>> welcome to the program. we begin this evening with the president of iran, hassan rouhani. is there some kind of fear in a grand bargain in which it bears progress in the nuclear talks, you would be more acceptable to participating in the fight against isis? >> we do not connect the two issues. fundamentally, the nuclear talks and the fact that we must all of us see progress, tangible progress and resolve issues, we do believe the resolution of those issues benefit all, benefits the region as well as the entirety of the world. but outside of that nuclear

issue, we fundamentally are against terrorism, clearly against terrorism and if we have the opportunity to combat them we will do so because terrorists threaten everyone, both countries in which the terrorists operate as well as others. >> rose: and we one clude with the secretary of general of nato anders fogh rasmussen. >> it's become clear to everybody why we still need nato. now, we are faced with complete new security situation in the east because of russia's illegal military actions. but you see, you see, i would call it an act of crises surrounding nato. not only to the east but also to the southeast and to the south, even from cyberspace.

>> the president of iran and secretary of nato when we continue.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: mr. president, thank you for joining us. >> i also thank you, sir. >> rose: it's a pleasure to see you again. >> i'm also quite gratified to see you after about one year. >> rose: the united states as announced bombing in syria. they notified you beforehand. were you notified? >> this does not mean that the united states of america vis-a-vis its air bombardment informs iran previously or willing for iran. on the sidelines of the nuclear talks in a general fashion, this

topic was touched upon and they had a general conversation about it, about the fact that the u.s. said they intends to extend the range of the air bombardments that we have in iraq. nothing precise, nothing that came a day or a few hours prior to this bombardment of syria. >> rose: do you approve of what the united states did? >> what is the meaning? does the united states think that with a few bombardments, we'll be able to destroy terrorism? and make them suffer damages if let's the general thought, then it's incredibly simple thinking that we would be combating terrorism. including the fact that the terrorism has been taking the lines of syrians for the past three years. how come is it that now the united states is thinking about

combating them and defeating them? >> rose: i assume because they became alarmed by the success of isis. >> in any fashion, the terrorist groups in syria have attracted many villages, killed an incredibly vast number of people. conquered cities during the last three years and the united states not only did not show any reaction, but sometimes the tone was something that was perhaps encouraging the terrorist activities. >> rose: in fact the president of the united states said the reason they do not support moderate forces was because they feared weapons will fall into the hands of those you describe as terrorists. >> well in any fashion, where

did these people obtain the arms and weapons. there were countries that weaponry and came in syria financially and in worse countries that encourage them in their media. all of these supporters must be held to account and be made to answer for the killing that has taken place in syria over the last three years. >> rose: my impression of your argument is that some arab countries will now engage in the fight against isis earlier supported the rise of isis. >> well in any way, sir, you're aware that not only regional countries, some regional countries but also some countries from outside our region were supporting various terrorist groups.

the united states herself has given support of them. and these types of support have come in various forms. some financially, some with equipping and some made their country the territory of their nation as the passageway to the field of battle and some encourage them in their domestic media and international media. all of them in one fashion or another encouraged and supported these terrorists. terrorism is always bad, without exception. you cannot say now it's good and another time condemn it. it is always bad and evil. >> rose: why do you think they thought it was good? why would these governments support terrorism? >> unfortunately, in the world of politics, the understanding for some is such that when an objective becomes a paramount importance. for example, the toppling of a

certain government becomes of utmost important, then they allow themselves to use any means, any means in order to reach their own objective. whereas these means, these tools can at a later point be used against them. >> rose: you're suggesting that saudi arabia, qatar, turkey supported the terrorists because they wanted to overthrow president beshard al-assad. >> i did not say other countries but you're free to interpret it the way you wish. there are certain countries that with the government were opposed to the government of syria and were under the impression by supporting the terrorists they

would succeed in toppling that government. but obviously they were quite wrong in their calculus. >> rose: do you believe the facts now will have the possibility of toppling the assad government in syria? and that is the -- >> we, for the objective of these bombardments, these ariel campaigns are not clear and we do not know. the final objective, the end game for those who carry out the air bombardments, anything can be the objective. in our opinion, if the air bombardments campaign is not within the frame work of international law, it is to be condemned. and assuming that if the objective is such for them to combat terrorists, in a nation, in a country territory without

coordination, with the government of that country, at the request of that country, then such action, whatever the intent may be can be considered an attack, an invasion. >> rose: even though it's not an attack against the government of syria. it's attack against people who have been barbaric in their actions. the actions is against them and not the syrian government. and in fact the administration communicated that to the syrian government. >> at some point the syrian government, let's assume they can act. thatbit. the other is a third party, a certain government decides on her own to target certain areas of a nation through ariel bombardment. in any way. without the threat of

