we all got force johnson -- boris yeltsin wrong. do we get mr. putin wrong? jeffery: i think we got our own policies not right. we have been on a provocative course of nato enlargement, seen by the russian side of encircling russia, a point that has been made for more than 30 years, first by the soviet union , then by president yeltsin, now by vladimir putin. we do not want to think about that in the u.s., we do not want to discuss it. we are dishonest. the leaders said clearly to mr. gorbachev and to vladimir putin -- and to yeltsin no enlargement to the east. then clinton decided because of the pressures domestically and from central european countries that nato wooded large. it was predicted by many at the time, including clinton's own defense secretary, william perry, that this was a dangerous and provocative move. now we are here. we need to plow a c on our side. all we are -- we need diplomacy. all we are doing is sacrificing ukraine in the name of a theory. if you talk to senior officials they say there is no way ukraine will actually join nato. then t

and in 1982 the first president of modern russia, boris yeltsin would lead to the wild west of capitalism a devastating consequences numeral being a citizens then out of nowhere that how did vladimir putin rise to power? history begins in 1952. and only child born in st. petersburg. his parents were factory workers and get attended leningrad state university and would become an intelligence officer for the kgb. the soviet union collapsed and retired from the intelligence agencies and return home to work in local politics becoming the head of external relations and first deputy mayor when losing in a day six putin moved his family to moscow climbing up in the yeltsin administration eventually heading federal security in 1989 appointed prime minister and on new year's eve he shocked the world announcing his resignation hand picking putin to be president on his first day president putin hard and yeltsin for corruption officially elected leader. he was so hungry for power 2008 term limits forced him out he would not leave without securing his seat. dmitri medvedev became the new president whi

yeltsin believed in democracy for russia. vladamir putin just pretended he did. during his more than two decades in power, putin's anger and disdain for the west has been simmering. yet, on the world stage, he largely kept a lid on it. >> most people believe that he was a pragmatic authoritarian ruler, and he certainly he was very careful in the way he acted. >> reporter: angela stint is one of many who have been sensing that something in putin has changed. >> two years of isolation during the pandemic maybe has affected him. his grip on reality is somewhat less than it was, or he's a risk taker. >> he's grown more resentful, nor isolated, more furious at almost everybody and everything. >> reporter: david remnick covered russia for "the washington post" and won a pulitzer prize for his book. if you had just one word to describe vladamir putin, what would it be? >> i think at this point, isolated. politically isolated from contrary advice. isolated as much as he can manage it from his own population. and isolated from reality. >> reporter: putin was a young kgb o

it's a yeltsin policy and put it and his successor is to say that security is indivisible. that is the 2nd leg off that whole how think a paris charter is terrible as down a declaration, all of these declarations. but the west has been focusing on one aspect that each country construes its own security. lawrence's wise are both, most kind of caused by jean because interesting to know, begging china has actually quite said the west must take into account your security concerns is it's indivisibility. and that's what we're failed to do for 30 years. and like in cuba, that we simply have now a moment of awakening realization that you have to, we have to go back to the negotiating table. the russians have a lot complained about the existence of double standards, but i think what we're increasingly hearing back from european lease is that these are, these double standards are justified, morally justified, because the west is on the right side of history. and, you know, for me is the person who was born in leningrad with all the painful history on that cd at the hands of certain

y. gorbachev yeltsin and put in. but you know why to advised? it's that it's not, the door was opened, the door was smashed down, and so maybe a more delicate way, opening that door may have been better advised, but then you'd say there would you refusing to open the door? so the only way to get it was to smash it down. i understand that argument didn't dordy misplaced one way or another for in order for the tops to continue. it requires some sort of football sites to have a degree of negotiating skills and certain conception of a level playing field given that after you know, for the last 30 years, the what has been assuming that it's vision has to be accepted and complied with. no questions asked, do you think there's a skill set where these negotiations to continue rather than, than you know, go on with value preaching, media friend via and etc. all those exactly are skills that the west is so good and practicing. yeah, no, absolutely. and compared to those leaders, i'm thinking of jack kennedy and robert kennedy

