gorbachev discovered he was also in the dark as the soviet leader. >> soviet news casters deliberatelydown the incident, reporting it after the latest five-year plan and crop report. eight or nine minutes into the news, an announcer said only two people had been killed in the incident, contradicting one news report that casualties numbered in the thousands. >> chernobyl wasn't a flash in the pan. every few weeks there would be something like chernobyl because of structural defects of the soviet system. >> officials say because it took place at the newest reactor, it is another indication of inferiority of soviet technology and they say they brought on the accident not taking the same safety precautions taken in the united states. >> chernobyl reminded the soviets they couldn't play in the game of modern technology, they couldn't protect their own people and they couldn't hide it any more. >> gorbachev's biggest challenge was how to get the country moving again, and in order to do that, he needed to end the arms race, spend more money on improving living standards of ordinary people. fo

almost the opposite in the soviet union. they did nothing for it. the air and water and soil pollution especially in the vicinity where industry was heavy, of course, were terrible and i'll close -- almost close with one example that i think exemplifies this and that's the llc. i don't know how many folks know about what happened totter ol sea and at one point it was the fourth largest lake in the world. he wanted to develop cotton farming in kazakhstan which is where it is and it was part of the soviet union at that time. so to do that he needed irrigation, so he diverted rivers that flowed into the sea to support the irrigation. 20 years later the sea for all intents and purposes was vanished. it was gone. nothing left at all and just a big, biggen plain that had its own very serious impact on then viern the point, in the area. thoortsz how the ind yan -- and there's one way to answer the question and that's to compare east germany and west germany in 1989 when the wall came down and the unification took place. on the one hand, you had a system th

the diplomatic part was that japan must approach the soviet union and try to persuade the soviet union, bribe them with -- they would give back everything that was taken during the japanese war, and whatever else made sense to get the soviets to mediate. on behalf of japan and the united states. for better surrender terms than unconditional surrender. they argued the advantage of this also that if they were mediating on our behalf, that would keep them from attacking us. which the japanese realized was a possibility. that's the diplomatic part of the strategy. the military part of the strategy was that they would focus attention -- focus their military all the areas that were most likely to be the areas of the american invasion. the argument was that -- no, we're not going to be able to defeat the americans, but we can bloody them enough so they will be willing to accept surrender with conditions. that's the strategy. but stalin intended to be a victor and an occupier, not a mediator. once he entered the war as i said on august 8, 1945. the japanese military strategy was completely los

nine soviet officials met on that day. one of them was mikael gorbachev, who would it -- who would later deny the negative interpretation of this is what he saw it intended to mean. they were furious, apoplectic over this new polish pope. they were try to figure out what to do about him, about this october 1979ake and shook a poland, called for the independence of poland. so the issue of this edict "use all possibilities available to the soviet union to prevent the new course of policies initiated by the polish pope." use all possibilities available to the soviet union. necessary, with additional measures beyond this information and discredit ancient. kohler put it this way. in layman's terms, this was unordered for sassy nation -- four assassination -- for as sassination. by thewas given this italian secret service agency. he said the translated text that he got from a high-ranking italian official, the very bottom of it said this -- document found in moscow points the plan for the physical elimination of jp ii. and it ma

host: with regard to the soviet union, you spent a lot of time focusing on russia and the former soviet union. host: can you explain? guest: we did go through periods in which the administration came under criticism for being too liberal with the soviet union. and in the administration was more hard lined, talk about the evil empire, and came under criticism for being too harsh and confrontational. ,hile there was a strong debate they were not polarized along party lines. there were lots of hawks in the democratic party. people like the senator from e verygton, who wer critical of the republican administration for being too soft on the soviet union. and there were plenty of doves in the republican party critical of reagan and others who were too harsh. while there was a hawk/dub division in the congress and country, it was not republican/ democratic division. the fact it was not polarized along party lines meant consensus was easier to achieve. host: line was madeleine albright your favorite secretary to work with? guest: i admired the way she operated, the first woman as secretary esta