government, a country, it's quite meaningless for us to enter the country in any way shape or fashion through air bombardments or otherwise. so it is a wrong action. >> rose: even though you have been outspoken in characterizing isis as a threat. you've made it clear that they have to be stopped. you criticize them for even using the name of islam. >> all of that is correct absolutely. this terrorist group is a terrorist group and.,qvá)emely terrorist groups it's extremely savage and barbaric in their conduct, in their action, and inappropriately and wrongly use the name of islam and the fate of muslims in all of their actions unhe equalally, the

government and teachings of islam. but that doesn't mean a group in a country conducts various activities another country without coordination and without permission of the central government of the victimized country even their air space, albeit, and carry out an air bombardment campaign. i think this is quite clear for everyone to understand and filmize there's no room for other interpretations. if anyone wishes to carry out any operations, air campaigns or otherwise they need to do so with the permission of the government of that country. >> rose: what are your conditions for iran to be engaged in the battle against isis? what's necessary for iran? >> i spoke of this previously.

any country a teeter or group of terrorists are active. if the government of that country formally requests the republic of iran for assistance, we will assist against them those terrorists. >> rose: that is true in terms of your previous relationship with the government fighting in the civil war in syria. because bashar assad is all of the them against the terrorists civil war. >> if we label a group as terrorists, we're not seeking to speak of something that we have doubts about. a group in a country are carrying forward terrorists and barbaric activities, we know they're terrorists. if the government of that country formally requests of us to assist that government against a group of terrorists, we will certainly render that

assistance. >> rose: is there possibility here of some kind of grand bargain in which if there is progress in the nuclear talks, you would be more acceptable to participating in the fight against isis? >> we do not connect the two issues. mondmentally the nuclear talks and the fact that we must all of us see progress, tangible progress and resolve issues, we do believe that the resolution of those issuesó benefits all. it benefits the regions as well as the entirety of the world. but outside that nuclear issue, we are fundamentally against terrorism, clearly against terrorism. and if we have the opportunity to gas terrorists we will do so. because terrorists endanger and

threaten everyone. both country in which the terrorists operate, as well as others. because terrorism is borderless. it does not remain constant in one country or mobile. it's like a parasite that moves from one region to another. no one can feel as being safe from that parasite, until that parasite, those microbial beings exist in a certain area, we must only concentration on the eradication on those. we can only have peace of mind at a time when terrorism no longer exists and the terrorists no longer can see an environment or atmosphere for their activities. but until such time as there exists a conducive environment for the growth and their

expansion, this is an incredibly threatening and dangerous phenomenon, not just for one but multitude of countries and regions. >> rose: why do terrorists invoke the name of islam in their recruitment? >> evil. or the wrong always uses the name of the righteous and enable of the righteous in ordems reah their objectives. no one will say, i'm an oppressor, i am evil be on my side, be with me. if they wish to be able to attract recruits, they will come up with slogans that are desirable. in our region, the faith is quite attractive for the youth of our region. our youth is in love with the islamic culture and the islamic teaching. and some have managed to take advantage of this love and use a mask in order, use a face in

order to mask the realities of their being. and on the other hand unfortunately in our region, because of the hegemony in the region, a lot of youth have lost their hope and this hopelessness is a path that makes them more readily available to go toward safe slogan thinking that will be their salvation where as it's not. thinking they can prize from the oppression that they have seen and reach the region of that oppression. it is always like that. some have always managed to take advantage of the righteousness and good. and this group is abusing the name of the faith of islam.

>> rose: so the battle has to do not only on the battlefield, not only military but in terms of reaching and debating the world of ideas. >> the root of terrorism must certainly within cultural and social, as well as political frame works, be addressed withie those frame works only. terrorism cannot only be defeated with bombs or weapons. we must ultimately eradicate the bulk of violence from the mind and mind set of the youth. they must be hate so that they do not believe that through violence they can reach objective. which maybe perceived, wrongly

perceived in the mind of this youth as holy objective, they cannot be thinking this is the way to reach that objective. we must give them the correct explanation, the correct interpretation from a cultural angle, from social angles, from the eradication of poverty and addressing poverty. a lot of economic issues, economic situations can become fertile ground for violence. therefore if we really want to look at terrorism for what it is, the evil thatnúsñ it is and combat it and eradicate it, we must have an extremely holistic approach to it and approach it from every angle. if we only focus and concentrate on the leaves and different branches of leaves, other than trimming those leaves and branches because the roots are

