soviet union -gorbachev game.re is a lot of pressure coming from poland, czechoslovakia, and other places. things are happening. the pope is giving permission for it to happen. me, the best way to understand it with these crosscurrents is i think what gorbachev launched more than anything else was an intellectual revolution in his country. the moment you say we are going to allow not only reform and change but rather reform and change not centralized to moscow and on the factory floor, that allows people to question. tot is where things begin catalyze and others begin to take this and run with it as well. i think at the heart, it is the explanation you are describing, a recognition of soviet decline and the decision to make structural and intellectual changes. none of which has anything to do with the united states. i think if there is one pernicious, evil lie in history driving u.s. foreign policy and terrible directions in the 21st century, it is the notion that we spent the soviets into the ground. anybody watc

the soviet union. and i think gorbachev recognized they were lacking and he needed to make changes so he helped to identify the seeds that should be planted and where they should be planted. we had to make sure did not -- that somebody did not round up the seeds. i think that is what president bush did very well and he did it by having the benefit of counsel from lots of different people who did not all share the same view, except the same commitment. i think that was of great benefit to the president and i think that is reflected in the early stages of the book. the challenge that i have reading this book as it is maturing, i do feel as if i am anxious to turn on the radio -- and this dates me -- but i used up love listening to paul harvey, "the rest of the story." i want to know what the rest of the story is. i think there is something still missing in the book. i would suggest the relationship that margaret thatcher was going through in her own caucus, in her own country. also had an impact on the d

russia as these ghost or the bogeyman all of the soviet union whereas the american aggression. american policy is a very much current well i'm not sure i'd agree with you on that i mean. there was an effort for cooperation between the u.s. and russia but in two thousand and six if you remember after hamas won the elections in the palestinian legislative the assembly mr putin said hamas is not on our terrorist list number one and it's a big blow to american foreign policy in the middle east number two that's an example which has followed if true that what i would call mr putin zero sum game diplomacy where what russia gains the us loses and vice versa i heard you say many times that putin is illogically trying to play this zero sum game while obama is going for a win win but i wonder who just who actually won from obama's policies because if you look at his approval ratings he himself seems to be a losing not to mention the people of libya the people of syria the people of ukraine and the list can go on and on what is this win win i mean who is winning from this win when i would

i know that americans many americans see the soviet union as an aggressive activity but even in its war is there is the soviet union never cause as much death and destruction abroad as the united states is still doing now because if you if you ask me about the causes for the anti-american feeling sentiment here in russia you know we can see at all the results of the american policies in you know in ukraine in libya in syria again the list goes on and on why you can only size this one case of bloodless i mix a show as you call it of crimea well you know the the story in crimea and the ukraine is not over yet but news not a bloodless intervention in hungary in one thousand nine hundred fifty six was not a bloodless intervention in czechoslovakia and he said it's only an example and he certainly wasn't as an example that's right and what did mr putin say if i may quote him the worst thing to happen in the twentieth century was the collapse of the soviet union that to my mind and to some american minds indicates a certain kind of mentality by dr everything like if i need to read the

and the conventional wisdom is the old system of the soviet union, the economic bankruptcy of the soviet union, the fact the was a secession of dying leaders brought down the soviet union and nothing from the outside mattered. >> host: were there other books or historians or participants in reykjavik? is there much bodies of literature on this? >> guest: no one really did a deep dive into what happened and the best thing is no one had the notes but the american notes and the russian notes. what does that enable you to do? that enabled you to see them raw and to peak through the keyhole of the little conference room in the lofty house and put your ear to the door and listen to what they said for ten and a half hours. i don't know about you, but i have never talked to anyone for ten and a half hours. if i talked to my wife that long i think she would walk out screaming. but they talked about the most important issues of the world for ten and a half hours. without notes, without talking points, without staff involvement and without memos. they must have felt this is more like me than any ti