this one for example, the soviet one was guarded by three soviet regiments. about 12,000 troops. 12 guys against 12,000, not a bad thing. for 30 years, these guys stayed in the city and planned for the mission. i should go back and say that i will give you some information about the guys who were there, just to where they. i said they all came from special forces, they were special forces. there was no special test to say you are qualified to go to berlin. if you had become special forces, you have the qualifications with one caveat or maybe two. you had to speak an eastern european language or german to pass. you had to be able to accept the fact that you were going to wear civilian clothes. which was important because wherein your civilian close meant that if you were captured by the east germans are russians, you would probably within five or 10 minutes shot as a spy. with those two caveats, the first 40 people were sent in 1956. of those 40 volunteers, no one had any problems with that and for the next 34 years, a lot of guys served there and never give i

whether any soviet era or the putin era. the russians take a hard view of the treaties baseline, does the treaty serve their interests? if it does, they might abide by it. it doesn't, then they don't. the soviets signed the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 1972, for instance, because it served their interest. us technology was more advanced than if we developed an advanced missile system, their nuclear deterrence would deter that much. but that didn't stop the russians from pushing their luck. for years, they maintain a large phased array radar that plainly violated the treaty. the us protested, still, the soviet union finally agreed to dismantle that radar. seven years after we first detected it. from their perspective, the treaty and his violation was a bargaining chip. the russians, any treaty is just another point of leverage, especially against nato. it is not an inviolable commitment. i would suggest it's time we look at the inf treaty in the same way. beyond what our commitments are, we should ask ourselves what shoul

government had been secretly intercepting soviet messages, and it didn't want the soviets to know it. so, instead, prosecutors pressued david greenglass and his wife ruth to testify against julius and ethel rosenberg. michael and robby argue that prosecutors framed their mother by inventing evidence that she typed up david greenglass' notes on the atomic bomb. >> greenglass: where do i sit? right there? >> yes, sir. >> cooper: in 2001, half a century after he testified that his sister typed up his notes, david greenglass told "60 minutes'" correspondent bob simon it was a lie. >> simon: so, ethel finally went to the electric chair on the basis of evidence that was false. >> greenglass: false. >> cooper: he said he did it to save himself and his wife, and he showed little remorse. >> greenglass: we're still here. i didn't have to go away. nobody killed me, and i survived. >> simon: your sister didn't. >> greenglass: you know, i'd like to say something. i would not sacrifice my wife and my children for my sister. how do you like that? my wife is more important to me than my sister. >>

coming from post-soviet space. even before aggression against ukraine happened, i predicted in 2013 that, especially russian plutocracy, are taking their corrosive practices and corruption to europe and the u.s.. over at least 25 corrupt or corrosive channels, including media manipulation of information, \[inaudible] -- universities and so forth. in this briefing i want to put forward a further warning and prediction. i think the west, especially the u.s. as leader of the democratic world, has been so negligence and appeasing of post-soviet corruption of democratic values under putin that even on the best case scenario, russian plutocracy will not be eradicated. the best the west can hope right now, from now on, is to try to attempt to contain negative global impact of rampant plutocracy coming and try preserving its own democratic institutions. in a nut shell this problem is really no longer just about russia or post-soviet. it's really about the u.s. and the west. in my research paper that is slated to come out i

in jihadi steadily battling the soviet allied democratic republic of afghanistan the us spent over a billion dollars to overthrow the democratic afghan government and draw the soviet union into conflict according to zbigniew brzezinski president carter's national security advisor who designed the program that was no mistake the mission of the us was to quote bleed the soviets despite their questionable views the mujahideen with celebrated by western press and politicians including one osama bin laden as a result of u.s. destabilisation throughout the ninety's in various warlords and jihadi groups battled for control of the country with the taliban taking power in one thousand nine hundred six and when the us was attacked on nine eleven it was time for the us military to officially had to afghanistan this time to fight the groups we created so afghanistan is officially known as the longest war in u.s. history for having begun in two thousand and one and ended in two thousand and fourteen in reality the us has waged war on the country for much longer than officially recognized and does

