Face the Nation Transcripts March 2 2014: Kerry, Hagel
(CBS NEWS) -- Below is a transcript of the March 2, 2014 edition of Face the Nation. Guests included John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, David Ignatius, Major Garrett, Danielle Pletka, Michael O'Hanlon, Elizabeth Palmer, Charlie D'Agata and David Martin.
ANNOUNCER: From CBS News in Washington, FACE THE NATION with Bob Schieffer.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on FACE THE NATION, the crisis in Ukraine intensifies. With Russian forces in Crimea, Ukrainians call up their military reserves and beg the international community for help.
ARSENIY YATSENYUK: We are on the brink of the disaster.
BOB SCHIEFFER: We'll go to Ukraine for the latest news. We'll hear from Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. We'll have analysis on all of it from our panel of experts and with Russia once more in the news. We'll look back at a milestone FACE THE NATION interview. Sixty years of news because this is FACE THE NATION.
Good morning again. Well, there are developments from overnight on the crisis in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has moved troops into Crimea that is a region with a mostly Russian-speaking population, a move that the Ukrainian prime minister says is a "declaration of war." Vladimir Putin and President Obama spoke yesterday for ninety minutes, a conversation the White House described as the "toughest of [the Obama] presidency." As for Ukraine, a new government there is mobilizing its reserves and authorizing the call up of all men under the age of forty. CBS News correspondent Charlie D'Agata is in Kiev this morning. Charlie, people are again out in the square, what's going on there?
CHARLIE D'AGATA (CBS News Correspondent): Yeah. Bob, there are about a thousand demonstrators and protesters that arrived here. The numbers have swollen since the situation in Crimea. Today, we've been hearing them saying, down with Russian President Vladimir Putin. They're calling him a liar and a dictator. The Ukrainian prime minister said that the country is on the brink of disaster and they're preparing for war. And the way they've done that is they put the standing military, hundred and thirty thousand people or so on high alert. But they've also put the call out to reserves, using websites, radio, saying to stand by for further information and instruction. They may have to go to military centers around Kiev and around Ukraine and report for duty, fighting men under forty years old. Now we haven't seen, it doesn't feel like this area itself is under threat where there's no military presence at the airport or around the squares or on the roads. But the real concern is around the eastern border along the border with Russia where you have a lot of Russian-speaking people, a lot of Russian loyalties and the concern is whether Russian troops will advance in those areas, more importantly, what Ukrainian forces can do if anything to defend against them.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Charlie, thank you so much.
CBS news foreign correspondent Elizabeth Palmer is in Southern Ukraine this morning and she is en route to the Crimea region. Liz, what's the latest?
ELIZABETH PALMER (CBS News Foreign Correspondent): Thousands of Russian troops are fanning out over the Crimean peninsula taking control. They're uniformed and they are setting now up at strategic locations. Many of them were based in the Crimea anyway with the Russian Black Sea fleet on a lease agreement with the Ukraine. Well, they've left the bases and they're out on active duty. Also it appears that some hundreds of soldiers have been brought in from elsewhere in Russia. Now not a shot has been fired. This has been very peaceful. In fact, a lot of the people, Russian speaking, pro-Russian population of Crimea, have welcomed those troops. And their mission, which according to Vladimir Putin, is to protect the Russian-speaking population.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And I understand you've had quite an eventful trip en route to the Crimea.
ELIZABETH PALMER: That's right, Bob. We drove a long way from Kiev and finally got to this rather informal border across the neck that leads on to the Crimean peninsula and there was a barricade in the road manned by what we thought were Ukrainian troops. Well, it turns out these guys had switched sides. They had hoisted the Russian flag at their barricade and they were backed up by a group of local men in camouflage gear also armed who came and raided our truck, took our gear apart and stole our body armor, not only did they steal it, they put it on right away. Helmets and flak jackets walked off with that and told us to get out of there that they weren't going to let us in.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Okay. Well, be careful for the rest of the trip, Liz. And we'll check in with you later today.
We are joined now by Secretary of State John Kerry who is in Boston this morning. Mister Secretary, thank you for being here. The Ukrainian prime minister says this morning that Russia's actions amount to a declaration of war and he says we are on the brink of disaster. Do you agree with that?
