something, mr. hadley, it needs to be understood, that most of, if not all of the taliban and the haqqani leaders have their families as a collateral kept somewhere, and that is the way they are to be trusted with their doing at the moment. so they are concerned about their families. they are concerned about their own safety. so with this group our strategies, obviously they are reconcilable and we need to talk to them, but, of course, there is a -- as well. as i said for them, this conflict is as much about economics is about politics. and they are drawing on proceeds from a drug and criminal economy, and they are not alone either. there are state and nonstate elements that also benefit. of course not to mention the corrupt officials in afghanistan. but when it comes to the region states and their influence, so the piece offer alone will not be enough. we have to have the right balance between instances and disincentives for them. but when it comes to the reconcilable elements, again the challenges

thanks for joining and i want to start with you, mr. hadley. you were national security adviser when john bolton was u.n. ambassador. what was it like working with him? >> well, john is a very smart, very experienced, very tough guy. he has strong views. but he was i think on balance an asset for the president and executed the guidance he got for the president but he is a very capable fellow. >> what do you think he will be like with president trump? >> well, one of the good things is that the president knows him and seems to be comfortable with him and feels john is more in line with the president's views and the president is the person elected by the american people to set foreign policy. he deserves people around him who think the same way. i think the issue is going to be as national security adviser you have to have a good relationship with the president but you also have to have a good relationship with the other nsc principals, secretary of state, secretary of defense, and in order to do that you need to run a transparent inclusive open

mr. hadley, welcome to the program. >> nice to be here. >> so let's sort of start at the beginning. first and foremost, what do you make of this sort of last-minute surprise visit by kim jong-un to china? what's the strategic picture around that visit? >> well, for china, it's very important because, in some sense, president trump's willingness to meet with kim jong-un had the effect of sidelining china a little bit. this puts china centrally back into the picture. because they, of course, have real interests in how this dispute gets resolved. kim jong-un, it says another thing. even though china joined with the united states and other countries in adopting u.n. security council resolutions that china is still kim jong-un's ally. and finally, both the meeting with president xi and forthcoming meeting with president trump does something for kim jong-un. it puts him on the same level of two of the world's great leaders of two great countries. so it serves a lot of purposes all around. >> would you agree, as i sort of intimated in the lead-in to you, that actually kim has been leading

hadley on responding to some of your questions. the peace offer the president made last month, let me first provide the context. three things are important. one, the draft we are commonly faced with. --s threat to enemies from it comes actually from an excess andiolent extremism transnational criminalize networks. covert state sponsorship of terrorism. it is not just a threat against afghanistan. it is a threat against the entire global community. the starting point of our discussion, when we analyze the situation in the region, you must understand this is a common threat from a common enemy, which calls for a shared responsibility. taliban that the we are fighting. see foreign, we athters associated with least three categories of terrorist networks. a global terrorist network such , the regionalaesh epim ands such as such as therrorists taliban in pakistan. , thehese categories afghans, the global, the regional and the pakistanis, have a relationship among themselves. drawing all throwing -- on the criminalized economy, chief of a

mr. markov, welcome to the program. first, if i might, just talk about these expulsions before i get to the tragedy that you're all undergoing. you heard what steven hadley said, the former national security adviser, that this tit for tat may have now, you know, put a full stop on it. but is moscow going to retaliate for these exlsions? it's been threating to do ithr yet we've heard nothing yet. >> i think moscow were experiencing same number of diplomats. it's clear, but i think this is a deal not about diplomats. it's for western coalition to try to claim russian authorities responsible for use in weaponry. and i think it's very dangerous development because on one hand, we could see the effect. secondly, they clear violated about chemical weaponry. on the streets of london, salisbury. and i think it's very dangerous development because on one hand we could see that it has no effect. secondly britain's government clear violator about chemical weaponry because, according to those conventions, there are some specific pr

and mr. bolton will be anything but. >> that he is a very talented man. a global community knows him. many of them -- most of them are probably horrified by his appointment. but back to the two major issues on the table, iran and north korea, in the short run bosar if threatens with active military operations, we could fight a major conventional war and destroy them but it would be the worst possible option we could choose. my problem with ambassador bolton is i don't think he understands the uncertainty of embarking on a military operation. that would be my major caution. >> well let me tell you what he said in the "wall street journal" about north korea on february the 28th. he wrote preemption opponents argue action is not justified because pang yong doesn't z not constitute an imminent threat. they are wrong. given the information about north korea we should not wait until the very last minute. this would risk striking after the north has delivered nuclear weapons a much more dangerous situation. how do you react to that? >> well i think it is -- it's