Brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. Welcome back, michael. He is a Research Fellow at the brookings institution, out with a new book. Guest nice to be with you. What is your take away on the meeting with president putin . Guest it did what it had to do. We will continue to learn more, perhaps about things that may have been said, we dont know yet if President Trump really try to forgive mr. Putin for election shenanigans, we will learn more about that in the days and weeks to comp. I thought what needed to happen was pretty much accomplished. A certain amount of firmness in mr. Trump explaining that certain russian behavior had been unacceptable and and there was never to Start Building a working relationship. You mentioned my book, im trying to argue and other people are as well that we need to find ways to collaborate with russia and defuse the tension. The problem is mostly russia possible in the relationship, but we have to work. See President Trump and putin have a meeting and talk about substance seemed to get some kind of an ok report going. Predecessor started out strong with putin and then wind it up deeply frustrated. Im not suggesting huge progress, but it was what i expected and what i hoped for. The if you could read diplomatic tea leaves with regard to the Election Hacking issue, two printer perspectives from what we saw from Sergei Lavrov and rex tillerson. Guest president putin doesnt really speak the truth, spin is a kind word for what he does. Im not necessarily concerned about how each president reports what happened, im more worried about knowing the President Trump is sending a stern message to the russians, this cant be tolerated and not is consistent with a good relationship, not to mention what he has been doing in ukraine. As long as that message is being sent just not just by mr. Trumps occasional rhetoric, but in american policy, i think we are ok regardless of what the tea leaves turn out to claim might have been said. Host the president has been tweeting this morning and with regard to election and Cyber Security he said putin and i discussed an impenetrable Cyber Security unit. Let me get your reaction to that first. Sure what that means because certainly Russian Hackers are among the worlds biggest problem in cyberspace. There is no way to create a unit that just becomes impenetrable or at least that makes everybody elses sin am systems impenetrable. A largecurity will be problem for a long time and i dont think we can view russians as partners in this endeavor. Occasionally we can Exchange Information and collaborate, we should expect theyre trying to learn from every interaction to figure out how to break in to our system. There are fundamentally competitive rivalries when it comes to cyberspace and that concerns me because it suggests a little bit of wishful thinking. Host questions are asked about why the cia and fbi had asked the dnc 13 times for the server and were rejected. Still dont. Guest there are a lot of people who did not do well in the u. S. In the in terms of enhancing Cyber Security. Problem, we cause a were not resilient or smart about how we reacted and that extended to president obamas mistake not to explain before election day what we knew to be going on. President obama was concerned it would somehow look like he was taking sides. But if youre the top Law Enforcement officer you have to tell people what is going on. A lot of agencies and organizations on the u. S. Side did not get up to snuff last year. What is done is done, now we have to learn and be better. Back in april, Vladimir Putin continues to make this difficult and as investigations ,e up into russian interference most of trumps Top National Security team is reverting to antirussia rhetoric. If we continue down this path, a u. S. Russia war could erupt rubbed over a contested area in europe. To reduce the risk we need to develop an alternative, one that promotes the security and prosperity of the neutral countries in eastern europe. Nato e know expanded we have now expanded nato to 29 countries, the last one was montenegro. As of 2008 we are promising eventual relation membership to ukraine and georgia. Georgia is not even in europe. Nato is was to be a european and north american union. I think we have pushed this too far. What is done is done. A good reason to try it. It also had a predictable effect on u. S. Russian relations. Fundamentally, Vladimir Putin is the number one problem in this would wehip, but how feel if we had been engaged in a cold war for decades and in the organization the defeated us expanded to include canada and mexico. That is essentially what we are doing with nato. Even though the intentions are good and we are not using military force to threaten them, at a psychological level it is hard for russians to accept. They feel it we are rubbing it in their face in the victory in the cold war. That gives putin the basis to im not suggesting the behavior is defensible, but the way he uses nato expansion to create Political Support for this behavior at home was predictable and i think we have to figure out how to change the dynamic, especially because we are not about to bring ukraine and georgia into nato anyway. We promise to to do so and therefore made it appealing for putin to meddle in their affairs to try and keep them out because as long as there is turmoil, we will not bring them in. Been invaded by russia since the time when we made that promise. I think we have to figure out a way to negotiate a neutral zone that would allow these countries , basicallyfreedom saying nato is now big enough. Host i want to ask about north korea. You wrote about toughening shank sanctions make sense, but that alone will not suffice. How do you deal with the problem . Guest there is not an easy answer, but i think we have to start