probably unwinnable and a drain on soviet resources, and a barrier to his objectives of reform of the soviet union so for him getting out was an essential step to a larger -- that reasoning was completely lost by the way on the american intelligence community, which was convinced when the soviets left that the soviet union was not about to reform itself, was about to become bigger and better than ever before. there's nothing in the intelligence record at the end of the war that suggests the american intelligence committee and even a whisper -- >> eighty-nine? >> eighty-nine, the commander-in-chief right, ronald reagan had a very different view than his professional analysts. putin, kgb officer, stationed in east germany during the war must have followed the war very, very closely. i don't think he is learned any of the lessons of the war. i think that he looks at it from a technician's standpoint, that is only we were smarter spies we could have won certainly from his handling of chechnya. i don't see someone who is trying to defuse islamists sentiments. he's trying to do to the islamists in chech

the novel was banned in the soviet union and its first western publisher who controlled the rights hadn't contracted for the original language edition. the novel was being handed out to the soviet visitors to the vatican pavilion and those handsome covers were soon littering the fairgrounds into some of those that got the book ripped off the heavy cover to make it easier to stuff in their pockets. the visitors who got copy later volunteers understood it was an illicit book best hidden from the kgb minders at the fair in brussels. the cia working with the dutch intelligence was behind this publication which was printed by a distinguished house in the hague. the agency saw them as an ideal place to distribute the book because the unusually large number of soviet citizens some 16,000 had obtained visas to visit the welfare which took place over six months between april and october, 1958 at a 500-acre site just northwest of central brussels. 42 nations including the usa and the soviet union and for the first time the vatican participated. the agency assumed the dutch publishing house which sp

the u2 had improved the knowledge of the soviet union. the critical questions went unanswered. >> begin task four. >> on the 10th of august, 1960, the diagnostic flight 13 was ready for launch. >> orbital stage remains ready. >> at the time it was launched, there were a number of major problems waiting to be solved. achieving accessible orbit. operating the camera. and the all-important recovery of the payload cells. -- payload film. >> it will be by function only. on my mark? t minus five seconds. mark. ♪ ♪ >> telemetry quickly revealed that the 13 achieved orbit and that the initial positioning was correct. on the 17th orbit, the recovery package retro fired and descended normally, missiles missing impact points by 13 miles. ♪ ♪ although beyond the range of the recovery aircraft, 13 capsules slashed down to near enough for a water recovery. for the first time ever, man orbited an object in space and recovered it according to plan. the capsule carried no film, but it did include the ability to beat the russians in their sputnik dog carry

was a symbol of what the soviet union showed. the great achievements and there were achievements, not denying in 75 years the soviets really aspired to do a lot of things but what is so remarkable is when the soviet union collapsed in 1991, it all came to nothing. the space program was almost dying before the americans started to pitch in. what we reusing for eastern europe, who wants to them, it was not. this woman became a symbol for me, heroism, the great hypocrisy. in propaganda called the big lie. the story is fascinating in its own right. if you take communism out of it, she and the and it got married. they didn't, but they lied to the families that they did, and everyone knows she is married to her so one day she may marry her. not that original, very human. then she went to the front and that kind of hope when to way. she never admitted it but that is what my sense was and she was a russian woman although she was originally born in kiev, a russian/german family. russians, you may know that or not know that about them but

ambassador to the former soviet union. then we will be joined by a researcher from human rights watch just back from a besieged city in eastern ukraine. militants from isis release a video claiming of executed american journalist steven sotloff. war isnalism covering dangerous. they can get killed in crossfire and they can take steps to diminish those risks. but that is different from being dragged in front of the camera and butchered simply because you are a journalist. and those thatme committed these crimes should be brought to justice. >> hours after the ice's video was released, president obama ordered more than 300 troops to iraq. we will speak with the committee to protect journalist and in an iraqi journalist who had to flee to the united states were his own safety. all of that and more coming up. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. ukraine has retracted an earlier claim to have reached a cease-fire with russia. the office of ukrainian president poroshenko initially