still imbedded in the ground, that real evil will flourish and grow again. down the line we will face the same tree only stronger and more deeply rooted. >> rose: in this context, where do you put the shi'a sunni? >> let's, if you will, the tension between different÷ faith has always been something line up people against one another. always. in our region from the old days it was always the same and everyone knew they said when oppression wanted to enter the region and take advantage of the region's people, the resources, they always seek to do so, they always sought to do so by creating gaps between the

different faiths or the sects in the region. so the religious beliefs that in their mind can easily justify lining people against one another. and those who keep speaking about the conflict between shi'a and sunni are certainly fundamentally against both sects. they're not shi'a nor are they sunni. and many certainly believe that a religious culture has no place in society. this is the multitude that has always been used throughout the region, the reality is that both shi'a and sunnis believe in one holy book. and maybe the greatest majority of those thoughts and beliefs are common thoughts and beliefs. >> rose: yet many people view the struggle in the middle east

today beyond the struggle against terrorism. as they struggle for influence in the region between two primary powers, iran and saudi arabia. a contest for influence.>> well,a have lived across the water from one another for many centuries. the people from saudi arabia even now, many of them travel to iran every year for pilgrimage and many iranians go for pilgrimage as well. we have neighbors throughout many years of long history have managed to live well next to one another. yet, saudi arabia, sure, could be a regional power. iran could be a regional power.

there are other regional powers. absolutely. absolutely. but there are other regional powers. >> rose: turkey? >> surely, surely. turkey in the future. iraq will be a great power in the region. any way, we must live next to each other. even now, the united states is a power, the european union is a power. doesn't mean if there are multitudes of powers, of centers of power, their progress can be realized through the destruction or the weakening of one another. the solution for mutual progress is for countries to collaborate and cooperate and seek to obtain the mutual objective for the

progress of not only one another but for the region as a whole. therefore sure, someone could interpret it as iran speaking a regional hegemony that other countries are seeking that regional hegemony. we never thought regional hegemony. we're not seeking nor will we ever. in the past 200 years of our nation we've never attacked or invaded another country. there were countries who were born in an extremely weak analysis next to our borders.wed them, we collaborated with them, next to them. but you saw after the downfall of the soviet union, quite a few small countries to the northern border of our country came into being in existence. we recognize the legitimacy, we've helped and assisted them. we collaborated with them.

we must all learn peaceful coexistence with one another. particularly neighbors. towards one another. this is the only way to realize progress, nothing else. >> rose: i think you have suggested there was some progress in relationship with saudi arabia because your foreign minister went and talked to the foreign minister of saudi arabia and you have suggested there's a dialogue there. >> certainly it is so. saudi arabia is our neighbor. we have had very good relationship with them in the past. and now vis-a-vis our mutual objectives, we don't have any particular challenges. perhaps there are differences of opinion vis-a-vis certain regional issues. but whenever conflict of opinion, differences of opinion arise about regional issue, the best way to resolve those is to sit down and talk them out and

reach a solution. >> rose: so why don't you sit down with the president of the united states while you're in new york? you know where i'm going? you're seek the prime minister of britain. why not see the president of the united states. talk about what divides you. talk about nuclearation, talk about terrorism. talk about how you can cooperate. talk about your stuff. >> in any ways, between the united states and america, throughout the last 30=y some od years, conflict and tensions have existed, quite a few. you are fully aware of the history of this relationship between the two countries during the last three plus decades. of course one day these difficulties, these challenges must be resolved. i do not believe that between

iran andperpetual distance, perl gap and tension. in any way, i do believe that these tensions will come to an end. one day the distances will be shortened. the nation the two people will not allow the gap in perpetuity. but how to defeat these gaps. to resolve the issue and the difficulties. of course now between iran and thedirect talks vis-a-vis the nuclear issue. they are talking to one another. even at the ministerial level. one day, perhaps there will be a need for talks at a higher level. we must interpret at what time under what conditions and in order to reach what objective.

