>> re: welcome to the broadcast. presidt obama is inussia this evening he met earlier today in moscow withussian president medvedev in an efforto ret u.s./russia retions. wealk this evening to senator richard luga the raing republican on the sate foreign relations committee. >> i believe tt at leas duri the next w years, it is possible not only that the united states and russia will set an example by destroying weapons or disling them, downgrading nuclearaterial and doing really ver stealy and with full observationf the

world that will encourage oers do like wise and hopelly discourage stillthers from not getting into the business to begin with. but i do not see, at least within the nextew years-- d that's alwaya question of how ny years-- the ideaof a nuclr-free world. >> rose: w continue our analysis with stephen cohen of new york university, a russian scholar, chrystia freend of the "financialimes", cire shipman of abcews and thoma pickering, the leading american diplomatnd former u.s. ambassador to russiaand undersecretary of state for political affas. >> we expanded nat, we lef the a.b.m. treaty, russia helped us win the groundar in afghanistan morehan any other cotry in 2001 and 2002 andwe gave them nothing, we just expand nato and withdrew fr the trey and the political class looked at him and said "fool. weakling. we look like pushovers, we give; they take." that's why... that's the real issu of what happened and is

happeng in moscow. >> i think the big choiceor russia still is the choice that it fed in '8, '91, '96 2000, whicis between democracy and pluralism and thoritarianism. and i absolutely do not see how appeasing, pcating this sort of neo-imperialistic mood whic putin has been ver cociously buildi up in any way plays to the positive side ofrussia. >> there's been a sreading for almost a decade of wh russia needed. there is a hug pchological componento doling with russia as a fallen empi and don't think very many of our leade haveotten it right almt since nald reagan inome ways. and i thi what barac obama most needs too is pay respect to russia in that sense. >> any treatmt by the united states of russia as second cla is, think, gng to hurt. i think it hurts nothing to

treathem as first class partners. it no question at all that in soviet days the ssians wanted to be part of a fst-class rtnership and the nuclea questions completel attuned to makg that happen because there are nother partners, at least fothe feseeable future. >> ros finally, we take note of robert namara, the former secretarof defense during the vinam war who died todayat age 93. ruia and the united state wh we continue.

captioning sponsored by rose communicatis from o studios in new york city, this is charlie se. >> rose: we gin this evening th president obama's visit t moscow. today heand russianresident dmit medvedev announced a preliminary agreemt to cut nuear stockpilesby as mu as a third. russia agreed to allow the unitedtates mility to transport weaps androops across its territory io afghanistan. e two countries ll set up a joint commissi to focus on a nge of economic,nergy,nd terrorism issues. the suit is part of the president's pledge to ret the relaonship with rusa. and here's a part of what the presiden and also the leader of ruia said at the krlin today. >> ( translated ): on the whole, by aracterizing our fir day of wk as a result of negotiations that have had, i would ke to say that i vi

them as a fist but very important step in the process of improvg full scale cooperation between our two countries which should go the benit of both states. and if both states befit by it, that means everybody will nefit by it. i would like to emphasize in conclusion thatour country would like to reach such a level of cooperati with the unite stat which woul be realistically worthy of the1st century. >> the predent and i agreed that the relatnship between russia and the united states has sufferedrom a sense of drift. weresolved to reset u.s./rulgs relations soe can cperate more effectively in areasf common interest. today, aft lesshan six nths of collaboratio we've done exactly that by taking

corete steps forwa on a range ofssues. president medved and i are committed to leaving hind the suspicion and rivalry of the past so that we ca advancethe interests that we ho in common. >> rose: joining me now from washington,enator richard luga a six-term republica senator and ranking republican onhe senate foreign relations committee. for over a decade,his voice o u. foreign poli has been a respected d steady one. i am pleased t have him ck on this program welcome,enator lugar. good to have you, sir. >> tnk you very much. great to be with you. great to be with you. >> rose: what do u make of this agreement today a its tential to start sometng serious with respecto arms reduion? >> believell ofthe agreements announced today e very important. but especially as it's been highlited, the agreementor the treaty to be extended beyond december 5. and especially the inspections. the intrusive inspections that

make it possible for som confidence to with the ruians and the united state aso how much we have what we are doing witht, as well as the restf the worlto be able to obrve that dat on the wl in my conference room, i'm ableo record wh e pentagon ports each mth, homany warheads have bn taking off of missile, how many missile deroyed, how many submarin dealt with or sis. >> rose: president oma spoke to the drift u.s./russian relations. the term "rese has been used frequently. what's wro with the relationip that has to be fixed d is giv the oppounity because of the new leership inashington as well the change in pitions in russia? >> well, many schol of public opinion have simply noticed tt the united states was disapproved ofore than approved of by average russians

