address as the signal speech of the president's overseas trip this week. he's going to be speaking from the very heart of europe at a time when the relationship with his european allies is more important than ever. russia's takeover of crimea has shaken that continent to its core. yesterday, president obama, of course, attempted to minimize the threat russia and putin pose. take a listen. >> america's got a whole lot of challenges. russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors. not out of strength, but out of weakness. >> oh no he didn't! we will bring you the president's remarks right as they happen live here, and we'll go in-depth with some very interesting experts on this subject. first, i'm going to go to my colleague chuck todd, who is traveling with the president, and has the inside scoop on this. chuck, what do you expect will

be the main theme of the president's remarks? >> well, ronan, it's interesting, three months ago this was all going to be about trade. this was all going to be about economic ties between europe and the united states. because that was the big agenda for the president on this trip. that's no longer the case. this is beginning to be more of the president's vision about what he believes the long-term security alliance should be between europe and the united states. and almost trying to rally europeans to say, who are we him rhetorically, but of course on the ground economically it's a different story. but saying all the work that's been done over the last 70 years. developing these ties, developing these new international norms, russia is trying to rewrite the playbook here. redraw lines. you know, this type of stuff cannot stand. and he's going to be making that sort of larger case, larger visionary case of saying, you know, this is why you've got to sort of set aside your own personal interests, country x, country y here in europe and say

hey, for the long term, it's important to, you know, not allow what putin pulled in ukraine to stand, why it's necessary to push back. so it will be -- i think it is fascinating to think that it wasn't that long ago when it seems as if the europeans were begging the united states to get more involved in europe again, and now here we are at a moment in time because of what russia pulled and it's the united states trying to get europe to be more -- to play more of the role that they used to play, which is banding together with the united states to be a check on the east and on russia specifically. >> chuck, just very quickly, it looks like we are approaching the president coming out and delivering his remarks, but he did have a press availability earlier. how was that received? >> it seemed to be received fine. he spent a lot of time talking about -- you know, he's pushing this trade agreement in particular that frankly is going to be tough politically for him to sell back in the united

states, particularly in his own party. but that was the top of the agenda for those meetings here, although, of course, you crane a b -- ukraine a big part of the agenda, too. he has a meeting with the head of nato, where we expect some more advancement of exactly what the president himself said. he made a little bit of news on nato. he said it would be nice if european nations contributed a little bit more money to nato. >> all right. thank you so much, chuck todd. always appreciate your being here. we are approaching the president coming out and delivering these remarks. he has concluded his meeting with the secretary-general of nato, and we have some highlights from that meeting. he reiterated his call for nato support as a bedrock of european security. he talked a little bit about afghanistan and the fact that they are still awaiting a security agreement there. he highlighted the fact that nato is indispensable, which is an interesting observation at a time when there are deep budget cuts to nato. so we're still awaiting him

walking out. it should happen any moment. in the meantime, let's dig a little deeper into what we can expect. these are being billed by the white house as a signaling moment. we'll see what they signal. joining me for that are ian bremmer, the author of "every nation for itself." he's a major voice on shifts in the world economy. and jeffrey sax, director of the earth institute at columbia university. dubbed by "time" magazine as the world's best known economist. i go to both of you. let me start with you, ian bremmer. what do you think of the united states' culpability in how we go to this situation, this standoff with russia? >> well, i do think that the u.s. media has really focused on putin is a very bad guy. a lot of demonization. clearly there's a lot of blood on his hands in ukraine right now. but the united states and the europeans have very little interest in providing support for the ukrainian government when they wanted it, which meant they had nowhere to turn but to

russia. of course, when the ukrainians came to blows and there was a european attempt to actually form a deal between the ukrainian government and the opposition, that deal was aggravated by the nationalist and ukrainian government almost immediately. the russians took strong exception. the americans and the europeans ran with it, which led to the russians and the americans having a very severe standoff, and then of course, we saw the invasion in crimea. clearly, you can't say putin is not to blame. but we have to understand that it's actually -- it takes two to tango here. we both moved a long way to get into this crisis and we've seen only escalation. >> of course, it's an interesting moment for the president to be speaking about his relationships at stake, because right now stateside, we've seen some big reforms to the imf and monetary support for states like ukraine blocked on the hill. that's a subject that's apparently come up in european discussions. so we'll see whether he addresses that in this speech. i'll turn to you, jeff sax.