what we must accept is that we must look towards the future that encompasses the benefits and the interests of both nations and both people. >> rose: the united states has imposed sanctions against iran. are they effective? are they causing pain? to the iranian citizens? >> in any way, sir, when a country uses illegitimate tools and causes for the delayed receiving of medication by those who are gravely ill, this causes hardship for those who suffer illness because of the lack of medication in their countries. sanctions are extremely

oppressive, have been extremely oppressive and unfair. unfairly imposed. and have been quite damaging at a human level, if nothing else. you're fully aware that in, during a period of time, people either did not have access to medicationexorbitantly high prir those medications. could be obtain the tools and the raw materials that they needed because of the sanctions. so all of this in aggregate means that a nation, a people have suffered. but these pressures are also exerted perhaps involuntarily against the source. so it is a double-edged sword. both sides will suffer the pain, for the imposer of the sanctions and for those on whom it is imposed. what is important is that our people did not surrender in the

face of these sanctions. for their own rights, they have stood up for their own rights and we've received sanctions as a wrong path to follow and wrong tool to use and the wrong putk÷ between two countries. as you touched upon earlier it is the conversation of table talk and understanding. now do you think ill ill legitt tools. >> rose: why don't you talk to the president of the united states while you're in new york. >> i answered this question. two nations that have suffered many problems between one another and have had very difficulty towards one another. if one day the appropriate foundation hasn't been laid for such a meeting, if the appropriate aim has not been calculated, then it would not be

fruitful. so today, the conditions do not dictate such a meeting. we do not want to put on a show. our people do not enjoy or theatre and certainly that is something that the people of the united states. >> rose: nor does the president want to do that. >> therefore, let the time mature. upon during which such talk and such meetings can be fruitful towards resolving problems and issues. >> rose: what does time have to cure? what is it that time will take care of? what is the essence of the conflict? is it nuclear tensions? you say for peaceful uses. they believe for weapons. is it political? >> well, it emanates from this.

we can sometimes as humans perhaps we're keen on denying reality. because these3ç realities whene revolution took place in iran and iran succeeded in their own will managing the affairs of their country. and someone who was being managed by the united states was made to meet that country for good, the united states did not want to accept this. or perhaps they thought they could deny the reality or change the reality. or the previous wrong experience through which they toppled the prime minister. they did not fully reach an

understanding of the essence of this islamic revolution. so that was the starting point of these tensions of this conflict and we saw during the holy defense war against iraq, the americans did show an acceptable behavior. they backed and supported someone who was an attacker and invader. and everything, you know, what everything else has happened leading us to where we are today, illegal sanctions against the country. these are not fruitful. these create and increase the size of these gaps. we must take action, we must show our goodwill so that these gaps will decrease. if we made a mistake in the past doesn't mean that we need to repeat it. we're not going to repeating our mistakes. when the american politics and the american government takes that position i assure you the

positions will change noticeably. which means they will decide to accept their reality of iran, to accept the reality of a nation of iran and accept an unalienable rights of the people of iran. certainly the results of this recent situation will change. >> rose: you believe, the president has said that the nuclear issue as of november 24th i think deadline. he said it's 50/50. what do you think? do you think you will reach an agreement with the unitedhñ stas over nuclear issues by november 24th? >> what i can say is that if the serious will exists in both sides, that certainly this agreement is within reach. from our side, certainly this serious will does exist in order to reach an agreement so that we

can resolve and put away the points of contention that exist between the sides today. but the same willingness must exist in the counterparts. we do not leave to chance and say we have been visions in these negotiations or the other sides have been losers. the what if we both say that the only slogan that we chant is that it has to be a win/win situation for all sides involved. so that the rights of all nations are respected. and ultimately, all international rights and laws can be respected, then certainly before the deadline that's remaining ahead of us, we will proceed in resolving this issue. >> rose: then describe your win/win. what is a win/win for the president of iran on nuclearation. >> in my opinion this win/win is quite clear.

it is what has been written in international law and agreement. iran has the right to use all available nuclear technology for saw viflian purposes and iran will not be discriminated against in reaching these rights. iran is a signatory to the mpt and must be treated like other countries who are signatories. and if there are any reasons for lack of confidence, we are willing toho erase the reasons r those those that are looking. the condition must be created as a win/win for both sides. so the win means that iran must be victorious in safeguarding every right to use peaceful nuclear energy and

technologyand and must be should throughs no deviation from this. >> rose: there will be no nucelaion. but they said they need 100,000 centrifuges. >> what we want is to have the ability to use various sources of energy, meaning having the ability to provide, for our electricity needs through various ways. you do know that now we do have a power plant, you do know that we are in conversations with russia, you do know that we are in talks with russia for new power plants. we do want both in the construction of power plants to reach a point of self sufficiency, to be able to build the nuclear power plant

