>> rose: welcome to the program. from st. petersburg, russia, at the st. petersburg international economic forum a conversation with the president of russia, vladimir putin. what are acceptable borders for ukraine, for russia? what borders are acceptable for you? >> ( translated ): what do you mean when you are talking about borders? geographical borders or political borders? what are you talking about specifically? as for cooperation, we have always said-- and we're going to say that in future, there's nothing new about that-- despite all the difficultieses of today i've always thought that

ukrainians and russians are one people, one ethnic group. they have common culture, common ritual, foundation, common history, wharf happens, in the end, russia and ukraine are destined to a common security. >> rose: superst. petersburg, russia, a cerch with vladimir putin at the st. petersburg international economic forum for the hour. >> rose: additional funding provided by:

>> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: mr. president, it's a pleasure to be in your city, first of all, the city where you started your political career, to be here in russia, which is a great country with a historic past and an important role to play in the future and its demand that its history and culture and military strength and its possibilities give it a big role. there are big issues that can only be solved if russia participates, and you will have play a definitive role in that. help usand as you see it, where are we? how do we get there? and where do we go from here? >> ( translated ): first of all, i'd like it to thank you for agreeing to work with us here today to be the moderator

of this meeting, this forum the st. petersburg economic forum. so probably it would be better to concentrate our attention on the economic issues but i agree with you without finding a solution to a number of acute international crises, hardly any advances can be achieved. we've talked about ukraine repeatedly. we understand there is no evading this question, but, you know, we always talk either about ukraine, something related to ukraine. several years ago we talked about the crisis in iraq, crises in different other countries. we're talking about what has already transpired, but we never talk about why it has happened. but if you want to talk about it, which is evidently quite important, i should like to

start with this very issue-- why is there a crisis in ukraine? i was quite confident after the bipolar system-- after the collapse of the soviet union certain partners of ours, particularly the united states, were in a kind of euphoria. and instead of trying to create a new situation, good neighborly partner relations, they started to explore new-- free geopolitical spaces-- free in their view-- and that's why we were witnessing the expansion... other phenomena.

ifs always wondering why that was happening and arrived at a conclusion. i thought some of our partners were under the illusion after the second world war there used to be one world order and now that the u.s.s.r. was gone, they thought there was a vacuum which had to be filled. and i think that is not the right approach to finding a solution to these issues. and that's why iraq happened. we know, and our partners agree that there were errors committed in iraq but still it happened once again in libya and now in ukraine. we are not the original cause of those crises phenomena which are happening in ukraine. it should not have supported the illegal coup data, the

constitutional coup d'etat which finally resulted in a serious confrontation in ukraine, and a civil war as it were. what has to be done now today no doubt the agreements reached in minsk the capital of belarus, should be observed. let me emphasize, if we were not content with something, we would not have put our signature there. but we have put our signature under those documents and we will seek their full implementation. i would like to draw your attention to this fact, your attention and the attention of our partners. but we cannot do that unilaterally, and i'm repeating is over and over again. they're telling us russia has-- the situation in the south is part of ukraine. that is not enough. influence has to be exercised in

kiev, and we cannot do that. this is the avenue that has to be pursued by our western partners it's europeans the united states. let's work together. ( applause ) >> rose: what do you want the kiev government to do? >> we don't want them anything to do. it's the ukrainian people that has to want something from the government, either to do or not to do. we believe that to achieve a settlement means agreements have to be implemented, and the key issue here is no doubt the political component. and there are several elements to the political settlements. first, the constitutional reform, and the agreements say that quite clearly, either with providing an autonomous status

or stipulating for a decentralization as our colleagues-- everyone understands what that is our european partners. the germans and french have explained what it stands for and the kiev authorities are okay with that. secondly, the law on the special status of these-- the recognized republics has to be enacted. it has to be enforced. it has been promulgated but it has not been implemented yet. and to that end, a-- the ukraine parliament has to be adopted. and that's what the minsk agreement stipulates for. formerly our friends have done it, but once this decree was adopted, they also introduced amendments to the law.