russia's president in the �*90s, boris yeltsin, would help him do that. he made putin head of the security services, then putin was elected prime minister, then in 1999 yeltsin resigned and putin was president. his way of operating was clear from the start. tightening the grip over media was one of the first things that he did, and also the lack of genuine opposition because his critics either had been in exile or dead or were facing prosecution. putin's focus on his own power and wealth was relentless. by 2008 when his two terms were up dmitry medvedev replaced him as president, but putin became prime minister and everyone knew who was in charge. by 2012, he was back as president again. putin's indifference to democracy is matched by his view of sovereignty. in 2008 russia invaded georgia to support separatist. in 2014 russia annexed crimea from ukraine. it supported separatists in eastern ukraine. and in 2018 the former russian secret service operative was poisoned in salisbury. the uk says russian intelligence was responsible. to putin the rules are fo

russia's president in the �*90s, boris yeltsin, would help him do that. he made putin head of the security services, then putin was elected prime minister, then in 1999, yeltsin resigned and putin was president. his way of operating was clear from the start. tightening the grip over media was one of the first things that he did, and also the lack of genuine opposition because his critics either had been in exile or dead or were facing prosecution. putin's focus on his own power and wealth was relentless. by 2008, when his two terms were up, dmitry medvedev replaced him as president, but putin became prime minister and everyone knew who was in charge. by 2012, he was back as president again. and putin's indifference to democracy is matched by his view of sovereignty. in 2008, russia invaded georgia to support separatists. in 2014, russia annexed crimea from ukraine. it supported separatists in eastern ukraine. and in 2018, the former russian secret service operative was poisoned in salisbury. the uk says russian intelligence was responsible. to putin, the

after such a statement, it was a blessing that president clinton and boris yeltsin had enough will and determination to make ukraine eliminate their nuclear weapons. but it wasn't for free. ah, 1st the united states offered ukraine $350000000.00 in aid by black mailing and a reversal towards russia. ukraine was able to bargain for another 175000000 to dismantle the nuclear weapons. and 155000000 in economic aid from the united states . but the ukrainian politicians clearly made about deal cost on perceived $2000000000.00 for the elimination of a nuclear potential 4 times smaller. and they received a 50 percent stake in the joint cossack us oil company tank, ease chevron but neither the economic aid nor the nationalist car helped crowd shook under strong public pressure. early presidential elections were demanded. in 1994, he was defeated by his former prime minister. landed future. huh? oh landed coachman born on august 9th, 1938 in 1960. he graduated from the physics and technology faculty of nepa troughs state university, with a degree in mechanical engineering. he worked as an engin

yeltsin�*s eventual successor was an ex—kgb officer, vladimir putin. he always insisted he didn't want to revive the old soviet union, and he seemed to fit in well with the diplomatic niceties of a world which was now dominated by the united states. yet all the time, he was quietly rebuilding russia's armed forces, which had fallen into decay. putin was on a mission to make russia a superpower again. the western leaders, though, just saw him as someone they could do business with. the problem is that they approached russia with optimism and thinking that russia can be engaged with like a western liberal democracy, not realising just how rapidly russia is retreating back into its own historical comfort zone of hostility not only to the outside world, but to its own population, and to its own very specific view of history, where it nurses grievances that are just unrecognisable to the outside world. ukraine, especially, seemed to obsess him. he hated the way it had gone through independence when the soviet union collapsed. the pro—democracy orange revo

caller: same way i met yeltsin. trade deals, import export. i also organized industrial tradeshows. there were reasons for us to meet. it was strictly on trade. at the time that he came into office, the u.s. and russia were developing very strong trade relations. unfortunately, that was also the time that president clinton was focused on nafta. if you are aware of history, clinton went to russia, and i met him at that point. he snapped putin who just became vice president and quickly became president when yeltsin resigned. it was an interesting period of time. he has been angry basically at the united states. host: to your point about nato expansion, this is from the bbc, . host: this is carl and alabama. caller: i don't think -- i think a more for medical military is going to be the only thing that will deter putin right now. i don't think any amount of sanctions imposed is going to deter him because i think he is leaders are focused on removing this current government in ukraine and installing his own puppet government. i wish the allies, nato, we would at least give the ukraine m

