>> charlie: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with a look at the crisis in ukraine and we start with senator john mccain. >> in eastern ukraine as we're seeing today, there's still a bastian of pro-russian people, and that's understandable, but even the young people in eastern ukraine don't want to be part of russia, and that's what it was all about, and i saw them then, later -- not while i was there, but later -- have a number of them killed and wounded and arrested by yanukovich and his desperation to keep roll and that obviously didn't work. we now know that yanukovich asked putin to send troops into camp. that is would have been interesting.

>> charlie: some say yanukovich is an embarrassment to putin. >> i think so, but he's the only horsy he had to ride and it's pretty obvious he's taking care of mr. yanukovich just like he's taking care of mr. snowden. >> charlie: we talk to three men with experience in russia, michael mcfaul, former ambassador nicholas burns, and stephen hadley, former national security advisor for president bush. >> let's have no illusions about how president obama thinks about president putin and these actions. >> charlie: how does he think about him in these actions? >> illegal, irresponsible, threatening the security of europe, and a sovereign country of ukraine. we have been very clear about that for a long time in the discussions about this leading up to this -- you know, this tragic moment we're in now. >> charlie: what next for russia and the united states and ukraine? next.

captioning sponsored by rose communications

from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: we begin this evening with the escalating crisis in ukraine. russia's tightening its grip on crimea in the face of warnings by president obama and european leaders. the president spoke today in washington before a meeting with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. >> if they continue on the current trajectory they're on, that we are examining a whole series of steps -- economic, diplomatic -- that will isolate russia and will have a negative impact on russia's economy and its status in the world. >> charlie: secretary of state john kerry due to travel to kiev tomorrow. senator john mccain joins us from washington. earlier today he denounced the administration's foreign policy before the american israel public affairs committee. >> this is the ultimate result

of a factless foreign policy where nobody believes in america's strengths anymore. >> charlie: later we'll be joined by three foreign policy experts who know russia and this crisis well. stephen hadley, former national security advisor to president bush, mike mcfaul, who has been ambassador to russia for president obama, and nicholas burns, a veteran diplomat in the state department. but first, senator mccain. welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> charlie: tell me what it is about the foreign policy you consider factless. >> well, among other things, the entire approach to vladimir putin and russia, since the president came to office, and we had to have the reset that, in a conversation overheard, he said to tell putin i'll be more

flexible. it may not be a cold war as far as barack obama is concerned, but vladimir putin who said the greatest disaster of the 20t 20th century was the fall of the sowf unit yon, to him it is clearly east-west and cold war and he used as i predicted crimea as a vital part of the near broad of russia and he was not about to give up sevastopal, a major naval base of two. so i think this is all predictable. but a'uát of naivety about vladimir putin is astounding. >> charlie: i bet they make a deal today for russia to withdraw the troops and for him to allow to have the naval base continue there. >> i'm not sure because i think there are still problems in eastern ukraine as well.

once the genie is out of the bottle here, it's hard to put the brakes on things. but it is an act of aggression. to use the excuse they're speaking of russian nationals there, one, if stalin hadn't deported all the targetters, that wouldn't be the case and they agreed to a treat for ukraine turning over their nuclear capabilities and russia would honor crimea being part of ukraine, so they're in violation of the international treaty which they signed. so this is serious stuff and, again, if he thinks that a reasonable excuse is to protect the russian citizens, what about estonia, lithuania ia poland, rumania? these countries all have

russian' speaking individuals. by the way, you and i were old enough to remember, that's why hitler went in, to protect german citizens. it's a position that if it's allowed to stand, will be a violation of everything we've stood for in the way of territorial integrity and sovereign nations. >> charlie: what do you think will stop him? >> right now, i don't think there's very much, to be honest with you. first of all, we have to have a fundamental reevaluation of our whole relationship with russia, discard what has failed with this policy that led us to where we are. i would renew the missile defense program in the czech republic and poland and probably have some nato exercises with particularly the bal baltic sta. obviously expand the magniski

bill to target individuals that have to do with this, and the initial signals out of europe, the british and germans aren't encouraging sanctions. >> charlie: i do know that. do you think sanctions that were effective in iran would have the same kind of effect on vladimir putin? >> i think, first, i would try the magniski which targets individuals and their bank accounts and their ability to travel and all that. i would try that first. then, obviously, i would look at other areas. you know, throw them out of the g-8, of course. it should be the g-7. a number of other cosmetic kind of don't send our officials to the paralympics. but we have to understand what