in various polls that were taken. maybthe feeling wasnot so concerted on our side, but the feeling waon the part of many russians--oth leaders and foowers-- that essentially in our press for nato membership, in our prs tory to hav missile defense with which they disagreed. as a matter of ct, many felt unfriendly busiss relionships that across the board the unite states after aromising riod when the cold war ended and many russians saw the united stat as a potential savior. their republic had taken now a very dim view of it and pri minier putin's polarity really camto the fore as somebody whoould provi not only stability but once energy resours camealong, weth. and a ver different kind of peions that kept jobs goi in

company cities so for a ofthese reasons,he atmospre has not been very good. leaving ade as ctrol or military cooperation whi, of course, termated after the georgian incidentsf last augu. >> rose: whathould the president of the united stat say to the presint ofrussia about georgia an the ukraine and nato? >> those countriesre depende upon us and, of course, we could rminate that relatiohip. we won't do tt, butwe'd like to have stronger ones. butevertheless, whe push comes to shove, we're a long way from really discussing georgia and ukraine a a sense that there isome agreement about thr status becau from th standpoint it seems to me the russian feeling isthat there are many russisn both countries and russian inrests inoth countries and these are likely to continue toe presd. >> rose: do you undstand the russian apprehenon abt nato expaion and their own sse that when u start talking

abt georgia and the ukraine it's getting too cse to home? >> well, i understand it, i n't agree with it. th is why iuspect that there isoom for conversation. inther words, russians may emotionally, historicallyeel that this is still russia. but after all, stali came fm georgia, for examp, and ukraine. the gates ofiev and so forth a part of the music and story, the artisy of russia. but at the sam time, it seems to me that theussian experience is one in whic because of business lationships, hopefullyecause of more interrelations, indivial persons throughout the world, the are possibilities for adifferent kind of conversation. now, with regd to nato, there was alwa the possibility of russia being a part nato. that is a part o europe, a part of the security system.

the russians for a variety of reasons have chosen not t make that a part of their history at this point. they stillre very oud of their country they appreciate on some days that ty are no longerhe perpower that they mighhave been. but at the sa time, they believe given the weapo they ha, the authority th they have, e space that ty have thathey are diffent and need to be considere that way >> rose: where do you think the two countries can cooperatin e immediate future with respect to benefit for bh o for befit of the planet itself? >> well, in the agreents de today, and as i counted them ink there were at least five so relate to arms, that is both countriesre going to destroy 34 ts of plutonium just as a gesture to get rid of the uff. but al, in a very cooperative way, are going t inventory all of the countrieshat have

highly enriched uranium and in many ces spent fuelrom periments like atoms for pce inhe past or oer occasions andooperate together to bri that fissi material back to home ofrigin. which very frequently is russia. ere will be attempts to... on the part both to downgrade a loof materials, so there is less fissile merial. we have a mmon interest in making certain theo-called terroris-- wheer they be checheterrorists the rsians have bee worried about or al qaeda who we ve been worried abt do not gettheir hands. and therefore there's going to cooperation expressed once agn of greater inspections at the border of our two countries so that this 95% of theissile material, the world has not caped t two countries that have it at thi point and can control it. there is lely to be cooperation peacefulses of nuclear energy. energy banks that other countries mit utilizeithout

ving to go into nuclear development. and all e problems that we are tnessing with tranians, for example. now, this is an agenda that still harks back to weapo and nuclear and so fth, but at the sa time, it's anutreach that involvesany countries and, like wise, some thoughtsbout clime change and the future. that is, w is it possible for ma nations to sutitute nuclr ergy for fossil fuels if there is nothis kind of cooperation tween the united ates and rsia and ve active fuel banks which we encourage. >> rose: in sunday's "new yor times" there was story about president obamwhen he was a student at columbia and thoughts that he had about nuclear proliferation. you have been out fro of tha tell me what u rlistically believe isossible. >> i belve tt at least during the xt few years it is

possible not only thathe united states d russiaill set an example byestroying weapons or disabling them, downgradg nuclearaterial and doinso reallyery steadily and with full observation of the world that will encourage others to do like wise and hopelly discourage still oths from not gettininto the business to begin th. but doot see-- at least within the next f years, a that's always a estion of how many years-- t idea of nucleafree world. even as ivisit withy frie sam nun and with george schultz and wh billperry and henry kissinger, you kno, they he different views asxactly what we're lookingat. theyalk about sort of encampmentat the base of the mounta. in other wordspeople looking up toward the sky but the peak

of the mouain is sort o in a cloud, it's not very clear how you get ere, andherefore we'rin a preparatory state with the base camps whic a lot of good activity is curring. it woulde necessary if you're going to scale the mountain. >> rose: so might as we get something going en though you're not sure exactly how ng and ere the journ will take place? >> correct, on the basis tt it would be desirableor theorld to be ee of the threat of nuclear weapons. in much t way that we have con to that conclusion withegard to chemical weapons. chemical weapons coention-- whicthe united states signed and the russians may have bee surprised, but they moved on. like wise became a rt of that. and in ourooperate i threat reductions, lot o reductions have been in the checal area so they've had sizabproblems. >> rose: wh don't you agree with with respect to the nunn/kissinger/schultz gup.