JOHN KERRY (Secretary of State): Well, it's-- it's an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning willful choice by President Putin to invade another country. Russia is in violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine. Russia is in violation of its international obligations. Russia is in violation of its obligations under the U.N. Charter, under the Helsinki Final Act. It's a violation of its obligations under the 1994 Budapest Agreement. You just don't in the twenty-first century behave in nineteenth-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext. So, it is a very serious moment. But it's serious not in the context, Bob, of Russia-U.S. it's serious in terms of sort of the-- the modern manner with which nations are going to resolve problems. There were all kinds of other options still available to Russia. There still are. President Obama wants to emphasize to the Russians that there is a right set of choices that can still be made to address any concerns they have about Crimea about their citizens but you don't choose to invade a country in order to do that.
BOB SCHIEFFER: The President spoke to Vladimir Putin we're told for ninety minutes yesterday. The White House is describing it as the toughest phone call of his presidency. Do you think it had any impact?
JOHN KERRY: Well, we're going to have to wait and see. But I think it was a very important conversation, the President was very strong. He made absolutely clear that this was unacceptable that there will be serious repercussions if this stands. The President asked Mister Putin as-- in fact, told Mister Putin it was imperative to find a different path to rollback this invasion and undo this active aggression. He pointed out the many different ways in which Russia could have chosen to act. I mean if you have legitimate concerns about your citizens, go to the United Nations, ask for observers, engage the other country's government. There were any number of choices available to Russia. Russia chose this brazen act of aggression and moved in with its forces on a completely trumped up set of pretext, claiming that people were threatened. And the fact is that that's not the act of somebody who is strong, that's the act of somebody who is acting out of weakness and out of certain kind of desperation. We hope that Russia will turn this around. They can. Again and again all week, President Obama and I and others have insisted that we believe there's a way to deal with this issue. This doesn't have to be a zero sum game. It is not Russia versus United States, Russia v. Europe. This is about the people of Ukraine. The people of Ukraine are the people who initiated what is happening there. Their President Yanukovych supported by Russia lost all support, all legitimacy. He fled in the night, his own supporters deserted him. They went to their parliament and they voted according to their parliamentary process. So this is a democratic process that has placed this new government where it is and President Putin and Russia ought to respect that.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mister Secretary, when you come right down to it the President says there's a cost, and I suppose there are certain diplomatic things you could do. You could boycott the G8 and so on but when you come right down to it, what can we really do here? I mean I don't suppose anybody thinks we're going to declare war on Russia here and send military forces in there?
JOHN KERRY: Well, there are very serious repercussions that can flow out of this. There are broad array of options that are available, not just to the United States but to our allies. I spent yesterday afternoon on the phone with many of my counterparts, I talked to ten of the foreign ministers of those countries most engaged in the G8, plus, some others. And all of them, every single one of them are prepared to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia with respect to this invasion. They are prepared to put sanctions in place. They're prepared to isolate Russia economically. The ruble is already going down. Russia has major economic challenges. I can't imagine that an occupation of another country is something that appeals to people who are trying to reach out to the world and particularly if it involves violence, I think they're going to be inviting major difficulties for the long term. The people of Ukraine will not sit still for this. They know how to fight. They have demonstrated remarkable bravery, Bob. I mean you think about Yanukovych positioning his snipers on the rooftops of Kiev and-- and-- and notwithstanding people falling to the right and to the left, these marchers kept on marching. And they demanded their freedom. They demanded their opportunity to have their voices heard without a kleptocracy and a tyranny governing them. I think Russia needs to think very carefully about the choice that it's making. And there are visa bans, there are asset freezes, there is isolation with respect to trade and investment. American businesses may well want to start thinking twice about whether they want to do business with a country that behaves like this. These are serious implications.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let--
JOHN KERRY: I know from my conversations yesterday, every one of our allies and friends are determined to stay united and to make clear there is a price attached to this kind of behavior.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Are we actually prepared, Mister Secretary, to, boycott the G8 meeting there?