cubans became heroes in the soviet union.like the day david challenged goliath. >> in the years since he took power, fidel castro has become an enemy of the united states. >> in cuba, you have fidel castro who's tying himself to the soviet bloc. which seems to be threatening the united states by the possibility that they're going to export communism to other south american countries which are in many instances anti-american. khrushchev is saying that you have to understand that cuba matters a lot to us. don't mess with cuba. khrushchev not using rhetoric. the eastern bloc was supporting castro with military assistance. >> many latin americans were shocked to find out how much communist equipment castro actually has. >> the sense was that kennedy had to do something about castro. >> when kennedy comes to the presidency he's briefed on the fact there was a plan in place to topple castro. >> but the plan that's presented to him is not what he wants. it's a huge invasion on a noisy beach. it is going to look like a u.s. invasion

fall of the berlin wall, the breakup of the soviet empire and eastern europe, the breakup of the soviet union itself. something commentators did not even anticipate. such as the fall of the berlin wall, the breakup of the soviet empire and eastern not only the gulf war, but further difficulties in the middle east vis-À-vis ethnic cleansing. speaking of ethnic cleansing, we have the beginning of the tragedy that was post-cold war yugoslavia. looking at these events, it is astounding to think that all of them occurred within the same 4 years. i would make the argument that more accord -- more occurred during president bush's tenure in u.s. office then faced any other president in u.s. history, with the exception of maybe fdr during the height of world war ii. during each of these events, president bush and his staff adopted what i like to call hippocratic democracy. that is, first, do no harm. a world was, to their minds, going in the proper direction. democracy was on the rise. markets were on the rise. the soviet union and communism were clearly on the decline. what would happen when this dec

called criminologist you studied the soviet union later russia for several decades and i'm sure you would agree with me that. there has always been a considerable level of mistrust between in our two nations but i wonder if the rhetoric used by both sides has ever been asked colorful and asked passive aggressive as it is nowadays well i think we're almost back to the worst of the cold war underbridge now and the early reagan days in the early one nine hundred eighty s. after the soviet invasion of afghanistan that's when relations really hit their bottom we're not there yet but if we continue in this direction will be there well i just use this word passive aggressive and i think you know both sides seem to believe that they're defending their national interest or that national values and see the other side as an aggressor but it seems to me that this aggression is a very different caliber because the united states has the whole list of countries that it essentially ruins through intervention whereas russia is charged with one count of quote unquote bloodless an exception is that really f

. >> the soviet union collapsed exactly 25 years ago this year. in our summer series "secret heroes," we visit people who helped bring down the iron curtain back in 1989. in this second part of our series, we take you to the baltics. estonia, libya, and lithuania were forcibly integrated into the soviet union through the hitler-stalin pact in 1940. mikhail gorbachev introduced a certain amount of liberalization, which allowed people to hold her tests without being arrested. people in estonia, latvia, and lithuania seized the opportunity to set a joint world record, forming the longest human chain in history -- 600 kilometers of people holding hands. >> from above, it looked like a traffic jam, but on the ground, it was the largest demonstration in the history of the soviet union. august 23, 1989 -- never before had so many people turned out. some dressed up for the occasion. others came straight from work. they formed a human chain six hundred kilometers long across the three soviet baltic republics -- estonia, latvia, lithuania -- signaling the b

he shared the vision of a more liberal, more reformed soviet union, more reformed eastern europe. >> when the uprisings began in soviet satellite states in europe. he refused them to step in and said no, this is not what we're going to do. >> he wanted to negotiate. he believed divided nations could not be divided for a long period of time. maybe from personal experience in georgia that repression doesn't work. he himself had a history of being in the security services, interior minister at one stage. he did know what soviet repressing was. he didn't want to accept it. therefore he was certainly represented in a liberal wing. a lot of change that happened in the soviet union and ultimately one can argue the demise of the soviet union was because of that liberal attitude he shared. >> then if you want to call it his prize for being so key a figure, he became president of the newly independent georgia swept in with 70% of the vote. that was eroded. >> that was eroded for a, the collapse of the economy which was evident in all areas. it hit georgia hard. georgia was in a privileged posit

certainly not on par with what the soviet union appeared to be in the 1940's and 1950's.related to this, and one reason for it, is that because of its integration into the international economy, china has been able to reach very deeply into the economies societies and political systems of democratic countries, particularly the united states. i would argue in part for that reason it has been successful in selling the competitive strategic resources and reflexes of the united states and delaying the process by which it will be necessary to mobilize resources necessary to maintain a balance of power. this failure to respond or to respond with sufficient speed to the changes that are emerging in asia as a result of the growth of chinese power could lead to a risk of miscalculation and conflict. rather than and on a gloomy note, i would like to say that i'm optimistic in the long run for a variety of reasons. we beginning to see that china is increasingly assertive or aggressive behavior to its neighbors is stimulating a balancing response on the part of many countries in the