>> simplthat there are a lot of count these are not aboard at all. a person of coon sense wou say re we are philosophizing about a nuclear-free world but then at the me time we're wonding will we ever get into negotiions with the leership of iran. d how about north korea? and what seed to be almost weekly missile tests wh the thought that some time the might be something else on those missile. and rther more we are not real certain about various develoents in other countes. occasionally tre's a breakthrough, was libya and moamr qadda finally shipping it all over to oakidge, tennessee, and we' had som good breaks south africa in the past with a proam in brazil that dn't get off t grnd. butwe're not overcondent, particularly i the middle st, as is often expssed. that ifran persist that otherountries-- at least

protecting theirwn security-- wi also begin to dabble inthe problem even as we a recing. >>ose: i interviewed last wk in aspen,colorado, former secretary of state james bak who id the followg. he gives very gh marks to president obamon foreign policy, has serious differences about hi economic policy. and you? >> well, i suspe i would track along muchheame trail. i thinthat the amount of expenditure represented not only in the stimulus package, in the so-calletarp program, the rescue of the banksnd so forth but en in the budget that we now have and the one ware considing, a budget that som estimate will have a $1.6 trilli deficit, or may even $1.8 trilln for that matter. every one of those dollars has to be borrod from somebody. if you try to borrow that much money in the united states interest res would spikend that would be very bad wit

rega to our economic rovery and our jobs. so we haveecome very dependent uponhina and its resers, pa ssia, for that matter. large treasury bond buyer. quite apart from european and japanese sources, which ha been regulars. trillions dollars now hel by these cntries. and from timeto time, theyalk about is therenother way to balae our ptfolios? so that we are no so involved the dolr and the event sothing would happe r example,nflation in our country brought out by these buets. now, inderstand the president's point view is you'veot maybe one shot at this. you're popar, you've got montum, clearly healt care needs to be solved, climate change is out there, lotof other ings, railros, perhaps. and you go for it. but in going for it, we may be taking ono man obligations that this becomes frightening to a peon like me just looking at the score card. >> rose: and onforeign pocy?

>> on foreig poly, tngs have proceed in a much me orderly way and i complimt the president for his collections of secretary clinn, secreta gates general jim jones. likeise, a remarkable emissaries such asick holbrooke and r former colleague george mitcll and otherso supplement that. usually administrations me in and they te a little time to get pele behind the desk in the state department or in the department or in treury. and this adminisation has done a little better th somethers buthere is still a lot of empty spes. just beginningo get intohe ambassadorships. but they moved rapidly wh a team of people appointed and who wereble to work togethe, even though eh one of them a big hitts, ando i compliment t prident and his people un their travels their contts and like wise iteems to me a

very stae situation of good sense as thehave approached each of these tough objectives. >> rose: senator richard lugar ranking minory member of the united states senate foreign relations commtee. backn a moment. stay witus. >> rose: we continue our conversaon about russia with stephen cohen of new york university, chrystia freeland th"financial times" fm washingtonclaire shipman of abc newsnd thomas pickering, former.s. ambassador to ruia. i am pleased to have all of tm he. i beg with ambassador picking in washington. what mht... what willbe accomplished in moscow? >> i think what we will see here are probab the fir steps in what we all hope will be a coming tether raer than driftingpart, which was aracteristic of probably the last deca or so i u.s./russian relions,

ceerpieced around the nucar agreement that theyll hope to have donby the end of the year but wi a numbeof the other thingshat have beendded to it, iluding i would a perhaps reminiscentof my ti mosw a management arraement for the u.s./russian gulationships that brings togeer the o presides in charge of anarrangement where the seetary of state and the minister of foign affairs of russia will actually perhaps some do some of the whiplashing. but much like the cheer know re din arrangement which was characterist of the yeltsin clintoperiod. >> rose: going ngor war, resetting the relationship means what? ju simply change? do it meanthat there were the bad thing that they he to fix? >> fm my perspective, charlie, it meseplacing what was a series of an ineasing cresceo of basically negatives carpg, sniping, cutting on both sides over a whole set of issues in which there were