JOHN KERRY: Well, absolutely prepared to, if this-- if we can't resolve it otherwise but, the preference of the President, myself, the entire administration is to resolve this. We're not trying to make this a battle between East and West. We don't want to return to the Cold War. Nobody wants this kind of action. There are many ways to resolve this problem. As President Obama urged President Putin yesterday this is the moment to engage directly with the government of Ukraine. This can be resolved. We're prepared to mediate, to help. We're prepared to provide economic assistance of the major sort. We want the Congress to join us in providing that assistance. We hope that-- that this can be resolved according to the standards of the twenty-first century, and, frankly, according to the standards of the G8. If Russia wants to be a G8 country it needs to behave like a G8 country. And I guarantee you that everybody is determined that if this cannot be resolved in a reasonable, modern twenty-first century manner, there are going to be repercussions.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, Mister Secretary, thank you so much for joining us this morning.
JOHN KERRY: Thank you.
BOB SCHIEFFER: When we talked to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on Friday he set flatly it would be a mistake for the Russians to cross the border into Ukraine.
CHUCK HAGEL (Secretary of Defense): It's serious. We continue to talk with the Russians. I just came back from a NATO ministerial meeting couple of days ago as you know. That was much the topic of the conversation there. Strong support from all twenty-eight members of NATO, of Ukraine, their territorial integrity, their independence. This is the time for careful, wise, steady leadership. The tensions increase and I think all nations have to be very careful here of not promoting any more tension through provocative actions. So we're very close to it. We stay very close to it.
BOB SCHIEFFER: What would we do if the Russians' forces started rolling into other parts of Ukraine?
CHUCK HAGEL Well, I won't get into the different specific options but this could be a very dangerous situation if this continues in a very provocative way. We have many options like any nations do. We're trying to deal with diplomatic focus that's the appropriate, responsible approach. And that's what we're going to continue doing.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But we do have a plan?
CHUCK HAGEL: Well, we have plans for everything all the time.
BOB SCHIEFFER: When you come right down to it what can we really do there?
CHUCK HAGEL: Well, again, we've got different options but for right now the responsible thing is to continue to work through the diplomatic channels and that's what we're doing.
BOB SCHIEFFER: What-- what is our strategic interest in Ukraine?
CHUCK HAGEL: Well, first, it's a sovereign, independent nation. And we support that sovereignty and that independence. They have been a responsible new independent member of the global community since the implosion of the Soviet Union. We have European Union and NATO interests that border Ukraine. These are people who want to be free, who deserve to be free, deserve their-- their own way of life, elected leaders. And so like our position with any sovereign free nation that's the principle upon which the United States stands and I think all Western countries in respecting people's rights and that's where you start.
BOB SCHIEFFER: This, in your view, would be a mistake for the Russians if they decided to go into the Ukraine?
CHUCK HAGEL: I think it would be a mistake. And this would set in motion so many different dynamics that are not in anyone's interest.
BOB SCHIEFFER: We'll have a lot more of our interview with Secretary Hagel in Part 2 of FACE THE NATION.
More on the crisis in Ukraine in one minute.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: We're back now with David Ignatius of the Washington Post and CBS News national security correspondent, David Martin. Over at the White House this morning our chief White House correspondent Major Garrett. Major, you did considerable reporting yesterday on the President's phone call to Putin. You said officials were telling you this was the toughest phone call of his administration. What-- what are they thinking about over there this morning? What-- what do they see as what might happen here?
MAJOR GARRETT (CBS News Chief White House Correspondent): Well, Bob, the White House knows that Putin has the facts on the ground. He has a military force in the Crimea. What the United States and its European partners have is international law, international norms and the threat of pronounced economic isolation for Russia if it continues with, what Secretary of State Kerry just called, a brazen breach of international law. Now, the reason the administration uses that phraseology is because that's what Vladimir Putin conspicuously and constantly talks about in other parts of the world, Syria, Iran. It's always talking about other nations, specifically, the United States following international norms. Well, the United States is now calling Russia out on its behavior saying you're violating the self same standards you constantly seek, told the rest of the world to and if you continue with this behavior, you're going to be isolated not only diplomatically but economically. And right now the administration is working behind the scenes to have this IMF team, International Monetary Fund team, that's due to arrive in Kiev later this year, not just come there to say hello but have a specific aid package for the Ukrainians to say the West is here to help you economically. And as it has with the situation in Crimea, the administration will invite the Russians in. Look, participate internationally if you have legitimate concerns about the Russians in Crimea but if you don't, your isolation, economically and diplomatically, will only increase and the White House believes that is a greater force of leverage than they believe Putin has, even though, he has the forces on the ground in Crimea.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, thank you very much, Major.