caller: same way i met yeltsin. trade deals, import export. i also organized industrial tradeshows. there were reasons for us to meet. it was strictly on trade. at the time that he came into office, the u.s. and russia were developing very strong trade relations. unfortunately, that was also the time that president clinton was focused on nafta. if you are aware of history, clinton went to russia, and i met him at that point. he snapped putin who just became vice president and quickly became president when yeltsin resigned. it was an interesting period of time. he has been angry basically at the united states. host: to your point about nato expansion, this is from the bbc, . host: this is carl and alabama. caller: i don't think -- i think a more for medical military is going to be the only thing that will deter putin right now. i don't think any amount of sanctions imposed is going to deter him because i think he is leaders are focused on removing this current government in ukraine and installing his own puppet government. i wish the allies, nato, we would at least give the ukraine m

yeltsin's eventual successor was an ex-kgb officer, vladimir putin. he insisted he did not want to revive the old soviet union, and he seemed to fit in well with the diplomatic niceties of a world which was now dominated by the united states. yet all the time he was quietly rebuilding russia's armed foes, which had fallen into decay. putin was on a mission to make russia superpower again. western leaders just saw him as someone they could do business with. >> the problem is that they approached pressure with optimism, thinking that russia can be engaged with like a western liberal democracy, not realizing just how rapidly russia is retreating back into its own historical comfort zone of hostility not only to the outside world, but its on population, and its specific view of history where in nurses is grievances that are unrecognizable to the outside world. john: ukraine especially seemed to upset him. he hated the way it had gone through independence when the soviet union collapsed. pro-democracy orange revolution was an affront to him. by 2014,e infi

soviet union, he returned to his homeland, eventually working for the administration of president boris yeltsin before becoming prime minister in 1999. in may, 2000, he was inaugurated his president. his goal was for russia to once again become a global power, a little pushing his savings goes. i use the collapse of the soviet union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. narrowed a tragedy for all russians. they issued that army under putin's leadership, the country has been transformed. he's brought most of the russian media under kremlin control and disempowered. oligarchs who had grown rich during the chaotic years of yelton's reign. putin's decisive action in chechnya also brought him widespread support. there he waged an uncompromising war against separatist rebels, a war in which many civilians were also killed. in terms of foreign policy, putin initially had a good relationship with his western counterparts. i looked the man in the i, i found to be very straightforward and trustworthy. virtually for him, but he's all was viewed nato's expansion to take in new east

this is what we saw happen with boris yeltsin, is that when things start to get shaky around them, they moment for me, and four days seems like a world ago, he humiliated his own foreign intelligence chief, which in the russian system is not something you should do. i think a lot of people thought this guy is already looking uncomfortable but what is happening. on the inside of the kremlin it is fear and terror, not loyalty. brute fear and terror, not loyalty. we need to go _ fear and terror, not loyalty. we need to go to — fear and terror, not loyalty. we need to go to the front page of the sunday times and it is the story of roman abramovich giving up control of chelsea. what did you make of this, because of course he is an ally of vladimir putin?- this, because of course he is an ally of vladimir putin? there have been questions _ ally of vladimir putin? there have been questions all _ ally of vladimir putin? there have been questions all week— ally of vladimir putin? there have been questions all week about. ally of vladimir putin? there have been questions all week about hisj b

soviet union, he returned to his homeland eventually working for the administration of president boris yeltsin before becoming prime minister in 1999. in may, 2000, he was inaugurated his president. his goal was for russia to once again become a global power. little goshen. yes, i guess goes i use the collapse of the soviet union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. and that was a tragedy for all russians. they issued that army under putin's leadership, the country has been transformed. he's brought most of the russian media under kremlin control and disempowered. oligarchs who had grown rich during the chaotic years of yelton's reign. putin's decisive action in chechnya also brought him widespread support. there he waged an uncompromising war against separatist rebels, a war in which many civilians were also killed. in terms of foreign policy, putin initially had a good relationship with his western counterparts. i looked the man in the eye. i found to be very straightforward and trustworthy. virtually from but he's all was viewed nato's expansion to take in new east