as a matter of fact, bringing it to naught. so instead of manipulations they have to start practical work. there has to be a law of political an of amnesty. you can cannot be in dialogue with people in danger of prosecution. and elections have to be performed. all that is stipulated in the minsk agreement, and i am drawing your particular attention to that. and all that has to be done in cons expert in coordination with the representative of the minsk offer, partner of ukraine. unfortunately, too much time has passed since the signing of these agreements. now, a direct dialogue is required. that is what is missing. and finally, an economic

rehabilitation of these territories has to be launched. i have said that repeatedly. the excuse of having no money doesn't work here. and the current key leadership believe this is the territory of ukraine, that ukrainian citizens reside there who are entitled to disability allowance. then they have to do something. they cannot refuse to pay these allowances. otherwise, they are violating their own constitution. all that has to be implemented and not just in words but also in practice. ( applause ) >> rose: as you know the united states believes that you are arming the separatists and encouraging them,ing and that you are using russian armed servicesservices and that adds to the conflict that heightens the emergency. and many people worry that it's tending towards some new cold

war. >> ( translated ): no no. cold war is caused not by local conflicts but by global decision by the unilateral withdrawal of the united states from the a.t.m. treat pep that is a step which pushes us all toward a new spiral of confrontation because it shifts the global security system as the original conflicts, wherever they happen. curiously, warring parties always find arms somewhere. and the same goes about the eastern part of ukraine. what i want to say is that if today's situation is resolved have a political means no-- via political means no arms will be required. but to achieve that there has to be good will, as well as the

willingness to be engaged in a direct dialogue. we want to facilitate that. we are going to facilitate that but we will never agree if anyone somewhere will try to speak from the position of force, either with the police or the militia or special forces or armed forces. until armed units and the so-called nationalists battalions arrived in those territories, no arms have been-- and there would be no arms in those territories if they tried from the very outset to resolve the issue by political means. arms right after armed forces started to be used against the rebels. they're trying to resist, and once they try to resolve it by political means, no arms will be required.

( applause ) >> rose: re acceptable borders for ukraine for russia? what borders are acceptable for you? >> ( translated ): what do you mean when are you talking about borders? geographical borders or political borders? what are you talking about specifically? as for cooperation, we have always said-- and we are going to say that in future, there's nothing new about that. despite all the difficulties of today, i have always thought that ukrainians and russians are one people, one ethnic group. while certainly lay out their cultural-- but they have common culture, common ritual,

foundation common history. whenever happens in the end russia and ukraine are destined to a common security from the very beginning we have thought that ukraine has the right to make choice, civilization, economic, political choice. it is no secret. we all know it was russia who initiated the disintegration of the u.s.s.r. we initiated sovereignty to all these countries and nothing happened. russia and ukraine, apart from being bound by those ties that i have told you about they're also bound by the realities of today, the common engineering

infrastructure, the common energy infrastructure the common transportation. uniform regulation framework. and we can also speak one language with no hind rinses. and it is related to us directly, and it is related to our interests. we've always assumed that we are going to resolve all controversies, and it's quite natural that controversies arrive by negotiation. the first part is to be engaged in this process, they have, we believe, to take into account our interests as well, and not just try to put us before a choice. so in the political dimension we look forward to a full-fledged and equal dialogue. ( applause ) >> rose: i want to come back

to ukraine but let's talk about the relationship that russia has with a number of countries, including the united states and china and others. characterize the relationship with the united states. what's wrong with it? what's right with it? what does it need? >> ( translated ): in other words, what are the positive sides and what are the problems? let's start with the problems. the problem consists and they're trying to impose on us their decisions and their standards about how we understand our own interests, as much as they are trying to say they know better what we need. let us decide ourselveses what are our interests, what are our needs based on our history on our culture. ( applause ) >> rose: how are they doing

that? how is the united states trying to decide what you need? >> ( translated ): interfering into our internal political processes. including by imposing decisions on international security. i mentioned the problems we faced for the first time, this cool down our relations. i'm referring to iraq. it is not a dialogue. it is an ultimatum. we are not to be talked to in the language of ultimatum. ultimatum. now, things that bring us together. there are some. we are united by our desire to

work against common threats, which includes terrorism, drug trafficking, and the very dangerous trend of the possibility of weapons of mass destruction. now, about humanitarian interaction,... there are global economy issues. first of all i'm referring to the area where we are can our influence. there are other areas in which we have established decent interaction and hopefully that will form the groundwork to

restore the are-- now china the level of trust in our relations have reached an unprecedented scale an importance in the history. for 40 years, we have been negotiating on the border issue. we have found-- reached acceptable compromises. and this issue is no longer there. we have settled it. for 40 years. and not always do we manage to-- we develop economic contacts. we are actively cooperating within the framework of international organizations within the framework of the united nations. we are developing new integration processes which are