looking over the horizon and look at what could go wrong, what might happen in the middle east, soviet union, or russia now. so the system the resident nixon put in place would put a premium on planning. how should we approach east-west, or soviet relations? what are the economic military relations and how we can bring a together all of the u.s. resources to focus on their vulnerabilities, and by the way, what is the cost of doing option one, option two, and option three? because financially, there are risk, and politically there are allies, and so forth. so the military welcome to the system. it is fair to state, however, that the cabinet officers are strong-willed people normally, and you would really have to have a talented staff. when you brought together the experts from the cia and so forth around the table, they had credentials also. it was only by death of the excellence of people like bill sonnenfeld, bill simon, and other practicing diplomats of scholars, who for decades already were trusted, when they went to these interdepartmental meetings, they brought information and they spok

china, that the top of the soviet union, and the ending of the vietnam war -- the dÉtente with the sovietunion, and the ending of the vietnam war. there was an economic component, i might add. it was urgent. you did not have to worry about public policies, so all three of these issues lend themselves to delicate negotiations out of the public spotlight, so there is a lot of sensitivities with these three issues. therefore, it lent itself to the nixon-kissinger approach. we want to get into the secrecy issue at one point. from the outset of the ministration, it lent itself to white house control and secrecy. pluses and minuses. it was part of the reason that they went about diplomacy in this way. openingrespect to the of china, it is also important to recognize that nixon wrote an for thein october october 1967 issue of foreign affairs. he wrote it almost entirely by himself, along with ray price, pat buchanan, and richard whelan , and i participated in this as article really telegraphed the opening to china. nobody paid attention to it. it is quite cryptic. a afteralled "asi vietnam," and

, not merely to contain the soviet union, but to end the soviet union and so, too, it can be used in the iranian context. when you look at the boldness of someone like senator jackson who confronted the soviet union and directly linked most favored nation status to improvements in human rights and free immigration, that was a tool which drove the soviets absolutely crazy, and if you read the memoirs of any of these guys, you see when carter and reagan would bring up the names of dissidents, they really, really hated it, and i think that's one sign that it's the right approach. i think that human rights is actually a real achilles' heel of the iranian regime because they are dependent upon external actors to some degree. their economy is being hit hard, and i think if we understand this human rights issue not just as the right thing to do morally but opening up this closed society is absolutely critical to the peace and stability of the region, we'll begin to utilize it as a tool in the war against theocracy and dictatorship which is exactly what it is. >> do you want to add to tha

the decline of the soviet union, intel jeps was clearly there. gates wouldn't allow the analyst to do what they needed to do with the intelligence. so the collection is quite good. and i wouldn't do away with that. that's whalts the hard question? >> the hard question i'll get to in a moment. first of all, i would like to say that i've read some of the portions of some of the books you've written and i recommend to everybody in here. they are just excellent. >> does that have anything do with you saying that. >> correct. correct. i figured i would shine you on a bit before i ask you the last question which is this -- [ inaudible ] >> oh, i don't know. i notice you commented on edward snoweden that he is in big trouble and has violated many laws. and i also notice that you made a comment somewhere along the line that some of the things going on were violations of the fourth amendment. is that a fair statement? >> certainly. >> all right. >> it is not edward snoweden as we know it. did there need to be an edward snoweden to expose what is going on

ho chi minh, north vietnam, the soviet union has assisted their brothers in, you know, stopping this imperialist plot. chex -- afghanistan, vietnam totally endorsed the soviet invasion of afghanistan. we talk about this more during q and a, but one of the biggest myths and most common mentioned was the geneva conventions and the elections. this is very easy. there are records on this. in fact, one of the best again is the pentagon papers. here's what happened. the geneva convention met to consider the solution to korea in february. that went nowhere. and on may 8th they took up indo china. by the way, japs forces were in position to take cambodia -- to take den bin few any time they wanted it and the chinese advisor said hold off, keep it on the front pages of european newspapers. we will tell you when. the day before the geneva conventions took up indo china, they took din bin fu. din bin fu was a sad tragic blunder of intelligence. nobody thought that jaup could get heavy equipment, the artillery and other weapons he'd been given by china. as soon as he poured equipment in north vie