this guy is all about. he's an ogd kgb. in 2008, the debate i had with barack obama, i said at that time, watch russia and ukraine and, unfortunately, these many years later, i was correct. >> charlie: okay, fair enough. but the question then becomes how you do and do you have enough leverage to make him feel the repercussions of what you have done so severely that he will change his policy? >> charlie, i don't think, in the short term, that there's anything right now that is draconian enough to make him change. but a reformulation of our policy towards russia, recognizing him for what he is, a russian aparachic that wants to restore the bloc, that has dreams of the russian empire of which ukraine is the crown jewel, if we understand that and

act accordingly in our relations with him -- look, ronald reagan didn't win the cold war in one shot. this policy of appeasement of vladimir putin has gone on for five years where we've lost credibility throughout the world and, frankly, vladimir putin doesn't have much nervousness about a president of the united states who says he's going to attack a country and doesn't. i'm talking about syria. >> charlie: you said using chemical weapons as, he said, would cross the red line. the president said we have a program with the russian that's getting rid of the chemical weapons which was the point of the attack in the first place. >> the president of the united states incredibly said in an interview with mr. goldberg today that he said unless the russians dismantle chemical capabilities, he would strike them. he didn't say that. he drew a red line and said, if they used them, they'd cross the red line. so the president just basically made a false statement today --

or yesterday to mr. goldberg. second of all, the weapons are going out very slowly. third of all, while the weapons may be going out, the bell bombs and slaughter goes on in syria. in fact, in this fiasco called geneva, there were more people killed in that fiasco than before that. he's playing us like a violin. >> charlie: i want to read from "the new york times" lead story, pressure rising as obama works to reign in mid russia, to make it hurt, scrambling to isolate putin as he tightens grip on crimea. here's the quote, the russian occupation of crimea has challenged mr. obama as no other international crisis and at its heart the advice seems to post the same question, is mr. obama tough enough to taken to the former kgb colonel in the

kremlin. is he? >> so far, no. so far, he has had some kind of delusion that, if we reset and we do what the russians want, like not going forward with missile defense and other actions we have taken which, particularly syria, particularly, for example, a pivot where we were going to move to asia and then we are cutting our defense so dramatically we obviously don't have the naval forms t forces tt and we are cutting our defense in ways we've not seen, frankly, since the 1930s. all those don't go unnoticed. by the way, you know now the administration is saying there's never going to be another land war the united states is involved in. do you know how many times we heard that in the 20th century as we dismantled our capabilities and then got into another conflict, tragically? the world is not a peaceful

place and we've advocated our leadership. >> charlie: i'll ask again, do you think president putin acted this way because he made a judgment that president obama was weak and wouldn't respond? >> i don't think you can draw any other conclusion, but i also think he was smart enough to calculate that, given the last five-year performance of this administration, that he could probably deduce that with relative impunity and there is a very narrow range of options that the united states and our friends can take which probably would have -- take a long time before they would have any significant effect. he needed that base in sevastopal. >> charlie: you said i believe when vladimir putin looks around the world and sees syria, they and all the actions they have to

do and indicate a decline of the united states of america, i think he's emboldened and he's acting. but, at the same time, someone suggested on this program, and i think it was nicholas burns, that maybe the president should fly to europe in a similar kind of meeting of nato countries. do you think that's a good idea? >> i think it's probably a good idea. i think that the fundamental reevaluation of our relationship with russia has to happen first and then take actions dictated by a realistic view of vladimir putin. do you know on friday john kerry was saying, well, maybe there is misinterpretations here. it was basically a failure to realize what was happening as late as friday. so all i can say is we're still the greatest and strongest nation in the world, we can recover from this. we recovered from jimmy carter

with ronald reagan, but i hope that this is a game-changer for the president of the united states that makes him realize the world in which we live and the absolute necessity for american leadership and that does not mean american boots on the ground. >> charlie: you said that about syria, too, that, consistently -- but within that statement there is a sense that putin will respond if there are tough sanctions against him, he is wise enough in terms of what's in the best interest of russia to say i made a mistake and i'm going to pull back, that's your obvious assumption. >> i don't think he'll do that. i think, as i said, that crimea is vital in his interest to the near abroad and the assembling of the russian empire again -- the baltics, moldova, bel belar, ukraine, et cetera.

