to arm ukraine. joe biden gave a speech that was to defend ukraine but didn't specifically say to arm ukraine. john kerry came on "meet the press" and said there are no differences but there are profound differences between the german and the french on the one hand and the u.s. option pushed very hard by senator mccain and others who had been in munich as well this weekend to arm ukraine with defensive weapons. >> that's right, andrea we're really at a critical moment in the relationship. if you look at the history of the u.s. and e.u. on this issue, it's been one of unity under very difficult conditions. the germans went along with the plant plan to ratchet up sanctions, this was difficult for angela merkel to do in germany. now for the first time we see real daylight between them. i think this meeting will be all about how you reconcile these two positions that are very fundamentally different. she wants to continue diplomacy,

parts of the administration appear to be leaning very hard towards arming. it's not clear where the president is at the moment. i think some of the caution that vice president biden and the secretary showed over the weekend reflects the fact that president obama remains very reluctant about these type of arming programs. we'll have to see whether we know more. >> susan rice the national security adviser conceded there was a military option. john kerry certainly mentioned it in munich. at the same time, you had the new defense secretary, ashton carter, not yet sworn in saying in his confirmation testimony that he thought it might indeed be necessary. he was leaning very much forward on arming ukraine. the argument from merkel and others has been there's no way that ukraine even armed by the west could possibly defeat russia. there's no question as poroshenko the leader of ukraine made evident in munich over the weekend that this is russia they are fighting with.

it is absurd as poroshenko said they have captured soldiers have russian passports. >> there's another important thing to keep in mind that's the question of to which country is ukraine more important. russia is an insecure declining troubled country with a weak economy for which ukraine is a vital national interest. and for the u.s. it's less so. there's a question of stakes too. >> we see the national security adviser susan rice joining me from capitol hill. new hampshire senator kelly ayotte just back from munich. what should the white house do? >> i would hope that the white house would provide defensive arms to ukraine. there's now a broad bipartisan agreement in congress about this issue. we passed legislation giving them authority to do that. we had 12 members of the armed services committee saying we should provide defensish arms to

ukraine to provide a greater cost for russia. what we need to understand is the ukrainian people gave up nuclear weapons. we signed the agreement, the budapest memorandum. germany did not sign that agreement and russia is violating that agreement. if we do not provide defensive arms for them to defend themselves, i don't know why any country would ever give up nuclear weapons again. there's a bigger issue at stake here for us andrea and speaking about the iran negotiations you have to understand that if russia can violate the budapest memorandum and violate the minsk agreement where they agreed to withdraw weaponry from ukraine. you look at the iranians, what will the consequences be in they violate it. >> i may have to interrupt you the president may be coming in. a question quick if you can -- what about giving more territory and letting putin control more territory. the door is opening, we may have to hold off on this answer.

senator ayotte we hope to speak to you later. here's the president. >> good morning. as always it is a great pleasure to welcome my close friend and partner chancellor angela merkel back to the white house angela has been here many times but this visit is a chance for more to congratulate her on two achievements well into her third term she's one of germany's longest serving chancellors, perhaps more importantly this is my first opportunity to publicly congratulate angela and germany on their fourth world cup title. as we awe saw, angela is one of her team's biggest fans. our u.s. team gets better each world one so watch out in 2018. germany is one of our strongest allies so whenever we meet it's

an opportunity to coordinate closely on a whole range of issues critical to our shared security and prosperity. as angela and our german friends prepare to host the g-7 this spring, it's also important for us to be able to coordinate on a set of shared goals and at our working lunch we'll focus on what to do to keep the economy growing and creating jobs. as strong supporters of the trans atlantic trade and investment partnership, we agree that there needs to be meaningful progress this year towards an agreement that boosts our economies with strong protections for consumer and workers in the environment. i look forward to hearing angela's assessment of how europe and imf it work with the new greek government to find a way that returns grief to sustainable growth within the euro zone where growth is critical to both the united states and the global economy. and we'll be discussing our work

