family.

it's only natural. it couldn't have happened differently. and as for the factor of force, in international affairs, it is a good thing and it will be there always. that's not the point. the point is understanding it is -- force is significant in international affairs. we need to develop such rules of behavior that we will be stable and would give all parties a chance to agree, to look for upper, to balance between s.terest about crimea.nly

let's recall what happened to iraq and afghanistan and libya and in other regions of the world. in my opinion, for somebody to -- somebody tried to make the one. a uni-polar be decided by force. but when you have the balance of force, then we have to agree. that is what i hope we will go to, the strengthening of international law. >> we have a question from ana. sorry, she will present this question. >> we've got lots of video questions on this situation with ukraine. how russia's going to builds relations further on. so let's watch a video link-up sergei from st.

petersburg. , who benefits from the midst of the russian armed forces are allegedly going to take ukraine? who is actually trying to alienate from our brothers and partners? and can we invite everyone who wants to visit the border regions with ukraine? can we do that openly? >> it has been a matter of -- the desire to set up or him between russia and ukraine, it has been a matter of international politics for centuries. if you can recall the expansions of the white movement leaders after the revolution, you will see that in spite of any contradictions with the bolsheviks, they really never even thought about a division between russia

and ukraine. they always thought it was part of one territory and one nation. now, it just happens that we live in different states and unfortunately the policy of theseing and separating, two components of one people. it is continuing. particularly, forces that are afraid of our power. look at what they did to yugoslavia. they carved up into such small pieces. they mutilated it. that is what i think some people want to do with us. but if you look at what happened at what isook happening, you answer your

question yourself about who is doing that. [applause] >> there are millions of russians in ukraine. crimea, theynts in became piraeus, judging by what the chief government is doing and they even called on killing these guys, russians in ukraine and shooting them with firearms so there have been lots of statements like that. and there are a lot of questions about the future of the russians living in ukraine. sergei is now welcome to ask his question. after the bloodshed in february, land,led ukraine a damned

and after he talked to the ukraine colleagues, he said he's not going to public his books at ukraine anymore and he would like his books to be translated into russia. so what is your question? >> mr. putin, for 23 years, ukraine has been opposing russia. that's what actually sort of the strategy. they even had a slogan that says ukraine is not russia. and the most horrible thing is that we have seen this come into bloom because the country is turning actual nationalists to even nazi with all sorts of military raids in the southeast, probably coming up. and the problem is that russia is not making its voice heard in the west. and it's also being blocked in ukraine as well. so my question is how can we get

our point across? can we do at all? can we persuade the west to listen to us and to understand us? because i kept out as to whether -- because i have doubts as to whether we can do it. >> certainly. may i call you by your first name? i will disagree with you here. i know that you are one of the most interesting modern writers and a lot of your books are published. but i disagree that ukraine is a damned land. please do not use this kind of phrase. this land of ukraine has suffered a lot and it is a complicated community. it has suffered a lot.

thehis phrase -- look at nations where they have nationalism and not see of them. where are they? they are in the west. and you know about the historic past partially, they were in czechoslovakia. never were they full-fledged citizens of those countries. probably they have something inside. breeding in them. and some people think since those territories once belonged to the eu, to today's e.u. countries, they have give some special -- they were the second rate people in those historic states. it is forgotten but some people still remember that and that's

where the nationalism come from, -- comes from, i think. central, east, and southeast of arussia, new russia, which is deeply rooted in the russians states. their people have a different mentality. now they are part of the ukraine put together by the soviet union, and of course, it's not easy for people to set up those reservations to understand each other. we need to help them to do that as much as possible. role in this our situation? the role of a good neighbor of a close relative.