David, what's happening militarily? I don't think anybody, as I said to Secretary Kerry and he didn't dispute this, nobody's saying about going to war with-- with Russia right now. Is there any kind of military movement in that part of the world right now?
DAVID MARTIN (CBS News National Security Correspondent): Not on--
BOB SCHIEFFER: Ships or anything like that?
DAVID MARTIN: --not on the part of the United States. The only movement right now is Russian troops continue to flow in to Crimea. It's hard to put a number on it but whatever the number, it's a fait accompli and you notice that Secretary Kerry said if this stands, he did not say, this shall not stand as George H. W. Bush once said of the invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. has no military options. It has no treaty obligations to come to the defense of Ukraine. Putin knows that. And that is why he has acted so decisively. The big question is whether he is going to order Russian troops into the rest of Ukraine. That would turn what is now a crisis into, I think, a full-scale (INDISTINCT).
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, explain to us exactly what's happened here. The Russians have a base. They have a military base in Crimea. There are Russian troops there already. Apparently, some of them have been moved outside of the base now--
DAVID MARTIN: Yeah.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --but they haven't moved beyond the borders of Crimea.
DAVID MARTIN: That's right. They haven't crossed over where Liz Palmer was standing into the-- into the rest of Ukraine. And this-- this morning's intelligence is that there is no sign that they are preparing to do that which is in the context to everything else that's happened, very good news.
BOB SCHIEFFER: So, David, how do you assess what's happened so far and-- and what-- what happens now?
DAVID IGNATIUS (Washington Post): Well, I-- I think we saw the parameters of U.S. policy in the interviews with Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel. Secretary Kerry used very strong language, a brazen act of aggression, violation of international law. He called on the Russians to roll back this invasion. But when you got down to the specific tools, the ways in which the United States will make Russia pay a cost for what it's done, these are milder diplomatic options. As David said, I-- I'm-- I'm told by my sources in the Pentagon, there is no ship moving in the Mediterranean. There are no NATO troops moving on the land mass of Europe. We are not preparing for military response. If you're talking about roll back, you're talking about Putin realizing that this course which reanimates Cold Car psychology in Eastern Europe is not in his interest. And-- and I do think that the final point to add here is the real problem today is Vladimir Putin's. Vladimir Putin has a Ukraine that is coming apart. He has invaded a small southern piece of it where Russian interests are very strong but in the Ukrainian capital, you have demonstrators in the-- in the streets. These are demonstrators who evicted a pro-Russian regime in the-- in the Ukraine. And they're-- they're not prepared to go backwards. So I-- I-- the choices Putin faces going forward are very, very backwards.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well-- well, explain to me about the Crimea. It is a part of Ukraine but it-- someone said to me last night it's very much like San Diego. You have a large retired military population there, mostly Russians, lot of the people there speak Russian. And-- and most of the people there are-- are pro-Russian. You heard Liz Palmer say nobody-- lot of these soldiers change sides here.
DAVID IGNATIUS: Crimea became part of Ukraine only in 1954. Crimea was historically part of Russia. And Khrushchev, when he was the-- the Soviet leader, gave it to Ukraine in a gesture that mystified some people but what you say is true. I don't know if it's San Diego but it has-- it is-- where they-- the Russians have their biggest naval base, where they-- where they a lot of retirees go and people speak Russian. So it's-- it's-- it's a part of-- of-- of Ukraine that looks toward Moscow.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me stress. I didn't mean that there are a lot of communists in San Diego. I meant there's a large retired military population there. And it's a very, very conservative place. So what happens now, David?