so i don't think anything we do in the short term is going to have an immediate effect. after ronald reagan came to office, it took a long, long time of steadfast, peace restraint behavior on the part of the united states of america that finally brought the outcome most of us were surprised by. >> charlie: you travel to ukraine last year, i think, to support the protesters there. tell me what you saw. >> i saw hundreds of thousands of people in sub-freezing weather standing up for what they wanted and, one, a rejection of this incredible corruption that has now been revealed by those residences of yanukovich, that they wanted to be european. i haven't so much "joining the eeu versus the customs union of vladimir putin," they wanted the russian -- the european, it's the music, the culture, the clothes, it's everything about them. in eastern ukraine as we're

seeing today, there is still a bass chaibastian of pro putin p. later, in the ukraine, when i was there, a number of them killed by yanukovich and his desperation to keep control and that obviously didn't work and we now know that yanukovich asked putin to send in troops. that would have been very interesting. >> charlie: some people suggest yanukovich is an embarrassment to putin. >> i think, but he's the only horse he had to ride and it's it from obvious that he's taking care of mr. yanukovich now, just like he's taking care of mr. snowden. >> charlie: does president putin have leverage he can use against us or our allies in europe? >> oh, he has incredible leverage, as you know,

particularly the energy situation. thank god, the weather is going to get warmer soon. he has those levers. he has an overwhelming military capability. there are many, many things, but particularly energy. but, you know, this has been bad for the russian economy. the value of their currency has fallen, the stock market is down. there is a negative reaction to this, too, that may effect putin's economy. and could i mention one other aspect of this is putin also sees -- here's this beautiful and large and magnificent country called ukraine. suppose ukraine, finally, after failing in 2004, gets it right, democracy, gets rid of corruption, economy is improving, and it's right there on the border of russia. so i think it makes him very nervous, if there were a success in ukraine in bringing about a free and open society and

economic success, which is not the case in russia, as you know, which is propped up by energy. >> charlie: should we revisit the question of georgia and nato? >> yes. i really believe that we should sponsor the inclusion of georgia into nato. every few weeks the russians move the fence a little further into georgian territory with impunity. there was a peace agreement orchestrated by sarkozy and the russians have never adhered to it and, frankly, i put that responsibility on the bush administration. >> charlie: and whairp supposed to withdraw the troops as well. >> yes, yes. >> charlie: and this is difficult because it's time, what do you do if the sanctions fail? what do you do if all the pressure fails and he continues with his own ambitious ideas about expanding russia and certainly within his own borders

and his own sphere of influence? >> well, one thing, again, back to georgia being in nato, if he tried something like that, say with lithuania, which has a significant russian-speaking population, then he would be attacking nato. i think that would be an entirely different set of circumstances. >> charlie: right. harlie, i have no illusions that, in the short term, we will be able to curb mr. putin's ambitions, but i do believe, in the long term, we can curb those ambitions and, in many ways -- look, we are becoming more and more energy-independent. the world is changing in that direction. the only thing that's propping up mr. putin's regime is his energy resources and, over time, with the demographics, with the rise of muslim citizens, with the short life span of the russian people, everything is working against mr. putin in the long run and the russian empire.

>> charlie: do you believe candidate romney had it right when he said russia is the number one enemy of the united states? >> i'm not sure i would have said "enemy," but i would have certainly pointed out, in 2008, that he is an unreconstructed kgb colonel whose actions are dictated by where he thinks there's weakness and he can take advantage of. again, the rest nation of the near abroad is his ambition. we have to realize that and treat him accordingly. that doesn't mean reignition of the "cold war," doesn't mean we'll have armed conflict with him, but it means we're steadfast, we establish alliances. the greatest alliance, in my view, in history, was the nato alliance that was formed up in response to the then soviet union. i think was an incredible success. in other words, let's draw

together again and recognize putin for what he is but not to the point where we are on the verge of having missiles on launch pads. that's not going to happen. >> charlie: but finally, this, too -- whatever tactics the united states or strategy it takes, is it important also to give him a way out, an exit ramp and an opportunity to save face, if, in fact, it looks like it's not in his interest to continue? >> i would very much like to see that. obviously, we want to see that. we want russia to be a part of the community of nations. we want to help the russian people. we want good relations with them. we have a rising threat in the east, my friends, and it's very pupugnatcious and assertive, china. you have to appreciate putin for what he is. but if events transpire and russia starts to suffer badly