emphasis placed on t differce. some of them genuine and very real and some ofthem long term but with almost positive agenda. the obama administrationas started out wi a nuclear disarmamen issue which is, i think, of high intests to both sis and certainly o that's brought themore rapidly together. but the nse here is t strategys i think t accentuate the positive. we can borrow a term, and find ways to us that toelp contai some of the negates that have been part of the relationshipo see whether, i fact, things can go better rher than worse than they have before, recogning these that these t countries hold 95% ofhe world's nuclear weapons, they could threaten each other, probablythe only tw countries th can threaten each other in a very serious way and could really tear up the landscape ve badly ifhe situation deteriorated to t poin where they were at swords drawn over a ole set of questionthat separated them rather than to cooperate i a whole set of issueshich i think que righy can bring them together as the foreign

minier said just over the weekend when he wasnterviewed on t subject >> i think they'remart to start with nuclear disarment becae, as ambsador ckering said, it plays to the ssians' sense to the days of the superpower relationshi i think thconflict could be in a couple areas. if we had another war like the war in geoia it's very hard to accentte the positive as ambassador pickeng was saying. d, in fact, joe biden possiy owes his job to the war in georgia. so it really has had a dirt impact on obama. i the other big area whichs just an unknown is how the whole putin/medvedev relionship pls out in rsia and how the fall in thprice ofil plays out in russia. russia actuay is in que a fragile place in term of its inrnal politics. and dependg on how at plays out, you could have russia behaving in ways in which this

happy reset ere we'r talking about areas of shared interest, no focusing too much on what's going on inside in rusa is just impossible toontinue with >> rose: stephen cohen book is call "soviet face and lost alternatives, from stall inism to the new wold r." out so, ihink. >> now, immediatel >> rose: where is russia in its own sort of evolution an history and moment >> standing between eastand st with a ferocious struggle undeway within its political class abt which way it should and could go and in part that whathis summit is about,for the shes. >> so talk to me about the dision. is. >> the division is the russian litical class belves generally-- d i use the words that ofboth medvev and putin-that it has been repeatedly betraye and deceived by the united states sce the end of t soviet union. that leads a large sment of the russian political class dede that russiasnwanted

the west. the west will never meet russia's nationalnterest or accommodate ruia, and that russiahas eagertrategic partners ithe east. the east means everywhere from iran tohina, possiy india and beyond. there is sll a small butno longer stron pro-western/pro-american facon in the politic ldership that hopes that won't happen. but in judgment, it all dependn whether or not a real reset comes abo. and i've sn nothingthat's happen so farn mosco this first day that suggests otherwis >> rose: so whatoes this president have tdo to allay or at lea speak to these russian concerns and/or fears. >> one thing: stop the expanse of nato toward georgia and ukraine. at's it. dohat and everythg we want we get. >> rose: pking up onhat and talking about ur time in moscow a the journalist you talked to in moscow who are

reporting on divisions and where you think th count going and what they need in order to be asred to move forward, claire. >>ell, i thinktephen's exactly right. and i would ad one other thing that..you know, to scrap any ea about a msile defense system in poland and czecslovakia. i thinboth of those things-- that and the nato expansion-- have pre-occupied russia in a way thate just did not understand in th country. and i thin there'seen a misreadi for almost a decade ofhat russia needed. there is a huge psychological component to dealing with russia as a fallen empire. and i don't think veryany of our leadersave gotten it right. almost since rald rgan in me ways. d i thinkhat barack obama mosteeds to do is pay respect to russia in that sense, but i'm not sure thayou can pull back... pull the russian people back to is sort of pro-america

stance that th had whenhe soviet union fell apart. i think it's going to very hard. foa long time putin has been slowly winning overhe population wit almost a tacit reement, if youill. you submerge any political inclinatio you have and i will try to make you rich. ashrystia pointedut, we don'know where that's headed now that oil prices have drped. and that i cerinly uncertn. but for the time ing, i think barack obama...t's a tall order to reset ts relationsp >> well, i would respectfully very strongly disagree with the noon that putting an end to nato aspirations for georg and ukraine ishe right russia policy or slowing down too much on a stronger engagementith eastern europe. first of all, russia poli is not just about rsia. it's about the who former sovietpace and while i think it is solutely right to say

the relationship wh russia and fact, russia's whole political development s gone quiteadly wrong. actually, easrn europe and partof the formesoviet union and r tremendous success story. and i think americapolicy has have that very firmly in mind and be very careful not to give up thouccesses. but e second point i would make is i don't see the conflict in... don't see russia's choice as bei so much a choice of being betweenast and west. the big choicefor russi still is the choice it faced in' 89, '91, '96, 2000, which is between democracy and pluralism a authoritariani. and i absolutely do not see how appeasing, placating this sor of neoimperialistic mood which putin has been veronsciously building up in any way ays to the positive ses ofrussia. >> pun's not the proem. i mean, if putin dappeared