in 2 1/2 years there were four leaders of the soviet union, of course, after brezhnev died in 1982 and then another one in 1984 and another one in 1985. there were so many funerals, margaret thatcher remarked at the second funeral, the soviets they know how to do a funeral i'm definitely coming back next year. it turned out she wasn't wrong. so after that embarrassing sequence of events the politburo was willing to take a risk on a man in his 50s and that man would not die and that man turned out to be mikhail gorbachev. mikhail gorbachev comes to power in march of 1985. of course, he not only institutes glasnost and perestroika but begins a series of meetings with president ronald reagan. so mikhail gorbachev's ascension to power is unexpected and his interest in reform is unexpected and matched by a level of interest by ronald reagan. george h.w. bush in contrast is much more skeptical of gorbachev. his national security adviser always liked to point out that either gorbachev was a fraud on which the u.s. should be on its guard, or gorbachev was for real and he may have good intentio

, it's very important to look at this period when you asked that question because in a way the soviet unionem in eastern europe contain the seeds of its own distraction. many of the problems we saw at the end began at the very beginning. i spoke already about the attempts to control all institutions and control all parts of the economy and political life and social life. what are the problems is when you do that, when you try to control everything then you create opposition and potential dissidents everywhere. if you tell all artists they have to paint the same way and one artist is no i don't want to think that way, i want to paint another way you have just made them into a political dissident. he might have otherwise been apolitical. if you tell boy scout troops that they are not allowed to be boy scouts anymore and they have to now become young pioneers which happened in a number of countries and one group decides they don't like it so they form a secret underground boy scout troop which absolutely happened. underground scouts were very important to the communist period you have just cre

but it means he is going to begin piece by piece to reconstitute aspect of the old soviet union. that is dangerous for the kind of order we have in the world because it sends a signal to other countries that might want to revise the global order they can do that as well. >> but nato is crucial because as a defense alliance it helped to unify europe and keep the soviet union out of western europe. do you think, matt, that one of put putin's golds here is to essentially show that nato is a hollow approximation and to attem attempt, basically to destabilize one of the baltic states and when we don't respond, nato will be shown to be a nullity. >> putin does what he usually says. putin has said he wants to divide the west, that nato is a threat to russia, but i thinks he can weaken nato. it's really a paper tiger. >> right yes. you think he wants to do that and will zoo that. >> i think he clearly is moving on. >> moving in that direction. >> he has to keem moving because to survive in power, he's beating these nationalist drums in russia and has to keep beating them to keep control

we were going up, soviet union collapsing and indeed it did.trength begets more strength and the best way to fight against dictators is have having a strong entrepreneurial economy. >> rick, i don't want to try to get too much in ahead of these nuts, these terrorists fighting for isis, the fact is the world economy slowed downalities bit, they have increased membership. may be a lot of disgruntled people going to them because they're so down on their luck. maybe the thing to do to fight isis in part is strengthen our economy, not weaken it by a tax hike? >> that's something you can speculate about. a might about bit of a stretch i fear. interesting, some of the things i heard. david, you suggested bonds. that was actual lie my first thought. why don't we go back to the days of the war bond? >> the world war ii war bonds. >> it's actually alone and you'd be increasing national debt. respond to mike. when jfk was still with us, the vietnam war had yet to really have an impact on our economy. those days would come. >> but, listen, jfk had high tax