because of actions by us and our european friends, then of course you would want to give him an exit sign because you don't know what someone like him would do when they're cornered. but right now, he's reasonably very triumphant. when kerry says he's losing, i just hope there aren't many more losses like that. >> charlie: thank you, senator john mccain. thank you for joining us. >> charlie: we continue our conversation about the crisis in ukraine with three former government officials who have dealt with russia at the highest levels. from stanford university, michael mcfaul, returned from russia last month after serving as united states ambassador for almost two years. from the harvard kennedy center, nicholas burns, he was the undersecretary of state for political affairs from 2005-2008. and from washington, stephen hadley, president george w. bush's national security advisor from 2005-2009. i am pleased to have all of them

here for this conversation. let me begin by asking each of you, where are we at this moment? >> i think we're at a fundamental turning point in this crisis because president putin successfully now, de facto basis, the crimia he's taken it over, has military control and the big question is will he stop there or will he respond to the inevitable calls by some of the ethnic russian governors and population in eastern ukraine to extend russian influence and president obama is acting, i think, quite rightly to dry to drive up the cost to president putin. you've seen today condemnation of the russian action by the european foreign ministers, by most members of the u.n. security council, they have had a vigorous debate today, and i think president obama is going to try to put together a coalition of european countries and the united states to take economic sanctions to make it cost more to putin, to condemn what he's done, but also to give

aid to the new embattled ukrainian government and that's why secretary of state kerry will be there tomorrow, and you might even see steps to help the ukrainian military in terms of training, logistics and perhaps equipment and, finally nato will meet this week. it's very important the united states reafirearm the article 5 commitment, if one of us is attacked all of us are. to the allies from central europe, the allies nat used to be part of the warsaw pact in the case of the baltic states, the soviet union. so there's a lot the administration can do but obviously it is responding to a strong putin who took an aggressive move over the weekend in crimea. >> charlie: michael. we're at the precipice of a much more major conflict. we're at a moment when the west, certainly president obama, other european leaders, are still trying to use diplomacy to try to deescalate what is happening inside the ukraine, particularly

in crimea. and in moscow, i think they have not decided yet what their end game is. i've noted very carefully how they refer back to the february 21 agreement, president putin has as to what needs to be the next phase for reconciling this crisis. they have nod declared crimea should be an independent country. they have not declared crimea should be part of russia. so right now, i would say we're still in a moment where diplomacy still miff a -- might have a chance to deescalate the crisis. >> charlie: stephen? in his early days, what we saw when putin went into georgia was that his objectives increased or escalated or expanded, depending on how he was doing. and to avoid the escalation michael was talking about, it will be a function of how well he's doing in crimea, a function of what the reaction is of the

people of ukraine, how hospitable he thinks they might be if he were to extend his military action into other parts of the country and, particularly, whether he feels he's going to pay a price in the west, and it is very important that we act very quickly to shore up ukraine, to reassure our allies in central and eastern europe and to start making it clear that putin is going to pay a strategic price for what he's done and that's really what's got to happen in the next 24-48 hours, if it's going to influence his calculation and keep him from expanding his objectives in this operation. >> charlie: understanding vladimir putin as each of you do from one perspective to another of government service, what price would be so high he would not be willing to pay it and might alter his strategy or his intent in ukraine?

>> i would say three things. one, to the extent he recognizes his actions are alienating, for example, the ukrainian people, the people he wants to win over. secondly, to the extent that he finds that it actually energizes the western alliance, the western countries and nato and recommits the united states to nato and the security of europe and, finally, if he starts paying a major economic price. part of that would be imposed by the market, his stock market went down today, interest rates went up. a little bit of a decline of his currency. part of it will depend whether there are real sanctions that are threatened and put in place, things that would effect potentially his oil, but particularly might cut russian companies off from the international financial system. we've learned a lot about sanctions in section with the activity done with iran, and there are sanctions that, if put in place, would have a major