again, it is pretty fair odds, this one for example, the soviet one was guarded by three soviet outpost. about 12,000 troops. 12,000, not at bad thing. guys stayed, these in the city and plan for the mission. say that i back and will give you some information about who was there, who were they russian mark i said they all came from special forces, they were special forces, there was no special test to say you are qualified to go to berlin, if you become special forces, you have the qualifications with one copy. easternto speak european or a line which this a .anguage to pass you had to be able to accept the fact that you were going to wear civilian clothes. that was important because you are captured, you would be shot as a spy. with those two caveats, the first 40 people were sent in 1956 with those 40 volunteers, no one had any problems with 34 years,or the next a lot of guys served there and never give it a second thought of what was the odds they had in fun of them. as i say, a lot of them were americans, probably at the beginning, 60% were first or second generation, they all spoke

had brought to bear on the soviet union not just conventional military strength, where the soviets had matched us, then spent a decade and a half developing a navy, a nuclear arsenal that roughly was equivalent with ours, maybe, all right. with fdi, reagan says no, we will also bring to bear, economic and technical dynamism. and whether we cannot missiles out of the sky 141 and provide a perfect -- who knows? if we start doing research, we bring to bear our dynamism and you cannot match us. gorbachev went to reykjavik and jumped in. reykjavik was supposed to be a presummit summit. he went there with the trap. he said mr. president, look at all that you can have. he went to bed feeling pretty well and the next morning gorbachev said there is one little detail. confine fdi to laboratory testing and reagan said no. that strikes me as decisive. gorbachev goes back to moscow and the game is over. it is correct that they cannot equal our economic and technical dynamism. they just can't play that game. been able to put reagan back in the box, may be they could have continued. but it reykjavik

i have written several books about russia's -- the soviet union's economic reforms. right now, i'm at the final part of a new book with the working title russia's crony capitalism. and the main idea is very much, putin has successfully integrated enrichment of the elite in his economic system and i would say that i see russian economic system today and power system as four different scircl. the first is state power and judicial power, no independent court in russia. therefore, there are no real property rights. property rights is something that you have abroad, not in russia. but since you have it abroad, how about getting it in russia because it stops your enrichment. the second part is the state corporations. russia's state sector, 12 years ago according to official russian statistics generated 35% of gdp. today it is 70% of gdp. the big state companies are buying up the companies from the former oligarchs quickly at half the price. because the oligarchs are not allowed, the former oligarchs are no longer allowed to sell to one another or to foreigners. they have t

government's foremost experts on russia and the former soviet spear. his career in the service stand over four decades and seven presidencies. wow. ending earlier this year when he retired from his post at the state department coordinator on sanctions policy. very relevant for this discussion. we will conclude with a q&a session. i would like now to give the floor to the first panelist, brian whitmore, who will provide us with an overview of the russian political system. the floor is yours. >> should i start again or did everybody hear me. i can't say how delighted i am that this issue is finally get attention. we've been talking the last few years about the information and seminars. i am enjoying all of them but harping on the issue that we need to broaden the aperture of office because the information is just one of the things the kremlin has organized and in my opinion, the most important thing that weaponize is his corruption. i will start by saying i think it is a bit misleading to characterize as simply cryptography because this implies the regim

a romance with things western. >> freedom came fast and it exposed the it rock at the heart of sovietacross the soviet union hundreds of thousands of people began demanding democracy and national independence. it was once again what putin feared most. the people rising up. and finally the people won. >> tonight in moscow at the kremlin the red flag at the failed soviet union at last came down and the flag of russia rose. >> 300 years of history erased. >> soviet institutions like the it kg brksz simply ceased to exist. >> vladimir putin views the break up of the soviet union to be the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century. >> it was a traumatic time and it sparked a profound change in vladimir putin. he became a politician. deputy mayor in his home town of st. petersburg. it was not a big job but putin clearly had big dreams. he commissioned this rarely seen documentary about himself. presenting vladimir putin, the credits read, in power. weirdly the sound track is from the broadway show, cats. the ambitious putin may already have been looking towards moscow because the ru