tomorrow thing would not ange. pew stin a manifestion of a mood a aeaction. chryia uses the word "appeasent." don't consider it to be apasement when a nation says "we don't want mility bases on r borr," partilarly military bases that represent a cotry with which we' just conducted a 40 year cold war. that's not about appeasement, it's about something else. the expansion of nato has bn a tastrophic mistake in every rega. not a ngle country safer. let me justnd by sing this. what happened last august, 2008 which we cald the war between russiand georgia in that little province geora was also proxy american/russian war. right on russia's borders. nothg like that happened during the cold war. two cntries laidwithin nucleaweapons are suddey fighting on ones border. in our history never.

that's wt the expansion o nato brought you. it's a bomb waiti to go off. goes off in a small w in georgia and itan go off again. >> i di do agree very muchith rystia's point that this is my vw a strife contest between dernizers and outreachers or reforms and the old nationalis on the other. we see evidence of that all the time and the trickfor obama is notto go into that partilar set of argument bus himself try to find ways tt can emphasize things that generally eaking the russians themselves a interested bause it takes the cue off the nato expansionnd i generally tend t agree wit see the stephenon some of that. i think that was unwise and badly pu forward. i' been in russia many times and ard the expensive litany of from putinof all of the betrayals and i thi some of it

is vy much worthwhi listening . 's something obama wilhave do. but ama can put on e table some things in which we can move rward on issues that are of common interest, whichs the opposite of at the rsians have perceed to be the u.s. aproch up untilow. and that means two things. iteans we need uerpromise and ovdeliver and the's some of that going on now. it means at the same time we have to keep our word on what it is that we intd to do when we move into things and the russians had a complete imession that we were not going to move eastwardand then when we movedastward that we were not going to set up bases and then after tt ihink they gave up. similarly weere going to put bases in ctral asia for as long as we werin afghanistan but they never expected we'd be in afghanistan, what, now a total of almost seven yea. there are serious things that have to cleared up here between the u.s. and russia. we have serious problems on ou side as well. the russian aren't angelsin e history of this.

but thvalue of the reset it it can put the reset asideit can crea and deal with new issues that have toe dealt with and i hope there can be talks of frank variety frankly on some of the issues particularly havg to do with the disputes abroawhich i think are never going to be reconced entirely but which we can at least have enough discussi to have a broad area of common disagement if i can put it th wayhat's broly undetand. we don't yet now i think ev kn the depth of the flingn both sides on many of thes issues. i spect the president isoing to get some of that when he has eakfast tomorrow morning with prime minister putin. >> do think that one... tha barack obama can put ade ceain isss without having to give them up. he doesn't have to declare that nato expansion is over there's no need to push the issue right now. that's where i think nesse can make a hug difference.

i also think it will be really inresting. you weresking about what people in moscow were talking about and journalists and a lot of my iends who are still there ha been focusin on t mystery, the curre mysteryn moscow, o is ally in charge. i think we allknow bically it's tin, t the have been some rlly intesting divergens lately between medvedev and putin andsome talk and some pple haveven been writingabout mi clashes, if you will. medvedev seems to be moving in a slightly more liberal direction, talking abouteforming the judiciar shortening one wyer's sentence, a ucos lawr surprisingly. making moves... giving interviews to beral up in b making moves that are decidedly unputin le. and i think naviging that terrain fobarack obama is going to be something of a chlenge as well bause i don't even thinkhey know moscow exactly what's goingn. >> rose: explain to us the

retionship between where it's aded and putin and medvedev. >> throughout russian history bureaucrats have looked the kremlin as the seat o power. and medvedev sits the kremli and they d't like thisecause they don't know ose rear end to kiss cause that's theway e system works. do i line up with himr him? he sd this, he said that, what am i supposed to thi? they don't like that uncertainty but again it's rated... claire's been sent on this, i go to the ban on this o there's pfound division within the russianolitical class about whether or not to try join the west. ybe there is no east for them to go to. maybambassador pickeri is right. but ty think there is. at's the importa thing. and medvedev and putin are surroued by men who represent different point of vws. >> rose: ifhey went to the east, what would tha mean? >> it means th never join the w.t.o., which by the way,utin said they wouldn't. they wilnot go through with these arms control agreement