impact on the russian economy. something we did not and were not able to do in 2008 after georgia, something we definitely should do after this incursion into ukraine. >> charlie: nick? harlie, i was just going to say, i agree very much with steve and i think there's one step that's obviously off the table, as it was in 2008 when putin went to war with georgia. the united states and nato are not going to use conventional military force to try to counter this because that would be catastrophic and unwise in the nuclear age. so president obama and president bush in 2008 shouldn't have that option and isn't advocating it. putin cares about economic integration with the rest of the world and europe. he cares about the oecd, we could hold that up. he cares about a bilateral investment treaty. we could hold that up. we've just seen him at sochi

about hosting the sochi g-8 head of government meeting in june and, as you know, president obama and his aides have been talking about maybe president obama not going but there's not unity in the ranks in europe because the germans made it clear today they don't want to expel russia from the g-8 and are not wanting to go so far as the united states on some of the economic sanctions. so steve's strategy is the right strategy. it only works, however, if the europeans, canadians and americans are in lock step. doesn't appear germans are. appears angela merkel wants to go in a different direction. >> charlie: what's the risk of the president here of action or not action? michael? >> well, the president is acting, in my view. he's been engaged from the very beginning in this crisis. i just left the government a few days ago, and these are discussions we've had tragically leading up to this. but it wasn't like we weren't

focused on this before. i think his calculus right now is to try to raise the pecter of the costs we have just been talking about to get putin to re-think what his ultimate end game might be and, as part of the compromise, it might be some kind of reconciliation between the various forces against each other a few weeks ago. i saw several officials before i left, my farewell meetings with many people. the overwhelming impression i got about their view of what was happening in ukraine was disgust with president yanukovich, that he was so weak he allowed this to happen and he didn't stay and defend the interests of the ethnic russians there, the russian speakers and ultimately russia's interests. so that is a way to try to think about is there a way to reconcile so that there could be a peaceful path forward. secondly, if there's not, economic cannings will matter

this -- economic sanctions will matter this time around. this is not the soviet union of 1966 when they invaded czechoslovakia in 1968. there are billions of russian dollars around the world in american and european banks that, through sanctions, could be held hostage. just another instance, the biggest joint venture possibly in the history of american capitalism is between a state-owned oil company and exxonmobil. that's another thing that could be put on call that this would be off. so there are much bigger economic risks for russia today because they're so integrated now to the world economy compared to previous eras. >> charlie: there's no doubt in your mind that president putin understands that and will respond to the threat of that? >> he understands it. one of his best friends is the head of that company. >> charlie: right.

he understands the threats to russian banks. the three largest banks in russia are all state-owned and to be threatened by sanctions. doesn't mean he'll respond that way. i can't predict at the because there's the rational response and then there's an emotional response. in my time in government, i've seen both sides of president putin behaving in two different ways. >> charlie: tell me where you think his head is, how far he wants to go and how he might respond. >> i think vladimir putin, who told president bush that the dissolution of the soviet union was one of the great tragedies of the 20th century really believes that and, in his soul, wants to restore the empire -- not the soviet empire, but a russian empire. he's a 19th and 20th century thinker with a 19th and 20t 20th century sense of power and i think that's what this is all about. he's moved cautiously, he's

moved incrementally and he's been very smart. people will say, for example, that really moving into ukraine was a mistake because he's lost ukraine. in some sense, that's true. but one of the sad dynamics about this is that, by moving into ukraine, into the crimea, the risk is that he freezes further movement from ukraine towards the west because the europeans tend to be uncomfortable, incorporating states into either nato or the eu that have outstanding territorial disputes, particularly outstanding disputes with russia. so his game here, i think, is to try to be disruptive, to take targets of opportunity, to stop the movement of countries like georgia and ukraine towards the west, freeze them in the middle so he can continue to put the kind of pressure and, in some sense, blackmail that he's done to try to get them to move east towards the eurasian union,

towards the eurasian customs union, towards the so-called csto security structure and really reconstitute a sort of latter-day russian empire. that's what i think this is all about. >> charlie: and going back to the question of georgia. is the option of georgia and nato membership still in play? >> well, i would tell you i think one of the things that needs to be done very promptly is to show to the world and particularly to the countries in central and eastern europe that the door is still open to these western institutions. so i think, for example,mont, montenego osought to be made a member of nato. georgia ought to be given an action plan to put them on the road to nato membership. we ought to affirm what was said in 2008 that nato believes