what do you think we'll get out of this speech? >> he's going to say that the united states stands with nato and stands against any further russian aggression, clearly. i think so far the response has been properly calibrated. because starting a new cold war right now is not very desirable, and it could turn into something far more dangerous. while there's a lot of heated voices right now and everybody loves to shake the fists and escalate and blame everything on putin, as ian just said, really it's important to try to keep this calmer and take a longer view. what russia did is very serious. and absolutely against international principles and law. we also violate international law often as well. we don't want to go to blows

over this. and the idea that putin is about to invade the baltics or to invade kiev i find fanciful. if that were to happen, we would have a disaster on our hands. no question. but i don't think it's going to happen. i hope that president obama stays with a moderate view and doesn't play in, and he's hearing from the right, how soft, this is munich, this is all of the claims made of his weakness and that's how the republicans, especially on the right, are going to play it. but he has to be very careful to remain calm, calibrated and not go too far. >> and you mentioned strength and weakness. i want to ask you, again, just reminding those tuning in from home. we are waiting live on the president's remarks. he should be walking out at any moment on to that podium. we're previewing some of the themes that have come up in this trip that he is likely to discuss. it's supposed to be a signaling

trip. the crux of his new agenda at a time of new importance for those relationships. but you mentioned strength and weakness and the hope for a lack of bellicosity. a calming sense in these remarks. that's not really the tone he's adopted in the past days. he had a sort of dig, if you will, at vladimir putin. poopooing russia's significance. do you think that's belied by the fact that he has spent all of this time shoring up these european relationships as a sort of counterbalance? >> i think it's not smart, by the way, to needle your adversary. it's not the right approach to humiliate the other side, to score debating points. the right approach is to try to solve the crisis and a better way to solve the crisis in general is not to humiliate the foe, but to find a way out. >> we have a speech right now, and we have an opportunity for obama to really set the policy going forward. because the policy thus far has

not been particularly clear. secretary kerry said if we were going to see putin proceed with annexation, that would be the end of diplomacy. how do you deal with that? kerry said every option was on the table. obama said very quickly after that, actually, we're not going to consider any military interventions in ukraine. >> they're more dependent on russia. >> they're much more exposed to russian energy, to russian banks, to living and buying property. the united states told the russians don't you dare, and they did it. okay, that's done. crimea, we can say that we want them out of crimea, but we all know, and obama's guys have said privately, we know they're not going anywhere. so given that, what can we do going forward? the g8 is done. the u.s.-russia relations, they have been reset again.

what are we going to do going forward? this is really what we need to hear from obama at this speech. this is the signal opportunity he has in europe with america's european allies. by far the most important geopolitical crisis obama has had to deal with since 9/11 for the united states. a very important foreign policy speech, for a president who doesn't want to focus on foreign policy. it's a big challenge for him. >> his administration has been dragged kicking and screaming into this at a time when he was so hoping the united states would stand on its own and he could focus on the positive messaging back home. we are getting word that we're drawing closer to president obama walking out and delivering a very significant foreign policy speech. scheduled to be 45 minutes long. it's supposed to be a long, substantial speech here. almost state of the union-like. on foreign policy at a time when his agenda was supposed to be pivoting towards the domestic. i want to go now, since so much of this is hinging on the situation in ukraine, to our reporter in ukraine.

he is on the news monitoring the situation there. i want to get the latest as we go into these remarks. what is the atmosphere like there? >> there's no doubt that people in ukraine are following the situation very closely. some of the people i've been speaking to have expressed both reservation and optimism about the fact that russia has amassed 30,000 soldiers on the border. they don't think that russia is likely to invade or perhaps push forward any of its forces in to ukraine. but there's no doubt they do believe russia is continuously attempting to play a bigger role in the eastern part of the country. one of the scenarios we've been talking to, and this is something that russia itself has raised, is that the russian foreign ministry put out a statement making allegations against the government in ukraine, preventing russian airline pilots from leaving the airplane, but also restricting

the access of russian citizens coming into the eastern part of the country. why that's important is because of the fact that the ukrainian government is concerned that pro-russian activists may be coming into the country and trying to increase, or perhaps raise some demonstrations, which can then be used as a pretext for russia to say we have interest in the country, we have to get involved to protect our citizens. that was an argument made when it comes to crimea. saying they are ethnic russians. we have to enter ukraine and crimea to protect our citizens and interests and that's an argument that could be made for the eastern part of the country. it is a tense situation all along the eastern part of the country. ronan? >> thank you so much. a really helpful overview there. we've just seen footage of the king and queen of belgium. dignitaries are approaching.

