ambassador nicholas burns joins us, he's a former state profession of political affairs.truth to that, is there? >> the russians, shep, it's obvious what's happening, putin is using his crimea playbook for eastern ukraine. i find the charges to be highly credible. it's putin's way of trying to whip up unrest in those big, ethnic russian cities in ukraine. that would give a pretext to the russians to take further measures perhaps we'll see across the border. it's a very dangerous situation, very unstable and, shep, the united states and europe left with very few tools here to push back and deter putin -- further putin aggression on eastern ukraine. >> he was using his media to tell people untruths constantly when i was over there reporting on this. he had been for years and continues to do so. and you said that the bigger goal, going back to georgia four years ago or whatever, is to create buffer states around russia. explain that. >> well, putin thinks -- he lives in the 20th century in his mind. he thinks that if you win, he loses. so he's trying to create a band of buff

secretary of state, nicholas burns. he served as an ambassador to nato. tensions are rising, buildings are being seized, there are calls for a referendum. behind this, as the u.s. secretary of state claims? >> i think it's obvious that the u.s. -- that the russian government is behind us. rather than just invade eastern ukraine as they invaded crimea, and there will be a high price to pay for sanctions if they invade, the russian government has put together a campaign to instigate the rallies throughout major cities in eastern ukraine. russianraight from the playbook on crimea. it is designed to foment such instability that president clinton events that have an obligation to rescue and protect -- president putin will have an obligation to rescue and protect. it's not surprising at all that the u.s. government should be saying quite openly that this is a russian plant operation. it has created a profound crisis in ukraine itself for the survival of the united democratic ukraine in one country. if these cities do secede or the russian government does come i

bringing in cnn's phil black on the ground in ukraine and ambassador nicholas burns, the former undersecretarye for political affairs. welcome. >> thank you. >> ambassador, start with you. seriously? the russians buzzed a u.s. ship 12 times? what kind of message was russia trying to send? >> well, carol, it's a clear message that the russian government wants to intimidate the united states. the u.s. warship, of course, was in international waters. the united states actually has allies in the black sea. bulgaria and romania. we have a perfect right to be there but the russians are trying to put pressure on the u.s. to back off of any overt military support to ukraine. a decision president obama has not made. do we give it support to give it a chance to maintain its own territory? in the eastern part of ukraine, these gangs are armed men, ethnic russians and the administration says supported by the russian government has taken over municipal buildings. this is a challenging time both for the ukrainian government but also for the u.s. >> go to phil black and ask what's happening in ukraine now be

joining me now, former undersecretary of state, nicholas burns, and michael hirsch, chief correspondentod morning, gentlemen. >> good morning. >> good morning. thank you so much for joining me. i want to start with the russian troops. michael, the fear here is these troops are ready to invade a different part of ukraine, at any time. some say there's plenty of evidence of that. it's just a question of when. >> well, that has been the fear for the past several weeks. but it appears that what vladimir putin, the russian president, has been up to, as secretary of state john kerry alleged just the other day, is more covert-type activities suited to putin's -- you know, personal history as a kgb officer. it looks like they have been stirring up separatists, perhaps protesters for hire to occupy, inciting them to occupy these buildings. and right now that's mainly what is going on. are negotiations between the ukrainian government and these protesters occupying the buildings in the cities of donetsk. luhansk. >> nicholas, when ukrainian officials say hey, russian protesters, we won't prosecut

i want to bring in nicholas burns from harvard's kennedy school of government. welcome, mr.mbassador. >> thanks, carol. >> so the u.s. is sending troops to eastern europe. does that mean diplomacy is officially dead? >> i think the administration has calculated it quite rightly that diplomacy is not going to get us far with putin because he doesn't want to negotiate anything seriously. he's trying to destabilize eastern ukraine. president obama, quite rightly, has tried not to make this a military contest between russia and the united states. what can the u.s. do? two things. it can move some of our troops not into ukraine, but into those eastern european countries that are members of nato to which we have article five in the nato treaty, collective security guarantee. the countries need a similar lolic reenforcement. it won't be large numbers of u.s. troops. it sends a signal to president putin his ambitions can't go as far as the nato territory because we have this commitment to them. the other thing we can do is raise the economic cost through sanctions. i think the u.s.