ukraine, if it wants, should become part of nato. the eu similarly should begin anand reopen association agreements with georgia, with ukraine, with moldova and make clear that ultimately when they meet the criteria, they can be part of europe. that will send a strong signal to these countries, but also by moving them into the western framework, it will bring stability to the region and avoid presenting russia with targets of opportunity to do sort of operations in georgia and crimea and again in other places. >> charlie: michael, back to the question of obama and whether his credibility is on the line and how he must act and you suggested he's already acted. on the other hand, do you believe that president putin has made a calculated decision about the president? >> i think that president putin feels he lost ukraine a few weeks ago. in fact, i have senior advisors that told me that in the kremlin

last week. that was humiliating for president putin. you millating to see yanukovich flee the way he did. remember, yanukovich was their guy in kiev. so this was his response to that. and he is calculating that it's more to him what happens in crimea and ukraine than it is to the united states and all of europe, frankly. that's his calculation. it doesn't mean, however -- you know, this is my personal -- i'm trying to read a very complicated leader, president putin -- but my own reading is he hasn't decided what his end game is yet. he hasn't decided if he really wants to put the effort in to try to secure crimea and bring back the empire because he has to think about the costs there. we haven't talked yet about the ukrainians, but it's a very important point steve made earlier, if the costs are raised from military action, that will change president putin's

calculus very clearly. i am impressed, so far, how pragmatically the government in kiev has responded because they understand that negotiation is a much better way to bring ac their country to be fully independent. but if that breaks down, i don't want to be the one to predict where that ends. i think we should be very careful to think, oh, this is going to be a cakewalk. they're going to take crimea and then eastern ukraine. it is not that simple. there is a much more complicated map. even in crimea, only 60% of the people are russian. and when you talk about eastern ukraine, yes, there are big, ethnic groups that are russian, but they tend to be in the cities surrounded by ukrainians in the countryside. this is not going to be an easy country to just split for military intervention. >> charlie: does what is going on now affect a whole range of other things -- syria, iran and other things in which the soviet

russia and the united states are engaged in some way of trying to find some kind of answer or progress? >> i think the russians, charlie, might want to think they can link all these issues and therefor, yo therefore, thre united states that if we aren't quiet on ukraine we won't get their help on preventing riner from becoming a nuclear weapons power of getting the chemical weapons out of sir. i can't i don't see it that way. the russians are publicly identified within the united nations with the effort, in fact they sponsored it, to get the chemical weapons out of europe. i can't see president putin pulling that on that. the russian in the bush and obama administration, the russians have been supporting the effort to sanction iran, they have been at the table with us. russian is the closest of the great powers, the five at the u.n., geographically to iran, it's not in their interest to see iran become a nuclear weapons power. so i don't think putin can turn

the tables on president obama, but i would say this, charlie, you asked an important question, what's the risk for president obama, there is a leadership test that any american president would have to meet here and that is we are the leader of the nato alliance and, so, nato is going to look to the united states for reassurance here, and i do just want to pinpoint again the anxiety that you hear in conversations with east europeans just over the last couple of days. they have lived the soviet reality. they were prisoners in the warsaw pact of stalin. they're now liberated and have been for a quarter of a century and they're protected by nat na. so one thing the president can do to exhibit leadership is go to europe, chair a council of nato, heads of government, reaffirm the american-nato protection for the baltic states and the other countries of central europe. i think the president also has to speak to the american people about the largest strategic objective we've had in europe

since the close of the second world war and that's a free, undivided europe and a peaceful europe. george h.w. bush at the end of the cold war said we want a europe that's whole, free and at peace. rewe've had one the last 23 yea. now with this invasion of the russian special forces into crimea and the threats they are making to go further, europe is being divided, in a way, again, and the president needs to lead the rest of the alliance on this issue. as i said before, charlie, we're not quite in sync with the germans, they're the most important ally, so that's task number one for the u.s. >> charlie: were there signals we could have somehow, in some way, played a different role before the crisis got to where it is now? >> i think this was really provoked when the deal that had been worked out between the europeans, the russians and the americans about a transition that would have left yanukovich in power at least through the end of the year stripped him of a lot of his power.