considering the idea of going for a deal that would freeze north Koreas Nuclear frow Graham Program rather than immediately imagining dismantling it. They see Nuclear Weapons as a crucial way to make sure what happened to Saddam Hussein did not happen to them. Host you think they have the capacity . Guest everyone in the Intelligence Community that i things they have. We have been wrong before in that assertion. They had a reactor they operated for a long time. We watch them shut that down, we note where the plutonium reprocessing occurs. They said they have secret uranium enrichment facilities. The estimates are they have enough material for one or two dozen bombs and they have set five off. , 2006re tested five times m and four times in the Obama Administration. The heart is to know if they can is to them hard part know if they can deploy them. That requires a smaller weapon and a reentry vehicle that can survive the turbulence of reentry. More than 1000t degrees, it is very easy for a warhead to be destroyed. Canre pretty confident they put a lebanon an airplane. Penetrateplane could air defense, they could put on soil. They also put on a shorter range where the issue is less damaging. We pretty much know this is a big problem. Host one final point and will get to callers. Can you squeeze north korea from both ends . Should russia and china which i believe are its leading trading partners. Guest there is india as well and a number other countries. Id you have to squeeze multilaterally. You have to squeeze on those countries that wont comply with the sanctions. We have to start indirectly creating the pressure. Host is that feasible . Guest yes, that is what led to the iran nuclear deal. I also believe we need to consider a freeze is the first step in a u. S. North korea negotiation. If we can verifiably make sure they are not producing Nuclear Material anymore and all we have to do is give up our biggest exercises with south korea to get that, i would. Host beyond nato, a new Security Architecture for eastern europe, the latest book by Michael Ohanlon. You can read his work at the parkings website. Marion from virginia. Caller thank you so much. Veryestion is from the beginning with tromp, we saw he was very partial towards putin and then all of the seven or eight insiders and the Trump Campaign seemed to have connections with russia and now just this morning we have heard donaldhe meeting that junior had. Trumpl question is appointed rex tillerson, who is the x ceo of exxon and then we got putin who said of the sanctions are lifted, which i assume that is what putin is putin will stand to make half 1 trillion and so will exxon making a lot of money since they have that land there they have least. Is that what this is really about . Is this really about money . Guest good question. First of all your are fundamentally right about the kind of motives that could be involved here and about the kind of payout that could be involved, especially for the corrupt russian oligarchs who essentially run that country and that includes people very close to putin and perhaps putin himself. I have your same concern that this is a big part of the motive. If putins only interest in life was to make russia richer and himself richer, then he has taken a strange path towards that because he didnt stabilize the russian economy the first eight years he was president , but in last few years, what he has been doing around the world has led to sanctions that have caused russian economy to go into recession. If putin were trying to maximize profit, he simply would not have invaded ukraine or he wouldve gotten out as quickly as he could in whatever basis we can help orchestrate. However, he hasnt done that and therefore i have to assume one of his other motives is to expand and maximize russian power and influence around the world, especially in places like ukraine. He has competing motives. He did not offer President Trump to get out of syria, he did not offer to let the u. S. , with whatever plan we had for syria to make peace, he did not offer to plot of ukraine. In one sense on a personal goal, you use the expression kissing up, on a personal level he mightve been trying to ingratiate himself, but his policies were not trying to please the u. S. As best i can tell. That is why we have to recognize russia has a number of motives, most of them not very admirable. More than just money though. Your concern is valid, but it is one of many things we have to keep in mind. Our guest, Michael Ohanlon who earned his doctorate from princeton university. He is an author of a number of books. His latest book, beyond nato. Georgia, republican line. Guest i hope you give me some caller i hope you give me some time to speak. Cspan gives trotting out people who push fake news. I wish he would comment on the fact that the u. S. Was involved in the ukrainian politics by having back to the revolution that removed the duly elected president of the ukraine and installed a president that was for america a few years back. This is what is really causing a lot of problems. Mr. Ohanlon sort of brushes that over. You make a valid point about the origins of the crisis being complicated. Indeed there was a ukrainian president extremely popular with his own people largely because he was seen as doing russian bidding who presided over a complete deterioration of the russian economy would lead to very brave protests by the ukrainian people in the middle of winter back in 2013. Then that did lead to the deal which was then violated by the opposition and then did drive the former president out, but he was involved. The u. S. Did not do that, we supported the Peaceful Protesters publicly, we did not do it through covert means and im proud of u. S. Supported those protesters because they had a valid point against iran