-soviet union, former soviet union and china, these three countries, they are afraid of each other.russia and the u.s., u.s. is afraid of russia and china, and russia is afraid of u.s. and china. what is origin of this paranoid among the three countries? >> well, that's a very good question. and, in fact, no matter, in this history in the book when you read the book, it's like no matter what the u.s. or the soviet union or china do, it makes everyone else more hysterical, you know? the cuban missile crisis makes america military hysterical that they were able to sneak missiles in right under our noses. so that means we need even more nuclear weapons. and it made the soviets hysterical that the americans were able to force them to remove those missiles, so they needed more nuclear weapons. it's like every single thing triggers more. there's a great churchill quote that after a certain amount of nuclear material and all you're doing is making the rubble bounce. and i say that, you know, apparently no matter what happened, both sides, all they wanted was more bouncing. they didn't care

familiar policy towards russia it's called containment it worked during the cold war against the soviet union will work against today's russia and does this mean washington has declared a new cold war. to cross-talk washington spinning of containment i'm joined by my guest stephen cohen in new york he is a professor emeritus of russian studies and politics at new york university and princeton university and author of the recent book soviet fates in last alternatives and in chicago we cross to john mearsheimer he is a professor in the political science department at the university of chicago who has written extensively on international security his latest book is the tragedy of great power politics all right gentlemen cross talk rules and that means you can jump in anytime on steven cohen if i go to you first i read your article in the nation the cold war again whose responsibility subtitle in the name of democracy the west has unrelentingly moved its military political in economic power ever closer to a post soviet russia i will not ask a very broad ended question here what a future historian

-soviet union, former soviet union and china, these three countries, they are afraid of each other. china is afraid of russia and the u.s., u.s. is afraid of russia and china, and russia is afraid of u.s. and china. what is origin of this paranoid among the three countries? >> well, that's a very good question. and, in fact, no matter, in thiu read the book, it's like no matter what the u.s. or the soviet union or china do, it makes everyone else more hysterical, you know? the cuban missile crisis makes america military hysterical that they were able to stick missiles in right under our noses. so that means we need even more nuclear weapons. and it made the soviets hysterical that the americans were able to force them to remove those missiles, some they needed more nuclear weapons. it's like every single thing triggers more. there's a great churchill quote that after a certain amount of nuclear material and all you're doing is making the rubble bounce. and i say that, you, apparently no matter what happened, both sides, all they wanted was more bouncing. they didn't care it was rubb

the soviet union collapsed and fell apart. china has undergone this mutation or trance formation. but i would argue that there are some similarities in the entities that have emerged to take the place of the old communist totalitarian regimes both russia in the present form and china in the present form combined authoritarian politics nationalist ideologies and at least some use of market mechanisms to allocate scarce resources. that said, of course, there are significant differences between russia and china today. i don't have time to go on at length about this. i think the comparisons are illuminating. russia i would argue is essentially a criminal enterprise. it's run by a small group of people who are in business for themselves and it really is a player in international politics primarily for two reasons -- one, it happens to sit on oil. it happens to have a large residual reserve of nuclear weapons. if not for those facts, i think russia would already be even less influential than it already is in which i predict over time it is going to become even more. it's a nuisance. and

and the soviet union or pakistan against india.but other people feel that actually we are mighty lucky. the cuban missile crisis of 1983 and 1995. so where do you come down on this area? do you feel that we were lucky or that really didn't give us from world war iii? >> i think both are true. one of the most frightening moment in the book is when brzezinski, carter's security adviser is spoken up in the middle of the night and told the soviet union has attacked and they are in the missiles. he waits half an hour to get the confirmation call and they call him and say it's true that it's much worse than we originally thought. we thought it was 120 missiles in its 12,000 missiles. so we sit in there and he's not even going to wake up his wife because they'll be dead in a couple minutes. as he reaches over to call carter a 4:00 in the morning, the phone rings again. somebody made a steak. we put in the training tapes. this happens over and over again with the soviets circumvent that we are attacking them and its keys where we are convi