there's an introduction to president obama that's going to hear. we'll hear some of what she's saying. and we may go back to analysis as we await the president himself. >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome. like many who work for the eu institutions, i began my journey further afield -- >> so while we monitor to see whether anything of significance comes out of the introduction, let's go to a last question. we just heard in eamon that people on the ground in ukraine find it farfetched that russia would extend further into their borders. we've been doing a lot of reporting all week on this subject, particularly with ukrainian americans. there was a lot of anxiety even in the ukrainian community in the united states that that eventuality may happen. ian bremmer, what do you think of that? >> i think it's unlikely to happen absent provocation. provocations can happen very easily. they can be set by ethnic russians. you can have ukrainian

nationalists with violence on the ground. the governance of this ukrainian -- the acting ukrainian government is very weak. it doesn't really extend yet to eastern ukraine. as a consequence, the lawlessness, the potential for violence, the perceived need that the russians might react, that is very significant. so i agree, you have 30,000 troops on the border, they're engaged in training, blustering, showing str ining strength, buto order for them to go in. >> jeffrey sachs, do you think he'll address that question of further ambitions from russia? >> he's going to try to draw lines, no question. i do think there will be a significant geopolitical difference of any kind of russian invasion from eastern ukraine, from what's happening, to secede and to annex itself into russia. but if russia were to move in millitarily, directly through an

invasion, i think the game would change absolutely dramatically. and i suspect that putin knows that and i suspect that he does not plan to do that. many people claim putin will go further and that he has grand ambitions. this is a real question, real test, if he does and moves over borders in that way with his troops, we are in a very, very dangerous situation. >> ian bremmer, how important is this speech for president obama's legacy? >> oh, it's very important for his legacy internationally. it's not important at all for his legacy domestically. that is, of course, the problem. i've seen obama say that "i've got so many days and so many hours left in my tenure and i'm going to spend every single day working to create jobs in the united states." well, he's not doing that in this speech. this is not about obamacare. >> do you think americans are tuned in to this debate? >> no, i don't. i hope they are right now because they're watching us. but i don't think they are. i don't think americans care about ukraine. they're concerned about it, but

overwhelmingly we have polls in the last few days saying americans want to stay on the sidelines here. american allies across the board have increasingly over the last year wondered very openly about what kind of american commitment we have to them. allies in the middle east, saudi arabia, allies in asia, like japan, south korea. allies in europe like germany following the snowden scandal. following the syria debacle. this is by far the largest crisis that obama has had to respond to and american allies want to know, what kind of role does america want to have? we apparently do want to be the world's private investigator, but that doesn't go over very well. so obama has to tell these guys who the u.s. is. >> and an apathy towards this situation, means there is a built-in cost for the president spending time and energy on this issue. this is distracting from his meat and potatoes issues. >> he's not doing well on his

meat and potatoes issues, so maybe a bit of a distraction is good. >> we are going live to the president. take a listen. he's about to give his speech in belgium addressing the u.s.-eu relations. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you very much. thank you. please, have a seat. good evening. thank you, laura, for that remarkable introduction.

before she came out, she told me not to be nervous. and i can only imagine -- i think her father is in the audience, and i can only imagine how proud he is of her. we're grateful for her work, but she's also reminding us that our future will be defined by young people like her. your majesties, mr. prime minister, and the people of belgium, on behalf of the american people, we are grateful for your friendship. we stand together as inseparable allies. and i thank you for your wonderful hospitality. i have to admit it is easy to love a country famous for chocolate and beer. [ laughter ] leaders and dignitaries of the

european union, representatives of our nato alliance, distinguished guests, we meet here at a moment of testing for europe and the united states. and for the international order that we have worked for generations to build. throughout human history, societies have grappled with fundamental questions of how to organize themselves. the proper relationship between the individual and the state. the best means to resolve inevitable conflicts between states. and it was here in europe through centuries of struggle, through war and enlightenment, repression and revolution that a particular set of ideals began to emerge.