ss20's way, there were no deployed in east europe, they were deployed across the soviet union. i got to kick the tires of the replacement, the ss-25. thank god it was aimed only at the u.s. and not europe. i also studied lots of the russian ballistic missile programs. the cruise missile would be mounted on a transporter. i never found any evidence that the transporter was nuclear. do you know that this cruise missile is nuclear? in fact, i found opposite views on the inutility of nuclear weapons. sen. cotton: i don't want to comment on the intelligence about intelligence weapons systems that have been reported in the western media. i will say that the destabilizing nature of missiles in europe is not limited to nuclear missiles. it's also the case that any other kind of high expose of -- high explosive warhead can be inherently destabilizing europe as well. that's white russia in its soviet form wanted to eliminate the entire class of weapons, not just limit the number of those weapons. >> ok, who else? i saw a few more up. two over here. let's start with the front row. >> hi,

today in moscow, the credkremli the soviet union -- 300 years of history erased. so the institutions like the kgb simply seized to exist. vladimir putin views the break up of the soviet union as he said himself to be the greatest go political tragedy of the 20th century. it was a traumatic time and it sparked a profound change of vladimir putin. he became a politician, deputy mayor in his hometown of st. petersburg. it was not a big job but putin clearly had big dreams. he commissioned this rarely seen documentary about himself, presenting vladimir putin, the credit reads "in power." the ambitious putin may have been looking through moscow because russian people were desperate for strong leadership. under the president, the new democracy was a mess. >> the entire soviet system, it just collapsed. the men who profited on the spoils of communism, they became fantastically rich. >> but ordinary russians was sinking into desperate poverty. there were dire food shortages and starvations. >> i don't know how to feed my kids without milk. i just don't know what we are go

middle east, the nomination of thurgood marshall to the supreme court and a three-day summit with soviet premiere in new jersey, the navy films on the johnson administration are archived at the l.b.j. presidential library and you can watch many on their youtube channel. ♪ ♪ ♪ >>> on the 2nd of june prime minister wilson of great britain was welcomed to the white house. the visit had been arranged some weeks earlier to discuss the urgent problems common to both governments. however, a crisis, one that developed with dramatic and startling suddenness, would be given priority. the recent impasse in the historically explosive middle east situation. >> we come here today in another time of trouble when peace and justice are again in the balance. it is on occasions like this that the counsel of an old and trusted friend is most welcome. >> israel, facing yet another climactic point in her threat for survival, saw not only a threat of a maritime blockade but also a threat of extinction. with the united nations peace keeping force withdrawn, solutions through diplomacy and united nations interve

whether in the soviet era or the putin era. the russians take a hard eye view of the treaties they sign. does a treaty serve their interests? if it does, they abide by it. if it doesn't, then they don't. the soviets sign the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 1972, for instance, because it served their interests. u.s. technology was more advanced and if we developed an effective missile defense system, their nuclear deterrent wouldn't deter that much. but that didn't stop the russians from pushing their luck. for years they maintained a large phased ray radar that plainly violated the treaty. the u.s. protested until the soviet union finally agreed to dismantle that radar. seven years after we first detected it. from their perspective, the treaty and this vital was a bargaining chip. to the russians, any treaty is just another point of leverage, especially against nay koe. not an invaluable commitment. i would say it's time we look at the inf treaty in the same way beyond what your currentkn commitments are, we should ask ourselv

the officer was formally part of the soviet military and he denies being pa rt soviet military and he denies being part of russia counter intelligence operations at the moment. he is a us citizen and washington lobbyist. he has confirmed to several outlets here that he was present at that meeting with donald trumpjunior and two other senior officials of the trump campaign team, along with a russian lawyer, who of course promised damaging information about donald trump's opponent in the presidential race, hillary clinton. so all of this raises a number of questions, not least of course adding to the whole intrigue surrounding this sub sect. it raises the question of what donald trump new anti— city only found out about this meeting a couple of days ago, raising the questions of possible collusion, collusion perhaps to influence the outcome of last year's residential election. or was this particularly gaining information about a political rival? certainly there are enough enquiries going on to get to the bottom of this. congressional enquiries plus a federal investigation as well. now t