>> guest: was overlooked because the general paradigm that the soviet union fell and the soviet union following is a gigantic thing. the end of the cold war is a gigantic thing. nobody disagrees about that. the conventional wisdom is that the whole system of the soviet union, the economic bankruptcy of the soviet union and the fact that it had a succession of dying leaders in the soviet union and nothing from the outside mattered at all. >> host: so when you started to look into writing this book i mean are there other books and other historians, other participants in the events of reykjavik that it done their own books and is there much body of literature about this particular summit out there that you found? >> guest: there are memoirs by george shultz secretary of state but no one really did a deep dive into what happened and the best thing is no one had the notes. there were american notes and there were russian notes. that enabled me to see them raw and to peek through the keyhole of the little conference room, put your ear to the door, listen to what they said for 10 and a half

it was developed in the former soviet union. in the late 1940s it was the weapon of choice for soviet forces and while it is a design more than six decades old, the ak-47 in its many, many, many models are still being used by armed forces in more than 80 countries around the world. it's the world's most popular assault rifle by a mile. part of that has to do with how durable it is, how easy it is to use and how inexpensive it is both to make it and to buy it. the ak-47 is the most ubiquitous gun in the world. now, the "k" in ak-47 stands for this guy, mr. kalashnikov. he invented the ak. he passed away this past december. and now as of yesterday, the company that produces the ak-47, concern, the largest firearms producer in russia, they are among the companies that the united states has sanctioned with an aim toward making their practice of business a very difficult thing to accomplish. this is part of the newest round of unilateral sanctions that president obama announced yesterday against russia, toughest sanctions to date. the

it was developed in the former soviet union. in the late 1940s it was the weapon of choice for soviet forces and while it is a design more than six decades old, the ak-47 in its many, many, many models are still being used by armed forces in more than 80 countries around the world. it's the world's most popular assault rifle by a mile. part of that has to do with how durable it is, how easy it is to use and how inexpensive it is both to make it and to buy it. the ak-47 is the most ubiquitous gun in the world. now, the "k" in ak-47 stands for this guy, mr. kalashnikov. he invented the ak. he passed away this past december. and now as of yesterday, the company that produces the ak-47, concern, the largest firearms producer in russia, they are among the companies that the united states has sanctioned with an aim toward making their practice of business a very difficult thing to accomplish. this is part of the newest round of unilateral sanctions that president obama announced yesterday against russia, toughest sanctions to date. the

the soviet union collapsed and fell apart. china has undergone this mutation or trance formation. but i would argue that there are some similarities in the entities that have emerged to take the place of the old communist totalitarian regimes both russia in the present form and china in the present form combined authoritarian politics nationalist ideologies and at least some use of market mechanisms to allocate scarce resources. that said, of course, there are significant differences between russia and china today. i don't have time to go on at length about this. i think the comparisons are illuminating. russia i would argue is essentially a criminal enterprise. it's run by a small group of people who are in business for themselves and it really is a player in international politics primarily for two reasons -- one, it happens to sit on oil. it happens to have a large residual reserve of nuclear weapons. if not for those facts, i think russia would already be even less influential than it already is in which i predict over time it is going to become even more. it's a nuisance. and

we were flying a spy plane over the soviet union called a u-2. >> i'm bill fox. e with one man aboard went missing today not far from the soviet border in the rugged mountains in southeastern turkey. >> to a stunned and startled audience, khrushchev announced that an american u-2 spy plane was shot down in the soviet union. >> khrushchev made the wreckage a public exhibition. to the soviet union, this wreckage was a national cause. national outrage over the violation of soviet boundaries. >> and so, out comes the cover story. >> the department has been informed by the nasa. a u-2 weather research plane piloted by a civilian has been missing since may 1. >> eisenhower had said, no, that didn't happen, et cetera, et cetera. he had been drawn into a trap. by khrushchev. >> the soviet leader was able to show not only that they shot down the plane but they had the pilot. >> francis gary powers, an ordinary man, caught up in extraordinary circumstances and in a way magnified by them. >> i realize that i have committed a grave crime and i realize that i must be punished