the soviet union will be thrown out of afghanistan. what can be worse than that? well, we ended up with al qaeda after doing that. i was testifying before a senate foreign relations committee. i said to the committee, this was a big mistake, wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. savant is contained. why are we going in to iraq? and i had one senator said, i don't understand you, general. what can be worse than saddam hussein? well, look what we have in iraq now. what we have in iraq now. saddam hussein was evil and bad. can something be more evil and worse? we are learning that lesson. so sometimes be careful what you wish for. the outcomes that one and could leave open the possibility of ending up in a worse situation. in the military where certainly not perfect, but i will tell you, we try. we study every battle, fight, war. we spend a lot of time on lessons learned. we want to understand what we did wrong, right, where the threat is. we spend a lot of time trying to get it right the next time. i want you to think about this because th

they would have been quick to point out that they had no hatred for the russian people the soviet union was a political construct apartheid south africa was a political construct design a system apartheid state of israel is a political construct it's nothing to do with hating people still less hating religion. do you think that the israeli government is the only responsible side for the recent violence that we've seen what about hamas did they bear responsibility for the violence well the palestinian resistance has for almost seventy years being trying to restore their country to them up it was wiped off the map and the palestinian people scattered to the four corners of the earth no nobody would accept that you wouldn't accept my country wouldn't accept it if foreigners come and steal your country and wipe off the map and take your house and drive you out you're going to struggle to return and it is their lead go and moral right of the palestinian people to resist the occupation of their country by israel has announced a major land grab on the west bank in the west bank i should say on

the decline of the soviet union, intel jeps was clearly there. wouldn't allow the analyst to do what they needed to do with the intelligence. so the collection is quite good. and i wouldn't do away with that. that's whalts the hard question? >> the hard question i'll get to in a moment. first of all, i would like to say that i've read some of the portions of some of the books you've written and i recommend to everybody in here. they are just excellent. >> does that have anything do with you saying that. >> correct. correct. i figured i would shine you on a bit before i ask you the last question which is this -- [ inaudible ] >> oh, i don't know. i notice you commented on edward snoweden that he is in big trouble and has violated many laws. and i also notice that you made a comment somewhere along the line that some of the things going on were violations of the fourth amendment. is that a fair statement? >> certainly. >> all right. >> it is not edward snoweden as we know it. did there need to be an edward snoweden to expose what is going on in the

the soviet union, now russia.timately it came to be accepted even by foreign governments that these reports were peculiar american eccentricity that have to be put up with without taking too much offense. but at the time that was a good deal less evident. after honduras, negroponte became the assistant secretary for the environment, which had been a back wall are in the government but which he made it considered successful. i won't go into details on that, but the three major accomplishments were the montrÉal protocol on those on. it was the first nature international environmental treaty. the two treaties that were signed in the wake of the chernobyl nuclear accident, one relating to international cooperation in dealing with nuclear accidents, and another relating to reporting of them. and, finally, the first series of concern shown during the reagan administration about the aids crisis. there was a joint memorandum written by chas freeman and negroponte at a time when the reagan administration was pretty much in

efforts in the 1970s to seek detente with the former soviet union both on the ground and in space. >>rcoming the doubts of his colleagues, he arrived in helsinki keen to cut a figure between east and west. [ speaking foreign language ] >> both sides believed they had the agreement they wanted. >> the soviet union and the warsaw backed nations did not recognize that the human rights provision was a timebomb. we, the united states believed that if we could get the soviet union and the warsaw packed nations to respect human rights, that was worth whatever else was agreed to in the helsinki accords. >> 3, 2, 1, zero launch command. we have liftoff. all engines building up thrust. >> thanks to detente rockets could point the way toward co existence rather than war. >> tune in this saturday for the next episode of cnn's landmark series cold war, the u.s. tries to warm relations with china and the soviet union, while paris peace talks aim for an end to the war in vietnam. that's on cnn, next on cold war at 2100 in you are in berlin. >>> still to come, the long and winding road from africa to

