>> rose: welcome book the fakes the nation. we're joined by james baker who joins us this morning from saudi arabia. good mortgage, mr. secretary. >> good morning, charlie. how are you? >> rose: let me start with the way united states is handling this crisis. what are your impressions of what the president has done so far? >> well, i don't have any substantial disagreement. but the way the administration has been handling it so far, charlie, although i will say this. i'm not sure that all of this would have happened had we, you know, stuck with our so-called red lines that sort of thing. so i sort of support the idea of moving carefully with this, moving prudently. this has all the potential of spinning out of control.

it is clearly the most serious east-west confrontation since the end of the cold war. and for someone who was the last secretary -- last u.s. secretary of state during the cold war, it's very disappointing to me to see that we're moving now from cooperation with russia to confrontation again. that's very, very disappointing. >> rose: what are the risks? >> the risks are very substantial. i mean the risks could involve more than just a small new cold war which i think we are pretty much in right now. i mean, i look at this as a cold war-like. we don't need to go any further down that path. it could lead to some serious problems in the heart of europe. and that would not be a good thing. so, i'm very hopeful that the president's message, president

obama's message will get through to the russian leadership. sit down and talk with the ukrainian. it's of course important that the ukrainian understand that russia has historical interests in ukraine and particularly in the crimea and particularly in their naval base there. it seems to me that with a little by of good faith on both sides those kind of things can be worked out. now, having said that, i don't think anybody knows what russia's intentions are from here on out d. they intend to try to take the eastern have of ukraine? they have obviously said they're going to try the next crimea. even though that would be unconstitutional under ukrainian law. even though there are -- there are places in the russian federation who would dearly love to leave the russian federation.

>> rose: when you say references to a red line, do you believe that vladimir putin thinks barack obama is weak and would not respond? >> no. i don't -- well, i really don't believe that. if president putin was privy to what went on in taking down osama bin laden i don't think how he could think that he was weak. but i worry that he might feel that he's inconsistent. that we take a position here one day and the next day we do something else. i mean we were going to bomb syria and then the very next day, no, we're going to send it to the congress for resolution. all i'm saying is, i support the idea of moving prudently, moving carefully. there's a lot at stake. and i just don't think we can

let the rhetoric get out in front of reality. >> rose: do we have to give president putin a way out? >> well, i think in a political problem like this, that's what diplomacy is all about, of course. finding way where both sides can walk away from the table and not feel totally shamed and humiliated. but guess what, there's not even a table yet. the russians have been unwilling to sit down and talk with ukrainians. that was the number one request from president obama. a very natural, normal and proper request. >> rose: what does president obama do if president putin will not take the russian troops out of crimea. >> i think what the administration is saying to the russians is, sit down and start a dialogue with ukraine. you ought to let monitors from either the osce, organization

for security and cooperation in europe or the u.n. come in there so the world can see what's actually going on. and then you ought to get -- bring your troops back to their bases. now, what do you do if they won't do that? well, we've already put on a few financial sanctions on some of the leadership that is responsible for the situation we're in today. there's a lot of other things, of course, we can do. broad-based political and economic sanctions, we could talk about moving some forces in nato to the western p border of ukraine. so they would be there but depending on what the russian intentions are. suppose the russian intention are to take the eastern half of ukraine. that would be very, very damaging and very -- that could trigger one heck of a situation. we need to have some troops on

the ground in that eventuality. i do think, too, i think, charlie, i testified -- i didn't testify i'm sorry but i worked with the owe obama administration on the new start agreement. the new start nuclear arms treaty and one of the things that was done at that time was for the united states to put on hold the idea of a missile defense system in poland, the czech republic and other places in eastern europe. if this is the way the russians are going to behave, there are things like that that we can do. and perhaps we ought to give some consideration to that. >> rose: there are those people who suggest that president putin is a very smart strategist, there are others say his intent nationalism overrules his rationality. what do you think? >> i don't agree with that.

i have met on several occasions with president putin. i first met president putin when he was an assistant to anatolie subcheyk who was the mayor of st. petersburg. he was esteemed to be a reformer supporting the idea of democracy and free markets. vladimir putin worked for him. i don't think for one minute that he's not in control of his senses. i think he's very smart, he's very cagey, he is an ardent russian nationalist. you can be a russian nationalist and still not take action, is that are inconsistent with a stable world order. >> rose: what do you think of the fact that the president of russia, the president of the united states are having these lengthy phone conversations, is that the way to go or should that be handled by secretaries

of state and foreign moneyers? >> i think there's nothing at all wrong with that because there's a lot at stake here. if we're going to finally get to a dialogue, if we're going to finally find a way to try to work out a diplomatic solution to this problem, i think it's very good for the leaders to be talking, not face to face but talking to each other. and you know, that doesn't foreclose secretary of state from talking with the russian foreign minister. they're doing a lot of talking, too. that's good. >> rose: who has the strongest hand at this moment? >> well, you know, the biggest -- i think the burden of deescalating here really has to fall on russia. it's russia who sent troops in