when that was rejected by the demonstrators in the square and fell apart and they basically made it clear that yanukovich had to leave, and then he fled the country. i think that is really what set in train these events, and this was, you know, 24, 48 hours ago. so i would not fault the administration for that, and i would underscore what michael and nick had said. this is a real opportunity for the president. there's been a lot written that his dissident management style and leadership style is leading people to think that the united states is sort of not home on these issues. he can really step forward on this issue and lead, and i think that's a terrific opportunity for the. , and i hope the white house sees it that way. >> charlie: is it clearly his toughest foreign policy challenge since he's been in office? >> for thation's strategic interest where we have the largest military alliance nato, and attempts to ready vide, divide again, divide anew the

european continent. so i think it will ultimately preoccupy him for his last three years of his presidency and it gets back to the leadership issue. >> charlie: what do you make of angela merkel's comment today when she spoke on the phone with president putin she thought he'd lost touch with reality? >> well, i have been in meetings with president putin where he would report alleged fact we know to be simply untrue. it's usually talking about alleged support for colored revolutions in russia. in you watch russian television as i have been for the last two years and the last couple of days, you would have thought crimea was being invaded by a nazi force supported by terrorist organizations with relationships to orthoterrorist organizations around the world. we know that to be completely untrue. what i know is the information flow to president putin is not great. there are not multiple sources of information. it is controlled sources of

information. so maybe that's what the comment was about. i'm just speculating, of course. but i've seen that up close and personal where what i am hearing being described by russian government officials, including president putin, does not in any way reflect the reality that we knew. and with respect to leadership with the president, i do think it is important for the entire country to be behind this, and i want to remind you of what happened in august 2008. after the russians went into georgia, we had a big debate, i happened to be working for then candidate obama at the time. speeches were made, threats were made about what should be done, but a very important decision was taken, led by the bush administration to provide a billion-dollar economic package to georgia, and i can tell you, once i game a government official, i saw the results of that billion-dollar package for the stability of georgia.

so this is the time when u.s. congress needs to be working with the administration to put together a similar package to accept stabilize ukraine in its dire moment of need. >> charlie: steve, look back to georgia, you and nick both. what were the lessons of that and what would you do differently if you had it to do over? >> i think that one of the things -- the mistakes we made and it covered administrations, i think we moved very quickly. i think we had a very robust set of diplomatic actions. we made some implicit security threats as well. we flew humanitarian assistance into georgia in military c-130 aircraft, letting the russians know in advance we were doing it. we moved a ship or two into the black sea. i think that aspect was pretty robust, and i think it prevented russia from doing what it wanted

to do, which was go and overturn the government. i think where we failed is we talked about economic sanctions but we never really put them in place before we left office. i think economic sanctions have a big role to play in the ukraine and, second of all, i think the reset of russia that came in 2009 was probably too soon. so i think we probably did not do enough in the bush administration, and i think it was not allowed in place long enough probably in the obama administration, because the fact is our effort was to try to deter putin from doing this again. in fact, he now has just done it in crimea. >> charlie: okay. suppose sanctions take place and suppose there's no g-8 and suppose he gets some approprium from the world community, what tools, what weapons, what leverage does he have in the ongoing "i'll to you and then

i'll to you," nick? >> he has leverage. putin is in a very strong position, unfortunately. i'm not happy to say that. he supplies europe with 30% of their natural gas, and the europeans are well aware of that. some european countries like germany much more reliant than others. so he has that economic leaf rablg. leverage. he's also got the leverage against the ukrainians and he hasn't hesitated to use it against the recent ukrainian governments and will do it again. he is also good at dividing europe from the united states. we've seen that in the last couple of days, sunday and today. it's so important that the united states close ranks with germany. one more thing we should put on the table, the president's response, he's assembling the right package in sending kerry to kiev. he needs to probably build up

some nato defenses of east yearn european allies. he needs to leave putin exit doors. we want to create a scenario where he can back out, where we invite him to do that. it was interesting to me president obama mentioned in the phone call with president putin saturday, the 90-minute phone call, that the united states does understand that there's this issue of ethnic russians and why doesn't the oec, organization for security and cooperation in europe, widessent the united states and europe help russia monitor the well being to have the russians that immediately leave the necessity for russian troops. putin may not take the opportunity now but at least it gives him a potential way out. >> charlie: what do you think they talked about for 90 minutes? >> i have been in several phone calls -- i have been in the

