higher stakes. it was thheight of the superpower confrontation, the cold war. the two countries were pretty evenly matched. since then, the soviet union is now russia and it has taken quite a fall. i think that putin symbolizes the humiliation of the country and he really sees himself in the old czar model. i think the white house didn't go ahead with it, because they just figured he was going to stiff them on a whole range of issues. and why should they? the president is still going to the g20 smut in st. petersburg, which putin is hosting. i think it's theater in both countries. it has more to do with the particular personalities involved and domestic russian politics than any big cold war

rupture. >> i think that putin, yes, could have made obama look bad in a few ways, meeting face-to- face, in ways that -- i mean, now, if you look at it from the outside, it's almost like obama is beating putin in a political race, and putin is demanding a debate, and the front-runner has no reason to meet with him. we're beating putin economically, we're exporting oil to europe when he wants to be doing it. so putin brings him into the country and somehow brings the snowden factor out there, which can only make obama look bad. no. obama has nothing to gain, lots to lose. not surprised he cancelled it. >> i'm not surprised he cancelled it either. we have to understand what putin is like. this guy, putin, is one tough cookie. he came out of the kgb. he was the head of a lot of their, shall we say, undercover activities. he was a very tough guy that he was able to take over that

country, the way he did, at the age he did. those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't. we have to be very careful about dealing with this guy. we cannot give him the feeling that he can push us around. i think this is exactly -- was exactly the right thing to do. what he did in syria, in iran, what he's doing all through the middle east, he's going directly against our interests and he knows that he's doing that. >> wait a minute. we've got clashing national interests with russia, he with us. we've got syria. what else? iran to some extent. >> wait a minute. this is a great power. it's a significant power around people like nixon and eisenhower would not have allowed us to have what you call a rupture. on syria, our rebels happy to

be more and more dominated by al-qaeda. and they're saying, why are you supporting guys that blew up the twin towers? >> the secretary of state and the defense secretary, hagel and kerry, met with russian officials late this week. they were just not going to put the frosting on the cake by having the president go over there and meet with him on his home turf, which would just grandize him at a time when he's really been yanking the tail of the tiger. >> before that, there's the magnisky act. what is that? >> it put sanctions on a number of soviet individuals which it blames for the death of this fellow back in 2009. and putin responded wrongly by denying us, denying american couples, the right to adopt russian children. there are good things going

here. i mean, nixon dealt with -- truman dealt with stalin. we can't deal with putin? >> we're still dealing. the president is going to the summit. it's just a side meeting that was just for pr purposes. on jay leno's tonight show -- >> a lot of what's been going on hasn't been major breaks in the relationship. and they still help us on supplying our troops in afghanistan. they're still helping us on counterterrorism work. they were helpful after the boston bombing, in that investigation. so there's still a lot of business we can do with them. but there have been times where they slipped back into cold war thinking. >> does this sound like cold war thinking to you? >> to an extent, it is. i don't know if it's cold war thinking. that's just who putin is. he's just a very tough guy and

he's gonna be very tough in some ways. he certainly is, in my judgment, in the middle east, across the middle east. and you can say they are a great power. but we have interests there too. and i think we have clashing interests. so we're gonna have some big issues with him. >> think of what we've done. look, at the end of the cold war, they dismantled their empire, they got out of eastern europe. they did all this. what did we do? put nato right up to their border. cut them out of caspian sea oil. we almost threatened to go to war with him over some little problem in georgia. they are ticked off there. tony blankly, our late friend, told me he went over there and met with astonish at the hostility to the united states. but in 1989 and '91, they wanted to be our friends. now, we are partly responsible for the bad relationship. >> this is a pat buchanan apology. >> wait a minute. what do you have to say to him? >> well, i think that right

now, yeah, we're dealing with a guy, putin, who is helping prop up bashar al-assad -- like what if putin wanted to make the world a better place? he would help out in syria. >> why do you think bashar al- assad would not win? >> that's the problem. >> wait a minute. are you defending the rebels in syria? >> no, no. i'm saying because we don't have a good alternative in supporting the rebels, a better alternative would be applying pressure. i'm saying imagine there was a powerful ally -- >> exit question. >> the u.s. sort of moved in. >> exit question. in obama's second term, will there be a second nuclear arms reduction agreement with moscow? yes or no. >> i don't think so. i think we'll try to implement the first but i don't think we'll get a second. >> it would save both countries a lot of money -- >> yes or no. >> maybe putin can turn on a dime -- >> yes or no. >> yes. >> no, he's not going to turn

on a dime. >> three to one, john. issue 2. bezos goes postal. sold, the washington post, by a billionaire, jeff bezos. the founder of amazon.com. price? $250 million out of bezos's own pocket. the washington post newspapers has been owned by the same family, the grahams, for eight decade. the post is loss known for its reportage of the watergate break-in that led to the resignation of richard nixon. this was the golden age for the post. but now, in the digital age,

with news content gravitating to the internet, the post has struggled, like all print media. donald graham described how revenues declined. seven years in a row, with the newspaper suffering a $54 million operating loss last year. that's $54 million. circulation of the paid print edition plunged from $786,000 in 2002, eleven years ago, to $481,000 in 2012. rather than attempt more cost cutting, says mr. graham, he decided to sell. mr. bezos, age 49, is one of the world's richest people, with an estimated worth billions. he sells streaming video online over amazon prime and he introduced the amazon kindle. bezos is the latest mogul, who

in recent years has snapped up newspapers. the boston globe was purchased for $70 million one week ago. and warren buffet has purchased more than 30 newspapers in the past two years. question. if old media like newspapers are a dying business, why are millionaires drawn to them? >> because they no longer wish to be billionaires. >> ha ha! >> losing money, look, let me just describe the problem. the whole business model for print products has changed because of the interpret. he did not use and does not use the old thinking, so he's got a chance, i think, to understand and learn how to translate print products into something that will work on the internet as well as in print, in addition to which that's gonna take a lot of money and it's gonna take a lot of time. i know, because i've been through that.

the atlantic monthly is a magazine i've owned for a long time. i sold it to a man who looked at it entirely as a platform to hold seminars and conferences and turned it into a profitable business. somebody has to have new thinking when you look at the newspaper business. and if anybody can do it, he can do it, and he's got the money to get there. >> how much money did the new york times lose last year? >> i don't know what their specific operating loss is but -- >> multiple millions. >> but it's a vanity thing also. look, this makes mr. bezos a tremendous big figure in the political capitol of the world. people are going to be groveling to him and they already are. he's a mover and shaker. he also has businesses which are regulated and this gives him a very powerful weapon in talking to people to make sure the regulations don't do damage to his other businesses. >> a huge emotional wallop for washington and journalism.

i personally worked for the grahams for a number of years because they owned news-week. they really cared about journalism. the washington post and the graham family have been synonomous. so i was shocked, just like everybody at the post. this was like unthinkable. but then you work it through. you understand, as mort says, the business model has completely changed, and i began to think of it as the grahams sort of putting their baby out on a steamship in the 1900's to the new world. and bezos can -- he has invented the new world. so maybe he can find the future for the post. because it was not working. >> he wants control of the world and the washington post. >> well, he doesn't have a clear -- >> other people, like eric schmidt, google's ceo, his

company makes less revenue than bezos and spends ten times as much. he's very political -- >> the washington post has influence on capitol hill? >> yes. but i'm saying bezos has not tried to be a huge power player here in washington. his lobbying here has largely ended up being defensive or reactive. it's either a huge change in approach or -- >> he's a libertarian. he calls himself a libertarian, i believe. >> he's a republican. he's a republican. issue three. tragedy. >> in dealing with the challenges that greece faces, we cannot simply look to -- it's important that we have a plan for fiscal consolidation, to manage the debt, but it's also important that growth and

jobs are accomplished. >> president obama this week met with the prime minister of greece. as his nation suffers from record-high unemployment and awaits more debt relief from eurozone countries. greece is in a devastating recession. 27.6% of greeks are unemployed. young people aged 15 to 24 have it even worse. 64.9% unemployed. and greece is under pressure to cut even more jobs, those on the state payroll, who have already seen their salaries and pensions cut. these are some of the terms greece must meet in order to keep receiving loans as part of two massive bailouts from the eurozone lenders. the first was in may, 2010, a massive $110 billion in euros to keep greece from going into

default, one that europeans feared would have repercussions. all $172 billion in dollars. but greeks, including the prime minister, are chasing against what they consider the too harsh austerity measures that have come with these funds. question. what was the purpose of the greek prime minister's meeting with president obama? was it a courtesy call or was it connected to the german chancellor chasing an election in september, six weeks from now? >> listen, greece and a number of european countries are in terrible financial shape. and the whole of that continent virtually, with the exception of germany, is in terrible financial shape. germany is bailing them out as best they can. i don't know if it can hold together. it's hard for me to see how they do hold together.

they're in a major depression. >> the answer to your question is yes. the greeks are in the sixth year of their real problems here. the debt is so big, they can't manage it. they're going to need another bailout. merkel is going to okay it or it's not coming. i think what he's here for is to get obama and to call merkel to keep the money coming. >> it's clear the president doesn't favor the really stringent austerity politics. i think, you know -- i don't think this is all wired like you suggest. >> i didn't say wired. >> but everybody is acting in character. the greeks need some relief. austerity is not working. the president says grow your economy. he's saying that in this country too. he's telling congress, grow the economy, and republicans are running around saying let's defund -- >> pull the plug.

>> merkel wants greece to practice an austerity program. greece is objecting to it like crazy. so is obama objecting to it. austerity does not yield the type of money-making that obama wants. you understand? so it all adds up to merkel and us. >> so obama's view, at least when it comes to greece, is sort of the view that you grow by spending more, by getting rid of the high taxes. the funny thing is, he talks that way here, but he ended up hiking the payroll taxes back up. >> the european economy is supported by germany. there is going to be a point at which the german people are going to say we're tired of bailing out spain, greece, italy. and when that happens, you have a catastrophe. >> i don't think that day is coming, because the germans lose much more than they would gain if that happened. >> the point is -- >> merkel

has got to look, in some way, as if she's trying to impose some austerity, because the germans are paying for it. >> greece's debt is currently 176% of gnp. >> they're going to try to get it down but -- >> john, mort is right. there's going to come a day where the german constituency, says, ms. merkel -- >> exit question. does the obama administration want to euro zone to abandon its process in favor of stimulus spending? >> not total abandonment. just ease back on the throttles. young people. it's 60% unemployment in greece. >> that's a no. okay. >> eleanor is right. >> germany pays for all of this and not the united states. >> the answer is yes. total abandonment. issue four.

privacy. forget about it. >> in the abstract, you can complain about big brother and how this is a potential, you know, program run amok. but when you actually look at the details, then i think we've struck the right balance. >> the bill of rights are being violated, our privacy is being violated. and really, no government should do this. >> edward snowden's revelations abt the national security agency's domestic snooping have ignited a global debate over privacies have security. whereas president obama justifies the nsa's collection of metadata, referring to millions of individuals' telephone records and internet, airline and credit card data. experts warn that the invasion

of privacy is anything but. many players in government characterize the nsa's use of data as more or less benign. but metadata is more powerful than most realize. it can reveal a person's religious and political views, economic standing, sexual preference, personality, mental health, ethnicity. use of addictive substances and more. the ability to characterize groups by these traits might tempt some in government from finding terrorists to targeting groups because of their political leanings. so say three metadata specialists. they're proposed solution? give the citizenry the power to set controls on corporations and companies who collect their data, whether and with whom it can be shared, and whether or not it should be destroyed

permanently. people won't have access to their digital data trails in a way similar to an e-mail in- box, so that people can monitor who views their data and who uses it. question. which entity has more personal information about you, the nsa, the national security agency, or google? >> well, the nsa has almost everything that google has and that's part of the problem here, that they're harvesting this data on everyone, even people who aren't suspected. but they're not looking at it until you're somehow close to a suspect. here's a big difference. i choose to give information to google. i choose to use gmail and to use google searches. i did not choose to hand my information over to the nsa. so the nsa is taking it without my permission. google is taking it because that's my price for doing business with them. >> they had 134,000 e-mails,

data about his 2,000-plus contacts, knew what he searched for and what he talked to on the telephone, et cetera. et cetera. what do you think of that? >> well, if it's me, i would say the fbi's file on me is probably larger. that's what i'd be most worried about. look, no. i tend to agree here. and this idea, john, of individuals saying you can't have this or that, i don't know how that works when the nsa obviously isn't that interested in me. but some terrorist is going to say, i'd prefer if you fellows didn't have my phone records and all the rest of it. but, you know, i'm beginning to think that the congress of the united states should rightly take a look at this and sort of limit and we should argue out exactly what they can hold and how long. >> well, they are looking at it. and the president, in his press conference on friday, basically said he wants to work with the congress on putting appropriate restraints in place and more

oversight, all that. but they're not gonna give up these programs. these programs are going to grow. there is sort of a limitless ability of the state to manipulate your life. it's vast amounts of anonymous data. i just don't get worked up over it. >> who would you rather have in control of your private information, google or the nsa? >> actually, i would prefer google. i don't know why. i'm that kind of a guy. >> well, the nsa is subject to government controls. google is not. >> i'm not worried about either google or the nsa, okay? it just doesn't upset me. what would upset me is if we don't have the information and you have three or four terrorist attacks on this country. >> the potential abuse of the data is far more severe with private firms. >> i agree. anything is possible. i'm just saying that we have to worry about the security of this country, and we are going to be faced with more and more dangers -- >> fortunately, we can regulate the nsa. we don't want to be regulating

google. predictions. >> al-qaeda rising inside the rebel forces in syria, the united states will pull back from the rebels. >> tea party activists demanding obamacare be defunded. >> house republicans will stand up to the banking industry and they will kill the senate's overhaul bill. >> the next country to have a financial crisis is spain. it will happen within the next two years. >> i predict that edward snowden will never go to trial. bye-bye!

>> rose: welcome to the program this evening john olt i ver who is sitting in for jon stewart as host of the daily show on comedy central. >> having a human conversation is not something i've had any training in either as a comedian or as, you know, a human being. i'm british so human conversations are not something we excel in. we like to repress what you are talking about, and that is why you love downton abbey, everybody is talk around what they think.

so having a 6 minute conversation about the thing you actually want to talk about is very jarring to me. >> rose: john oliver for the hour. next, funding for charlie rose was provided by the following: captioning sponsored by rose communications

from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: john oliver is here, a comedian and political satirist this summer he has been filling in as host of comedy central's the daily show while jon stewart is directing his first movie. >> welcome to the dilley show, i'm john oliver and let's all just acknowledge for a moment that this is weird. >> this looks weird t feels weird t even sounds weird. it sounds weird to me and this is my actual voice. look. if you haven't heard by now jon stewart is going to be away for the summer. he's gone to a small italian village to learn how to cobble shoes. (laughter) >> rose: since 2006 he has been the show's senior

british correspondent. here's a look at him in action, ridiculing the politics of gun control. >> meet rob borebich, former premier of queensland, australia's most conservative state. in 1996 he was instrumental in enacting gun control. knowing it would cost him his political career in the next election. >> we paid a high political price. but we did the right thing. >> look there are australians alive today because we took that action. i mean how much is a life worth? >> rose: but jim manly knows that a true public servant has more important concerns. >> what makes a politician successful? >> getting re-elected by his or her con sfit-- constituents. >> right, yes. that is how you judge success. >> okay. well, getting legislation done. >> it's second. >> is second, yes. >> that is second.