DAVID MARTIN: Well, you-- you have this base of the Russians in-- in Crimea which is a valuable strategic asset for them. This is their way to get out into the Mediterranean to go to places like Syria. And I don't think they're going to pull out of there until they're satisfied that those-- those bases are secure for the indefinite future.
BOB SCHIEFFER: What does Putin want here?
DAVID IGNATIUS: This action in Crimea and-- and over Ukraine follows a series of efforts by Putin to reestablish, you know, the-- the spirit, if you will, of-- of the Soviet Union if not the actual physical possession of-- of those republics. I mean the Sochi Olympics was a kind of exercise in nostalgia for the good old days of-- of Soviet power. And-- so I think the danger here is if Putin is tempted to think that he can reoccupy countries like Ukraine. You know, he did invade Georgia in-- in 2008. Again, an attempt to assert Russian power in its-- in its neighborhood. If he has this romance of bringing things back to the way they used to be, that is trouble. That does take us back to the Cold War.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I'm not sure that he really would take Ukraine back. I mean this place is an economic basket case.
DAVID MARTIN: Well--
BOB SCHIEFFER: He wants to have influence there. He wants to control events there but it also carries a pretty good price.
DAVID MARTIN: This is not the Soviet military of the-- the Cold War. This is a-- a much reduced and a much weakened military which in the past, I don't know, five years has been starting to-- to make a comeback. But he's got to be careful about how much he bites off here. I mean, Crimea is one thing. Ukraine would be an entirely different operation.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. We have a lot more to talk about on this but we'll take a break right here and we'll be back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: We'll have lot more on the crisis in Ukraine; plus Part 2 of our interview with Secretary Hagel coming up on FACE THE NATION. So stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: Some of our stations are leaving us now. But for most of you we'll be right back with a lot more FACE THE NATION, including analysis on the crisis in Ukraine with Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute. Plus, Defense Secretary Hagel talks about scaling back the military.
Stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: And welcome back to FACE THE NATION Page 2. You know one irony of this week is that all of this story, the Ukraine story broke just after Secretary of Defense Hagel had announced plans to scale back the American military. We're going to pick up the interview there.
I want to talk to you about the military budget that you outlined.
CHUCK HAGEL: Mm-Hm.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You want to reduce the size of the army to the smallest size since before World War II. How do you reduce the size of the American military without making it look like--
CHUCK HAGEL: Hmm.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --to the people around the world that we're somehow retreating, that we're withdrawing from all of this.
CHUCK HAGEL: You start, Bob, with the reality of where we are in the world today. This budget that-- it is the first budget in twelve years that's not a budget based on war footing. We've been at war for thirteen years constantly--two wars. We're out of one war, Iraq. And we're coming out of the longest war we've ever been, Afghanistan. Not unlike after every war the United States has been in, you reset your posture. You reset your assets. You reset your-- your whole enterprise based on the new realities and based on preparing that institution for the challenges of the future. But to answer your question, then how do you adjust to the dangerous complicated world that we're in we've increased, for example, cyber assets, increased special operations. We're focusing on readiness, capability, our capacity, our ability to do the things that we need to do in the strategic interests of the strategic guidance that the President laid out in 2012.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You say we're coming out of two wars, and, yes, that's true. But we're not necessarily coming away victors. We're just coming out of those wars. The enemy is still out there.
CHUCK HAGEL: Of course, the threats are out there. Of course, the threats are shifting. Cyber is a good example. Five years ago there wasn't the same focus or reality of what a-- a cyber attack could do to this country, paralyze this country, bring our economy down without any nation firing a shot, not knowing where it comes from, special operations. The-- the terrorist threat that still is around the world will be with us, I suspect, for some time. We've- we've got to figure out how best we do that. The strategic priorities that we've laid out based on the president's strategic guidance plan, first, defend the homeland. Second, continue to build capacity in securing our world through our alliances, through our treaty obligations, through our commitments all over the world, not retreating from the world. We're-- we're still going to-- going to be there, also defeating aggression in the world and winning a war against any adversary anywhere in the world. That hasn't changed.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But--
CHUCK HAGEL: But how you do it, Bob-- how you do it is always going to be adjusted to the realities of the time and the challenge.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --but you're not suggesting in any any way, shape, or form that we have won these wars, you're--
CHUCK HAGEL: That's not--
BOB SCHIEFFER: --just saying we have to recalibrate the way we continue to fight them.