to get all major economies to take ambitious action on climate change including our initiative to limit public financing for coal fired power plants overseas and our global efforts to phase down some of the most dangerous greenhouse gases. our discussion this morning focused on global security issues. we reaffirm our commitment to training afghan security forces and supporting a sovereign secure and united afghanistan. we agree that the international community has to continue enforcing existing sanctions as part of our diplomatic effort to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, even as the p 5 plus 1 works cloegssely together to try to achieve a good ver fibl deal. two issues that dominated our work day this morning, russia's aggression against ukraine and international fight against isil. with regard to russia and the

separatist that supports in ukraine, it's clear they've violated just about every commitment they made in the minsk agreement, instead withdrawing from eastern ukraine, forces continue to operate there, training separatists and helping koords nature attacks. instead of withdrawing arms russia has sent in more tanks and heavy artillery. with russian support the separatists have seized more territory and shelled civilian areas and destroyed villages and driven more ukrainians from their homes. these are the facts. but russian aggression has only reinforced the unity of the united states and germany and allies and partners around the world. i want to thank angela for strong leadership and partnership through this challenge. chancellor merkel and vice president biden met in munich over the weekend and she shared her talks in moscow. we continue to encourage a

diplomatic resolution to this issue and as diplomatic efforts continue this week we are in absolute agreement that the 21st century cannot stand idle have us stand idle and simply allow borders of europe to be redrawn at the barrel of a gun. we agreed to move forward with our strategy along with our nato allies we'll keep bolstering our presence in central and eastern europe part of the unwaivering article 5 obligation to our collective defense. we'll continue to work with the imf and other partners to provide ukraine with critical financial support as it pursues economic and anti-interruption reforms. we discussed the issue of how best to assist ukraine as it defends itself and we agreed that sanctions on russia need to remain fully in force until russia complies fully with its obligations. even as we continue to work for

a diplomatic solution we are making it clear again today that if russia continues on its current course which is ruining the russian economy and hurting the russian people as well as having such a terrible effect on ukraine, russia's isolation will only worsen both politically and economically. with regard to isil germany and the united states remain united in our determination to destroy this barbaric organization. i thanked angela for her strong support as a member of the international coalition that is working in iraq in a significant milestone in its foreign policy they have taken the important step of equipping kurdish forces in iraq and germany is preparing to lead the training mission in erbil, they are a close partner in combatting the threat of foreign terrorist fighters which was a special session that

i chaired last fall. under angela's leadership germany is moving ahead with new legislation to prevent fighters from traveling to and from syria and iraq. at the same time, both angela and i recognize that young people in both of our countries, especially in muslim communities are being threatened and targeted for recruitment by terrorist like al qaeda and isil. protecting our young people from this hateful ideology so that they are not vulnerable to such recitement, first and foremost attacks for local communities and families and neighbors and state leaders who know their communities best but we can help these communities starting with the tone and example that we set in our own countries. i want to commend angela for her leadership. her leadership speaking out forcely against prejudice and on behalf of pluralism and diversity. she made it clear all religious communities have a place in

germany, just as they do here in the united states. and we're grateful that our germ man friends will join us on countering violent extremism because this is a challenge our countries have to meet together. let me end on a historic note. this year marks the 70th anniversary of the end of the second world war, the 25th anniversary of reunification of german. when progress sometimes seems beyond grasp, germany's story gives us hope. we can end wars. countries can rebuild. adversaries can become allies and walls can come down and divisions can be healed. germany's story and story of angela's life remind us when free people stand united our interests and values will ultimately prevail. as we look to the future as i

prepare to visit bavaria in june aim grateful for my partnership with angela as americans are grateful for their partnership with the people of germany. >> translator: thank you, president barack. i'm delighted to be back in washington. nine months ago we were here for the last time. this has to do with first and foremost we have the presidency this year and coordinate on these matters closely as we do on others and want to address issues related to the global economy when we meet in bavaria in the summer. from a european vantage point, i think we can say that we have made significant progress in a number of areas. we have countries who you now back on the growth path. ireland comes to minds and spain and fort gal after a strong