we hope our partners beyond the ocean or in europe, will they hear us? i hope so. but at the same time, there are apprehensions, about russia, its huge size, its growth potential, and they want to pull us apart to make a smaller. will our partners hear us? i hope they are guided by that, but i think that they should they use theuse current roles looking at the trends for the nearest future and for the way this entire world and europe, from lisbon to unite to be should

competitive and viable in this fast and growing developing world. our partners will hear us and understand us. the question about the situation in ukraine are predominant at our website. i looked through some of them. >> i'm sorry. do not ban your books from publishing anywhere, including ukraine. money. not about the >> you are one of the best russian writers, and you are part of russian culture. let's promote russian culture there, and not pull it out of the country. ok? >> ok. we will fix that. [applause] i have found another

question that is really popular andit comes from alexander moscow province. communicate to communicate with the kiev governments because we think they're illegitimate and we doubt the legitimacy of the election on may 25. but ukraine will stay russia from neighbor anyway, so we will have to talk with the ukrainian authorities, legitimate or not. all of thee talk to presidential hopefuls? >> i believe the current authorities are not legitimate. they cannot be legitimate, because they do not have a mandate to rule the country. at the same time, we do not anybody atacts with the ministerial level. to ministers relate ukrainian colleagues, and me to

medvedev spokey with his counterpart. as for the potential candidates, you know how the presidential race is going. it is absolutely unacceptable. developing like that, of course we want people is going to what happen after may 25. what kind of legitimate election can they have if the candidates in the east are eaten, -- are to meetare not allowed with the voters? what kind of election is that? not to mention, particularly speaking according to the ukrainian constitution, the question was asked, according to the constitution of ukraine youss you change it -- if

do not change the constitution, new legitimate elections with yanukovich cannot be had. if cannot have new elections the legitimate president is there. if they want to have a new election, perhaps they should change the constitution. change the institution first, and and maybe talk about it. that's common sense. we can continue working beyond the common sense. a big part of his business is an russia. he produces a confectionery here, and candies, and many here he owns a chocolate

factory. he is their leader. tymoshenko personally. even though she had some emotional breakdown when she called them to shoot at russians, but i know her personally. she is fine, well-known. party colleagues and her refuse to follow -- her own colleagues in her party refuse to follow. we have had some good business like relationship with her. and his formerov governor. i may not know some of them personally, but we know what kind of people they are. >> i am choosing my words --

this is also constitutional? >> i'm sorry. we do not call for people in the put down their arms. i say to my partner -- that is a great call, but withdraw the army from the civilians. armed personnel carriers, artillery. against whom are you going to use the artillery? have you completely lost your marbles? you have armed units of nationalists to disarm the east. ok, let's say the army will withdraw. but why have they not disarmed the nationalists? how can you force people in the east to put down their weapons? the troops to that,

in the interior ministry troops and people joined them. issue shouldre the be resolved. it is about searching for compromise, ensuring the legitimate interests of your people. >> but no one is ready for a compromise. who are you going to talk to? west? u.s., eu, the need to agree with those who consider themselves an authority and crimea, but they should be basing their action on common sense. studioave people in the were on a so-called last list, a diffraction list. kid to love -- kitalov is one of

these people. a videon, they promised link up question, and i would like to support this format. i am going to visualize my question by using my own hands to gesture. our country is being encircled in this ring, and i think people have tried to suffocate russia in this ring. it is actually nato. nato has been growing like a cancer tumor. the last 25 years, it has swallowed our warsaw pact allies , as well as parts of the baltic states, and now it is the missing to swallow georgia and ukraine. so, the nato headquarters are saying they have to put the expedients to accept ukraine as

legitimate, but you are saying bloc system is dying out, is outdated. i can't agree with that. i feel suffocated by nato. of course you can say i am being paranoid. but you know, as the saying goes, if you are paranoid, it does not mean you are not being followed, you are not being pursued. so, where is the red line to nato expansion, to nato enlargement? russia, how dof you feel? do you feel suffocated? afraid oft suffocation. >> i am not afraid. where is the red line? are there limits? >> neither me nor anybody should but we should be

basing our activities on realities. and the realities you described ,uite vividly, as you can do and you try to scare us a little bit, but i will say again, i wouldn't be afraid of anything. we should be assessing the manner.n in a sober id the prime minister and were once in unit doing a conference. after the unification of of nato the expansion will flow towards the east. it will not go beyond the eastern borders of nato. the then secretary general of nato promised the alliance would not go any further to the east. then it started to expand by adding the former wasp -- warsaw pact countries and the baltic

states and the former ussr republics, and they used to say, why are you doing that? what is the purpose? is anybody threatening them? you sign the bilateral agreement on friendship and cooperation with them on the security of those countries. this is what they told me. it's not your business. people's and nations have the right to independently choose the way they secure themselves. that is true, but it is also true this infrastructure is moving toward our borders. andakes us also take steps the other direction. and this is our right as well. afford to take some measures and response. for instance our negotiation about missile defense.