quite efficient, and attractive for other countries. the shanghai cooperation organization, it was established to settle border issues. but it didn't stop there. and now this organization is attractive for many other countries. the next summit, a decision might be made to receive pakistan and india as full-fledged members of this organization. and we cooperate in the framework of other organizations. and in my speech i mentioned the need to undertake concerted effort and to bring together the... economic union. we are establishing real estate alations in this as well. china is our largest trade and

economic partners and our relations are very efficient. >> rose: some say it's a natural relationship because china has cash and russia has natural resources, so there's a natural affinity right there. >> ( translated ): well, i am sure you know about that. you are just pretending you are not familiar with it. the political experts speak about the united states turning towards china. china is a growing economy. if anyone is... with the declining growth rateses, chine at 10% growth, the highest in the world. it's not only russia. the whole world is turning

towards asia. europe is interested in it as well, and we are destined to do that because we are neighbors. it is a natural movement and development. besides, there are many values which are common for us, equal access to addressing international issues. ( applause ) >> rose: is it a more natural affinity than europe and the united states? is china more in the future a place that russia feels more comfortable than with europe and the united states? and could that lead to some anti-western alliance? anti-western, anti-american alliance between---- >> ( translated ): well,

china, including us, are not forging relations against someone. we are not building alliances against anyone. we are building alliances for implementing and meeting our own national interests. i draw your attention to that fact that are-- nato. there is no soviet union anymore, but nato was created as a counter-weight to the soviet union and the-- nato keeps expanding, but we don't create any military lines with china. we do not tend to adopt a bloc-based approach. what we're trying to do is aadopt a global approach. we are trying to distribute the responsibilities to find acceptable compromises.

they are never based on the position of force. we are trying to find new solutions within the framework of negotiations. ( applause ) >> rose: to have read much about you and your country there are three things that i constantly see. one is your sense of wanting to be respected. another is to want to have an equal conversation. a third is a sense of, perhaps in your history, a great concern about borders and having a buffer zone for russia. am i accurate in that? a buffer zone would be ukraine. a buffer zone would be-- >> ( translated ): well, i keep hearing that russia wants to be respected. don't you want to be respected? isn't there anyone who wants to

be-- to be humiliated? that is a strange way to see things. an exclusion which russia demands to be respected. is there anyone who wants to be neglectd andneglectd and humiliated? the thing is we want to meet our own interests without detriment to our partners. but... a constructive and substantial dialogue. and when there is none, or an unwillingness to talk to us, then there is a counter-response on our side. i will tell you an interesting story. it has to do with the so-called

partnership promoted by our colleagues and friends in europe. by the way -- our first response to the partnership initially was very positive. we assumed that russia and european countries are linked by by-- affects common technical regulations, common infrastructure, economic ties, and we believe that if europe started working with them, inevitably a constructive dialogue would be launched, interaction with russia. we would continue working some

divergences, some convergences, d some acceptable solutions to create a common economic and final-- how did the crisis in ukraine emerge? ukraine was proposed to sign an association agreement. as everybody knows ukraine is a... area member within the framework. and it is ukraine who insisted on establishing-- there are incentives and benefits. for 17 years we have been negotiating on the conditions of our succession to the w.t.o. and-- isn't the way people do things, we answered it is none of your business. is it the way issues are discussed and settled, particularly with russia?

is itit is not just about respect. we want our interested protected. >> rose: are the me talk about a couple of places where there is a dramatic need for cooperation between the united states and russia. one is iran and the nuclear negotiations and the p-5 plus 1. do you think there will be an agreement? and what kind of agreement do you want to see? >> ( translated ): well, the first thing which i'd like to highlight and which i think of the principal matter, we have a common understanding with all the participants of this process, including the u.s. including the european countries, and i hope that with iran as well, that all of us are against the w.m.d.s spreading throughout the territories. and this is our principal position and this is what helps

us to constructly work with the united states in this direction. we are very glad that the iranian position has changed a lot, which allowed us to achieve the level of agreement which we have today. we will support these agreements, of course, and these arrangements. the only counter-productive thing is, i think it would be to especially undermind the agreement by demanding iran to do something which it can't do, which is is not quite important to soft main nonproliferation problem. but i really hope it would not come to this. in the nearest time, when do we have to sign it? when it is ready he said. when it's ready.