of the soviet union, he returned to his homeland and became a confidant of russian president boris yeltsin, who groomed him as his successor. brewton 1st became prime minister that in may 2000. he was inaugurated as president. his goal was for russia to once again become a global power in goshen. your savings goes, i use the collapse of the soviet union was the greatest geopolitical disaster of the century. a tragedy for all russian estella missed the issue that army putin calls his way of governing guided democracy. he has brought much of the russian media under kremlin control and disempowered. oligarchs who had grown rich under the chaotic years of yelton's reign. prudence decisive action in chechnya also brought him widespread support. there he waged an uncompromising war against islamist rebels. the war in which many civilians were also killed in terms of foreign policy put in initially had a good relationship with his western counterparts. i like the man and the i i found be very straightforward and trustworthy. unfortunately, but bruton has always viewed nato's expansion after 1997

major role in international politics and vladimir putin back then just stepped in, replacing a boris yeltsin mister. prudent said that he made a proposal that no one has ever heard of this the 1st time mister poo mentioned that. and at this time around are nowadays no apologies for cutting nuts package shorts. there is currently a meeting of the united nations security council on the way in new york and china is about to speak. so let's listen to what they have to say. helping a present all parties concerned must exercise, restrain junior and avoid any action that may fewer tensions. on that, we welcome and encourage every effort for it to panic, a diplomatic solution, and call on all parties concerned to continue dialogue and consultation and seek reasonable solutions to address each other's concerns on the basis of what you quality and mutual respect. what can i do? the current situation in ukraine is a result of many complex factors from china always makes its own position according to the merits of the matter itself. who will you believe that all countries should solve international disp

after such a statement, it was a blessing that president clinton and boris yeltsin had enough will and determination to make ukraine eliminate their nuclear weapons. but it wasn't for free. with 1st, the united states offered ukraine $350000000.00 in aid by black mailing and a reversal towards russia. ukraine was able to bargain for another 175000000 to dismantle the nuclear weapons. and 155000000 in economic aid from the united states . but the ukrainian politicians clearly made about deal cars, ext on perceived $2000000000.00 for the elimination of a nuclear potential 4 times smaller. and they received a 50 percent stake in the joint cossack u. s. royal company tank. ease chevron. ah. but neither the economic aid nor the nationalist card helped crowd shook under strong public pressure early presidential elections were demanded. in 1994, he was defeated by his former prime minister. landed future. huh? oh landed coachman born in august 9th, 1938 in 1960. he graduated from the physics and technology faculty of nepa troughs state university, with a degree in mechanical engineering. he w

of the soviet union, he returned to his homeland and became a confidant of russian president boris yeltsin, who groomed him as his successor. putin 1st became prime minister that in may 2000 . he was inaugurated as president. his goal was for russia to once again become a global power in goshen. your savior. schools are using the collapse of the soviet union was the greatest geopolitical disaster of the century. a tragedy for all russian estella? mister, yes, she did. army putin calls his way of governing guided democracy. he has brought much of the russian media under kremlin control and disempowered. oligarchs who had grown rich under the chaotic years of yelton's reign. prudence decisive action in chechnya also brought him widespread support. there he waged an uncompromising war against islamist rebels. the war in which many civilians were also killed. in terms of foreign policy potent initially had a good relationship with his western counterparts. i like the man and the i i found be very straightforward and trustworthy. personally, but bruton has always viewed nato's expansion after 1