it is much more important than nato expansion, i'm sure you would agree. our decision with crimea was partially connected with that. of course, this was with the support of the residents of crimea. situations had other as well. if we don't do anything, after a they will usee, the same principles and drag ukraine into nato and then they of your, it is none business. on the nato ships will be the russian military's doorstep. of course course, crimea is in the middle of the black sea. so, based on the military considerations, it is as not as important as in the 18th and 19th century, considering today's weaponry.

when the nato troops go there, they will deploy those offensive weapons there, and that is of the political importance to us. russia will be pushed out from the area around the black sea. shore.ll leave us on the this is pushing out of russia from this very important region of the world, and how many russians died there in the course of all of these things? those are very serious things. let's not be afraid of anything. should,ill him a and we -- but we will, and we should, take that into consideration and , like with our missile defense negotiations. these are not defensive systems

for the u.s. this is part of the offensive potential that is moved to the periphery. we are told, oh, it is not against you. you know? all experts understand that. they say it is not against you. even when we offer them to find some small paper, legally binding paper, which would say it is not. refuse toan partners do even that small thing. is nonsense. today this paper, tomorrow you sell it away.

have we mentioned many times something,have to do this is the arms race. it would be much better to look at this problem if you have any missile threats made direction. resolve the issue together. find -- to find how we're going to execute together. but no. they don't want to. continue toe will be patient. case it will do anything that we can to guarantee the security of the russian people. obama administration announced the delay in the decision on whether to build the keystone xl oil pipe line.

they cited an ongoing legal battle. environmental groups oppose the pipe on because of its effect on climate change and the potential for an oil spill. louisiana senator mary lambert does not agree. she released a statement saying in part the decision is a responsible, unnecessary, and unacceptable. >> for 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington rackley to you. putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences. gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house as a public service of private industry. brought to as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider.

follow us on twitter. >> on the next washington journal, donley will talk about the federal reserve next move on monetary policy. and we will hear from any snyder on a proposal from the environmental protection agency to shift regulation of weapons to the epa. and leave rainy of the pew research center will discuss a study showing 80% of adults with internet access have had personal information stolen within the last two. washington journal is live on c-span every morning at 7:00 eastern. next, a discussion about virginia tech research on unmanned aerial drones. or e-mail. a good friday morning to you. we will be keeping our phones yourthis morning as we get thoughts on this question. domestic drones. tell us why.

ew the meantime, this p research project finding came out. it notes that the legal and regulatory framework for operating nonmilitary drones is currently the subject of debate. part of the topic we are talking about today on the washington journal heard to help us discuss and get this topic going, we are bringing in brian fong of the

washington post heard he is a technology writer there. start us off by talking about what the rules are for commercial drone use. the faa is working on more clear rules about drones. that is set up a situation where it is actually legal for commercial drones to be used at low altitudes for minor purposes. in the industry say that the faa needs to more speedily develop clear rules that need to be applied to commercial drones in a wider setting. host: how is he faa going about his process yucca

? guest: it is not expected to meet its official deadline, which is august of this year. maybe sometime after that. the hope is that by the end of this year, the faa will have some kind of formal rulemaking on small drones. host: in the meantime, what is the framework? guest: commercial drone use is not allowed. is an exception. if you're a private citizen there area drone, exceptions there. you can't use a drone for commercial purposes. the judge in the court today the faa's ban on

commercial drones, saying that the attempt that the faa made to go against this one commercial was unfounded, based like. cooper case wehe will be getting into. i want to ask our viewers to call and. domestic use of drones, do you oppose or support them? let's go to the phones. outhe line for independents of battle ground, washington.