CHUCK HAGEL: At the peak of Iraq we had a hundred and fifty thousand troops in Iraq, that war. The peak of Afghanistan probably around a hundred and twenty thousand. Those are big numbers. And-- and we-- we-- we don't need those, as you go forward, the same way we did the last thirteen years. So you've got to adjust your force posture. And by the way, it isn't me cutting the budget. It's the Congress' decision on sequestration. So it isn't Secretary of Defense or the President doing this, and I think we should clear that up a little bit here, too. Where-- where are we making decisions and how do we make them, that's a responsibility I have. But also the physical constraints that are being placed on the Pentagon to make very tough choices here are very significant. So what we're talking about is-- is gradually reducing our active duty strength by about ten percent. I mean I don't-- I don't think that's an astoundingly large cut as we adjust in-- we're still going to need a big army.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me-- let me ask you about something that your critics are saying, and they say that because you are proposing cuts in benefits, tax breaks, eliminating or slowing down pay raises for some of those on military duty that you are, in fact, trying to balance the budget on the backs of these people who-- who fought these wars.
CHUCK HAGEL: Well, first of all, that's just not true. We're-- we're not making any recommendations or any retirement changes. We're going to wait till the retirement commission comes in. It was impaneled by the Congress on-- on what we need to do if we need to do anything on retirement. This isn't just an arbitrary, unilateral approach to-- to trying to slow the growth just to slow the growth. We've got to look at the long-term commitments to our people. Half of our budget today in the Pentagon goes to pay, compensation, retirement, and medical care. And that will increase significantly. We're not cutting. We're-- we're proposing slowing growth in certain areas. And the-- the tax cuts, we're not cutting anybody's taxes, but we-- but we are asking for specific considerations in areas where we are slowly, eventually reducing the growth of pay increases--there'll be still pay increases and then other areas--we think these are responsible. We don't think it breaks faith with-- with our people. But-- but we have to reset, reposition. I've got to be able to keep a modern military. Those coming in behind me, the technological edge that has made our military the envy of the world along with everything else, best led, best trained, best equipped, best educated. We want to sustain that for our own interest and for our people.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You can see more of our interview with Secretary Hagel; plus, a response from New York Democrat, Kirsten Gillibrand, who is not happy with some of the positions he has taken, especially on sexual assaults in the military. You can see all of that on our website at FacetheNation.com. And we'll be back in one minute with more on the Ukraine.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: Before we get to our panel let's update on the latest developments on the crisis in Ukraine. NATO officials are now holding an emergency session in Brussels to discuss the latest developments in Russia. At least ten thousand people marched in a pro-invasion rally through the streets of downtown Moscow. We're joined now again by David Ignatius of the Washington Post, along with Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute; David Martin, we ask him to stay back; and we're also joined by Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. Danielle, let me just start with you. You heard Secretary Kerry. You heard Secretary Hagel. This is the morning when we heard a lot of news. I mean a lot of developments here this morning. What-- what did you make of what the Secretary said this morning?
DANIELLE PLETKA (American Enterprise Institute): Well, I thought the Secretary's rhetoric was very strong. And, yeah, the President's rhetoric was very strong. The problem really is that you got to match strong rhetoric with strong actions. I don't mean military actions but I do mean a decisive message to the Russians more than just words that is going to stop them in their steps, stop them not only from moving further into Crimea but moving into the rest of Ukraine.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, he had some strong words there. He said, you know, he talked about the G8. He talked about these various things they can do, what-- what can you do beyond that?
DANIELLE PLETKA: Well, I think there are a lot of options for the United States and for our NATO allies. First of all, there are economic sanctions. We could certainly put the sanctions that we took off of Iran on Russia, maybe some banking sanctions that would target Russia's leadership. We can isolate the Russian economy. Another important thing we could do is we could free up and start selling gas to Europe, something that the Russians have been earning a great deal of money on and that we, the United States, are now not doing. So I think that there are numerous non-military options for us out there. The problem is I don't think that the President right now is very credible. And I think that Putin thinks he's got Obama's number. And so he's going to do what he wants to do and dare the President for the next step.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Michael, what's your take on Secretary Kerry this morning?