very expensive and engaged in a high technology arms race with the russians and the soviet union and red china. the two wars were potentially red china and the soviet soviet union. president kennedy decided it's two and a half wars, because he thought the communist-inspired insurgencies around the world, the way they would engage us because nobody wants to go to nuclear war, well, now we needed this robust military created in the '60s and on into the '70s that was huge to be able to fight two and a half wars. at the end of the cold war, we said two major theaters of operation. maybe in iran and a north korea-like commitment. right now today we could maybe do one of those in the cuts we've taken. now, defense expensive. i'd be the first one to tell you that. affordability is a major question. we, obviously, have other parts of our society that need tending to, and we need to expend our resources on them. the big issue is where do you take the risk and judiciously apply that military force? when the decision is made to go in, beside a strategy you need another decision. what are you goi

phrase that the president talked about, that these baltic nations, which used to be part of the soviet union are not some part of post soviet space. they are independent countries. and the fear is that those small nations have very large percentages of russian speakers who were left after the end of the soviet union and the fear that the west has is that russia would try to do the same thing indirectly moving in, stirring up dissent and dissatisfaction among the russians in those countries and try to -- let's move in with little green men. so that's one of the reasons that the president is standing there in estonia saying what he said. very important just as the president was speaking, president putin was clarifying some of this, is there a cease-fire, is there not a cease-fire? essentially what they are saying, the russian media is saying putin is putting out a handwritten 7-point plan of how this could be resolved, and i think there are two important points. self-defense forces, the rebels stop their offensive actions, and ukraine withdraws its forces from areas where it can actually fire

because it was in the 1960s during the cold war, where we were sort of at war with the former soviet union. >> so when the soviets aimed their nuclear missiles at the united states, we aimed missiles back at them, missiles called icbms. "icbm" stands for intercontinental ballistic missile. that means it could fly from our continent to another continent carrying a nuclear warhead. one kind of icbm was the titan ii. it was a giant rocket kept armed and ready to launch in an underground chamber called a silo. in all, there were 54 silos spread across uninhabited areas of the u.s. they're no longer in use, but you can take a tour of one, thanks to the arizona aerospace foundation. >> well, nicole, first of all, welcome to launch complex 571-7. >> thank you. >> we're gonna go underground. >> whoo-hoo. >> nuclear missiles are always kept underground because that is the safest place you can be in a nuclear war. >> that is true. >> so we're gonna go down about 35 feet. okay, watch your step here. >> as i followed chuck, he explained what it was like to visit the site when it was manned by the air

you lead the-- with the soviet union this is your 15th book. it's called world order, okay.ssume by that title this is fiction, because there is no order in the world right now, henry. how-- what-- obama hasn't given his, you know, speech yet, we're recording this earlier. so you haven't seen obama's speech yet. but you agree with me that it's terrible, right, terrible speech, complete failure. (laughter) what do you think he's going it to say? >> i think he's going to say that he will attack these terrorist groups in both iraq and syria. >> stephen: okay. >> and i agree with that. >> stephen: you do. >> yes. >> stephen: anyplace else we should be bombing? you can bomb order back into the world? can we just bomb everybody back to the stone age and then invite them back into the 16th century? >> no you can't bomb them back into the world. but you can try to make it impossible for those who disturb order to continue disturbing it. >> stephen: why is the world the way it is now, okay? is this crazier than it used to be? or are we just noticing how crazy it is? >> well, for one

the soviet union. we beat hitler but had a 50 year cold war. look at franco, a fascist in spain, he hay-- aligned against the soviet union. you don't have good for great choices you'll get help where you can. >> is this danger in syria. i under your point about sometimes not being able to pick your short-term friends. is there danger in syria that doesn't exist, where there's wider agreement on how to proceed and what needs to be done? >> definitely. it's a different thing. the president was right when he went into iraq the way that he did. in addition to strategic regions, we created the mess. we had to do something. the president said i'm not going to do anything until i get an inclusive government. which is the future. they'll have to determine it. the free syrian army, or the moderate remind me of the holy rome yn empire. it's -- roman empire. it's difficult to figure out the ground forces. >> the president walked up to the edge in the speech, and didn't say the united states is going to - definitely going to start strikes in syria, but lef

