From our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Steven sestanovich is here. He served as ambassadoratlarge to the former soviet union during the clinton administration, and he has held senior roles on the Security Council and the state department. He is currently the professor of International Diplomacy at columbia and a senior fellow on the council of foreign relations. His new book explores the personalities and littleknown stories of Foreign Policy. It is called maximalist america in the world from truman to obama. I am pleased to have Steve Sestanovich back at the table. Great to have you back in the studio. Ukraine. Yeah. Russia. Where are we . It seems were looking at a rolling dismemberment of ukraine. And i think it may turn out to be too strong a statement. I hope so. Right now, the way the russians seem to be handling this is to challenge the authority of the Ukrainian Government and to warn that if they try to assert its authority in the eastern provinces where the support is weaker that russia will respond. Respond they will, as the foreign minister said, as they did in georgia in 2008, the threat of war. Theyre threatening war if what happens . If there is an attempt to oust the prorussian separatist groups that have taken over buildings and squares in Eastern Ukraine, in small cities and towns. Which they intended to do. The Ukrainian Government has said a number of times that they want to do this. They have held back because they know the use of force may not be supported. It may not be successful. It delegitimized the previous government. President yanukovich killed so many people in february. He lost the support of everybody. Even his own party, and at that point, he had to flee the country. They are cautious because they do not want a complete melee in the cities in Eastern Ukraine where they dont have a lot of support to begin with. You say there will be a rolling dismemberment of ukraine. Does the United States have to sit at again let it happen or can it stop it . The american position with varying degrees of support from our allies in europe has been if russia acts in ukraine, there will be a whole new rash of sanctions. The Obama Administration policymakers who have spoken on this have suggested that it is not just a new action by russia but instead a failure to contribute positively to the resolution of this problem. How do you think in the halls of the national Security Council at the white house how they are discussing this . What are they worried about . Are they worried that if they do something too much it will release something unpredictable . There is a new sense that putin is a completely scan in. There were all kinds of profiles and ways to measure. They dont know anything about what goes inside putins head. Putin mind reading is a Cottage Industry in all western capitals, but people dont know what hes thinking. Really . It seems to me to be true that with most World Leaders and especially to haters if you look carefully at what theyve been saying, you can predict what they will do. That is what scares people about putin. He is implying a claim way beyond just beyond a few provinces. This term he has been using, new russia, implies a russian claim of the entire belt across southern ukraine which would reach to the moldovan border. Really carving up and taking up half the state. We dont know whether this is what putin has in mind. Whether he just wants to weaken the government that it cannot rule. It cannot restore its authority anywhere. A range of possible scenarios that people can imagine as his endgame is very wide now. It starts with just nibbling away at eastern ukrainian and ends up in war. The president on this multination tour, the chinese believe in some course that he is pursuing a policy of containment. The problem with putin is not that hes worried that the United States or its european allies are trying to contain him, he is convinced any russian will tell you this that the United States want to unseat him. Its always about the cia. George soros, the pope. He sees lots of enemies out there. Since the orange revolution in ukraine in 2004 when the prorussian candidate was defeated by a prowestern candidate, putin has argued that american policy is designed to dictate who rules in what country. He is convinced that the american effort is to show him the door. He believes that . When you say russians, who are we talking about . People in the government that you would know because you have been a scholar and a Government Official . All kinds of russians in and out of government. They say that is his mindset about america. His First Response to the demonstrations in ukraine in kiev, his First Response was it was the cia. Brennan goes over and they go crazy. See . We told you. This is a very strong conviction on putins part about the meddling of the west. It does not seem to be possible to dissuade him. Containing him might turn out to be more constructive. Lets talk about the book. Why the title . Maximalst. My argument is that american policy for about 70 years operated mostly in two modes. Maximalist, pedal to the metal, and retrenchment. That is what we do when the maximalist projects go off the rails. Point to where we pull back. After vietnam . We pull back from overcommitment four or five times since 1945. First of all, right after the war, after korea, after vietnam, after the cold war, which was major. President obama is now the fifth retrenchment president or the fifth to who was the last before him . At the very end of the cold war, the first president bush thought there had to be a reduction in American Defense spending, commitment. He was a foreignpolicy president. Its a fascinating story. The first half of bushs administration was all foreignpolicy, immensely successful, activist, committed, engaged. The second half is one where he