president. Vladimir putin at least would read this much differently and would say the u. S. Was trying to bring its own version of democracy to russian borders. I think we have nothing to apologize for, but one can debate that. You are right, there a complex images to this thing. I dont see that being a justification for putting bringing irregular forces into Eastern Ukraine and producing a , shooting down a malaysian airline, it was a result of his willingness to create this violence and mayhem. I think it is hard to find a defense of Vladimir Putin. On syrian policy i will give him , i will go along with the spirit of your comment. He at least recognize that we the u. S. Had no real clue what we were doing in the syrian civil war. We called for the ousting of president aside and made towards theeps opposition but we did not follow through. The war got worse. Ourasnt fundamentally fault, but the policy we constructed to try and respond to that was entirely ineffective and i think putin got quite cynical about watching the u. S. In his mind sort of lumbering eastd in the middle without much positive result. I can go along with the spirit of your comment on that degree but not to defend putin. Host florida, our line for independents. Caller good morning. Everybody is talking but fake news now, this is Donald Trumps keyword. I can tell you what is fake, that meeting they had with putin the other day. What we got out of the meeting as far as was a bunch of lies from both of them. Trump said what he said and what putin said is what he said. Both of them are lying. So who do we believe . Guest i would say the most important thing is to see how the countries they. The real issues here, im not that concerned about commentary on the meeting itself, i think as i said earlier its more important they established a working relationship because addressing the war in ukraine and syria, Nuclear Crisis in north korea, these are real issues. We will see how these countries behave. Im more interested in that going forward. You may be right, but i also think it was probably an ok meeting as far as it went, it just did not go far. It was the first ever to establish collaboration. Now comes the hard part, figuring out how to solve these crises. Host we are joined live by james franks, the Moscow Bureau chief for the associated press. Thank you for being with us. Host thank you. Caller for this is of accuracys let me correct that im second in command in the bureau. Host thank you very much for being with us. How is the meeting between President Trump and putin playing out in moscow . Caller it is playing out in the media here being interpreted largely very positively. I think one of the most characteristic or the most from headline that ive seen was from whichry popular tabloid headlined its story about the meeting as putin and trump have found a path to peace in syria and ukraine. That is arguably a very premature assessment given that the meeting had to do only with small elements of both the syria and ukraine, and that conflict. Theoes seem to reflect russian view of the meeting as being very positive and also reducing a lot of the anxiety about from, who would been very much of an unknown quantity here. Host let me pick up on something michael was referring to earlier. This is the first step in a process of a longterm relationship. Where does this go next in terms of other areas . Talk to us. The situation in north korea. Can more tangible results, way from a meeting that took place for a few hours on friday . Caller the most pragmatic of russianhe minds officials and populists in general is one of whether the or rescind anye sanctions against russia. Secondly, whether the u. S. Will give back the diplomatic compounds the Obama Administration took away from the russians in late december. On the second issue, that is an issue that seems to have disappeared from russian coverage of the meeting because it is unresolved as of yet. Sanctions, the appointment of kurt as the special envoy for ukraine, which was announced as part of the trump putin meeting, that certainly is seen as a step possibly getting rid of the sanctions connected with the war in ukraines east. He exceeds inthat pushing the Peace Process forward in ukraine could also impact sanctions. North korea, that is a very murky issue. The north korea issue essentially has not been discussed in Russian Media as a consequence of the trump putin meeting. Host were talking with james. Eintz who is in moscow let me turn to Michael Ohanlon for a followup. Guest fake question for you, james. You and you mentioned the ambassador, a former u. S. Ambassador to nato. And sort of a rush a hawk. Russia hawk. He is very concerned about russian navy are. Im curious as to why you interpret his appointment as an indication there is any kind of likelihood of momentum towards resolving the ukrainian civil war and the sanctions that resulted . Im a little more skeptical in the path forward there. I think well need a bigger idea than just an envoy to solve the ukraine problem. Caller i was pondering that any mored i dont have of a real sense of it at this point than you do, certainly i know he is being a comparative russia hawk. At this point his appointment and russias a parent happiness with his appointment may in part indicate that russia is looking for a little bit of tough love in this situation by being involved in the conflict in east ukraine, they created a lot of unforeseen problems for themselves and one has the sense that russia has been looking for an exit in a way they can save the face. James, final question. Will there be a second, third, Fourth Meeting . Where does this go next between them . That any would say kind of predictive statement about russia or trump is a bad thinkut i would of course that given these are two superpowers with a lot of