was that of a worthwhile investment and is the world better off because there is no soviet union andeastern europe is free? >> caution. [laughter] >> that'd say positive move. what is interesting what has happened since then and the spending goes up and never comes down we have had the smallest military since 1939. population three times the size the amount spending on the military has gone down by over 50 percent but reagan increased by 4 percent of gdp. >> i will take a of a risk of the more problematic scenario. looking back on retrospect what if bush had not invaded but instead said the very bad guys in the world we don't know who they are but they have come out of the middle east and motivated by islamic radicalism so we will grab some hussein to beat his head repeatedly into the ground then we will leave. if we had done that to essentially send them a message there is a new sheriff in town we will not put up with this nonsense wouldn't that be a better way to go? >> it probably bush have to use up pottery barn analogy if you break it to, you buy it. >> we would oppose saddam hu

franko in spain allied with us against the soviet union. think you get help where you can. >> but is there danger in syria? yeah, i understand your point about sometimes not being able to pick your short-term friends, but is there danger in syria that just doesn't exist in iraq where there's wider agreement on how to proceed? >> oh, definitely. it's a completely different thing. and the president was quite right when he went into iraq the way we did. we had a moral responsibility. we created the mess there, so i think we had to do something. and the president said i'm not going to do anything until i get an inclusive government, which is really the future, and they are going to have to determine it. but this reminds me of the holy roman empire, the free syria army. so it's much more difficult to figure out who your ground forces are going to be there. >> the president walks right up to the edge last week. he didn't say the united states is definitely going to start strikes in syria, but left it open as a possibility. why that careful word -

initially nato was formed to counter the threat from the soviet union, and it's communist block nations. this was the political landscape at the end of the cold war, nato nations in blue, the soviet union and itself allies in red. today the alliances are vastly different. but some of the old conflicts, the threat from russian ambitions in the ukraine, and new crises from libya to afghanistan to islamic state pose new challenges for the old alliance. >> our nato summit here in wales will be one of the most important summits in the history of our alliance. >> reporter: in the past two decades, nato has expanded its mission beyond its members. in 1995 and again in 1999, nato launched air strikes in the form of yugoslavia, after allegations of war crimes. after the attack on mer merck -- america in 2001, nato joined the war on terror. in 2011, nato also intervened in libya, but both libya and afghanistan remain in turmoil. >> nato leaders remember the dead of previous wars, and say they are working to avoid another in ukraine. >> reporter: some member stays are urging a more aggressive resp

like going to the old soviet union or israel, i never assumed, if people want to know what you are doing, they will no. so i neverno . so i never tried to hide anything. webinar not allowed to drive but i take a taxi or higher, but you can take taxis on the street, get yourself a taxi, so there's a level of freedom for a western woman, saudi women could do that too but they rarely do. >> host: that is a change from the past? >> guest: in 1984 i arrived there and there was not -- i was not allowed out of the airport. i had to track down prince ba a bandar and he had to get me out of the airport because there was no one there to pick me up and in the 80s the country went through a very consumer period after the attack on the mosque in mecca in 1979 and the triumph of ayatollah khamenei, the saudi will family making sure they didn't go the way of the shot turned the country over to the religious fanatics and the kingdom went through a very conservative period in 1984. they were more conscientious about these things. things have been liberalized since 2005. the king has talked about women sh

trade and moral example, and that's what brought down the berlin and finally brought down the soviet union. as for world war ii that was an outcome of the first world war which was a totally unvisited invention very similar to the interventions which is seen over the past decade. that is the prosecution case, and we will now proceed. [applause] >> very good. thank you, mr. mccarthy. just so you know, sometimes right before i have criminal intent, i have pre-mens rea syndrome. fortunately, i'm not suffering from that tonight, or you would all be host. no, he didn't, right? are you listening to that and like, what? if you very much. now we're going to you from mr. dinesh d'souza, defending attorney in this case. are you prepared to give your opening statement of? >> i am. >> very good. >> so, this is a debate about american foreign policy is, not a debate about obama's foreign policy, not a debate about the patriot act. it's a debate about the impact of this country and its actions in the world, on the world and on us. and i want to starve a dog that the impact of america on the world. a goo