ran away from foreignpolicy. Quite extraordinary, he believes foreignpolicy was not popular. He believed the cold war was over and a certain kind of downsizing was necessary. Bill clinton came in responding to that type of entrenchment. Bosnia was the pivot. Going to bosnia took a while. Madeline albright would have done it much earlier. Retrenchment generally lasts a while. It lasts longer when it follows failure. The retrenchments that have followed our unsuccessful military operations korea, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan they lasted quite a long time. What would you say reagan did . Reagan was an archmaximalist. There was one important asterisk. He was for ideological warfare. He wanted to see american engagement in lots of areas where there had not been active involvement. He did not get involved in a big war. That discredited his as foreignpolicy. Instead, he managed to pull it off without that type of military commitment. It seems to me that president obama likes the idea of a new type of warfare that would include drones, special ops, that kind of thing as the forward extension of American Power. Retrenchment president s often like covert action. [laughter] its cheaper, quieter. Its secret. Eisenhower was committed to covert action in iran, guatemala, elsewhere. The nixon and kissinger retrenchment after vietnam involved covert action that was a kind of downsizing. A lot of that was because of the country and its animosity towards the vietnam war. Sure. There was no mandate for anything other than getting out. That is the mindset of president s who come in who see themselves as hired by the American People to fix a problem of overcommitment. John kennedy was a maximalist. Absolutely. Maximalist in the sense that he convinced the American People that eisenhower was not doing enough, was not vigorous enough, was not an activist. Kennedy said of eisenhowers tenure as president that it had been eight years of drugged and fitful sleep. You dont get nastier than that. Thats pretty bad. There was a kind of commitment on thr part of the new frontier to get out there and position the United States in different ways. We are america. Absolutely. Kennedy was not crazy about it. He understood it was necessary and he wanted to try to limit them. I was reading some stuff recently. He said, look, its crazy that we can deal with part of the world. We have to recognize limits on American Power. Kennedy did not act that way in every respect. He would say that occasionally. He was very nervous about what American Power might do, what kinds of risks it might create, particularly in a nuclear age at a time when soviet policy was becoming more activist. That desire to limit risk was a check on his maximalism him but his overall outlook was that the United States represents forces for the future. We can reach out to almost everybody in the third world, europe, asia. There was a kind of confidence in that outlook. Young and vigorous america. That was the way he presents himself to the American People and how they got a lack it. Barack obama, what is his foreignpolicy legacy. Retrenchment president s are hired by the American People, as i have said of others, to fix a mess. 79 said they want less foreignpolicy, less activists. Retrenchment president s have a problem once they solve that mess. They have to define a course for the future and they often dont really have a good answer for it. New challenges arise and they have to decide whether they will meet the challenges or take a pass. How good is he a foreignpolicy . Hes not deeply interested in it. What is the evidence of that . What is he interested in . Hes interested in what he says hes interested in which his nationbuilding here at home. Income inequality, health care. That is his background and he has a lot of good reasons to argue for a focus on domestic issues. Will he be seen as a successful foreignpolicy president . If the record is just limited to his first term, people would say fabulously successful. Remember, when he ran for reelection, republicans could not lay a finger on him. They acknowledge it was successful foreignpolicy. Retrenchment president s tend to have problem in the second term. Do . Retrenchment president s normally face a number of challenges. They face doubts from American Allies about commitment. They face criticisms here at home that they are not preserving American Power in the world. They tend to think of this as a problem that is just fringe criticism. They tend to not see that they are losing the support of the center. I think the president s challenge is both to reassure allies, to reimpress adversaries, and to rebuild the consensus about what american purposes are abroad. That is hard right now because we do not have a consensus about what those purposes should be. We will have that debate from now until the president election about what foreignpolicy should be. Our role in the world. Absolutely. Both parties are divided about it. You have a serious constituency in both parties now arguing for a focus on domestic affairs. Except, that is not the dominant constituency in either case. There is going to be a very lively debate and we do not know whether in the 2016 president ial election they will be the democrats arguing for activist foreignpolicy or republicans. Guess who said this. The United States should serve only as a weight, not the weight in the scale. Richard nixon in the very beginning of his administration talking about a less committed, less activists role for the United States not trying to solve every problem. I think thats what jack kennedy said also. He just did the book. It was nixon who was coming in after overcommitment. Kennedy thought he was coming in during under commitment and he wanted to reinflate american foreignpolicy. What did vienna do to kennedy . He said he was much more of