ourselves. as well as providing for our own fuel with self sufficiency. you do know that when a power plant is made operational, perhaps it can function for 50 or 60 years. but three times a year, the fuel needs to be replaced. so three times a year, we do need to provide for new fuel and bring it to the power plants. so we do need to be self sufficient in the arena of providing fuel for our own needs, for at least one installation similar to bouche and the reactors for radio isotopes, we also want to provide for the fuel needed for that. so the calculus between our experts and subject matter experts, it's to be able to provide the fuel needed for an installation such as the one we

have in bouche as well as the iran reactor which is used for medical research and nuclear isotope productions. if we can reach these objectives, we will have a need for 190,000, swu. so for those 190 thousand you can say it is the fuel needed toward one power plant. >> rose: do you believe the present attacks against eye cision in syria will be successful. >> do you mean the united states -- >> rose: arab countries. with the support of the free syrian army. that's the strategy. >> it is not clear for us. what they're speaking. whether they're under the pressure of their own domestic public opinions and want to put on a show, a theatre for public

consumption, or they're after a tangible, a real objective in the region, it is not crystal clear for us. but what i can tell you unequivocally, no terrorists can be eradicated and destroyed through ariel bombardment only. >> rose: no one believes that. no one believes that. the united states doesn't believe that, the arab countries don't believe that that are supporting the united states. they understand that. that's why they're focusing on the training of the free syrian army. syrian. to combat the terrorists in their own country. >> so in other words, they want to put more fuel on the existing fire. >> rose: no. they wantedfd to destroy the terrorists. >> this is not the way, sir. the way to combat terrorism, sir, is not for us to give birth to another terrorist group in order to stand up against an existing terrorist group. these are the theories of mistakes that have composed the ridges of the chain that have

taken us from where we were to where we are today. we must accept the reality. we cannot organize armed groups of fighters in order to reach our objective. thus far, they were sadly mistaken, those who equipped and trained these terrorist groups. and the same will be repeated if they seek to do the same thing. from this point on, i do thank you very much, i do wish you continued health. at the very least i do hope i was able to answer some of the questions you had in mind. thank you so much and god bless you. >> rose: thank you very much, mr. president. >> rose: let's talk first about what everybody saw in that in terms of a conflict with isis. how do you see the strategy of the president and the strategy of those in the region and

people who were on the gulf council and the people who have tried to come together with a coalition. is that coalition building. >> yes, indeed. i really welcome the american initiative to build such coalition. it's high time to take military action to stop the advance of isis. the so-called islamic state, which is neither islamic nor a state. it's a terrorist organization that poses3m a threat not only o iran but to the whole world. >> rose: i do want to talk about that but i want to go to ukraine and the threat there. the president seems to have made it clear that if in fact russia or president putin decided to move on a nato in any way in the baltic, there will be a response and that he should clearly understand it. >> yes, indeed. that was a very clear message from the nato summit. we adopted what we call a

readiness action plan which will mean more visible nato presence in the east. so the russians know that if they were to attack an ally, they would meet not only troops from that specific ally but they would meet nato. >> rose: what about ukraine which is not a member of nato. what is necessary there to send a signal? >> obviously there is a clear difference being a member of nato or not being a nato. if you are a member it means if there's an attack one will be considered an attack on all. so members of nato are covered by this collective defense and solidarity clause. if you're not a member of nato, you're not covered by that clause. however, we have decided to step

up our military cooperation with ukraine at the summit. we took positions that will help ukraine and their own capability to defend themselves. >> rose: what do they need to build that capability. >> what anyway though can provide is defense capacity building in form ofv9 training activities, advice, assistance, defense reforms. we will invite them to participate more intensively in nato exercises that will help modernize the military, build their capacity. >> rose: i heard recently two responses about where putin is. one is he got beyond a place where he wanted to be that it was a reactive measure by him

and that he doesn't like the hand he's playing. the other is that in fact it is exactly what he wants to do, that it is part of something that has concerned him for a long time is that russia needs to be surrounded by a barrier. >> i have no doubt that putin's am basic is to reestablish a sphere of russian influence in the near neighborhoods, in the form of soviet space. >> rose: as a defensive measure. >> yes, both, i would say. but also to present countries in russia's new neighborhood to seek integration with nato and the european union. and it is in russia's interest

to fuel protractive conflicts in the region. so this goes actually beyond ukraine. it goes beyond eastern ukraine. it's also in maldo vavment, because russia calculates as long as these countries are under served, nato and the european union will be reluctant to import such countries into our organization.to so these countries serve his interest. >> rose: do you think he felt weakness in reactions. >> i think we have demonstrated unity and cohesion. you have seen what i would call an unprecedented unity between the european union, the u.s., nato, g7. i think we have sent a very clear message. having said that, no doubt that