on a few in the soviet union knew how close it might be. rostok. the first man in space, april 12, 1961, when cosmonauts were awakened from a sound sleep at a small house at the cosmodrome in the soviet union. the same dwelling that was occupied -- censors placed beneath their mattress to monitor movement confirm the restleness of their slumber. after a sparse breakfast of meat paste, marmalade and coffee, they had brief medical examine and then donned a pressure suit covered by an orange jumpsuit. the two collected from a short list of six had to pass the final approval by chief the chief designer and the soviet premiere any it could -- any keita khrushchev. gregoire want was told the following day,. going guerin had been a favorite choice as his easy-going personalitys' intellect preliminary it head personal commitment to able to focus at the task at hand. in peer vote ford who they would like to see be first in face, he had scored higher than any of the others and also satisfied the communist party since he was from a working class family, havin

therefore, the history of the soviet-era and the u.s. russia relations remains vitally important today. we are approaching our 30 year anniversary of an important moment in that era, the ratification of the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty. 30 years on, it's still a remarkable achievement of president reagan's statecraft. not merely imposing numerical limits on weapons systems, but eliminating an entire class of weapons, namely land-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5500 kilometers. those missiles pose unusually high risks in europe. they can be stockpiled and moved rapidly, making them difficult to monitor. and they cut warning time from launch down to just a few minutes, in contrast to intercontinental missiles. so it was deeply provocative when the soviet union deployed such missiles into eastern europe in the late 1970's. nato had no choice but to respond. president carter began the planning steps and president reagan carried them out, by deploying american-built missiles to europe in 1983. it's a decision, i should add,

so why does the soviet union -- oh, boy. why does the soviet union put missiles in cuba? they were very aware of their strategic nuclear inferiority, and they wanted to defend their socialist/communist allies, and they had missed just -- is adged president kennedy weak leader. they thought he could be rolled. crisis, i am sure you all know that the consensus position of the joint chiefs and the cia was in support of bombing and invading cuba to remove the medium-range ballistic missiles. choser, jfk low -- blockade in concert with the threat of invasion. the hard-liners in the pentagon and cia were of the opinion that the president could no longer takee could take -- to direct military action, and the u.s. no longer needed any pretext for invasion, since a bona fide reason had presented itself. after the crisis was resolved through diplomacy, president kennedy met with the chiefs to thank them for their advice. there had been considerable friction with them during the crisis. he said gentlemen, we have one. you know we have one, i know it, -- we have won. it,know we have

went aftertration the soviet union hard. in fact, they actually believed in 1983 that the reagan administration was preparing a massive nuclear first strike. you probably know this. why this is constantly have to hack continue -- have to continue? i think there is money involved here. we should have better relations with russia. what do we want? a war with russia? they are the only nation in the world that can destroy the united states for their nuclear strikeforce. guest: i think what the viewer points to is the fact that u.s. relations with russia before the soviet union have always been tense. certainly in the soviet days, wech the caller discusses, maintained a containment and deterrence regime which was much more powerful than russia is today. we have to be careful what we talk about the soviet union and russia. they are different countries. russia is less economically stable. it is less economically powerful in the world stage and just not as much a relevant level actor no matter what putin has been doing in foreign po

what was was to go to the soviet union. at the time, they had a huge this advantage and nuclear weapons in regards to the united they did not have any nuclear missiles that could reach the continental united states. it would be dubious if they would have been able to drop anything. huge advantage in the 50's and it continued to the mid-60's, really. his plan was we will go to the soviets. we want them to surrender. we will do an intensive to intimidate them and scare them. we will drop a couple of bombs and then issue them an ultimatum. better surrender now and if you don't, we will start dropping atomic bombs until you do. it is sort of a heightened up version of what happened to the japanese. what was interesting about the this was a guy doing a dissertation and it goes up to the top levels of the air force and they hear about it and they get all excited. this is not just a dissertation. we are going to devote huge resources to make this a workable plan. they've even got people in the cia to work on it and people outside