michael, you are on the "washington journal." talking about flying it is wrong. it aggravates the whole planet, pretty much. we do whatever we want. when we go to our country and have people flying around monitoring cattle, it creates propaganda and paranoia. without specific reasons for why it is happening besides killing people in spying on american people, it creates nothing but constant drama for the whole planet. host: michael from battle ground, washington. what are some examples of a commercial use of a drone? great example that

has come up consistently is in agriculture. there are wineries that use drones abroad to monitor the soil quality or monitor the air quality, monitor when the grapes are ripe to be sprayed with pesticides and things like that. it allows farmers to be much more specific and targeted about how they produce their crops. in to ahis ties back computerized system where they to use data and analytics improve their crop yields, essentially. agriculture is one place where a lot of drone enthusiasts have focused their attention. toa letter that was sent members of congress earlier this month, there was joy being , allrs, barley growers signed onto this letter. agriculture is one big area

where drone use can be used commercially. host: becky writes in on our facebook page. we are asking our viewers for comments. let's go to don waiting in pennsylvania on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i want to mention the noise factor. i think we have too much stuff flying around in the air as it is. used by the police is kind of scary. just spying by anybody is scary. i will hang up now and listen to what you have to say. host: don in pennsylvania.

guest: don, to your question, that is a great criticism. during -- drones are noisy technology. we have to figure out how we will integrate them socially into the united states, beyond all the technical questions that we face. that goes as well for the liability question. moment now where we don't have clear rules or clear understandings or guidelines about how we should respond. part of that is technological. before we can actually put drones in the air, we need to develop better sense and avoid technologies. host: the sea of tranquility question, have these liability laws been rewritten? guest: not to my knowledge.

that is something that still has to be done. host: let's go to mike waiting in houston, texas, on our democratic line. i support the technology. i have a question for the guest. that there will be second amendment protection for citizen userivate of armed drones for self-defense? that is a great question. necessarily have a clear answer for that. i don't want to speculate about what the implications are. we are not quite there yet, but i will say is a very interesting possibility that i haven't heard about yet. that is something worth about for sure. host: domestic use of drones.

commercial use is mostly what you talking about. we're going to be talking about one specific drug test site later in today's show. right now we're asking about domestic use of drones. do you support it? go to bill in st. louis, missouri on our line for democrats. i am totally against drone use, domestic or military. what are your reasons why, bill? caller: i don't believe we should have drones flying in the air checking up on people. what is going to happen when china and russia start sending drones our way, or other countries? what we're doing in yemen and other countries with drones killing people, innocent people a lot of times, i think it is

crazy. if you really want to see where drone technology is going, watch the movie oblivion. the domesticack to use of drones and the rulemaking that is going on, talk a little bit about these test sites, these research and test sites they're having. there are six victor on the country. we will be featuring one of .hose later complain --e often conflate military use of drones with private use. there tot sites are evaluate some of the implications that drones have for life in the united states. when drones fail, what happens when they fall to the ground or crash into something?

are places in nevada and north dakota, each of which is designed to do different tests. one in nevada is going to be looking at air-traffic control and what drones will mean for air traffic controllers. decoders test site will be looking at data links that connect drones to the ground operators. they will be testing the security of that link. each of the six test sites will be performing a slightly different function, although all of them will be interested in looking at safety very closely. host: we talked about the nevada test sites. that was announced at the end of last year. the state of nevada has its test site up air. after that was announced, dean heller, a senator from nevada, was at a hearing featuring the faa administrator. he talked about what the specific drone site would mean for the state of nevada. there's a bit of what he had to say from that january hearing.