phase of structural reform they have now made significant progress, new commission, new commissioners have come in office have launched a growth program in which germany will participate. we will pin our hopes basically on growth and infrastructure but also on other growth projects. for example, the digital economy, the united states there is a lot of things to be done by the europeans now. i would say that a free trade agreement, for example, would also go a long way towards boosting growth. we know you are very much engaged in the asian-pacific area. and germany will come out forcefully in seeing that the negotiations between the e.u. and united states on free trade agreements are pursued in a vigorous matter. it's in our own best interest

and united states and german interest. we are dealing basically on our g-7 agenda with health issues let me mention one. what sort of lessons have we drawn from the terrible ebola epidemic? the one thing we've learned that the international organizations and community have to be quicker in reacting to such a give a important contribution to doing this. we're also interested for example, in seeing be successful and being able to conclude the replenishment conference and just completed in germany so successfully. then we dealt with security issues this morning, it is true germany celebrates reunification. this would not have been possible or achievable without the trans atlantic partners and we will always be grateful for this. to this one case in point it is well worth the effort to stand

by one's values for decades to pursue long term goals and not relent in those. after we fought inthought in the 90s things would turn out easily and less complicated. we see ourselves confronted with a whole weather of conflict. we worked together in afghanistan and germany has decided in the fight against is to give help to deliver training missions, to deliver also weapons and if necessary, we work together on the iran nuclear program where we also enter into a crucial phase of negotiations. one particular priority was given to the conflict between ukraine and russia this morning. we stand up for the same principles of territory integrity. for somebody who comes from

europe, i can only say if we give up this principle of territory integrity of countries, then we will not be able to maintain the peaceful order of europe that we've been able to achieve. this is not just any old point, it's an essential, crucial point and we have to stand by it and russia has violated the territorial integrity of ukraine in two respects. in crimea and also in donetsk and luhansk. we are called upon now to come up with solutions, but not in the sense of mediator but we also stand up for the interest of the european peaceful order. and this is what the french president and i have been trying to do over the past few days. we're going to continue those efforts and i'm grateful that throughout the ukraine crisis we have been in very very close contact with the united states of america and europe on sanctions -- on the diplomatic initiatives and this is going to

be continued. and i think that's indeed one of the most important messages we can send to russia and need to send to russia. we continue to pursue a diplomatic solution although we have suffered a lot of setbacks. these days we'll see whether all sides are ready and willing to come to a negotiated settlement. i've always said i don't see a military solution to this conflict, but we have to put all of our efforts in bringing about a diplomatic solution. there's a whole host of issues we need to discuss. over lunch we'll continue to talk about climate protection and sustainable development and sustainable development goals. so yet again, thank you very much for the very close cooperation, very close coordination and possibility to have an exchange of views on all of these crucial issues. i think not only in hindsight can we say the united states has always helped us regain our unity in peace and freedom but

we continue to cooperate closely if it is about solving the conflicts of the world today and there are many of them and we'll continue to do so in the future. thank you for your hospitality. >> first question steve. "washington post"." "washington post." >> you stressed that u.s. and europe need to have cohesion on the issue of sanctions and dealing with ukraine. and yet the administration is discussing sending lethal weapons to ukraine, which is very different from what the chancellor said over the weekend. i was wondering whether this is a good cop, bad cop act or is this a real reflection of difference of views and situation on the ground? more broadly, if there's no agreement this week what lies ahead? are we looking at a broader set of sanctions? what makes us think those that are sanctions will change the

russian president's mind anymore than the current one. >> well let me start with the broader point. both angela and i have emphasized that the prospect for a military solution to this problem has always been low. russia obviously has a extraordinarily powerful military. and given the length of the russian border with ukraine, given the history between russia and ukraine, expecting that if russia is determined that ukraine can fully rebuffet russian army has always been unlikely. but what we have said is that

the international community working together can ratchet up the cost for the violation of the core principle of sovereignty andterritorial integrity. and russia has paid a significant cost for its actions first in crimea and now in eastern ukraine. it has not yet dissuaded mr. putin from following the course he is on. but it has created a measurable negative impact on the russian economy. and that will continue. my hope is that through these diplomatic efforts those costs become high enough that mr. putin's preferred option is for a diplomatic resolution. and i won't prejudge whether or not they'll be successful.