i believe that in some time there will be a signing. and we met the secretary-general of the i.a.e.a. and after the signing, there must be implementation of the arrangements which will require about six months. but there is another important thing. it is important that your country, the u.s., would support such initiative for the congress to support it, it is important. we know discussions are ongoing in the u.s. now that the president has the right sosign these agreements, that they do not need ratification by the congress. that is not our problem. we can't solve it because we can't even solve some problems for the key authorities and the washington authorities, either. so i believe that is on your side now. and we expect that among all the

difficulties,... will achieve the result, which would be one of the main-- his main achievements in the foreign policy. >> rose: you do believe there lawyer an agreement, according to what prime minister lavrov is telling you? >> ( translated ): yes i do believe in tand we are aimed at achieving this result because it is very important to defuse the situation. but of the same importance is the following thing. all the countries in the region must not feel that there is a moment coming for them after which they can expect the aggravation of the situation, or some threat emerging. we can't let this happen this feeling to emerge. russia is is aimed at developing good neighborly relationed, both with iran and with all the countries in the region. >> rose: one other foreign policy issue before we turn to

the economy and the global considerations that have been raised by a number of speakers here. this afternoon. it is syria. do you see a way out of this? because russia has been supporting the assad government. iran ha been supporting the assad government. yet, it seems to be like a pendulum swinging one way and then the other. what is your solution to a terrible civil war with millions of refugees? and when can it be done? trab tranwell, the-- >> ( translated ): well, the sooner the better, i think, but at the same time, i'd like to highlight one thing. our position is based on the concern that syria might submerge into the same situation as lebanon.

sor sorry, as libya. that was a slip of the tongue. yes, lib ra. that syria can become libya or like iraq. because you know, before the authorities in iraq and saddam hussein himself were destroyed, there were no terrorists there. there had been no terrorists. let's not forget that. actually, people prefer not to speak about that. but who created the conditiones and how the conditions were create forward terrorism to exist in that territory? isn't that clear how? after the invasion to iraq, the authorities have been destroyed, saddam was hanged, and then the isis came there the islamic state. and what happened in libya? no state at all. even the diplomatic service of the u.s. have felt losses and

we know-- and we do not want similar scenario to be implemented in syria. that is the baseline of our position to support president assad and his government at the moment. and we believe that-- we believe that the position is correct because it would be difficult to expect anything else from us under the circumstances. moreover, as i think many people even agree with that position. and i have mentioned for several times, iraq, i've mentioned iraq several times. we know the situation there. we know what is happening. the u.s. are supporting iraq now. they are arming the army. they trained the soldiers. and with two or three troops the isis captured so many weapons, that iraq army even doesn't have it. the automatic weapons, missiles et cetera, i don't think it's

the knowledge of the broad community, but now isis is armed better than the iraq army supported by the u.s. okay, they've withdrawn, but our special specials and information from iraq show thousands of american troops are still in iraq. and what is the result? quite a sad one, and quite a tragic one. and we would not like the same thing to be repeated in syria. and we are urging all our partners, including the u.s., the europeans, but primarily the u.s., to take additional efforts to make additional efforts to fight this absolute evil of fundamentalism, and the so-called islamic state. and some other groups of the same kind, which in the essence are just branches of the notorious terrorist organizations, global terrorist

organizations, which actually struck upon the earth themselves. we are urging to find the political settlement way which of course, would provide for transformation of the political regime, and we are ready to discuss that with president assad as well. by the way just recently, in the u.n., there's an opportunity of cooperation... was declared in struggling with isis and other terrorist groups information, and we are ready to work with the president for the sake of providing political transformation. for all the people living in syria feeling the access to instrumentes of power, of course, in order to avoid the military solution of the conflict. it can't be done from outside with the use of force. that's the matter. ( applause ) >> rose: but are you prepared to urge assad to step down if it

would lead to an alternative political solution that would be a bull work against isis going into damascus? >> ( translated ): well, our moderator is a real american. i would say without external interference, and he is saying, "would i be ready to urge." only syrian people can urge the president to step down. that's elementary. i said we are ready to be in a dialogue with president assad in the direction of him meeting the the-- and making the political reforms with the representatives of the saul healthy opposition. i believe that is quite constructive and implementable. thank you. ( applause ) >> rose: mr. president, let me turn this back to the economy although i have many, many questions, as you can imagine. with respect to much you have heard about china today, what