the belief that through conscience and free will, each of us has the right to live as we choose. the belief that power is derived from the consent of the government and the laws and institutions should be established to protect that understanding. and those ideas eventually inspired a band of colonialists across a nation and they wrote them into the founding documents that still guide america today. including the simple truth that all men and women are created equal. but those ideals have also been tested, here in europe and around the world. those ideals have often been threatened by an older, more traditional view of power.

this alternative vision argues that ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs. that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign. often, this alternative vision roots itself in the notion that by virtue of race or faith or ethnicity, some are inherently superior to others. and that individual identity must be defined by us versus them. or that national greatness must flow not by what people stand for, but what they are against. in so many ways, the history of europe in the 20th century represented the ongoing clash of these two sets of ideas. both within nations and among

nations. the advance of industry and technology outpaced our ability to resolve our differences peacefully. and even among the most civilized of societies on the surface, we saw a dissent into b barbarism. this morning i was reminded how wars sent generations of people to their deaths in the trenches and gas of the first world war. and just two decades later, extreme nationalism plunged this continent into war once again with populations enslaved and great cities reduced to rubble, and tens of millions slaughtered, including those lost in the holocaust. it is in response to this tragic history, that in the aftermath of world war ii, america joined

with europe to reject the darker forces of the past. and build a new architecture of peace. workers and engineers gave life to the marshall plan. sentinels stood vigilant in a nato alliance that would become strongest the world has ever known. and across the atlantic, we embraced a shared vision of europe. a vision based on representative democracy, individual rights, and a belief that nations can meet the interests of their citizens through trade and open markets. a social safety net. respect for those of different faiths and backgrounds. for decades, this vision stood in sharp contrast to life on the other side of an iron curtain.

for decades, a contest was waged, and ultimately, that contest was won, not by tanks or missiles, but because our ideals stirred the hearts of hungarians who sparked a revolution. poles in their shipyards who stood in solidarity. czechs who waged a revolution without firing a shot. and these berliners who marched past the guards and finally tore down that wall. today, what would have seemed impossible in the trenches of flanders, the residents of berlin, a dissident's prison cell, that reality is taken for granted. a germany unified. the nations of central and eastern europe welcomed into the

family of democracies. here in this country, once the battleground of europe, we meet in the hub of a union that brings together age old adversaries in peace and cooperation. the people of europe, hundreds of millions of citizens, east, west, north, south, are more secure and more prosperous because we stood together for the ideals we share. and this story of human progress was by no means limited to europe. indeed, the ideals that came to define our alliance also inspired movements across the globe. among those very people ironically who had too often been denied their full rights by western powers. after the second world war, people from africa to india threw off the yolk of

colonialism to secure their independence. in the united states, citizens took freedom rides and endured beatings to put an end to segregation and to secure their civil rights. as the iron curtain fell here in europe, the iron first of apartheid was clinched and nelson mandela emerged upright, proud from prison to lead a multi-racial democracy. latin america nations rejected dictatorship and built new democracies. asian nations showed the development and democracy could go hand in hand. the young people in the audience today, young people like laura were born in a place and time where there is less conflict, more prosperity, and more freedom than any time in human

history. but that's not because man's darkest impulses have vanished. even here in europe. we've seen ethnic cleansing in the balkans that shocked the conscious. the difficulties of integration and globalization recently amplified by the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes strained the european project. and stirred the rise of a politics that too often targets immigrants or gays or those who seem somehow different. well, technology has opened up vast opportunities for trade and innovation and cultural understanding. it's also allowed terrorists to kill on a horrifying scale. around the world, sectarian warfare and ethnic conflicts continue to claim thousands of lives. and once again, we are confronted with the belief among some that bigger nations can bully smaller ones to get their