[video clip] this makes perfect sense because we are, nevada is the birthplace of and manned aircraft system industry in this country. we have scaled experience workforce and we have more militaryin nevada than all other 49 states combined. so i appreciate the administrator recognizing that in recognizing what nevada can contribute to this. it is also well-suited to take on this testing. some a projected that this could bring over $2 billion to a struggling economy in nevada and bring 12 to 15,000 good paying certainly is appreciated. however, in order for all this happened, we must do our work to make sure, as everyone has mentioned, that privacy and safety concerns are met. ,s drones are delivered

hovering over the las vegas neighborhoods, we have received numerous concerns about that. heller from nevada. irish eyes writes on the subject. good to julian waiting in canton, ohio. julian, waiting in canton, ohio. caller: this is just going to snowball. host: did you say you're concerned about police department usage e? can you talk about the law enforcement side? e? .c-span.or

guest: there is lots of talk about the police application. just surveying the scene to understand better what happened in the wake of an incident. there is definitely a lot of potential applications for law enforcement. then there are a lot of privacy implications a come along with that. we're going to have to see how the united states is going to balance those two things moving forward. these law enforcement agencies around the country are looking at the price of drones compared to hunting a person and a helicopter above the scene, correct? that's right. it is much more expensive to fly person in a helicopter. if a drone malfunctions, you place it. if a helicopter goes down it is a much bigger problem.

bill, domestic use of drones, do supported or opposed ? ? really grateful for c-span putting it out there with no being for or against anything. that is great. the thing that really alarms me is that they're giving a shortcut to terrorism. you can put a bomb or something one of these deals and do whatever you want to with it. it is something that should be outlawed. you know the nsa has already .ost a drone over in iran they have control over was going on. his proliferation of spine is just leading to more unrest. it is not a good for the country.

thank you very much. is her first name drones for unmanned aerial vehicle? what is the proper term should drone echo guest: the industry would prefer that everybody use unmanned aerial system. in common parlance everybody calls him drone. by now, most people using the term drone. that is probably the term we're sticking with for now. one thing i do want to add is that we have not talked about potential application for drones in shipping. is thinkingmazon about using drones to deliver isngs to the home, but there still quite a ways to go before amazon actually develops a workable drone technology. a differentgned

delivery drones. at this point, what is more interesting to me is the use of for delivering packages from one amazon facility to another. we arty have substantial technology for autopilots. to imagine ad company like ups or amazon using drones to ship large packages in between its own facilities. update. here's her story according to cbs news.

we're talking about those faa rules and regulations today on the washington journal as we are joined by ryan fong of the "washington post." joe waiting in maryland on our line for independence. joe, good morning. i just wanted to thank you guys for putting this issue out there. it is an issue i am very interested in. we can speculate all day on the negative uses that this technology could bring about. i know there's a lot of sensationalist journalism and

covers of the issue. you can't compare to other technologies such as vehicles and whatnot. when it was first introduced, we were hesitant to adopt the technology. as a person who is heavily involved with unmanned and manned solutions all over the world, one thing i would say is -- domestic use should be heavily regulated. this thomas a ban on arming the drones. to use it as far as border protection, law enforcement, crop, and everything else, is a great use that is the future of one of the upcoming future technologies. we really should utilize it, but heavily regulate. the technology needs to advance. you brought up earlier the parker case that is making its way through the court system. with a stunt drone pilot using estrone at the

university of virginia. we're showing our viewers a bit of the video of some of his work down in charlottesville, virginia. tell us more about this case. rafael parker was filming a commercial. the faa fined him $10,000. so far, this is been the only case where an individual has actually been slapped with a fine. the faa has also written strong letters to other people who have used funds for commercial purposes. this was a really important test case for the commercial drone onlytry, because, as the person who has been issued a fined for using commercial drones, the outcome of the case goes a long way toward setting a precedent for how the faa and others relate to the regulation. host: what is the status of the

case? currently, most people believe that it is legal to use drones for commercial purposes below a certain threshold, although the legal gray area there is still very hazy. the faa has appealed, so now the >> on the next washington journal, donley looks ahead at the federal reserve is next to move on monetary policy. snyder discusses a proposal that would give epa jurisdiction over streams and wetlands. and the new city that shows 18% of adults with internet access had important identity information stolen last year. you can join the conversation on

facebook and twitter. >> for 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington to you. putting you in the remake congressional hearings, white house events, read things, and conferences. offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, as a public service of private industry. we are c-span. graded 35 years ago and brought service.ublic watch us in hd, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. up, and 8:00, a discussion about the 2014 midterm elections and the 2016 presidential campaign. on c-span 2, book tv in prime time. the future of conservatism. on c-span