if they are successful it will be in part because of the extraordinary patience and effort of chancellor merkel and her team. if they are not, we will continue to raise those costs. >> we will not relent on that. i'm encouraged to the degree to which we've been able to maintain u.s./european unity on this issue. it is true if in fact diplomacy fails, i've asked my team to look at all options. what other means can we put in place to change mr. putin's calk calkculus, i have not made a decision and consisted with not

just angela but will consult with other allies about this issue. it's not based on the idea that ukraine could defeat a russian army that was determined. it is rather to see whether or not there are additional things we can do to help ukraine bolster its defenses in the face of separatist aggression. but i want to emphasize that a decision has not yet been made. one of the bigger issues is making sure the economy is progressing and that they can continue with the reform efforts that they've made. i'm glad to see that because of our cooperation and our efforts, we're starting to see a package come together with the imf, with the european union and others that can help bolster the european economy so that they have the space to continue to

execute some of the reforms and anti-corruption measures that they've made. one of the most important things is to help them succeed economically. that's how people on the ground feel this change and transformation inside ukraine. if that experiment fails, then the larger project of an independent ukraine will fail. and so we're going to do everything we can to help bolster that but there's no doubt if diplomacy fails this week, there's going to continue to be a strong unified response between the united states and europe. that's not going to change. there may be some areas where there are tactical disagreements or may not be. but the broad principle that we have to stand up for not just ukraine but the territorial

sovereignty is one where we're completely unified. >> translator: french president and i have decided to make one further attempt to make progress through diplomatic means, we have the minsk agreement, never been implemented and the situation has worsened on the ground. there is a possibility to try to bring about a ceasefire and to also create conditions that a place where you have not every day civilians dying, civil victims that fall prey to this. i'm absolutely confident that we will do this together. i myself actually would not be able to live with not having made this attempt.

but there is anything but an assured success in all of this. i have to be clear about all of this. but if at a certain point in time one has to say that a success is not possible even if one puts every effort into it then the united states and europe have to sit together and try and explore further possibilities of what one can do. just let me point out here that prime ministers of the european union last week talked to the commission to think about further possible sanctions. i'm somewhat surprised sometimes, just let me mention iran. for a fairly long period of time we've had sanctions in place there and people don't seem to question them. i think they have been fairly successful if we look at the current state of affairs on the nuclear program. i think parallel i think it was

a very good thing to put some costs onto the russians to the sanctions we agreed on and it seems to be influenced by this. this is why i'm 100% behind these decisions. as to the export of i have given you my opinion but you may rest assured that no matter what we decide the alliance between the united states and europe will continue to stand, will continue to be solid, even though on certain issues we may not always agree, but this partnership feeds on ukraine and russia and international state, feeds on other issues. is a partnership through the -- in europe we're very close.

the partnership is indispensable and this will remain so and i can say this on behalf of my colleagues in the european union. sorry, i have to call you myself. >> translator: president you said you have not yet made a decision as to whether weapons ought to be delivered to ukraine. what would be your red line? what would be the red line that needs to be crossed for you to decide a -- an arment of the ukrainian army. what do you think will this hold by way of a promise because the chancellor said it will make matters worse? what can the nobel laureate obama do more? and president putin again demanded that the government in kiev negotiate directly with the separatists. when do you think the right moment has come to do this and looking at the big issues it caused this breach of confidence

due to the nsa affair of the u.s. u.s./german relations. has that played a role today? >> do you want to go first on this? >> translator: i can gladly start. the question as to how one assesses the effectiveness of certain measures has been actually dealt with. the president has not made a decision as he said what's important for me we stand closely together on the question of a renewed diplomatic effort. we keep each other informed in close touch and nobody wishes more for a success than the two of us who stand here side by side. but this would also mean not only having a ceasefire in place but to also over and above that