the soviet union proposed an immediate ban on the production -- manufacturing and use of atomic weaponsthe united states said the soviets were asking the united states to give up their monopoly and make every thing public before they agreed to comply. the u.s. said the soviets were being unreasonable. nothing happened. the cold war started. the cold war is where a lot of the radiation experiments took place. some of them started in the second world war, most of them in the cold war. what was the cold war all about? europe was divided. do not forget, the united states and the soviet union were allies. we were partners in the second world war. we were on the same side. no longer. mao zedong took over china. we only had a handful of warheads. only a few long-range missiles. and of course, to know one 's surprise in 1949, the soviet union attained an atomic weapon. we got a hydrogen bomb in 1952. the soviets got a hydrogen bomb in 1953. we raced to develop more and more efficient ways of raining down destruction on each other. this is a titan ii missile. this is the only one that still exis

as far as soviet union is concerned, the soviet union occupied afghanistan and the people resisted it. i was a student in the faculty of medicine at that time but i knew i would be part of the resistance against the soviets because they occupied our country and when i graduated from the faculty after one or two years, i joined. but those were different circumstances. this question of yours i was faced with post-2001, post-september 11, 2001, when there was the prospect of american troops coming to afghanistan, i clearly anticipated at that time that the people of afghanistan would welcome the american troops in afghanistan because we knew that the process, the conditions which were imposed upon us, we were not able to do it on our own. so the role of your people, your country in afghanistan will be regarded as servicing, as helping afghanistan in a critical moment of our history, and the people of afghanistan are grateful for your people, your country in helping us in a very difficult time. disgraceful attitude of some of our leaders should not be interpreted as the views of millions

as far as the soviet union was turned, the people resisted. was a student in the faculty at that time, but i knew that i would be part of the soviets because they have occupied our country and when i graduated, i joined the resistance. the people of afghanistan migrated under the soviet occupation of afghanistan. those are different circumstances. this question of yours i was faced with after september 11, 2001 when there is the prospect of american troops coming to afghanistan. i anticipated the people of afghanistan would welcome the american troops because we knew that the forces, the conditions which were imposed upon us, we were not able to reach on our own. your people will be regarded as helping afghanistan in a critical moment of history and the people are grateful. but your people, helping us in a very difficult time. this attitude should not be interpreted as the views of millions of that and who have benefited from your support. nevertheless, there have been some mistakes, some big mistakes, perhaps. the fact that you have helped us

he was a true believer in the idea which many american writers had at the time, that the soviet union had created something enormous, and beneficial for the world, and that the soviet economic system was after the war going to take over the world. there was one account by a speechwriter of morganthal that i found incredible before i found white's essay in his archive, saying in 1945 in a private conversation with him white had said that the imf will fail, that the world was moving towards state trading, the british social list described this more brilliantly than anybody else and there was no way the united states was going to survive more than five to ten years as a capitalist island in the sea of state trading. so these were convictions of his. he was a man of great convictions. he supported fighting bob lafayette's progressive party for the presidency in 1924. he supported henry wallace's campaign in 1948, indeed if wallace had won he was going to make white his treasury secretary. he was indeed a true believer, but he took orders from nobody. >> i don't think i need a mike. this i

and the soviet union is no longer. there's no longer an archipelago of countries around the world for the soviet union to use to project itself as a superpower the way it used to be. it's just those five countries left. and a funny thing happened on the way to the collapse of global communism. vladimir putin was first elected prime minister of russia in 1999. he became president soon thereafter then they made him prime minister again, now he's president again. vladimir putin has been in power in russia continuously for 15 straight years now. and soon after he first came to power in russia in 2001, mr. putin declared that russia could no longer afford to maintain its soviet-era, superpower style-y system of outposts all over the world. russia was broke. i mean, in what was left of the communist world, the old soviet union had maintained spying posts. electronic eves dropping bases in communist vietnam and in communist cuba spying on local radio traffic, spying on local military actions, keep in touch with their own spie