way. that recycled that might somehow make it right. so i come here to insist that we must never take for granted the progress that has been won here in europe and advanced around the world. because the contest of ideas continues. for your generation. and that's what's at stake in ukraine today. russia's leadership is challenging truths that only a few weeks ago seemed self-evident. that in the 21st century, the borders of europe cannot be redrawn with force. that international law matters. that people and nations can make their own decisions about their

future. to be honest, if we defined our interests narrowly, if we applied a coldhearted calculus, we might decide to look the other way. our economy is not deeply integrated with ukraine's. our people and our homeland face no direct threat from the invasion of crimea. our own borders not threatened by russia's annexation. but that kind of casual indifference would ignore the lessons that are written in the cemeteries of this cabinet. it would allow the old way of doing things. to regain a foothold in this young century. and that message would be heard not just in europe, but in asia, in the americas, in africa, and

the middle east. and the consequences that would arise from complacency are not abinstructi abstractions. the impact that they have on the lives of real people, men and women just like us have to enter into our imaginations. just look at the young people of ukraine, who are determined to take back their future from a government rotted by corruption. the portraits of the fallen shot by snipers. the visitors who pay their respects. there was the university student wrapped in the ukrainian flag expressing her hope that every country should live by the law. a post graduate student speaking of her fellow protesters saying i want these people who are here to have dignity.

imagine that you are the young woman who said there are some things that fear, police sticks, and tear gas cannot destroy. we've never met these people, but we know them. their voices echo calls for human dignity that rang out in european streets and squares for generations. their voices echo those around the world who at this very moment fight for their dignity. these ukrainians rejected a government that was stealing from the people instead of serving them. and are reaching for the same ideals that allow us to be here today. none of us can know for certain

what the coming days will bring in ukraine. but i am confident that eventually, those voices for human dignity and opportunity and individual rights and rule of law, those voices ultimately will triumph. i believe that over the long haul, as nations that are knee, as free people, the future is ours. i believe this not because i'm naive and i believe this not because of the strentd of ogth arms or the size of our economies, i believe this because these ideals that we affirm are true. these ideals are universal.

yes, we believe in democracy, with elections that are free and fair. and independent judiciaries and opposition parties. civil society. and uncensored information so that individuals can make their own choices. yes, we believe in open economies based on free markets and innovation and individual initiative and entrepreneurship and trade and investment that creates a broader prosperity. and yes, we believe in human dignity, that every person is created equal, no matter who you are or what you look look or who you love or where you come from. that is what we believe. that's what makes us strong. and our enduring strength is also reflected in our respect for an international system that protects the rights of both

nations and people. united nations in a universal declaration of human rights. international law and the means to enforce those laws. but we also know that those rules are not self-executed. they depend on people and nations of good will continually affirming them. that's why russia's violation of international law -- its assault on ukraine's sovereignty must be met with condemnation. not because we're trying to keep russia down, but because the principles that have meant so much to europe and the world must be lifted up. over the last several days, the united states, europe, and our partners around the world have been united in defense of these ideals.

and united in support of the ukrainian people. together we've condemned russia's invasion of ukraine and rejected the legitimacy of the crimean referendum. together, we have isolated russia politically, suspending it from the g8 nations, and downgrading our bilateral ties. together we are imposing costs through sanctions that have left a mark on russia and those accountable for its actions. and if the russian leadership stays on its current course, together we will ensure that this isolation deepens. sanctions will expand and the toll on russia's economy, as well as its standing in the world, will only increase. and meanwhile, the united states and our allies will continue to support the government of

ukraine as they chart a democratic course. together we are going to provide a significant package of assistance that can help stabilize the ukrainian economy and meet the basic needs of the people. make no mistake, neither the united states nor europe has any interest in controlling ukraine. we have sent no troops there. what we want is for the yaw cra -- ukrainian people to make their own decisions, just like other free people around the world. understand as well, this is not another cold war that we're entering into. after all, unlike the soviet union, russia leads no block of nations. no global ideology. united states and nato do not seek any conflict with russia. in fact, for more than 60 years, we have come together in nato

not to claim other lands, but to keep nations free. what we will do, always, is uphold our solemn obligation, our article 5 duty to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our allies. and in that promise, we will never waiver. nato nations never stand alone. today, nato plains patrol the skies over the baltics and we've reinforced our presence in poland and we're prepared to do more. going forward, every nato member state must step up and carry its share of the burden by showing the political will to invest in our collective defense. and by developing the capabilities to serve as a source of international peace and security.