are the possibilities, do you believe, for a relationship, an increasingly beneficial relationship of some significance between russia and china? >> ( translated ): the russian and chinese relations in economy must be filled with practical content and work. not only at the level of the largest countries, but at the level of the s.m.e.s as well. for it to become a real live issue of joint work in many areas of joint production. at the same time, china is our first trade partner. we have 85 billion dollars per year turnover. and yesterday i spoke about that with the first deputy of state, deputy president of the state council. and also i discuss-- i believe we could achieve $200 billion

turnover. of course, you've voiced the right idea. we must be careful of creating the necessary conditions to cooperate. that concerns us and our chinese partners. i mentioned in my speech that we are not limiting the flow of capital in any way even under the most difficult conditions of the crisis of 2008, 2009. even last year, we did not put barriers to the flow of capital. but we do expect that our partners within their own regulatory measures would act in a similar way because the u.n. is becoming stronger and stronger regional reserve currency. that's the fact. and the experts understand that the lack of capital flow freedom, capital movement freedom. if that happens, it would be another serious step to liberalize our relations.

and we understand quite well that our chinese partners must be careful in implementing that, and they know better when they should spruce these other unders. but an important step to deepen and expand our relations would be a decision to... our state operations in national currency,... and rubles. and recently trading in the currency, ruble and it will create additional opportunities for working in the real economy areas. but on the whole i yeah completely. we must move forward and not be oriented only on the governmental arrangements for

the decisions taken by sovereign-- et cetera. it's, of course, very important too, because it create the platform for further cooperation, broader cooperation, that we are working on that and we will move forward. >> rose: i listened to you say that the impact of sanctions may have been exaggerated elsewhere. how do you see the opportunities and the necessities for the full exphoi exploitation or the full advancement of the russian economy? >> ( translated ): speaking about the sanctions, the situation is not that bad. there are pluses and minuses. this is a period when we are implementing structural changes and when we can take steps that will be opening new long-term prospects, and that will allow us to bring good results in

future. you mentioned sanctions and you asked about what we are planning to do in order to overcome the current difficulties. i've characterized the situation that we are facing today and it is very far from a catastrophe. they are not as ambitious as they go... several years ago. but i hope they will allow us to achieve a level of quality than before. what you are trying to achieve is, first, to ensure the growth of our economy for the forecast coming year. -- forthcoming year. the growth has to be about 3.5%, which is the average economic growth in the world. we also have to provide for our labor issues. to reach 5% annually. and the third... i would like to mention is the inflation rate. it has to be decreased to 4%.

this is what we would like to achieve. in order to do that, we have to carry out a balanced and coordinated policy. all the trends are you witnessing now in our economy, allow us to believe the goals are achievable and we hope we will be able to reach them in the near future. we would not like to respond to any destructive actions that our partners are imposing on us, even to the detriment of their own economy. based on the calculations, including on those of our european partners, some of them even measure losses of $40 billion or $50 billion. based on the recent details they have heard from europe, experts believe the loss amounts to $100 billion. our turnover with europe has decreased almost by a third or

by a quarter. pie a quarter. and with your country, with the the united states, the turnover growth is 5.6%. speaking about the the flow of goods into the russian federation, their volume has decreased a little. imports have decreased by twice. it was... to $30 billion and now it is just $15 billion. and that the structure of the turnover when it demonstrated growth-- i 19, the roork-u.s. turnover, the ipport has increased by about 11%. if it does not compensate for

the losses know for sure, no one wants to bear any losses at all. and speaking about the decrease in our country in europe they're talking about stagnation, and what do we have to do in order to ensure unconditional growth of the global economy, and ensure growth in russia and europe and all the countries of the world, we confidential have to stop imposing sanctions. and i would like to emphasize all the sanctions imposed by the united nations are legitimate and thinking about how to achieve all those goals. we are going to import economic freedoms. to ensure competitive jurisdiction and also deal with human resources training and management system. >> rose: the relationship with germany, a strong economic power, and you've had a very good relationship with chancellor merkel.

where does-- how do you see the future of russia's relationship with germany? >> ( translated ): well, the future of relations between russia and other partner country depends not just on russia. it's to-- we cannot achieve positive results-- we have tried to develop relationships with many-- my colleague just spoke about large number of german companies that are present on the western market. we're talking about six,200 companies, and the old state about 100-- but they remain present and they remain active, moreover. i mentioned new enterprises opening up. one was launched today.