russia's president in the �*90s, boris yeltsin, would help him do that. he made putin head of the security services, then putin was elected prime minister, then in 1999 yeltsin resigned and putin was president. his way of operating was clear from the start. tightening the grip over media was one of the first things that he did, and also the lack of genuine opposition because his critics either had been in exile or dead or were facing prosecution. putin's focus on his own power and wealth was relentless. by 2008, when his two terms were up, dmitry medvedev replaced him as president, but putin became prime minister and everyone knew who was in charge. by 2012, he was back as president again. putin's indifference to democracy is matched by his view of sovereignty. in 2008, russia invaded georgia to support separatist. in 2014, russia annexed crimea from ukraine. it supported separatists in eastern ukraine. and in 2018, the former russian secret service operative was poisoned in salisbury. the uk says russian intelligence was responsible. to putin, the rules

he returned to his homeland, eventually working for the administration of president boris yeltsin before becoming prime minister in 1999. in may, 2000, he was inaugurated his president. his goal was for russia to once again become a global power. galindo's goshen and cisco say it was the collapse of the soviet union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. and that was a tragedy for all russians. they issued that army under putin's leadership, the country has been transformed. these brought most of the russian media under kremlin control and disempowered. oligarchs who had grown rich during the chaotic years of yelton's reign. putin's decisive action in chechnya also brought him widespread support. there he waged an uncompromising war against separatist rebels, a war in which many civilians were also killed. in terms of foreign policy, putin initially had a good relationship with his western counterparts. i looked the man in the eye. i found to be very straightforward and trustworthy. virtually from buddies all was viewed nato's expansion to take in new eastern euro

raise your hand if your country voted in the general assembly, in reply to the letter by president yeltsin in 1991, when he told the united nations that russia would like to be a native state of the demised soviet. anyone? should i put on my glasses if my vision fails me and i don't see any hands raised? any country? anyone voted for russian membership? i leave you with that. and think about it when you listen to the russian delegate. >> i think the distinguished representative of ukraine. i now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the russian federation. >> mr. president, mr. secretary-general, distinguished colleagues. in recent days, the ukrainian issue has made headlines, global headlines and is now at the general assembly. at the same time, russian actions are being distorted and there is a number of incredible fakes. it is staggering with the use of media outlets and social networks, i wish to focus on the real reasons for the crisis that has emerged. i wish to emphasize the following. the route for the current crisis lies in the actions of ukraine itself. for many y

seeing now is a sort of re emergence of the cold war, a cold war 20. 30 years ago as bush senior and yeltsin met and smiled and hugged everyone envisaged a different future. the one they promised us where enemies became friends, rusher and the united states do not regard each other as potential adversaries from now on. the relationship will be characterized by friendship and partnership founded on mutual trust and respect. bit by bit any optimism crumbled, the united states assisted separatists and rebels, and even islamists and russia just years after promising friendship. nathan crept closer and closer to russia for reasons no one understood back then. weren't we friends? and year by year, russia grew more and more upset. and here we are both sides, washington and the kremlin, have, have drawn their red lines. they have locked eyes and a daring each other to blink. if that was unleashed on ukraine, it would be significant, very significant. and it would result in a significant amount of casualties for to munster, washington has, has cry the ladder. even the new crane that an invasion is co

yeltsin's eventual successor was an ex—kgb officer, vladimir putin. he always insisted he didn't want to revive the old soviet union, and he seemed to fit in well with the diplomatic niceties of a world which was now dominated by the united states. yet all the time, he was quietly rebuilding russia's armed forces, which had fallen into decay. putin was on a mission to make russia a superpower again. western leaders, though, just saw him as someone they could do business with. the problem is that they approached russia with optimism and thinking that russia can be engaged with like a western liberal democracy, not realising just how rapidly russia is retreating back into its own historical comfort zone of hostility not only to the outside world, but to its own population, and to its own very specific view of history, where it nurses grievances that are just unrecognisable to the outside world. ukraine, especially, seemed to obsess him. he hated the way it had gone through independence when the soviet union collapsed. the pro—democracy orange revoluti