putin counts a western reluctance to really control him. so i have no doubt that continued russian destabilization of ukraine should be met by broader and tougher economic sanctions. >> rose: you also believe that there is a political solution, do you not? >> yes, but i think the only sustainable long term solution is political solution, there's no military. >> rose: what would be the outlines of that? >> well, first of all let me stress, that it's for the ukrainians to decide the long term solution without outside interference. in that respect, i welcome that

president poroshenko to reform the ukrainian society with a view to decentralize powers and gives more influence to the region as requested by some of the eastern regions. so i think recurrent political leadership in kiev to find a peaceful and political solution. >> rose: do you think putin is prepared for that or do wetc has to be coerced into that by sanctions. >> putin plays a double game. on the one hand occasionally accommodating statements and actions, sometimes you see withdrawal of russian troops. then afterwards, you see a build up of russian troops. all with the aim to confuse the

public in western countries. and also whenever we have meetings or going to have meetings that could, that could result in sanctions, then putin makes some moves. so it's all a game. so while issuing accommodating statements then with the other hands, they continue destabilizing ukraine. >> rose: in the game -- >> not really forward. it's really i am very much concerned. this is really dramatically typical situation in europe. we have spent more than 20 years to build a constructive partnership with rush since the end of the cold war. i would say we have a generation

obligation to try and use the new situation after the cold war to build constructive relationship with russia. but clearly today russia considers us not a partner but adversary and of course we have to adapt to that. >> rose: you're adapting to that. >> it's a force that can be deployed rapidly, within a very few days. it can beáñ deployed to an ally that has been attacked or threatened by a potential aggressor. in order to be able to receive such reinforcement quickly, we would have to prepare facilities. so pre positioned equipment and

supplies, prepare necessary infrastructure including bases and ports. so you will see more visible nato presence in these. >> rose: has the crises reminded us why nato was created in the first place? because there was a sense before this crises what's nato do? and all of a sudden there's almost a demand that nato shows what it's about. >> the question has changed from why nato. >> rose: exactly. >> i think it has become very clear why we still need nato. now, we are faced with completely new security situation in the east because of

russia's illegal military actions. but you see, you see i will call it an arc of crises surrounding nato not only to the east but also to the southeast and even from cyberspace. and so for all these, we need a very strong collective system. and this is also reason why we need to invest more in security defense. during the last five year the russians have increased their defense spending by 50%!ñ while nato allies have decreased spending by 20%. obviously that's not sustainable. so now we need to reverse the trend. >> rose: what's the base of nato respectable russian influence in ukraine. >> i wouldn't act even. >> rose: nothing would be acceptable in terms of russian influence. even though they have a long

history. >> why couldn't russia and ukraine live side by side in peace and harmony and let ukraine decide what is the future of their country. it's not for the russians, it's not for us, it's for the ukrainians to decide and we should respect that. >> rose: if they decide they want to be a member of nato. >> yes, of course. >> rose: put in an application and see what happens. >> then we will deal with that as we deal with all other applicant countries. let me remind you by the way, that back in 2008, at the nato summit, we made a decision that ukraine and also georgia will become members of nato for the necessary criteria. >> rose: that was a bad day for vladimir putin. >> yes, i think he didn't like

it. and unfortunately, he then invaded georgia in august 2008. >> rose: you said this about him and this may have been when you were prime minute 12ur. you shouldn't under estimate putin's determination. he has clear goal and strategy and clear tactics. to match that you need a firm stance and strong determination. >> yes. i think i said it as prime minister. i haven't changed my mind. >>it there, a strong will and determination. >> yes, both. and better take seriously what mr. putin says, because he has demonstrated that he does what he says. >> rose: nato in your judgment is more relevant than ever. >> yes. it's been relevant all the way through. but now it's become very clear to everybody why we need nato. >> rose: thank you for joining us.

more about this program and early episodes visit us on-line at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is "nightly business susie gharib. npup,ñi up and away, the bul run on wall streetc thinningñi blue chip dow index up triple digits, reversing its previous losing streak. and one of the tope1 performers today, walmart as the world's largest retailer takes direct aim at the banks making its big%])t push ever. and sam waxel is back for on for he ise1 planning an fáe1ipo for latestw3e1ñi biotech adventure, stories and more today