because the military is completely against them. th will not be intested in a pan-european secity system and th will move desively to divide ukrne into two provinces. and they are the largest suppliers of weans from china, india, lots counies want them, we don't want th to sell themnymore. there's an enormous appite and maet in non-nato countries for russian rdware and no how. that's a they got. th's how thaw make their money. at the moment, they've been tremendous rey strned by why be restrned if the americans don't want them? >> rose: ambassador picring? >> a real tt will be whether in fact out of all of this there can more cooperaon on a very difcult problem like iran especially with t msiness in iran over thlast two or three weeks and, indd, how that's thrown i think a handren grenade in the middlef the efforts of the oba administrationo try to deal

wi iran. although i admire the admistration for continuing to try to keep t door open to coersations. i thin they'remportant regardlessf what has gone on inside iran, but that's not an easy road hoe here at home. i think final the question will be also extremely important once agreements are reached whether ey could be sold here mestically there's no qstion there will be opposition although 60 votes in the senate are very portant in selling agreemts and i would suspect at plus president obama's renown skills at explaining things a portraying themin e ways i think peopl can understand and tach tmselves to are very,very important aspects of what's, think, ove the xt year will dermine whether this is indeed a real reset or whether it is jus a blip othe way with further nasty and nfrontational aspects of t relationship to come. i hope ainst hope it's not.

i thin it's importanto have a reset an i'm quite pleas with what i see tay in the work coming out of the summit and certainly we'll have another look at after tomorrow. >> what i wanted to suggest charlie is wve beenooking at and trying to figure out russia throughideological prism, is it east versus west reformers versus traditionalis? and i think one thing we can't loseight of is a financial and an econoc prism. russia is governe by men who ha very perful very luty vested personalnterests and those are really important driverin what happens. russia as a country is very uncertaiand unclear as what its global role i going to be in this emerging ecomy. when oil was at $100 it didn't matter bause that sort o washed through and everying rked. but en at $70, it'snot so great r russia and it was a very interting mont when they recently convened this mmit of t brick countri and you had the

other brick countries saying, you ow what? maybe it shoulbe the bi countries. maybe russia doesn'teally belong here. i think that uncerinty about how ruia is going toope economically in the fure is e central driver and really ays a role in russia's con commit tonightesire to expss itself on the world age. >> re: and its confence? >> and its confidence. >> rose: they sometimes talk about a grdbargain wi respecto russia and the antiissile system. ishat possible? is that reasonable? that a direction that's fertile? >> i tnk it's certainly wh russia wants. that's wt i was going to y. i think to get russia to play on iran, russia's goi to loofor something big becausi think everybody assumes... wee done this dance so many times, the yilt looking for sport iran from rush shachlt and you have

to ask a a pson point do russia really wa to play this game? dohey really wan to hp on iran theay we do? i meanf iran isltimately solved and iranand the united statessuddenly fm some sort of relationship, at leaves russia a little b out in t cold and not nrly as much of a power broker. so you have touestion just how much russi wants that to happ. yes, russia lives in a dangerous neighborhood. yes we assume india, pakista, china, the last thing they want is a nuclear iran but at the same timthey mightot want to investheir capital in getting there. i think they'd be looking for something big and i think that... i do think missile defense some sortf a tacit agement about nato and mething about georgia i think ey're going to be pushing all of those things whic i know will seem less than palatab probably tthis administration. but i think missile defense

could be on the tae, sure. >> don't forget tensionith iran does tend to push up the price of oil which is not something counteto russia's interest. >> re: exactly and they've made that point. the ambassador is laughing. well, go ahead, i'll co to steve in a minute it's true se people speculate in the a conspiratial way that russia i pleased to see the development of tension between iran and theest of the wor anmaybe a bit of destabilizing because itushes up the price of oil and therefore it will enure theirconomic advantage and their geopolitical power ambaador pickering, is that true? >> there ma be so element to that. certnly if you've just gone through the ller coasterrom $147 down below $40 a while, you've got to see that. also ipeople are worried about a solid cohesion in the east, the one country is not going to be very happy abouthis is china.

increasingly heavily dependent on imported oil whereprice makes a big difference and where in fact ey've been trying t scope out fothemselves oil fids where they might have greater control in the long-term future. so some of this is adding to the ss as well as maybe briefly adding torussian confidence. the qution of oil pricess er long period of time i my view something where stability on all sides, bhproducers and consumers, wouldind a great deal of interest if ey could move thplss in that direction. but at the moment it seems so millnial that i don't think anybody will really take pt in that kind of a approach. but you've got a cartel that aprently is devot in some ways to trying to keep prices up. bu within reason maybe or a riod of time stability would be something to ta to the russns about as a way of also finding anffort to give the a sense that their economy shouldn't beiding aoller coaster as well. maybe wehould be working wh

them more closely on things li investment and developnt in things oth than the petroleum economy. theyave a lot of ight people a lot of capability, high tech informion based systems and things of thatort certaiy are the ve of the fure. there's no reason y russia should be left o of that. >> rose: wt don't we undersnd about putin? >> we don'tnderstand about putiall kindsof things. the most important is the very, ry interesting set of conversations you've had about who's on top a who in sense is going to emerge. i think the one thing that wasn't mentied in that but ems to hang around is that putin is on a platform where he'll stay with a very clear idea that he may welcomeack after whatever numbe of yea it is that present medvede has to serve because he was too young when he left office and this is a way in which in fact he's kept his hand in, maintained a very significa ount of control over the process anwill emerge the

end of the day with a good bit of his popularit still intact i thoughtt was fascinating while he continues t maintn someerious popularity in russ, he alon with ahmadinejad a poll i saw just a few minutes ago were at the ttom of the heap interintertionally now, that may not war arery mr. putin, i suspect doesn't in some ws. but looking at the longererm future, it would still appear to me fm the way in wch the balance is being appreciated by mostf us outsi of rsia and many inside russia, a large number of year in the future for mr. putin is still very much an important factor we have t ke in mind. >>ose: wou you be surprised if i ld you that ding his first three or four yrs in power putin was openly referred tos an aeaser in conducting foreign pocies of munich towards thunited states? >> rose: that woulbe surprising. >> but you thinkbout what haened. we exnded nato. left the a.b.m. treaty, russiaelped us win the groun r in afghanistan more than any

other country in 2001 and 2002 and we gav them nothing we expanded nato and withdrew from the trey. and the political class looked at him and sai "fool. weakling we look like pushovers we gave; they tak" and tt's w... that's the real issue of wh happened and is happening in moscow. i wish you'd ask anotr question. ich was what are we not emphasize organize missi here? >> rose: okay, wh are we not emphasizing ormissing here? >> (laughs) i didn't know charlieas that easy to ntrol. >> i auditning for his position he. but not well. i can only do it on one subject, he can do it on ery subject. we're not understandi,n my judgment... this is my viein the bk how deeply the relationship, r relationsp with rusa is in crisis and h dangerousl. and at this relationship has come to aturning point a erefore one way or another president obama is going play a historic role foretter or worse. rose: so the ball is in h

cot? >> inart. and this is where i sou unpatriotic. bui believe we more an any party cated this mess and therefore the first sts to get out of thi mess ve to be taken in washington. not moscow. w, the prevaing view of the americanedia and the american political estabshment-- though i have to say to his credi ambassador pickerg has hinted th is not entily the cas- but the prevailing vi is that the ruians have to make th positive step ife want to get along. that'sertainly not the view i ve that. >> rose: that doesn'teem like the mind-set of present obama, eier. >> you hav't asked us what the administration has cone. to my mi it's been extreme discouraging. they've done twohings that literay shocked me. first of allthey sentut the numb one person on national security council, chael mcfall, to say that nhing's op foregotiation. now this was fny to meecause i'm old enough to remember whe used to joke ring the cd

war thatre the soviet position was what ours is ours and what yours... and yours is up f netiation. we're now taking theosition, ththings that the rusans care aut we have said befor obamlanded in mosw are not on the negotiating table. so what's there to talk about? and the other thing, andhis is where the drama goes back to your putin qution. who in the world-- and thus it was a slip-- told president obama to speak negativelyf putin onis way to mosc? they gave him baddvice. >> rose: the adminiration's attitude, as much you kw from all the people thatou talk to in washiton, how the ewed this and their attitude towards first russia, second medvedev and third putin. >> i think that the administration understands that russia is important. and i thinkhat the ver fact that they'realking about needing to reset this relationship and that this tr me ahead of a trip to china, for example,is heartening.

and i tnk it shows that ty kn a lot of wk needs to be done. d i do this that if anybody can listen to all of... all sides and all of the dferent things tt hewillear and take it in and do somethi with it, it is pbably barack obama. will be good at listeningo putin. he's going to see gorbachev, too and believe me, he's goingo hearhe same thingrom gorbachev. i think everything stephens saying is right. we just have no... we have no idea in this country how many years russia has felt really abandoned by the unite states. i will ver forge just watching gorbachev's face years ago athe maa summit when he... bush senior told him what e big plans that the united states hador russia were, which was bically nothing a nooney and no aid. and i think 's... it has seemed that wayall along but itill am not convince.. i mean, i think tt they know it's important.

but i'm still not convinc that they kw what they want t get out of it. yes, the nuclear agreements are critical. but there's still, i tnk, a see of sayingness about what the ited stateseally fls it needs or wants fm russia. and i don't think that's bn defined t. again, there's lot of talk about iran, i'm noto sure russia is a rtner in iran. and beyo that i think they're just not sure and tt's prably not going to help. >> rose: ambassador picring, in terms of history, will the period right after the collapse of the wall and the soviet union disintegting allthe way through the beginning of the iraqi war be viewed in history as areat lost opportunity for thunited states to d aot to engage russi create confidence? provide a much better world?