and german companies, among others, were involved. we have cooperation with them. and we're not planning to disrupt or limit this cooperation. and this is not something that german businesses are-- we have very good, reliable long-standing relations with them, and we will do our utmost to preserve and develop them for the sake of roork germany, european continent in general and global economy alike. we spoke about the current state of the global economy. we are all aware that in general... highlighting two big issues -- low growth rate, some of them speak about stagnation, and experts think that the situation is likely to remain the same for some 24 months. and the second problem is

excessive growth of ket, but it that impeedz growth. you talking about europe, look at what is happening. germany is sheeg very moderate growth, 1% last year. look at france, 0.7%. italy things are all right. for a number of years they have had zero growth. in japan it's minus by the way. that said, it is obvious we all need additional points of growth, incentive for development. the problem of greece is not just a problem for greece but for all of europe. i even took note of that. but when you owe somebody-- you know, it's not just your problem.

but look at what happened. integration processes offer a lot of benefits, open markets but there are also downfalls. you cannot regulate national currency baz there is no longera i national currency. you cannot manage your agriculture, tourism-- there are restrictions. there are limitations. so it has to be very balanced. but we are curious-- we are following very closely what is happening in europe because they are a major trading partner. the volume of trade behind down, significantly so but europe still remains a leading trading partner. and germany is number one out of all european countries. and i hope that problems will go away and we'll continue developing relationships further. we are prepared.

prauz. >> rose: you have been generous in your time mr. president, here in st. petersburg at this forum. one last question from me. the role that russia wants to play in the world in 2015. i've listed a number of hot issues whether it is your borders and whether it's the baltic states or whether it is ukraine in the middle east there is isis and there is syria. there's a relationship within the united states. and at the same time, some people have said that you have more unconstrained power than any russian leader for a while. my question is how do you see and how will you play a role in these big problems and where you will take the initiative because

of how you and your leadership has changed russia. cloorl, you're stronger militarily. clearly, are you seen to be more aggressive-- although you don't like me to use that word, i suspect. but how do you make russia a serious part of the solution as the great power it is? >> ( translated ): i did not like you using the term "aggressive." correct. we are not being aggressive. ( applause ) we are persistent. we are consistent in pursuing our interests than before. for a long time for decades, we were silent. we put on the tabling various options for cooperation, but we're pushed farther and farther away until the red line we

cannot cross. and i want to make that very clear. i said at the very beginning of our discussion, one should not try to change the global landscape. we'd rather take things as they stand and work in the spirit of mutual respect. jointly look for solutions to solve problems. russia is not striving for dominance or be recognized as a superpower. we are not imposing our standards on anyone. what we are seeking are equal partnerships with all members of the international community-- united states european partners, and asia, a like. we will base it on mutual respect and equality. this is what we will be guided by. when it comes to international cooperation, we remain committed. we adhere to the principle of

international law, fundamental instruments such as the u.n. charter, and when it comes to the economy the economic forum, we will try to make the economy more efficient. try to diversify it. we'll try to make sure that through this-- by the way we're planning to allocate over 2.5 trillion rubles very shortly. we are planning to build high-tech production where we can and must be more competitive and not just to make sure that we're capable to defend ourselves. but to develop our economy, to open new prospects for development, to raise living standards and prosperity levels for our people. ( applause ) >> rose: we live in a complex

world, and thank you so much for being here in your home town to talk about these issues. ( applause ) >> ( translated ): thank you very much. i thank all the participants. all the panelists. all of you that came to st. petersburg economic forum. thank you for being so friendly. seriously. no i mean it. it was a friendly discussion. well, some points were difficult, but still very friendly. i thank you your team, you're the big boss. and there is a charming young lady sitting opposite who kept showing you some papers. she was probably guiding you. you know, women can be in the shadow, but they do the difficult task.

please stand up and let us give a round of applause to the charming young lady. >> rose: that's my executive producer. yvette vaguer. thank you. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

announcer: a kqed television production. man: it's like holy mother of comfort food. kastner: throw it down. it's noodle crack. patel: you have to be ready for the heart attack on a platter. crowell: okay, i'm the bacon guy, right? man: oh, i just did a jig every time i dipped into it. man #2: it just completely blew my mind. woman: it felt like i had a mouthful of raw vegetables and dry dough. sbrocco: oh, please. i want the dessert first! [ laughs ] i told him he had to wait.