a barbarian than i expected. Khrushchev was a brutal arguer, rather unpleasant company. Kennedy was nervous about what kind of impression he had made. He thought he had come across as weak. He stated there is a need to reenergize the american policy to slow it down. Khrushchev had taken away a slightly different impression. He was impressed by kennedys threats and he did not try to drive the u. S. Out of berlin. The book is called maximalist america in the world from truman to obama. Steven sestanovich. Back in a minute. Reporters Jonathan Allen and amie parnes are with me. They have written a new book, hrc state secrets and the rebirth of Hillary Clinton. It tells the story of her political arc from defeated president ial candidate, chief diplomat, to presumed president ial nominee. They call Hillary Clintons return one of the greatest in history. Jonathan allen is a Political Correspondent for bloomberg. Amie parnes is chief White House Correspondent for the hill. Im pleased to have them at the table for the first time. I said you are the chief, i dont know if you are. How had this idea to do the book at this time, about from two different people . Thats a good question. We both worked at politico and we were very fascinated and looking at her time in state. It may not have been well covered. She has a press corps that traveled with her, but this is a woman whos going to be running for president. We wanted to look into what she did the last four years and see if she was papal bull, if she would pass the test, what voters would look at during her time in state and thats what we did. Amie and i had done a few stories together and we had a good collaboration. How does that work . We had two computers open and i would write a few paragraphs that i could see the edits happening in the file and then she would write a few paragraphs. You conducted some 200 interviews with people about her. Was there a single event when you talk to people about her, people who like her, people who dont, people who hope she will be president , people who hope she will not, is there a sense at the core always about Hillary Clinton . What is it . When you talk to people, they respect her, even republicans. We spoke to darrell issa, jason chaffetz. He has Great Respect for her and thinks shes very capable. We told the story of the way he saw ben ghazi when he kind of blamed obama and then after the 2012 election, he kind of pivoted to her a bit and blaming her a little bit more. Deep down, republicans have a great deal of respect for her. One called the stages of hillary. He dreaded working with her at first and then he kind of reached the acceptance phase where he was ok working for her and then he actually started liking her. We found that really interesting. You hear that from people like bob gates, john mccain. So many republicans at that level have had working relationships. Dave petraeus, cia director where do you start the book . Making a naughty and nice list in 2008. What was it about . It was about who she felt had betrayed her. Tracking all of these delegates along the way. They rated each of them one to seven. They also took account of the fact there were times in which president clinton had done things for these people and when push came to shove, they were not there for Hillary Clinton. Bill clinton was the lead democratic president other than jimmy carter who was still alive and therefore had done something for almost everybody in the democratic party. I think the clintons believed when she ran for president that all those people would coalesce around her and they did not feel like people fell them loyalty. As she embarrassed about the list . I get the sense that president clinton does not like that being out there. In 20102012 election cycles, he went after some people on that list and try to beat them by supporting their opponents. And finding himself on the opposite side of president obama. Even though he became a surrogate for president obama and that was important for bill clintons political recovery a little bit after the elections and certainly for hillary, he would fight. It does have a negative connotation it has they remember nixons enemies list. There is a difference. I think the average american does not care that much if a former president goes after and knocks out another politician in a political race. Whereas nixon, it was often him going after people in government. Using the power of the irs. To go after individuals, not political enemies, but individual americans and i think thats a different game. 2008 and she has lost the nomination. Hes elected. At that time, how does she see her future before he approached her to be secretary of state . She wanted to go back to the senate. The financial crisis was happening. She felt like she really wanted to be back in the senate , but they not make room for her. She could have gone back and done her old job, but there was nothing for her to kind of climb the ranks. That was upsetting to a lot of people, particularly women senators. They lobbied the president a lot to think about her for a bigger position. I assume the president liked the idea of rivals but also the notion was that if she was on the team, she would not be in the senate opposing him if, in fact, she had legitimate differences. She dodged him a few times. She went to chicago and spoke for an hour, came back. She did not know if she wanted to take it. He kept calling her. She kept saying, no thank you. Then finally he kind of cornered her. I think she feels this obligation that when the president asks you to do something more than once. How was their relationship while she was secretary of state . I dont think they will be vacationing in the hamptons together anytime soon, but it did or marthas vineyard. In the very beginning, it was a situation where they and the teams still describe it as