presence of the phone calls and in meetings. >> charlie: how does president obama think about putin in these actions? >> he sees it as illegal, irresponsible, threatening the security of europe and sovereign country of ukraine. we have been very clear about that for a long time in the discussions about this leading up to this -- you know, this tragic moment we're in now. secondly, i think what nick said about exit ramps, you know, i would hope would have been part of the conversation because right now the specte spector ofe economic costs might change his mind. the big difference between georgia in 2008 and the ukraine today, there are a lot of our european friends he were skeptical about the then

president and blamed him about the division going on there. i'm sure he must be feeling vindicated in his assessment of russia today but we're not having that debate now. i think that's really important. i think it will be easier for us to be united on sanctions because, after all, if we're going to do real sanctions against russia, we need the europeans to be with us. >> charlie: charlie, i think one thing to add, the words i think are fine, but this is not going to be turned around by words. it's going to be turned around by actions. i agree with michael, you know, sometimes it's stunning how the information that putin uses. but he is a cunning, shrewd and tough guy, and he is not going to be deterred by words. he's going to be deterred by actions. that's what we've got to start seeing if we turn this around. >> i've had people who eve talked to him tell leaders in

other countries that they think he has clear strategies here for the reemergence of a russia that he would like to see as an active and powerful participant, and starting in his own region, but even beyond that in the middle east. does that resonate -- >> charlie, he has a strategy, but the strategy failed in europe. i have been dealing with president putin and prime minister putin for five years now in the government. i've heard his vision for the eurasian economic union. pivotal to that was to have ukraine as part of that union, not crimea but ukraine. and he felt he won the first battle last fall, right? he took on the eu, and when push came to shove, president yanukovich sided with him and didn't sign up for an a accessin

freedom with the european union. they felt smug their vision was coming to fruition. that's why the story about how yanukovich was toppled, or ran, because i don't think he was topple, and i think this was a reactive short-term tactical response of what he did in crimea. and i don't think he knows what tend game is for him. i think that makes him vulnerable to the kinds of pressures that bet both my colleagues were talking about and particularly on the economic side for us but the ukrainians ultimately will decide on the security part about what the cost will be of this occupation. >> charlie: my friend david had a call today of what he calls russia's mistake in which he quotes napoleon who is said

of cautioned in an 1805 battle, when an enemy is making a false movement, we must take good care not to interrupt him. if that's true, what should we do? >> there is every reason to believe the russians were surprised yanukovich fled kiev, so they had to assemble a policy on the run. he may not know whether he wants to annex claimia make it part of the russian federation, proceed to the eastern ukraine. in this respect, i think he won round one, but we might be able to win the later rounds and here's how it would happen. putin doesn't have a single ally in the world. he can intimidate belarus, moldova and try to intimidate ukraine. we have nat nato. we have countries that ought to be united here and if we can apply sanctions and isolate him diplomatically, over the long one, i would think the advantage

would swing to us because he cannot digest ukraine and cannot divide it without tremendous financial and economic cost to the russian federation. so i think president obama is probably playing for the middle and later rounds of this 15-round match. >> charlie, i think it is a 15-round match and i think putin is playing for the long term, and we can affect the later rounds but only if those many countries nick talks about are willing to come together and are galvanized into fairly decisive action. secondly, the other thing that can undo this will depend on ukraine. ukraine is an economic basket case and if this very new government cannot perform and the country desend descends furr into economic chaos, it may come unstuck, and putin may have other options at that point in time. so i think we have to take a

very long-term perspective here. have to have a strategy that will hold up over the long term and to emphasize something nick said, it is very important we get in now and in a big way to help this ukrainian government succeed in turn around its economy and beginning to bring prosperity and stability to its people, that, in the end of the day, will be key. >> charlie: thank you steve steve, thank you nicholas burns, thank you michael mcfaul for being on the program tonight. thank you. >> thank you. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org 

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib brought to you in part by. >> thestreet.com. featuring stephanie link who shares her investment strategy, stock picks and market insights with actions alerts plus. the multi million dollar profollow owe she manages with jim cramer. >> investors on edge, and they are selling stocks as the conflict with ukraine and russia escalates. is there anything the u.s. can do? >> warren buffet speaks. what does the world's famous investor think? we talk to him about that, the economy and more. >> winter storms kept car shoppers at home for the second straight month. will deal es off