to the crimea. they will say they weren't russian troops but if you believe that you believe in the tooth fairy. i mean, these troops were driving russian vehicles with russian plates, armored vehicles, with russian military plates on them and normally an indigenous militia doesn't drive around with armored vehicles with russian military plates. >> rose: think concern you have while the focus is on ukraine in syria, president assad will take advantage of this on the ground? >> well, i don't know that this opens up an avenue for assad to take advantage of it. i really don't. i think as far as united states are concerned and our allies are concerned we can probably conduct foreign policy and chew gum at the same time. i don't think there's any

problem with dealing with two different situations. i don't think -- >> rose: is your best guess that diplomacy will work? >> well, i would like to think that it could. there's nothing -- there's no good solution here, there's no good end game as far as i can see for the russian federation here. i've already said to you that i think that the ukrainian government needs to do some things, one of those things is to recognize russia's historical interests in the crimea particularly in eastern ukraine in their naval base. but those things can be done and i think that there almost has to be diplomatic way out here. because continued escalation could very well lead to serious mistakes on the part of one side

or another. and we don't need another shooting war in the heart of europe. >> rose: secretary baker, thank you so much foregoings. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: we'll be back in one minute.

>> rose: we're back with our panel, rich lowery the editor of the national -- excuse me. jeffrey goldberg writes for bloomberg view. peter baker for the "new york times." also cbs state department margaret brennan, what's the latest? >> secretary kerry spoke yesterday, day before with the russian foreign minister sergey lavrov. and that is where the bulk of the diplomatic efforts are being focused just talk to each other whether it's directly or through an intermediary. they believe that their chipping away but there's really been no change to the russians position in terms to agreeing to sit down. we're in paris on thursday and

on wednesday with secretary kerry. sergey lavrov pretended not to knowhow the ukrainian foreign minister was. he arrived in the city. nothing is changing there, facts on the ground have not changed we've seep international monitors being blocked from going in -- >> rose: that was secretary baker was trying to make. there is also crimea right now. bob gates, former secretary of defense said crimea is lost. how does administration see crimea? >> well, their first priority since this happened is try to prevent it from spreading. they recognize that it -- actually reversing putin's hold over crimea will not happen. first party was pete haven'ting from going on earlier and creating a split country. whether or not they can live with crimea as an annex part or enclave, that's what the play book has been before. they have done this in georgia

and other parts of the soviet former union. >> rose: i would have loved to have been on the conversations. >> president obama and president putin have talked for an hour at a time, taken up by translation that cuts off the actual amount of conversation but lot of, i think, putin talking about his grievances, trying to explain how he sees crimea and the ukrainian government as illegitimate product of western interference. president obama is pushing back trying to get him to agree to some sort of off ramp, that's the phrase, president putin is not taking the off ramp. >> rose: how far is the administration to go? >> modest sanctions, not any with the idea that they can point to the russians say we're going to go much further if you don't reverse course. there isn't any sign that is having an impact. >> rose: you've been writing about this. tell me where you think the president has not done enough. >> i think the russians would

have gone in to crimea regardless. but when president of the united states not respected or feared around the world it does create a more permissive environment. i think some of the statements have been kind of other worldly. john kerry and others saying these are 19th and 20th century acts, the problem putin has can't read the calendar correctly. we're all power politics saying of the past. where as if this stands it will be the second time in six years that russia has effectively changed international boundaries by force of arms. now i think some of the policy steps that administration has taken last week or so are in the right direction. but we need more and we need to persist. >> mr. sanctions, more things like that or movement of troops or what? >> sanctions i think are key especially when it comes to the corrupt elite and russia. that's already a redundancy. all these people and government and people around them are very rich. they love to park their assets over here in the west because all of them need so-called off

ramp to coin the phrase of things bounce the wrong way for them. if you cut them off from here and importantly from europe which might be a little easier said than done, that will hurt. >> rose: syria, do you think this will have an impact while the president is focused with russia and on ukraine and not on trying to get something done in syria? >> well, i mean, syria is in a terrible spot. but i think there's actually a strange thing going on that people haven't noticed yet which is that, i sense administration is doing more now to help the rebels especially on the southern front out of jordan than previously were. some of the statements coming out about syria have been more muscular. there has been actually the director of national intelligence talking about serious as a direct national security threat to the united states. the deputy secretary of state talked about this as national security threat. i'm wondering if the president

has been slowly dissuaded by the behavior of assad and now of putin in to thinking that anything is discussible or that we can talk through any problem and i'm wondering if we're moving in to a phase that jimmy carter moved in of a ii the soviet invasion of afghanistan, been as, enough with the belief that i can just reason with everyone. i don't know if we're there yet. >> rose: anybody think that's a possibility? >> well, you are seeing more robust arming and effort in the south of syria but i think broadly speaking, the u.s. after that last round of peace talks russia just didn't deliver the regime in the way that in many ways they estimated they would be able. >> rose: fell behind the schedule. >> on the cw, fell behind at the peace talks by -- yes, brought to the table but didn't negotiate anything when they got there. i think that has led to re-'roll sue wakes of the policy.