having certain -- in place. you said the russian president himself thinks there ought to be direct contract. this contract already results through the group which i presented from donetsk and luhansk. the problem of the last few days and meeting was rather more than that there was not really that much of an end result if they met at all -- or if representatives from donetsk and luhansk were there at all. this was after all for me the core of the minsk agreement that there are local elections in accordance with the ukrainian constitution and that the outcome of that is that you have representatives authorities that can speak for those regions and the ukrainian president has paved the way for this to giving certain specific status to luhansk and donetsk and these elections are an essential point that will then enable us to say,

well, maybe now they can be contacts even without a trilateral group. this is on the agenda of the many talks that we need to make but i can very well understand the ukrainian side that on the territory that they consider to be part of their territory and that anything else would violate the territory integrity, that they want to actually see that elections take place there and that has also been stated by the president putin that he wishes to see those elections happening there. now on the nsa, i think there are still different assessments on individual issues there but if we look at the sheer dimension, we're more than aware of the fact we need to work together closely and i as german chancellor want to state here the institutions of the united states of america have provided us and still continue to provide us with a lot of very significant, very important

information that also ensures our security. we don't want to do without this. there are other possibilities that through cyber dialogue continue to talk about the protection of privacy versus data protection and so on and security. but this was the basically combatting terrorism was basically -- >> with respect to providing lethal weapons to ukraine, it's important to point out that we have been providing assistance to the ukrainian military generally. that's been part of a longstanding relationship between nato and ukraine. and our goal has not been for ukraine to be equipped to carry on offensive operations but simply to defend itself. and president poroshenko has been very clear. he's not interested in escalating violence.

he's interested in having his country's boundaries respected by its neighbor. there's not going to be any specific point at which i say, clearly lethal defensive weapons would be appropriate here. it is our ongoing analysis of what can we do to dissuade russia from encroaching further and further on ukrainian territory. our hope is that that's done through diplomatic means. i want to emphasize here once again for the benefit not just of the american people but for the german people we are not looking for russia to fail. we are not looking for russia to be surrounded and contained and weakened. our preference is for a strong pros speakerage vibrant confident russia that can be a

partner with us on a whole host of global challenges and that's how i operated throughout my first term in office. unfortunately russia has made a decision that i think is bad for they can strategically and bad for europe and bad for the world. and you know in the face of this aggression and these bad decisions, you know we can't simply try to talk them out of it. we have to show them that the world is unified and that imposing a cost for this aggression. that's what we're going to continue to do. with respect to the nsa, i'll just make this point very briefly. there's no doubt that the snowden revolutions damaged

impressions of germans with respect to the u.s. government and our intelligence cooperation. and what i have done over the last year year and a half is to systemically work through some of these issues to create greater transparency and to restore confidence not just for germans but for our partners around the world. we've taken some unprecedented measures, for example, to ensure that our intelligence agencies treat nonu.s. citizens in ways that are consistent with due process and their privacy concerns. something that i put in a presidential order and has not been ever done not only by our intelligence agencies but i think by most intelligence agencies around the world.

there are going to still be areas where we've got to work through these issues. we have to internally work through these issues because they are complicated and difficult. if we are trying to track a network that is planning to carry out attacks in new york or berlin or paris, and they are communicating primarily in cyber space, and we have the capacity to stop an attack like that but that requires us to operate within the cyber space. how do we make sure we're able to carry out those functions while still meeting our core principles of respecting the privacy of all of our people? given germany's history, i recognize the sensitivities around this issue. what i would ask would be that the german people recognize that

the united states has always been on the forefront of trying to promote civil liberties, that we have due process that we respect. we have been a consistent partner of yours in the course of the lost 70 years and certainly the last 25 years in reinforcing the values that we share. and so occasionally i would like the german people to give us the benefit of the doubt given our history, as opposed to assuming the worst, assuming that we have been consistently your strong partners and that we share a common set of values if we have that fundamental underlying trust, there are going to be times where there are agreements and both sides may make mistakes and there are going to be irritants like there are between friends. but the underlying foundation