of course, ukraine is not a member of nato. in part because of its close and complex history with russia. nor will russia be dislodged from crimea or deterred from further escalation by military force. but with time, so long as we remain united, the russian people will recognize that they cannot achieve a security, prosperity, and the status that they seek through brute force. that's why throughout this crisis, we will combine our substantial pressure on russia with an open door for diplomacy. i believe that for both ukraine and russia, a stable peace will come through deescalation, direct dialogue between russia and the government of ukraine and the international community, monitors who can ensure that the

rights of all ukrainians are protected. a process of constitutional reform within ukraine. and free and fair elections this spring. so far, russia has resisted diplomatic overtures, annexing crimea and massing large forces along ukraine's border. russia's justified these actions as an effort to prevent problems on its own borders. and to protect ethnic russians inside ukraine. of course, there is no evidence, never has been, of systemic violence against ethnic russians inside of ukraine. moreover, many countries around the world face similar questions about their borders and ethnic minorities abroad, about sovereignty and

self-determination. these are tensions in other places that have led to debate and democratic referendums. conflicts and uneasy co-existence, these are difficult issues and it is precisely because these questions are hard that they must be addressed through constitutional means and international laws. so that majorities can not simply suppress minorities and big countries can not simply bully the small. in depending its actions, russian leaders have further claimed kosovo as a precedent. an example they say of the west interfere flg ting in the affai smaller country, just as they're doing now. but nato only intervened after the people of kosovo were systematically killed and brutalized for years. and kosovo only left serbia after a referendum was organized

not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the united nations and with kosovo's neighbors. none of that even came close to happening in crimea. moreover, russia has pointed to america's decision to go into iraq as an example of western hypocrisy. now, it is true that the iraq war was a subject of vigorous debate. not just around the world, but in the united states as well. i participated in that debate. and i posed our military intervention there. but even in iraq, america sought to work within the international system. we did not claim or annex iraq's territory. we did not grab its resources for our own gain. instead, we ended our war and

left iraq to its people in a fully sovereign iraqi state that can make decisions about its own future. of course, neither the united states nor europe are perfect in adherence to our ideas. nor do we claim to be the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong in the world. we are human, after all. and we face difficult decisions about how to exercise our power. but part of what makes us different is that we welcome criticism. just as we welcome the responsibilities that come with global leadership. we look to the east and the south and see nations poised to play a growing role on the world stage and we consider that a

good thing. it reflects the same diversity that makes us stronger as a nation. and the forces of integration and cooperation that europe has advanced for decades and in a world of challenges that are increasingly global, all of us have an interest in nations stepping forward to play their part. to bear their share of the burden. and to uphold international norms. so our approach stands in stark contrast to the arguments coming out of russia these days. it is absurd to suggest as a study dream beat of russians do that america is somehow conspireing with fascists outside of ukraine or failing to respect the russian people. my grandfather served in patton's army, just as many of your fathers and grandfathers fought against fascism.

we americans remember well the unimaginable sacrifices made by the russian people in world war ii, and we have honored those sacrifices. since the end of the cold war, we have worked with russia under successive administrations to build ties of culture and commerce and international community. not as a favor to russia, but because it was in our national interests. and together we've secured nuclear materials from terrorists. we welcomed russia into the g8 and the world trade organization. from the reduction of nuclear arms to the elimination of syria's chemical weapons, we believe the world has benefited when russia chooses to cooperate on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect. so america and the world and europe has an interest in a strong and responsible russia.

not a weak one. we want the russian people to live in security, prosperity, and dignity like everyone else. proud of their own history. but that does not mean that russia can run rough shot over its neighbors. just because russia has a deep history with ukraine does not mean it should be able to dictate ukraine's future. no amount of propaganda can make right something that the world knows is wrong. in the end, every society must chart its own course. america's path or europe's path is not the only ways to reach freedom and justice. but on the fundamental principle

that is at stake here, the ability of nations and peoples to make their own choices, there can be no going back. it's not america that filled with protesters, it was ukrainians. no foreign forces compelled the citizens of tripoli to rise up. they did so on their own. from the burmese parliamenparlin fighting for reform, we see something that all of us share as human beings, a truth that will persevere in the face of violence and repression, and will ultimately overcome.