yeltsin believed in democracy for his people; vladimir putin just pretended he did. during his more than two decades in power, putin's anger for the west has been simmering. and yet on the world stage, he largely kept the lid on it. >> most people believed he was a pragmatic ruler, and he certainly had grievances against the west, but he was very careful in the way he acted. >> reporter: angela stint is one of many who have been sensing that something in putin has changed. >> two years of isolation during the pandemic maybe have affected him. maybe his reality is somewhat less than it wasa ntl, isolad, more erratic. >> reporter: david remnick covered russia for the "washington post," and he won a pulitzer prize for "lenin's two: the last days of the soviet if you had one word to describe vladimir putin, what would it be? >> at this point, isolated. isolated from the country's advice, isolated from his own population, and isolated from reality. >> reporter: putin was a young k.g.b. officer stationed in east germany in 1989 when the berlin wall came crashing down. puti

well, the end game is the same one that they've been trying to do for the last 30 years, garbage of yeltsin and put in. and that is to try to get a security order on the continent, which is what they would call, indivisible and inclusive. in other words, that nato isn't to body as it were, excluding russia, but it includes it. and so that goal isn't, is quite clear. well, how to achieve it, though? they would argue, look, we made all our speeches we had put in speech in munich, security conference in 27. we had med, reduce our days for european security conference, and now it's actually in berlin. in june 28, we had in 2018 at the state of the nation speech. listen to us. i'm not saying that what they're doing is justified or even that that demand should all be accepted. but what they are saying is talk to us as e quotes, don't excuse that, you have justice and the right only on your side. we have security concerns. of course, it's not the most delicate way of making this this point, but certainly that's the point he's trying to make. and in fact, these latest maneuvers and so on, it's prob

and that's what burgess yeltsin understood when the russian signed this agreement. so that was never an agreement that that was going to be a phased enlargement of nato. what happened was you had one wave in 1099 when 3 countries joined. and then the rest of them in 2004 and then a couple boys since then. so as far as i know, native doesn't have any plans at the moment to accept any of the countries. maybe one or 2 balkan countries if they qualify. but so the idea that there's going to be extensive further enlargement of nato really doesn't reflect reality. ukraine. let's talk a little bit about ukraine security trip if you will. in 1900 for ukraine, agreed to destroy its nuclear weapons and to join the treaty on the non proliferation of nuclear weapons. do you think when they're sitting behind closed doors in kia, they think that that was a mistake and show those conversations taking place? i remember at the time there was a big discussion about, well, if we give up on nuclear weapons, are we going to make ourselves vulnerable? don't forget, of course, at the did s

a major role in international politics and vladimir putin back then just stepped in replacing boris yeltsin and mr. prudent said that he made a proposal that no one has ever heard of this the 1st on mr. put, mentioned that and add this time around and nowadays is kind of proposal would sound as completely unbelievable. that is the prospect of russia joining nato. now, what sir, mr. brewton got in response was a call, told her from bill clinton. and mr. couldn't believe that that was the time when he actually understood that under any kind of us administration, be a democrat or republican at the us administration would always treat russia as an enemy, no matter what. there is no possibility of becoming friends. if any tv you don't want to see friend and as an ally in nazareth, but why do you want to make a nanny me out of us? the only answer that we got was, it's not about our political regime or anything else. it just, they don't need such a big and independent country, russia. so that's the answer to all the question. that's the source of traditional american policy. they pursue in the rus

well, the end game is the same one that they've been trying to do for the last 30 years, garbage of yeltsin and put in. and that is to try to get a security order on the continent, which is what they would call, indivisible and inclusive. in other words, that nato isn't to body as it were, excluding russia, but it includes it. and so that goal isn't, is quite clear. well, how to achieve it, though? they would argue, look, we made all our speeches. we had put in speech in munich, security conference, and 27. we had med, reduce our dance for a european security conference, and i was actually in berlin in june 28. we had in 2018 at the state of the nation speech, listen to us. i'm not saying that what they're doing is justified or even that demand should all be accepted. but what they are saying is talk to us as e, quote good to you, that you have justice and the right only on your side. we have security concerns. of course, it's not the most delicate way of making this this point, but certainly that's the point he's trying to make. and in fact, these latest maneuvers and so on, it's probably