for the relationship remains sound. >> thank you, mr. president. the iran nuclear negotiators have missed two deadlines. should the upcoming march deadline for talks be the final one? what are the circumstances in which you think it would be wise to extend talks? also sir, some have suggested that you are outraged by the israeli prime minister's decision to address congress. is that so? and how would you advise democrats who are considering a boycott? >> first of all, we understood from the start when we set up the interim agreement with iran that it would take time to work through incredibly complex issues and huge trust deficit between the united states and

iran. and the world and iran when it comes to nuclear programs. i think there was always the assumption although the interim agreement lasted a certain period of time that we would probably need more time to move forward. that time has been well spent. during this period of time issues have been clarified and gaps have been narrowed. the iranians have abided by the agreement. so this is not a circumstance in which by talking they've been stalling and meanwhile advancing their program. to the contrary, what we know is the program is not only been frozen but with respect to for example 20% enriched uranian yum, they reversed it. we're in a better position before it was set up.

having said all of that the issues now are sufficiently narrowed and sufficiently clarified. we're at a point where they need to make a decision. we're presenting in a unified fashion, the p5 plus 1 supported by a coalition of countries around the world presenting to them a deal that allows them to have peaceful nuclear power but gives us the absolute assurance that is ver fibl that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon. and if in fact what they claim is true, which is they have no as spiration to get a nuclear weapon according to their supreme leader it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon. if that is true there should be the possibility of getting a

deal. they should be able to get the yes. but we don't know if that's going to happen. they have their hard liners and politics. and the point is kristi, at this juncture, i don't see a further extension being useful if they have not agreed to the basic formulation and the bod bottom line that the world requires to have confidence that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon. now, if the pram work for a deal is done and people have a clear sense of what's required and there's drafting and ts to cross and is to dot, that's a different issue. but my view and i presented this to members of congress that we now know enough that the issues are no longer technical.

the issues are does iran have the political will and desire to get a deal done. and we could not be doing this were it not for the incredible cohesion and unity that's been shown by germany, by the other members of the p5plus 1, which i should acknowledge includes russia. this is an area where they served a constructive role and china has served a constructive role and there has been no cracks in this or p5 plus 1 side of the table. i think that's a testment to the agree to which we are acting reasonably in trying to actually solve a problem. with respect to prime minister netanyahu, as i've said before i talk to him all the time. our teams constantly coordinate.

we have a practice of not meeting with of leaders right before elections, two weeks before their elections, as much as i love angela if she was two weeks away from an election she would probably not have received an invitation to the white house. and i suspect she wouldn't have asked for one. you know, this is -- some of this has to do with how we do business how we present these protocols because the u.s./israeli relationship is not about a particular party.

this isn't a relationship founded on affinity with the labor party and democratic party or this is the u.s./israeli relationship that extends beyond parties and has to do with that unbreakable bond that we feel and our commitment to israel security and share of values that we have. it's a way to preserve that is to make sure it doesn't get clouded with what could be perceived as partisan politics. whether that's accurate or not, that is a potential perception and that's something we have to guard against. now, i don't want to be coy. the prime minister and i have a very real difference around iran. iran sanctions. i have been very clear and angela agrees with me and david cameron agrees with me and

others who are a member of the negotiations agree that it does not make sense to sour negotiations a month or two before they are about to be completed. we should play that out, if in fact we can get a deal then we should embrace that. if we can't get a deal we'll have to make a set of decisions and as i said to congress i'll be the first one to work with them to imply stronger measures against iran. but what's the rush unless your view is it's not possible to get a deal with iran and shouldn't even be tested. that i cannot agree with because the president of the united states, i'm looking at what the opgtss are if we don't get a diplomatic resolution. they are narrow and not attractive. from the perspective of u.s. interest and i believe from the perspective of israel's interest although i can't speak for

obviously the israeli government, it is far better if we can get a diplomatic solution. there are real differences substantively, but that's separate and apart from the whole issue of mr. netanyahu coming to washington. >> translator: miss merkel the question is what will be effective in the ukraine crisis and diplomacy as you said yourself has not really made all of that -- not really brought about that much of a progress. can you understand the i am impatience of the americans when they say we ought to deliver weapons? what makes you feel that diplomacy will carry the day in the next few days and weeks. and also have to ask you, what is your comment on the most recent comments of the greek prime minister who says let's end those programs and i'm going