for the young people here today, i know it may seem easy to see these events as removed from our lives. remote from our daily routines, distant from concerns closer to home. i recognize that both in the united states and in much of europe, there's more than enough to worry about in the affairs of our own countries. there will always be voices who say that what happens in the wider world is not our concern. nor our responsibility. but we must never forget that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. our democracy, our individual opportunity only exists because those who came before us had the wisdom and the courage to recognize that ideals will only

endure if we see our self-interest in the success of other peoples and other nations. now is not the time for bluster. the situation in ukraine, like crises in many parts of the world, does not have easy answers. nor a military solution. but at this moment, we must meet the challenge to our ideas. to our very international order with strength and conviction. and it is you, the young people of europe, young people like laura, who will help deside which way the currents of our history will flow.

do not think for a moment that your own freedom, your own prosperity, that your own moral imagination is bound by the limits of your community, ethnicity, or even your country. you're bigger than that. you can help us to choose a better history. that's what europe tells us. that's what the american experience is all about. i say this as a president of a country that looked to europe for the values that are written into our founding do you means and which spilled blood to ensure that those values could endure on these shores. i also say this as the son of a kenyan whose grandfather was a cook for the british, and as a person who once lived in nearby

as it emerged from colonialism. the ideals that unite us matter equally to the young people of boston or brussels people of boston or brussels or jakarta or nairobi or krakow or kiev. in the end, the success of our ideals comes down to us, including the example of our own lives, our own societies. we know that there will always be intolerance, but instead of fearing the immigrant, we can welcome it. we can insist on policies that benefit the many, not just the few. that an age of globalization and dizzying change opens the door of opportunity to the marginalized and not just a privileged few. instead of targeting our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, we

can use our laws to protect their rights. instead of defining ourselves in opposition to others, we can affirm the aspirations that we hold in common. that's what will make america strong, that's what will make europe strong. that's what makes us who we are. and just as we meet our responsibilities as individuals, we must be prepared to meet them as nations. because we live in a world in which our ideals are going to be challenged. again and again. by forces that would drag us back into conflict or corruption. we can't count on others to rise to meet those tests. the policies of your government, the principles of your european union will make a critical

difference in whether or not the international order that so many generations before you have strived to create continues to move forward or whether it retreats. and that's the question we all must answer. what kind of europe, what kind of america, what kind of world will we leave behind? and i believe that if we hold firm to our principles and are willing to back our beliefs with courage and resolve, then hope will ultimately overcome fear, and freedom will continue to triumph over tyranny. because that is what forever stirs in the human heart. thank you very much.

>> all right. you have been watching president obama speaking live from brussels. one of the most significant foreign policy addresses of his career. he was speaking to an audience of 2,000 invited guests, most of them students, and he directly addressed that new generation of young europeans focusing a lot on broad statements of principle, but also drilling down on russia, accusing them of running roughshod, and that is an exact quote, over their neighbors, and talking about the way in which the international community and international law cannot tolerate that. we're, again, joined here by ian bremmer, president of the eurasia group. what do you think the main headline was? >> instead of a speech on the world order, it was a speech on democracy and values. it was not a pivotal speech.

it was a speech that starts to shift the way america talks about itself and internationally. a lot more responsibility without being the policeman. you know, i thought it was interesting in the sense that he really tried to move away from american exceptionalism. a lot of modesty on the united states doesn't always get it right, doesn't get international law right, all the rest, but this, what putin has done is beyond the pale and we need to hit him hard. having said that, that engagement was surrounded by ten minutes on the outside of history and marshall plan -- >> from world war i to nelson mandela. >> and at the end, too. i don't think you'll come out of this speech over next few days and say, aha, now we know where it's going. for me, the actually most important policy piece said that they think there'll be more sanctions on the russian ifs they continue present course. they don't need to go into east ukraine. simply not backing down means no new sanctions.

>> dr. saks, he's focused, as we just discussed, on very broad principles. let's play our first clip of him playing what's at stake here. >> including the simple truth that all men and women are created equal. but those ideals have also been tested here in europe and around the world. those ideals have often been threatened. >> when you start a speech in that very, very broad place of principle rather than pragmatism, does president obama risk burying the message to vladimir putin? >> the message wasn't all that sharp and all that clear and it was rather a verbose speech. there was a focus on international law and it was interesting that the president said, both parties in this current dispute have violated international law. i don't know if he went that far, but he did point to the iraq war, after all, that was an

unprovoked war by the united states, completely opposed inside the united nations, without u.n. sanction, ended up with at least 100,000 iraqis dead. i would say, much more serious violation of international law than this. he acknowledged, it was a little odd, but i hope that what comes out of this is a greater appreciation of international law. because that actually would be a way to start addressing this issue, as well. the united states has a lot after problems in that score. we have a lot of exceptionalists in the u.s. international law, forget it. but then, they want putin to obay international law. and it doesn't work that way. that you get to choose and you get to dictate to the other side. so either we have it or we don't. i like the fact that he came down on the side of international law, but that requires the united states to behave also. that, in my view, challenges what we're doing in syria. it challenges what the united states has done in many places. >> perhaps opened some doors to

questions about guantanamo bay. going back to you, ian bremmer, he talked directly to this young generation of europeans. he made some commitments about the future of our relationship with nato. let's play bite number three about nato. >> what we will do, always, is uphold our solemn obligation, our article v duty, to defend the sovereignty and territorial duty to our allies, and in that promise we will never waver. nato nations never stand alone. >> does this signal a meaningful shift in our relationship with europe? >> no, not really. the united states is clearly going to provide more military support to the europeans. they're clearly going to call for the europeans to do more lifting. you also have the polish government, which is scared to hell of what's happening in ukraine and pressing their friends, the germans, very hard, which is why merkel has gotten behind the sanctions, otherwise she probably wouldn't have.

so i think nato becomes more relevant as an organization in response to what the russians do to ukraine, but structurally you have a lot of nations that don't want to spend a lot of money. >> and we're seeing significant nato budget cuts. a lot to chew on with this speech. very significant, but a lot of broad statements of principle and a lot of questions outstanding about specifics and dr. sachs, your question about this iraq comparison is very interesting. i think we'll be seeing a lot of follow-up from that. well, thank you, both of you, for taking the time on this. and i'm sure we'll be coming back to this on future episodes. i would love to have you back for more. that wraps up this edition of "ronan taffafor arrow daily." now it is time for "the reid report" with joy reid. take it away. >> thanks so much, ronan. appreciate it. happy wednesday, everyone. i'm joy reid and this is "the reid report." president obama just wrapped up a major foreign policy speech in belgium. he used the global spolligtligh

reinforce our alliance with europe and drive home the urgency of a commitment given russia's recent aggregation in the region. chuck todd is traveling with president obama in brussels. so, chuck, sort of give us an overview of the speech. i think probably the most surprising thing to my ear was this comparison with the iraq war. >> right. i think that's definitely going to be something that particularly a lot of domestic viewers are going to find intriguing. the president essentially reminding, almost defending the iraq war in a way that we had never heard of before, by saying, hey, the united states didn't go in there, didn't annex iraq, didn't take its resources. it's a pure rebuttal. and that clearly was about rebutting vladimir putin, who's been trying to use iraq as a sledgehammer to justify what he did in crimea. but i think, broadly, it's pretty clear what this speech was about. aides had hinted at it before, but you really heard it in even

starker terms than i expected, it was a pretty impassioned plea to europe to take this more seriously, be more outraged by what russia did. don't just rhetorically criticize what russia did, but do more. stand with the united states to do more. and i think it's a reminder that the president has struggled to get the europeans on the same page, not -- rhetorically they're there against punishing russia, but to try to do something with a little more teeth to get putin to back down. and i think that, overall, that's what the goal of this speech is. does it rally europe? and i think that's going to be the open question. clearly, that was the president's goal. rally europeans, using their own history, a war-torn continent, over the last hundred years, as a way to get them to look past their own personal issues, economic problems, all those issues that are short-term now, and look at the long-term threat of allowing what russia, if you