nato nations in blue, the soviet union and it's allied in red. but today, the alliances are vastly different. nato's 28 member mayses include many that are former allies of the soviet union, including poland. but some of the old conflicts the threat from russian ambitions and new crisis from libya to afghanistan, to islamic state, pose new challenges for the old alliance. >> our nato summit here in wales will be one of the most important summits in the history of our lives. >> in the past two decades nato has expanded it's mission beyond mutual defense members. sending forcing where they remain to this day. in 2011, nato also intervined in libya, but despite that, both libya and afghanistan remain in turmoil. leaders remember the day of previous wars and say they are looking to avoided another in ukraine. as well as to the threat to the islamic state in iraq. i do believe in the international community as a whole, that has an obligation, to stop the islamic state from advancing further. >> nato secretary general says an expanded role for the orga

course not, but it means he is going to begin piece by piece to reconstitute aspects of the old soviet union, and that is dangerous for the kind of order we have in the world because it sends a signal to other countries that might want to revise the global order that they can do so as well. >> right, but nato is crucial, because as a defense alliance, it did help to unify europe and keep soviet union out of western europe. do you think, matt, that one of putin's goals here is to essentially show that nato is a hollow promise and do as dan and bret suggest, which is to attempt, basically destabilize one of the baltic states, and then when we don't respond, nato will be shown to be essentially a nullity? >> putin does what putin says. and putin has said he wants to divide the west, that nato's a threat to russia, but he thinks he can weaken nato, that it's really a paper tiger -- >> yes, and you think he wants to do that and will do that? >> i think he's clearly moving on, because he -- i mean, the ultimate reason why putin's doing this -- >> moving in that direction? >> moving in that directi

rabid anti communist he said he didn't he never talked to any one who knew anything about the soviet union who believe that they were preparing to attack at any time in the future near future so there are several reasons why that threat was created. one of the most important and perhaps the most important was for the us to be able to maintain control over europe there are several centrifugal forces in play at the time we can go into that if you want to but that was certainly a prime motive and now. this ukrainian crisis and the earlier one in the crimea has provided an excuse for nato to expand and to. call for increase expenditures and so on and so forth. that it plays it has several functions. not least in sweden. all right thanks so much albert with us on the line live from stockholm in the mountain night thanks again for being with us. ok. well that does it hurt me tonight we'll have much more for you tomorrow on the nato summit in a while for to you that. i'm not a politician but we see that it is arab countries that sit on the world's greatest we reserve and the west just cannot stay

who got us involved in paying for missiles to bring down the soviet helicopters and began the soviet unionnd yet they sort of morphed into a different direction later on. they didn't like the west, didn't like occupiers, didn't like people like us. >> and according to administration officials, this has been obama's big concern all along. this is why we've gone so slow in the effort to arm these fighters, why we've been reluctant to give them anti-aircraft weapons and anti-tank weapons. the worry is these teams will be turned on some force friendly to us, or on ourselves down the road, but the president has been moved off the dime on this one, basically by the threat of this particularly brutal force of isis. and he's now willing to take that risk, as secretary hagel said, that this might come back to haunt us later. >> josh, you're allowed to assert an opinion, right? so i'm going to ask you this. is this stupid stuff, as the president would say, when he says, don't do stupid stuff, arming people we don't, giving them training and perhaps paying them to go into syria, is that stupid stuff,