to stand by the promises i made in the election campaign? how do you enadviceage the further corporation with the government and to you, mr. president, i address the question, a lot of pressure by members of your government who say weapons should be delivered to the ukrainians. you yourself have said you want to ratchet up the cost that putin has to bear. and then make him relent and give in maybe and you said all options have to be on the table. what makes you so sure that these weapons will not only go into the hands of the regular ukrainian army but perhaps get into the hands of separatists of militias on the ukrainian side who are accused of having high lated human rights. thank you. >> whenever you have political conflict such as the one we have

now between russia and ukraine, but also in many other conflicts around the world. it has always proved to be right to try again and again to solve such a conflict. we've spoken at some length about the iranian conflict. here too we are expected to try time and again and there's always a point where you say, well all of the options are on the table. we've gone back and forth. but then one has to think again. looking just at the middle east conflict, for example, how many people have tried to bring about a solution to the conflict and have welcomed it every time? i'm going to support it every time because i think every time it has been well worth the effort. where you have a situation where you see people dying and civilian casualties and see the dire conditions under which people live, it is incumbent upon us as politicians, we owe it to the people to explore

every avenue but we've grown up under conditions. i have to point this again, where we've said nobody would have dreamt of german unity but people who said in west germany, remember they said should we keep up citizenship of germany for the -- they've been criticized by people who -- some who have a revengeance ideas and think of president reagan when he said mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. how can he possibly say that? but it was right. we have no guarantee. i cannot give you a guarantee for the outcome of the wednesday talks or further talks and maybe nothing will come out of it. but then we're called upon again to think about a new possibility. and since we thought about it every step of the way, we will continue to do so. a lot of things have to be thought about and i'm very glad that with the american people

i've always been able to put all of the cards on the table and discuss the pros and cons in my speech in munich. i gave you clearly where i stand. we'll continue to try it. i think that's why we're -- that's why we chose professions. others have to do other things. researchers have to all the time find new things to explore and to people have to -- and we have to see the well being, of people is ensured. we never have a guarantee the policies will work -- greece i almost forgot. yes. on wednesday there's going to be a euro group meeting and i think what counts is what greece will put on the table. the german policy ever since

2010 greece staying a member of the euro zone this time and again. the basic rules have always been the same. you were put in your own efforts and on the other side being shown solidarity as a quid pro quo, the three institutions of ecb, european union commission and imf have agreed programs -- these often have any discussion we have. i often said i'll meet for them to come with a sustainable proposal and we'll talk about this. >> the point angela made is right, and that is that we never have guarantees that any particular course of action works. as i've said before by the time a decision reaches my desk by definition, it's a hard problem with no easy answers, otherwise somebody else would have solved it.

i would never even hear about it. and the issue that you raise about can we be certain that any lethal aid that we provide ukraine is used properly doesn't fall into the wrong hands, does not lead to over aggressive actions that can't be sustained by the ukrainians what kinds of reactions does it prompt, not simply from the separatists but from russians those are all issues that had to be considered. the measure by which i make these decisions is it more likely to be effective than not. and that is what our deliberations will be about. but what i do know is this that

the united states and europe have not stood idly by. we have made enormous efforts. enormous investments of dollars of political capital, diplomacy, in trying to resolve this situation. i think the ukrainian people can feel confident that we have stood by them. people like vice president biden and secretary of state kerry as is angela and her team on the german side and just because we have not yet gotten the outcome we want doesn't mean this pressure is not over time making a difference. i think it's fair to say that there are those inside of russia

who recognize this has been a disastrous course for the russian economy. i think mr. putin is fak toring that in. we'll have to keep on trying different things to see if we can get a better outcome. what i do know is that we will not be able to succeed unless we maintain the strong trans atlantic solidarity that's been the hall mark of our national security throughout the last 70 years. and i'm confident that i've got a great partner in angela in maintaining that. thank you very much, everybody. >> and with that the conference concludes. kelly ai don't thinkyotaayotte has been watching with us. what you heard is a very