politically it is embarrassing and makes the administration sensitive to the public scrutiny that erupted around ukraine. the question of whether we should be reliant on the russians in diplomatic sense to deliver anything at this point. >> rose: the sense -- the sense that i get is always had special carve out for north koreans, they're crazy, everybody else i can deal with. i have a feeling based on some conversations around administration that they're moving in to different understanding of putin not as crazy necessarily but as guy who can't be arenad with that will have broad policy. >> because he's obsessed by the idea of restoring russia's grandeur? >> in other words, just like syrians just different goals. and the goals are not compatible. they can't be worked out. everything is about bringing everything to the table. there are two different tables at a certain point. >> george w. bush didn't have a cold eyed realistic view of

vladimir putin. all you needed to know happened in georgia in 2008 when russia invades, a little more ambiguous case. but reset was about saying to the russians, all is forgotten and forgiven over that. let's work together. we got really nothing of substance from it. because the russians will help us exactly to the extent that it is their own interest. they are happy to have us fight in eaves it's a common enemy. they are happy to forge a face-saving deal over serious chemical weapons as long as they can buttress that regime and crush -- they're happy to sign the new start nuclear treaty which was laughably bad deal. >> the question of crimea is interesting. what's happening there today. you hear gates saying, secretary gates, it's lost. you have other people suggesting got to use more force, more pressure on putin.

what's the risk here of renewed cold war? >> well, we ought to be careful overstating things. it's a risk of a very bad period of hostility. you heard william hague the british foreign server say if putin were to move in to eastern ukraine that it would be real shooting conflict. which is not -- a hot war. and hard to imagine but certainly plausible these days. remember, the ukraine is important to russia in a way that we don't fully understand here. it's not simply another country. this is part of russia's history, culture, it's sense of identity. we have to understand that -- >> rose: how do you make them understand you understand that. and at the same time serve your own interests that ukrainians should be able to decide their own future. >> right. exactly. people in crimea might want to be part of russia but can they do it at the point of a gun. fair referendum with russian

troops. >> will the administration continue to be able to encourage ukrainians to hold their fire. and not be provoked that has been a consistent message, thank you for your restraint this could be a lot worse. and i imagine that when the prime minister comes here to washington this week there is going to be a conversation how to prevent this from escalating. >> rose: before we go down the road of, is this the new cold war, it's important to remember in the cold war there's global competition. i mean, they were in anguilla and nicaragua and places that are russian speaking right up against russia's border that we're competing about. putin is on the back foot still. this is not about global russian empire. >> i don't think anyone is talking about threatening russia's legitimate interests in crimea. had some autonomy. this is entirely concocted view and play for power. >> reaction to what he sees in

ukraine as being a threat. the new government coming ip, tossing out yanokovich to move further. >> this is extension of nato expanding where they feel very hemmed in, he's on the back foot in that sense feels quite threatened and comes particular pone meant. this is politics at home. never been more popular since 2012. >> i think it's interesting here because we tend to brush aside the financial crisis. but capitalism in so many ways is at manages' sharpest weapon and cool. when it comes to sanctions, when they say, look what's happening to the markets right now and they can't afford ukraine to implode. >> rose: interesting point to jim jones made point about energy. we do have new weapons at our disposal to use. and if in fact they can rally the nato countries they have better and more effective weapon. people expressed some misgivings whether they are prepared to do that. >> we're on a different page in

europe. because they're tied in to russian economy that we're not. >> rose: we'll be right back. stay with us.

>> rose: thank you to you all. that the it for us. bob schieffer will be back. i'm charlie rose. be sure toe tune in tonight for the cbs evening news and tomorrow for cbs this morning for latest on the missing malaysian airlines jet and the crisis in ukraine. thank you very much for watching "face the nation."

predicting the future is a pretty difficult thing to do. but, manufacturing in the united states means advanced technology. we learned that technology allows us to be craft oriented. no one's losing their job. there's no beer robot that has suddenly chased them out. the technology is actually creating new jobs. siemens designed and built the right tools and resources to get the job done.

so i was basically uninsurable. now that i've got coverage, my doctor is a phone call or an e-mail away. i'm in. [ female announcer ] everyone deserves health insurance. are you in? visit coveredca.com and get covered today. captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh

access.wgbh.org [ myron ] i got into an accident on my bike,

and the first thing that came to mind is, "can i afford to go to the hospital?" now that i've got covered california, i know that if something happens to me that i'm covered. i'm in. [ female announcer ] everyone deserves health insurance. are you in? visit coveredca.com and get covered today.

shooting of a san francisco police officer -- but only e is arrested. and not before a pursuit thh 4 bay area counties. malaysian airlines tells three people have been detained in the shooting of a san francisco police officer. and only one was arrested. preparing for the worst as an object is found in the area of where the plane has believed to have gone down. good evening. radar information shows the plane may have been trying to return to the airport where it took off. and an object was found floating in the ocean that may or may not be a piece of the wreckage. >> reporter: