so the kgb with those get smart levels. is that still the case to have your ducks in a row of the inheritors of the kgb? and with the consequences or the continuation of the. that you are talking about? >> i think so. and even before world war ii happened that absolutely we would be adversaries. and the americans were slow. and then to imagine the wartime alliance these were two crucial years that essentially while the soviets were taking over eastern europe. that is one thing but the soviets and with the espionage so then you will come across the effect of those of the russian or soviet agents. and sometimes one guy could rat out one dozen. not that they cannot be cold-blooded but you don't sacrifice. >> you make the case of that mentality and then first the paranoia that it takes is there any exaggeration to say the kgb and the soviets at the beginning is an extension. >> absolutely added to the feelings of paranoia and already we have nobody behind the iron curtain. i had no idea. and in the 1950 they had no mold anywher

so then peter was investigated for being a kgb mole. so these guys -- along with what's happening in front of them in the field. there's always someone behind looking over their shoulder. that they could be investigated as un-american. but the irony is that despite all that they miss some of the spies that were certainly operating on our shores. for example he has the most notorious one was the britt we trusted the most i guess. tells about him. >> guest: time and again. what hoover would do it was kind of funny. he was a genuine spy in 1945. that this woman career came in and confessed too. and she named all of these name names. and there's two and 50 special agents on the case. in 1945 the fbi still had a dress code. they had a real dress code back then. that suits, ties, short hair. they are all whites. all men. so 250 kaiser dumped on the streets tracking bona fide soviet spies. these guys realize they're being tailed in about two seconds. and they stopped all this i got no convictions out of them at all. hoover was constantly chasi

in a row and whatever the inheritors of the kgb are? are we now living through the consequences or the continuation of the period you are talking about? >> i think so. two things you still see today but certainly you saw it from the day world war ii ends and even before, the soviets understood the next enemy was the worst specifically the united states, that we were going to be adversaries and we see that from stalin all the way down and americans were slow to understand that. truman came in in april of 1945 as the war was ending and for some crucial years he kind of imagined the wartime alliance might be safe, these were two crucial years in which americans were essentially demilitarized while soviets were taking over eastern europe. that is one thing. the second thing is soviets, the things they would do in the field, to the western mind kind of unbelievable. one thing they do quite frequently, they've done this very recently is dangle across to the west, dangle is a false spectrum. he will come across and say i want to detect and to

kgb disinformation. vladimir putin is the air both as head of russian intelligence and as the strong man later of russia. garrett, there's a straight line that runs through these stories from the end of world war ii to today. people think the cold war was then in the 20th century and this nightmare we're going through now with russia attacking our democracy, that's a whole different story. they are one story. >> one of the things about this book that struck me was that you have written so much about the cia before, creates a lot of its successes in myriad failures, the -- i'm not spoiling the thesis of a book called legacy of ashes but you were general lee's has been there are more failures on the cia's books and successes. i'm curious how this project and looking at this 12 years later change your perception of the cia, changed your belief in how come in the role it played in the cold war and sort of what should we make of the legacy of the cia in this particular fight? >> covert action is a drug for pr

it seems americans are winking at the entire time whereas the kgb almost has a get smart level sting operation, elaborate hoaxes. has that always, is it still the case they have their ducks in a row? privy to all this, are we living rules of consequences of a continuation of the period we are talking about in the agencies? >> i think so. two things. you still see it today, the day world war ii ends and even before, the soviets understood that the next enemy was the west specifically the united states, we were going to be adversaries. you see that from stalin all the way down and the americans were slow to understand that. truman a man as the war was ending and for crucial years he imagined the wartime alliance might be safe and two crucial years in which americans were demilitarized while the soviets were taking over eastern europe. the second thing, the soviets, the thing they would do in the field of espionage to the western mind was illegal. one thing they would do quite frequently, they did this very recently was a dangle, essentially a false effect. they would come across and sa

and that was kgb disinformation. both is ahead of russia intelligence and is a strong leader of russia. and there's a straight line that runs through the stories at the end of world war ii to today. and the cold war in 20th century in the number was author now. with russia attacking our democracy. that is a whole different story. garrett: . [inaudible]. what struck me was that you've written so much about things that raised a lot of successes and myriad failures. i am not spoiling the thesis of the book called legacy of ashes but your sort of general belief is that there are more failures in the cia's book than successes . and i am curious how this project in looking at this 12 years later, would change your perception of the cia and change your belief and how in the role that it played in the cold war in sort of what should we make of the legacy of the cia in this particular time. tim: covert action is a drug for presidents and secretaries of defense, secretaries and state. they've a problem that they can't solve th

they ran operation around the globe trying to outwit the kgb in berlin, parachuting command in eastern europe, plotting coups and directing wars against communists insurgence in asia. a time and again the effort went awry. forded by, nation of stupidity and ideological rigidity at the highest levels of the government and more profoundly, the decision to abandon american ideals. by the mid-1950s the soviet union had a stranglehold on eastern europe, the u.s. had begun its disastrous intervention in vietnam and america the beacon of democracy was overthrowing it democratically elected government and earning the hatred of much of the world. all of this culminated in an act of betrayal and cowardice that would lock the cold war into place for decades to come. anderson brings to the telling of this story all the narrative deep research come skeptical eye and lively prose a major international bestseller. in intertwined lives of these bn begin in in a, purse of defendg freedom by the ravages of the cold war led them to different fates. to equip the cia in despair stricken by the moral compro

kgb misinformation. and ahead of russian intelligence from the end of world war ii through today. that the cold war was then in the 20th century know what we're going through now russia attacking our democracy is a whole different story. >> so what struck me was you have written so much about the ca before - - cia before with the successes and failures and spoiling the thesis of the book of legacy of ashes but your general believe there are more failures on the cia book and successes. i am curious looking at this 12 years later change your perception of the cia and your belief in the world that it played in the cold war and what should we make of the legacy in this particular fight? >> it is a drug for presidents and secretaries of defense, secretaries of state. and through the military and the cia. the cia in 1947 and didn't know the first thing about covert action. they been added since peter the great. and for centuries. so our lack of knowledge of how to do these sorts of things that because of the secrecy of the cia to coordinate things with policymakers and secretary of stat

look at this from the point of view of an operator running operations a the kgb in the cold war.f you're exacerbating a phenomenon, how can you tell whether you are the cause of a certain development or something was already happening without you. so i think what we're looking at today is a situation that they are trying to especially now in 2020 they try to take advantage of existing debates and fraction in the united states but if we fall into ascribing to their action, too much power for example as you think or claim the russian election interference with response before getting donald trump elected as simply not enough evidence to support that claim we cannot say for a fact it had an impact on the 2016 election but you make that call of judgment if you say i believe the russian election interference is responsible for donald trump winning. then you are ultimately helping them achieve that goal so in a nutshell the risk is a narrative becomes part of the disinformation. we really are in a constructive manner. >> let me ask each of you to think with all of us about what we can

>> the kgb the eyes of russia. host: thank you. john go ahead. >>caller: yes i have a question if you are somebody can answer on tv and in the newspapers they talk about russia interfering in our elections. china interfering with our elections. this goes on and on but nobody says a word, they all say foreign governments should not interfere in our election in any shape or form. host: we are taking a on - - talking about books today in our 20th anniversary anything of the book world you like to talk about. >>caller: no. i watch television and read the newspaper. host: we appreciate your call. good afternoon the work what are you reading or who is your favorite author do have a favorite program? >>caller: i have been reading this book by an author regarding truman. host: is that the new one? >>caller: yes. host: he has a new one do we defeats truman. >>caller: an interesting book. truman did have a good second term after he won the is the favorite author have to be nonfiction? host: to have a favorite fiction author? >>caller: thomas berger. he's n

even kgb ncaa bitter enemies by cap together. so let me summarize for you like i did for a time magazine on oswald's guiland to summarize why there is no conspiracy if you ask me of thkgb and i answer you and someone doesn't say what about castro? what about the right wing? i will try to summarize. i learned as a procutor, you don't have to be but common a sense so chances are there a not any evidence pointing toward your ilt because you arennocent. but because of the nature and the unaccountability now and then an extremely unusual situation.oi and then to ask me who done it. everything points toward lee harvey oswald guilt 53 separate pieces of evidence pointing towards his guilt and under the circumstances it would not be humanly possible for oswald to be innocent not in the world in which we live. only in a fantasy world can you have 53 pieces of evidence. >> that was vince from 2007 he passed away 2015 and in 2004 a list of guest. victor davis hanson. neil ferguson simon winchester and on september 5th we went to the booksto

was really good at it and then to put your mily at sk that is a raw type of courage but the soviet kgbofficer inside the soviet machine knowing that atny moment that you would be arrested and tortured and killed for sheer bravery. >> we have a question from richard how much did intelligence contribute to the red army victory? if you wish to broaden that you said ursula's intel was valued dedicate down to the level of the operation in the field on the battlefront? >> it's a really good question to the extent to which the soviet system inside in germany with that in the battlefield and i'm not really an expert on that the gathering this information she was transmitting this information not actually gathering at herself she was the only radio operator i think she did really and i would argue that yes they did have an impact and with the military forces and that disposition that is incredibly useful intended to disbelieve as an extraordinary person to display the intelligence he was receiving those who ended up in japan he just didn't trust spies and one of the greatest example with that e

caller: the kgb the eyes of russia offered by harry. host: thank you, sir, john and hutchinson kansas, good afternoon. caller: yes, of a question, maybe you are so many can answ answer, on tv i watch and in the newspapers everywhere they talk about russia interfering our elections, china interfering with our elections and this goes on and on and on but nobody says a word, they all say foreign governments should not interfere with our election in any way shape or form, i go to channel late. host: john i'm going to interrupt you, were talking about books today in our 20th anniversary of in-depth, anything in the book world that you want to comment on. >> no i listened to television and recent newspaper. thank you, sir i appreciate your call. brent in new york, good afternoon, what are you reading who's your favorite author and you have a favorite in-depth program of the past 20 years. caller: i've been reading this book, i cannot remember the author's name but it's truman. host: is that the new one without be the author. he has a new one

even the kgb and cia, bitter enemies but got together on this one. you ask me who did it? me tries to summarize luke i did for "time magazine." they gave me a page. on oswald's fill. if you're i can summarize why they're no conspiracy. the individual conspiracy theories and ask me about the kgb and i answer you, then someone will say what bat castro, anti-cass destroy -- the right wing? i'll try to summarize it for you. i learned as a prosecutor -- you don't have to be prosecutor. common sense -- that if you are in a scene of -- innocent of a crime chances are there want be any evidence at all pointing towards your guilt. why? because you're innocent. but because of the nature of life, the unaccountability of certain things, now and then a piece of evidence will point towards your guilt. even though you're independent and am extremely unusual, rare situation, maybe even two, three pieces of evidence, strong evidence, point towards your guilt even though you're independent but in this case here, peter, because you asked me "who dun it," everything. everything points towards

even the kgb and cfe, bitter enemies but the gethe together n this one. they think the whole world is a ball. you asked me who did it. let be summarized for use for time magazine a couple months ago. they gave me a page on oswald gill and then i get some rest for you if you're interested in why there's no conspiracy. if you gave to the individual conspiracy theories and you ask me about the kgb and at you and some other sayss what about castro come what about the right-wing? i'll try to summarize it for you. i learned as a prosecutor and you don't have to be prosecutor, common sense, that if you are innocent of a crime, chances are there's not going to be any evidence at all pointing torture gilbert why? because you are innocent. but because of the nature of life, the unaccountability of certain things, now and then he's abundant will point . geoa guilt even though your innocent. an extremely unusual rare situation maybe even two or three pieces of evidence, strong evidence, point toward your guilt even though your innocent. but in this case, because you

something unusual, look at this problem from the point of view of the operator running an operati say the kgbar. you are exacerbating an existing phenomenon,ow can you tell really whether you are the cause of a certain development or whether something was already happening without you? so i think what we are looking at today is the situation that trying to especially known 2020 the russian intelligence committee tries to take advantage of existin debates, frictions in the united states. but if we fall intohe track of ascribing to to much power. for example if you think her claim that the russian election interference with response before getting donald trump elected simply not enough evidence to support that claim. we cannot say for a fact there's an actual impact on the electio election. let's make that judgment if you say i believe the russian election interference is responsible for donald trump winning the election at least partly, you are ultimately helping them to achieve that goal. the nutshell this becomes part of disinformatio. we are really in a constructiveightmare here. >> t me as

look at the point of view of someone running the operation, say the kgb in the cold war, if you're exacerbatingisting phenomenon how can you tell really whether you are the cause of a certain development or whether someone was already happening without you? so i think what we're looking at today is this situation that they're trying to, especially now in 2020, that the russian intelligence community continues to try to take advantage of existing debates and frictions in the united states. but if we fall into the trap of ascribing to their action too much power. for example, if you think or claim that the russian election interference was responsible for getting donald trump elected, there's simply not enough evidence to support that claim. we can in the say for a fact that they had an actual impact on the outcome of the 2016 election. but if you make that call of judgment. if you say, i believe the russian election interference is responsible for donald trump winning the election, at least part, then you are ultimately helping them to achieve that goal. so that in a nutshell, the risk is that t

. >> reporter: so far there's silence from the former kgb colonel, vladimir putin has not yet calledote to president-elect biden. putin's mouthpiece saying because of president trump's legal challenges to the election results. >> we think it is appropriate to wait for the official results of the election. >> reporter: trump's prolonged contesting of election results has putin and his accolades ref elg in the turmoil. a remark by mike pompeo this afternoon only fuels that. >> there will be a smooth transition to a second trump administration. >> reporter: what's putin's biggest worry about biden? >> they're going to push a democracy promotion. a nightmare from moscow's perspective. it essentially translates to attempts at regime change. >> reporter: putin is not alone in not reaching out to biden. other leaders trump has engaged with have not yet acknowledged biden's win, like the chinese president, kim jong-un, and brazilian president. xi and kim have similar motive to putin. >> their only concern is that america will have a successful and peaceful transition. that's the last thing t

. >> vladimir putin, this former kgb agent, for the president to take his word like that, was so stunning. >> why does he seem to like putin despite the fact putin is perhaps the primary enemy of the united states? >> i think the president repeatedly confuses having good personal relationships with foreign leaders, with having good overall bilateral relationships between the two countries. >> trump's public allegiance to president putin, according to former national security advisor john bolton, has led the president to resist intelligence warnings about russia. >> what it was it like briefing him? >> it was clear he wasn't reading much of the material he was being sent. so i tried to be opportunistic in finding circumstances where i could convey information i felt that he needed, but i don't think that proved very successful. >> i've been in briefings many times when the president is being briefed on everything from domestic issues to national security issues to foreign policy issues. he's a listener. people miss how patient he is. i think that comes from being a dealmaker. >> bolton lef

picture of him and there's a newspaper picture, but he was the russian representative, because he was the kgb agent, and that's where folks was living klaus fuchs was living, and that was. it >> he probably thought he was the hero right. >> he probably did. >> but the russian government has never acknowledged that he spied. never. >> so let's move to some questions from the audience, and here is one so was klaus fuchs outraged by nazi scientists like brown from the u.s.? i guess he would've heard about this. >> assuming he heard about it in prison, he never made any mention of it, so i honestly don't know the answer to that one, either one way or the other, and i don't know if you ever knew about it. i don't know you know i don't think they have a lot of newspapers to read in prison. >> right. >> so here's another question, did he express regret about his spying, aside from the risk it ran for his friends at the time? did he later issue an apology? did he ever? >> no never, he never said i shouldn't have spied. except in connection with his friends he did not feel that he had done anything wr

transformation and i was probably one of the first snoshs, along with senator bob smith to go down into the kgbnd see reams of files with names in them and it sort of brought home the transition to democracy that russia was trying to make. i regret what's happened in these past months. and i think it goes beyond just the response to terror. mr. putin now controls all the television stations. his political opposition is being put in jail. and i think it's very important for the united states, obviously, to have a working relationship that is good. this is a very important country to us and we want a partnership, but we always have to stand up for democracy. as george will said the other day, freedom on the march, innocent russia. now, i'd like to come back for a quick moment to china and the talks. that's one of the most critical issues here, north korea. just because the president says it can't be done, that you lose china, doesn't mean it can't be done. i mean, this is the president who said there were weapons of mass destruction, said mission accomplished, said we could fight the war on the c

engaging and most of us would say overly warm in a concerning sort of way towards russia's leader, ex-kgbtted america. so joe biden is going to have that task to rebuild those relationships. i think he is going to be able to do that. i think also you had harry truman in 1945 after he took over had a lot of challenges with a country coming back from war, uncertain future. joe biden is facing -- you know, it wasn't really facing the war that harry truman had to end in 1945, but he is fighting a battle against a pandemic that right now is raging across middle america. we have an uncertain economy. we now, of course, have some people on wall street wall stre expecting the first quarter of 2021 to take a dip. so there's an uncertain economic future as well. and we are once again, richard, and i know you'll appreciate this, we're once again in a bipolar world. over the past several years, we have all talked about moving from a bipolar world to a tripolar world to a multipolar world. you and i have spoken about this time and again. we're in a bipolar world. it's the united states, and it's china