the soviets. ambassador, he'd been. everything. so he really understood the world.r reason when iraq invaded kuwait, he thought nobody would care and almost got away with it. >> the first saturday of the crisis, i got a call on the phone from my boss. he said the president's hospi l helicoptering back. you have to brief him on the situation. there's probably going to be a lot of press there. i got to go. >> the president lands. i'm out there with my piece of paper. and he took the paper, goes over to the microphone and that's when he just said -- >> this will not stand. this will not stand this aggression against kuwait. i've got to go. i have to go to work. >> it was an ub usual sound from him. he was firm because he really meant it. bush had a moral code. i think he got it from his prep school, got it from his mother. and saddam hussein didn't do the honorable thing. he invaded another country. >> from the day the invasion took place, secretary baker led the effort to build a global coalition. they had two expeditions overseas in which they were going around from

therefore, the history of the soviet era and the u.s.-russia relations remains vitally important today. our 30 yearaching anniversary of an important moment in that era, the ratification of the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty. 30 years on, it's still a ofarkable achievement president reagan's statecraft. not merely imposing numerical limits on weapons systems but eliminating entire -- an entire class of weapons, namely land-based weapons with a range of 500-5500 kilometers. those missiles pose unusually high risks in europe. and movede stockpiled rapidly making them difficult to monitor. they cut warning time for launch down to just a few minutes. in contrast to intercontinental missiles. it was deeply provocative when the soviet union deployed such missiles into eastern europe in the late 1970's. nato had no choice but to respond. president carter began the planning steps and president reagan carried them out, deploying american built missiles to europe in 1983. a decision that was protested widely in the united , protest thato

the truth is, this is nothing new for russia weather in the soviet era or the vladimir putin era. the russians take a hard view of the treaties they signed. does the treaty serve their interest? if it does, they abide by it. if it doesn't, then they don't. the soviets on the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 1972, for instance, because it served their interest. u.s. technology was more advanced and if we developed an effective missile defense system, their deterrent would not deter that much. that did not stop the russians from pushing their lock. r luck.r lock -- thei for years, but maintain a large base radar that plainly violated the abm treaty. u.s. protested until the soviet union finally agreed to dismantle that radar seven years after we first detected it. from their perspective, the treaty and is violation was a bargaining chip. to the russians, any treaty is just another point of leverage, especially against nato, not an inviolable commitment. i would suggest it's time we look at the inf treaty in the same way, beyond what our current commitments are couple -- commitments

if they mounted a coup in 1989 or 1990 he might have fallen and the new soviet union would have beennt. but there were already new legitimate figures that the russian people were supporting and were expecting a lot from. >> around 50,000 supporters gathered to chant their support for the man who is now carrying the battered banner of reform. >> boris yeltsin had been pop u larly elected as president of the russian federation. he was emerging as an alternative power to the communist party leaders. >> let me put on pli glasses and read you a piece of wire copy that has just come across on reuters. bor boris yeltsin has ordered all units involved in the overthrow of gorbachev to stand down and said he was assuming control on the territory of russia. clearly there's a major confrontation shaping up in the russian republic. >> the day began with a session of meetings and phone calls. among his conversations were one with status in the white house has risen suddenly to the potential savior of soviet democracy. >> when the tanks came in, the commander called him and said i'm supposed to att

he loved the russian people, he loathed the soviet government. expressedg frustration -- kennan's language was emotional and gendered. polarity or a a binary opposition between the united states and the soviet union. monstrouslynion was masculine. how else to read his rendering as "insistent, unceasing pressure for penetration and command?" his rhetoric represented as reasonable the worldview that was in fact deeply anxious and emotionally fraught. on that basis, it appealed to policymakers in washington who wished for clarity in their understanding of soviet behavior. in my report, i praised the piece. i called it fascinating, provocative and an effective counterweight to get us in's interpretation of -- gaddis on's interpretation of the telegram. it -- he contrasted with russian deaths feared a weak response to the soviet challenge -- here was an insight that emphasized the ways in which our contemplation of the self inevitably leads to our constitution of the other. the piece of elaborate it beautifully on the work of emily rosenberg, especial