cautious barack obama, backing off of any conversation about the pluses of arming ukraine and in answer to the last question acknowledging the minuses, which is that the arms could get into the wrong hands and used too aggressively by ukraine. what's your response to that? >> my response is first of all, i think we have a clear partner on the ground. let me use the anl gi of all of the debate about arming syria and mod rats. this is a situation where there's a broad bipartisan consensus including think tanks like brookings and atlantic institute. this is important that if the president makes the decision if diplomacy fails this week to provide defensive arms to ukraine, he'll have broad bipartisan support. many of us have been calling for that since last may. i think he will have the back of the congress on this. it's important that there be

cost placed on russia. how can we not allow them the support to defend themselves. this is not a situation where we have to worry who our partners are on the ground. president poroshenko has been clear. he only incontinued to use the support to defend his own territory. mark landler, what if the president does not make this decision because we've seen him even against assad waiver at the last minute after crossing a red line. very specifically he rejected the notion of a red line against vladimir putin. >> he stayed way away from a red line. this is a president who didn't mind saying no to his entire war cabinet when we were all recommending weapons years ago. i took in the cautious tone enthe reference to the danger of escalation and would the ukrainians know how to use the weapons, a lot reluctance and deep seeded fears about this

remain. i think the syria precedent is going to be weighing on him as he makes this decision. >> and the other point here was that he was asked about this very controversial visit by benjamin netanyahu two weeks before an israeli election. a gathering democrats, house and senate saying they are going to boycott the speech. they see it as a political -- israeli saying it was -- into sign that netanyahu is backing off of it. and the president pointedly said, we have this protocol. we don't invite leaders if angela merkel had an election in two weeks she wouldn't be here now and my bet is she wouldn't have asked to come. >> yes he took a definite swipe and pointed out for the record they have a deep disagreement on the iranian nuclear talks. that was a tough one all around on pt israeli prime minister.

>> no point extending in which we're close to a deal. thanks to kelly ayotte and other guests today who had been scheduled. that does it for us. a busy edition of "andrea mitchell reports." follow us online and on facebook and twitter. "ronan farrow daily" will be here next. if i can impart one lesson to a new business owner, it would be one thing i've learned is my philosophy is real simple american express open forum is an on-line community, that helps our members connect and share ideas to make smart business decisions. if you mess up, fess up. be your partners best partner. we built it for our members, but it's open for everyone. there's not one way to do something. no details too small.

american express open forum. this is what membership is. this is what membership does. while others go in circles... and repeat themselves... we choose to carve our own path, in the pursuit of exhilaration. the 306 horsepower lexus gs. experience the next level of performance, and there's no going back. nobody told us to expect it... intercourse that's painful due to menopausal changes it's not likely to go away on its own. so let's do something about it. premarin vaginal cream can help it provides estrogens to help rebuild vaginal tissue and make intercourse more comfortable. premarin vaginal cream treats vaginal changes due to menopause and moderate-to-severe painful

intercourse caused by these changes. don't use it if you've had unusual bleeding breast or uterine cancer blood clots, liver problems, stroke or heart attack, are allergic to any of its ingredients or think you're pregnant. side effects may include headache pelvic pain, breast pain vaginal bleeding and vaginitis. estrogens may increase your chances of getting cancer of the uterus, strokes, blood clots or dementia so use it for the shortest time based on goals and risks. estrogen should not be used to prevent heart disease heart attack, stroke or dementia. ask your doctor about premarin vaginal cream.

it's 1:00 p.m. here in washington. angela merkel is at the white house this hour. just wrapped up a news conference with president obama where she again pressed for a peaceful regs lugs in ukraine. the u.s. is considering arming ukrainian forces. >> what i've asked my team to do is look at all options, what other means can we put in place to change mr. putin's calculus and the possibility of lethal defensive weapons is one of those options that's being examined, but i have not made