>> that's not, i tnk, necessarily a slam-dunk conclusion. it was no question at al that we told stories during that riod of time of people not knowinhow to take basically a counist system and turn it to something se. it was just n carvision of how to do it ere was no question l that people dn't want to dump fantastic quantiti of money on the problem. the was no question at all that there were rious problem in russ adjusting t this particular setf changes that i think is still part of what' going on. russia is still, i tnk, in ouble seeking what it's kin of futu of itself is andoing to be. but there was no question at all that there was a time of ansition and some people may ll it a time real troubles. there were no questions at that e early years of the 90s were very hard on many individual russians who were struggng to

find a wayo stay ali in a ry difficult set of circumstances as one syste collapseand the oer did not comeorward to replace it. so i think anybody who had a grandiose view that there waa silver bulletnd that all we had to do was to put that i operation and that inour or five years evething would be chand certainly missed the whole nature of the situation at at time d the ole set of difficulti that everybody ha and certainly there were hug problems of serious embarrasent in rush shachlt people hadeen themselves and beenersuaded that they were at the top ofhe heap,ertainly real competition wit the united states in many, many ways. d this all fell away in radical fhion andput them in a very, very diffilt set of circumstances. and there were people inhe end of the '90s talking abouthe russian economy bein the size ofungary, at least in terms of its attraction of foreignirect investment and oer kinds of things so thiisn't over yet. i think whate're seeing is the

latest manifestion of this continued struggle f change and a continued seriousffort to find out wt happened. now, letme just address one thing that you h rsed. the notion that, in fact, in six mont russian public attites toward the united stat at the top at least turned om very an tagist inic to what i wouldall at least partly resent sie a serious derstoodcation that something changed. wasn't just the u.s. election and i think iasn't just necearily the persuasive capaties of the president although tse should never be underestimated. but there was also, i think, an outrea at the benning of this period that said "here are a whole bunch of items that can be put on e agea that need to be addressed" and i think those were part o the sumnd substance of theonversation that that president had in lon with president medvedev and they have made a difference. and i was surprised, quite frankly, as i read or the statementshat were issued toy how much more forwar

leaning they had bee than what we had seen over a long period ime in the past. now,his is not in my view necessarily an iron-clad commitment to th future direction with no swiveling or changing, much more has to be done and mucmore has to be delivered. but it is in my view mh more potive than i expected and i read the newapers over the weend and much more positive than a number ofommentators of note in the newspapers were predicting the situation would be today. >>ose: last word to you. >> i wasoing to say t things qukly. i do think it's a big mistakeo ve into this notion that somehow the ways i which russia has gone wrongre ameca's fault. ultimate, these are russiamade problems. i think there was e real big policy mistake by america and that w supportg, at least imicitly, the loans for shares giaway of the natural resources to a very small group of olirchs. and i think the public resentment that that createdis much more powerful driver of putin's popularity than any of

this anti-western seinement. maybe in closing my answerto your question about whatwe don't understand about putin is what is moremportant to him: poweor money? and my favorit line from m russian fries about shim that the tragedy of putin is he wan to re like stalin but live like abramovitch. rose: on that a thank you veryuch. thank you. stephen cohen's booksoviet faith and lost alternativerom stall inis to the new cold war" where he emphasizes the ideas he expressed. claire shipman, thank you. amssador pickering, thank you. look forward to mor conversations about the obal zero commiion of which you are a member a a step by step an to eliminate nuclear weons by the year 0. thank you all. >> thank youery much. >> rose: whene come back, we'll take note of robert mcnamara who died today, age 93, in washington.

>>ose: robert mcnama died today at his home in washington. he was . he serveds secretary of defensfor seven yea under president nnedy and president joson. his ten-year span, the bay of pigs invion, the cuban missile cris and the escalation o the vietnam war. ter in the week we'll run a larger appreciation with clips of his appearae on this program but fo now, this brief excerpof robert mcmara on our program. >> i belie today tt hoe ho i minh was not a follower of stalin and kruschev, which i thought he was at time he was a tito, he was an asian tito. i believed the war in south vietnam wanot a war of foreign aggression. i lieve it was a civil war. i believe that it was the power of nationalihat was at stake there.

that i believe under tse circumstances no foreign army can substitute f theeople of that coury decing a civil war themselves. it's impossibl now, these beliefs, they may seem obvious t you. they wen't obvious toe five years ago. >> ros robertcnamara dead at age 93. captioning sponsored by rose communicaons captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.or