. >> ifill: we dive right into the debate about the successes and setbacks, with nicholas burns, a career foreign service officer and former ambassador to n.a.t.o. he's now at harvard university's kennedy school. retired army colonel andrew bacevich, professor of international relations and history at boston university. his latest book is "breach of trust: how americans failed their soldiers and their country." and trudy rubin is the worldview columnist at the philadelphia inquirer. familiar faces all. thank you for joining us again. andrew, i want to start with you up there in boston. what is your sense about how well or how well it has not gone, the obama foreign policy doctrine? >> well, when we elected president obama, i think the expectations were that he was going to score an a. remember, he is the guy that upon being inaugurated received a nobel peace prize and he doesn't deserve an a. he probables deserves about a c. it's all relative. i would take a c over the f that his predecessor scored. >> ifill: trudy rubin? >> i would also say, though it's hard to rate a president, i would

and for more on the context for all of this, go to boston, where nicholas burns, former u.s. ambassador, now at harvard's kennedy school of government, joins me. nick, thanks so much. we have got a complicated situation. we are waiting on a readout from what happened in geneva. the talks were extended for several hours, longer than we thought. but also, we had this performance by vladimir putin today, who was going on and on about ukraine, calling it new russia. and what the white house and others are saying is there really is a silent majority in eastern ukraine. this is not crimea, which was obviously pro-russian and easily conquerable by putin. he has got the weapons, but that the people really in eastern ukraine, most of them in the big cities, even as these government buildings have fallen, do not want to align themselves with russia. i don't know from your experience what you think is the case. >> andrea, that's what the polls show, that the majority of people in ukraine, even some of the ethnic russian community, they may be connected socially or politically to russia

nicholas burns is former state department undersecretary and foreign affairs columnist for the globale to have you with us, ambassador. a question that came up in the op-ed piece, if all that happens in russia, do our actions matter? is there enough damage happening to the russian economy perhaps this doesn't pay to go further into ukraine? >> well, i don't think so. there may be some economic costs to the russians for illegally annexing crimea, for trying to destablize eastern ukraine, frankly i think the problem right now is the united states and europe have not been able to drive up the cost enough. president putin's very decisive around his strategic aim is to build this band of buffer states around russia to protect him what he sees as a zero-sum game, of push and pull with the united states and western europe, and i don't think president putin will stop in ukraine because the russian stock market is down or because his gdp growth rate isn't what he wants it to be. so the real imperative here is for the europeans especially, the germans, to agree to sanctions on russia that will

joining me now, nicholas burns. thank you so much for being here. these row teproteste are in eastern ukraine saying they would like to be part of russia. will is a sense russia is behind these protests.would like to be. will is a sense russia is behind these protests. what do you see? >> there is very strong speculation and well deserved. is this right out of putin's strategy in crimea. he is instigating the protests, the russian government pushing these protesters to take over municipal buildings, create a sense of crisis. and that in turn allows the russian government to accuse the government in kiev of chaos and you showed pictures of chaos in the parliament. and that russia has no alternative but to protect the rights of these ethnic russians in the eastern part of the ukraine. it's part of a strategy to weaken the ukranian government and to prepare the goupd if pot it for russian military introduction into eastern ukraine, at least for russian influence into eastern ukraine. so it's quite a negative development. this is a real threat to the te

nicholas convasori. good to have you. >> seeing everybody running around in washington especially on the left with hair burning and thiss the worst thing that has ever happened. i sit there wondering whether these weren't the same people running around with a sheldon a a adelson. did you hear the argument yesterday that it's sort of a zero sum game. you're actually taking power away from the megadonors possibly and giving it to the party because people are free to write more checks to political parties? >> joe, i pick a different metaphor. i would say it kind of raises the parties back up again. you know, the party officials party leaders have seen a decline in their influence since mccain/feingold banned soft money to parties. what this does is allow senior parties and senior lawmakers on the hill a way to get back in the game for better or worse avasting for the big checks, $2 million or $3 million from big donors. until now the last couple of years the money is flowing into super pacs and other outside groups not controlled by the party. one argument you hear is this brings some of the money back into the parties an