shattering the until gresham part between the two countries the soviet union was forced to bump up production of greatest planes in terms of motorbikes the scallop defense for relaying messages before the start of the war the first prototype for all and seventy two had already been made although it was heavier than he said and pm said. it was also faster more powerful and more reliable and if you look closely you'll also notice a peasant coming resemblance to the german b.m.w. awesome c one best part of the lend lease program during world war two the us supplied the soviet union with over twenty six thousand hollies and seven thousand five hundred indians but russia needed the zone of graded motorbike by nine hundred forty five the soviet union had produced almost ten thousand and seventy two use which were used in the war effort before kicking down again into the civilian population. overall m seventy two was an exe. backed copy of the b.m.w. are seventy one but the history of how this happened isn't clear one version of events suggests that germany gave russia a license to pro

an instance of how americans really view russia through the prism of the soviet union you know seeing russia as these ghost or the bogeyman are all of the soviet union whereas the american aggression the american policy is a very much current well i'm not sure i'd agree with you on that i mean. there was an effort for cooperation between the u.s. and russia but in two thousand and six if you remember after hamas won the elections in the palestinian legislative the said assembly mr putin said hamas is not on our terrorist list number one and it's a big blow to american foreign policy in the middle east number two that's an example which is followed after that of what i would call mr putin zero sum game diplomacy where what russia gains the u.s. loses and vice versa i heard you say many times that putin is illogically trying to play this zero sum game while obama is going for a win win but i wonder who just who actually won from obama's policies because if you look at his approval ratings he came south into bellew's ng not to mention the people of libya the people of syria the people of

an instance of how americans really view russia through the prism of the soviet union you know seeing russia as these ghost or the bogeyman are all of the soviet union where is the american aggression the american policy is a very much current well i'm not sure i'd agree with you on that i mean there was an effort for cooperation between the u.s. and russia but in two thousand and six if you remember after hamas won the elections in the.

shattering the until gresham part between the two countries the soviet union was forced to bump up production of great plains. motorbike. defends the relay messages before the start of the war the first prototype for all and seventy two had already been made although it was heavier than his. predecessors it was also faster more powerful and more reliable and if you look closely at all for the present family resemblance to the german b.m.w. seventy one parts of the lend lease program during world war two the u.s. supplied the soviet union with over twenty six thousand hollies and seven thousand five hundred indians but russia needed the sole graded motorbike by nine hundred forty five the soviet union had produced almost ten thousand and seventy two which were used in the war effort before kicking down again into the civilian population . the oral m. seventy two was an exact copy of the b.m.w. are seventy one but the history of how this happened isn't clear one version of events suggests that germany gave russia a license to produce the os seven c one as part of a resource and te

nd we know what happened after that, the united states did get into a long, cold war with the soviet union. so things probably would have been a lot different if people to him.ve listened ut that was the demise of his political career concerning the vice presidency of the united states. he agreed to do that for the 1949 election. out of washington, d.c., he felt he was freer to ay things that he felt were important to the country. he was not afraid to go into the south. in fact, he was the first do idential candidate to his, to go into the south and oppose the jim you laws and talked about equal pay for equal work. he talked about that it was right to have the lunch program schools. so he talked about things that the thinking of majority of the people in the united states. votes.knot get many he lived out his life in the york. of new he acquired lou gehrig's disease. a testament of what he had his whole life. he ound out the diagnosis, called the centers for disease ontrol and said you can use me to figure out this horrible disease. you can take tissue samples, do hatever you need to do, t

the united states got into a long, cold war with the soviet union so people would have been different if people would have listened to him. but that was the demise of his political career concerning the vice presidency of the united states. some of the things he was saying publicly got the attention of the progressive party and they came to him and asked him if they would be their presidential candidate for the 1948 election and he agreed to do that. being out of washington, d.c. he felt he was freer to say things that he felt were porntd toimportant to the country. he was not afraid to go into the south. in fact, he was the first presidential candidate to do this, to go into the south and oppose the jim crow laws. he talked about equal pay for equal work. he talked about it was right to have the lunch program in the schools. so he talked about things that were way ahead of the thinking of the majority of the people in the united states. he did not get many votes in the 1948 election. he lived out the last years of his life in the state of new york. he acquired lowing lou gehrig's dis