a lot has changed in russia since soviet days but much has stayed the same. the might of the state ones at the service of a political party serve as one man and a circle of very powerful and wealthy people around him. >> the russian mafia is the government of russia. it's a mafia that's running a sovereign state with nuclear weapons. >> we've spent months investigating a single case and multiple murders in russia and around the world. the story, that story is ahead. we're live in hamburg. ♪ if you could book a flight, then add a hotel, or car, or activity in one place and save, where would you go? ♪ expedia gives you the world in your hand, so you can see more of it. ♪ expedia. ...better than a manual, and my hygienist says it does. but... ...they're not all the same. turns out, they're really... ...different. who knew? i had no idea. so, she said look for... ...one that's shaped like a dental tool with a round... ...brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's rounded brush head surrounds each tooth to... ...gently remove more plaque and... ...oral-b crossaction

in a kgb pathhouse six senior soviet officials hatched a plan to restore the glory of the soviet empirehe leaders hold on against a popular uprising. we still don't know the where about thes or the condition of gorbachev tonight. >> he refused to step down. boris yeltzin showed surprising to deliver a fiery speech. the hard liners failed. gorbachev wasn't toppled but by christmas 1991 he resigned and just like that the soviet union was no more. the russian federation took its place. but he quickly discovered that lead agnew democracy was much harder. russia's post soviet economy tanked. the country was in trouble and so was yeltsin. he came to depend on a former kgb agent, a man by the name of vladimir putin. by the summer of 1999 boris yeltsin fired his prime minister and announced putin in his place. almost immediately bombs tore through apartment buildings in russia killing hundreds. putin blamed terrorists from check neea. evidence began to emerge. many believe the whole thing was orchestrated by putin to consolidate his power and boost his polari. by 1999 boris yeltsin was a adow o

they would avoid all across the soviet union.d i got to kick the tires of this replacement, s as 25. the former ss-20 base. thank god it was aimed only at the u.s., not europe. i also studied lots of the russian missile ballistic missile programs, and, of course, the cruise missile is -- [inaudible] transporter. and i never found any evidence that it was nuclear. do you know that this cruise missile is nuclear? in fact, i found opposite views. >> side don't want to comment on the intelligence about this particular weapon system has been widely reported in the western media. i will say, however, that the stabilizing nature of the new medium-range missiles in europe is not limited to nuclear missiles. it's also the case that any other kind of high explosive warhead could be inherently destabilizing in europe as well. that's why rush it in its soviet form wanted to eliminate the entire class of weapons, not just simply limit the number of those weapons. >> okay, who else? i saw a few more up. let's start with the front row. >> do yo

whether in the soviet era or the putin era. the russians take a hard-eye view of the treaties they sign. does the treaty serve their interests? it if it does, they abide by it. if it doesn't, then they don't. the soviets signed the antiballistic missile treaty in 1972, for instance, because it served their interests. u.s. technology was more advanced, and have we develop and effective missile defense system, their nuclear deterrent wouldn't deter that much. that didn't stop the russians from pushing their luck. for years they maintained a large based array radar that plainly violated the abm treaty. the u.s. protested until the soviet union finally agreed to dismantle that radar. seven years after we first detected it. from their perspective the treaty and this violation was a bargaining chip. to the russians any treaty is just another point of leverage, especially against nato. not an invoilable commitment. i would suggest it's time we look at the imf treaty in the same way. beyond what our current commitments are, we should a

he is a former soviet intelligence agent.p, the government has carried out a further purge of the security forces and civil service, sacking 7,000 people. dementia in old age is the biggest cause of death in the uk, but in some families, extremely rare gene mutations can cause alzheimer's disease in middle—age. now, experts believe that studying the way the disease develops in such families could hold the key to treatment in the future. 0ur medical correspondent fergus walsh spoke to two families with a history of alzheimer's, both of whom are taking part in medical trials. i'm almostjust waiting for the first sign, really. the minute you forget something, the minute you can't find your car keys... sophie leggett from suffolk has a 50—50 chance of having inherited a rare gene for alzheimer's. she is now around the same age symptoms first emerged in her mother and aunt. and if sophie has the early—onset gene, she could also have passed it on. it's really scary. i can almost cope with the thought that it could happen to me. wha