maybe -- >> that was the soviet union. >> ending world war ii? nothing?ing a war to end slavery. >> there were 27 million soviets who died during that war that had a little more to liberating europe if that's what you want to talk about. >> you're making my point, sir. >> right, but the soviet union was directly invaded. so they were merely protecting themselves in fighting the nazis. they were perfectly happy to be allied with the nazis before that, do you remember? and the united states not only liberated europe but rebuilt europe. so former enemies, germany and japan, which were against us are now friends. >> i'm familiar with the history. >> every year tens of millions of people try to come to the united states. >> yeah. >> they try to come. and if we lifted the curtains more would come. half the world would come here. >> i'm sure. >> now, they're coming here voting with their feet, leaving everything that matters to them behind. they're coming here because they think that this place provides them with a better life. are they wrong? are they coming to

others, and when ford left office, jimmy carter was bequeathed with a foreign-policy with the soviet union that made us take back a few steps. world events did not help that relationship any. and, again, these are inherited problems. many of the problems that gerald ford had to deal with was given to him by richard nixon, not the least of which was the need to evacuate saigon in the spring of 1975, and in another famous and unfortunate photograph, making it look as if the ambassadorial staff from saigon is literally pushing people out of the way, and it was a difficult situation. the vietnamese themselves cost the running, and the taking of a boat outside of a harbor in cambodia, where ford decided only weeks after the fall of saigon to send in marines to retrieve the sailors. while for did that and did retrieve them, there was a loss of marine life that exceeded the number of sailors who were on the boat, and some critics said that ford was doing it simply to look tough, but then there was this other side. this is the first day of the presidency of gerald ford. as he leaves his home in al

he says that something we can get along with the soviet union. let them come to berlin. but a month later he is signing the test ban treaty. the game changer on both of those is how drastic a change it is, from 1960. if you read those speeches, you would think you are listening to one of the joint chiefs of staff. he was a temper rise are on civil rights. >> and the democrats in congress. >> in 1963 he says this is a moral issue. no president has ever said that. and the cold war frame has to be rethought. within 48 hours of each other. this is quite remarkable. >> we will get right back. >> harris offered during the 1960 campaigns, took the things that will get civil rights off the agenda. give me five minutes. that is the campaign. you are talking about those 48 hours, if you want one thing that tells you a lot about his leadership, it was those 48 because if he had come in with a big landslide in 1960 with a strong position in the house and senate, he would've given the speeches on the 21st of january or said those things in the inaugural interest. intellectually it wa

and the long term, forecast is r the place in million dovea -- muldova and edges of the old soviet union that are frozen conflicts and have been for years and years and years and if if i'm president obama i'm looking at this as the next two years in my life because it will not be solved. >> does this mean the nato response was not quite as robust as we naught? people came out of this session saying, new special forces that they're going to be ready to defend the baltic states. was this getting tough? or is this sort of nato realizing it's not as powerful as it used to be and trying to act that way? >> the remark you just made it sounds like ukraine but no further. is we're drawing a line. but that line cedes what has already happened. if you do something again, fine. but they're allowing what's happened so far. john: hasn't this happened progressively? they first ceded crimea. >> they never admit that. they would never admit that they -- that we're going to allow -- john: but in effect they have. what can be done about that? nobody is intending put boots on the ground in ukraine. so does

the soviet union collapsed too quickly, creating the illusion that this chapter in history was closedt this story had come to the end. but unfortunately in the people it has not end. the mindset is still there. the soviet union and for the settlement that ended cold war have been cultivated in revisionist instincts. in year 2008, russia troops occupied two areas. they now have invaded ukraine. the right to protect ethnic russians and russian speakers can and already has been a reason to fan flames of war. besides ukraine, russian speakers are reside now in mal dove a, georgia, kazakhstan, baltic states. even germany, big majority. bulgaria. mull dove a. georgia. ukraine. who is the next? many things, including -- >> the ukraine president poroshenko in a joint session of congress talking about the realities, giving us kind of a historical perspective, recent history of what ukraine has gone through and continues to face as we speak. joining me now, by the way, you can see the speech if you would like to continue watching on msnbc.com, it is streaming there live. we see it on our televi