MICHAEL O'HANLON (Brookings Institution): I thought he was very good. But I guess overall the point I would want to emphasize, I'm a little more relaxed about this than most people for a couple of reasons. First of all, as bad as what Putin, you know, has been doing may be, he hasn't killed people. And I think he's trying to show force in a way that gets a specific task done. He wants his base and I don't admire that approach, it is sort of nineteenth century-ish, as Secretary Kerry said, but it's not totally surprising for the way great powers behave even in this century. And on top of that we do have a pretty strong set of potential economic sanctions and Putin knows it and we've gotten a lot better in the last years at applying sanctions largely because of the Iran experience. We know how-- how to go after the banking sector. We know how to go after visas and personal accounts of leaders in Russia, if we need to. And so if this really escalates to a very bad kind of thing, which it hasn't yet, but if it got into civil warfare and an invasion by Russia to back up one side in Ukraine, then I think these kinds of tools would be applied and they'd be applied effectively and Putin knows it. So I'm relatively confident he won't go there.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You know I want to pick up on something you said a while ago, David, and that you said, this-- when you come around down, this is Putin's problem. It's not the problem of the West. Well, obviously, it has repercussions for the West but give me a little more detail on that.
DAVID IGNATIUS: If-- if we look back at several months we see that Putin has been facing a rebellion on his border. In Ukraine which is a country of absolutely crucial strategic importance to Russia and many Russians feel a deep kinship that's where the Orthodox Church was-- was born. We've seen a movement turning West toward Europe, Putin tried to buy off the government of President Yanukovych offering them fifteen billion dollars in assistance to turn away from this invitation from-- from the EU and then you had a movement of thousands of people in the streets risking their lives to say, no, that's not the future that we want. So we do have to remember that the-- the prelude to this crisis is a key strategic ally of Russia really turning its back. And-- and with all of the dynamics of the last several days in Kiev and the capital of Ukraine you still have the successor government to Yanukovych, essentially, an anti-Russian government, calling to the U.S. for-- for-- for support, looking West to Europe. I think-- I think the big choices-- Putin has to decide how much he wants to risk. How much he wants to put on the table. Europe has to decide whether it's really willing to stand behind the people of Ukraine in what will be a very expensive effort to-- to-- to pull them from Russia towards Europe. I mean if-- if-- if Russia offered fifteen billion, you know, a couple of times that anyway is going to be the cost of this effort.
BOB SCHIEFFER: David, obviously, this-- nobody planned it to happen this way, but the fact that the administration decided to unveil its plans to scale back and kind of redesign the American military, it happens at the first of the week and then all of this happens toward the end of the week. Does the fact-- I mean the question that I asked to Secretary Hagel, you know, how do you do that. And I think everybody knows we have to re-- redesign the military now, but how do you do that without leaving the impression that we're withdrawing from the world and we are not aiming to be the kind of force we once were.
DAVID MARTIN: Well, first place even if the plan were to keep the army at its peak of five hundred and sixty thousand, which is what it was at it-- at the height of Iraq and Afghanistan, there still wouldn't be any military options in Ukraine. So the plan to-- to go down to four hundred and fifty thousand would not change your-- your options in a-- in a place like Ukraine. The map dictates those options. But you-- you still have the perception that you are going to a smaller force. And it's not just a smaller force because the further we get away from Iraq and Afghanistan the less battle hardened force it's going to be. The last time I was down in Fort Bragg, sixteen thousand of the twenty thousand soldiers in the 82nd Airborne were combat veterans. Five years from now when the Army is smaller that's not going to be the case. And I think the Army's plan, and the Pentagon's plan is to keep deploying units to places like Africa for relatively small operations, but to show that the U.S. is-- is still in the game. But look, if you were to take this vast, complex subject of defense strategy and the defense budget and boil it all down into a-- into a bumper sticker, it would be, no more land wars in far off lands. That's what the President is determining with this budget.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, Danielle, what about that. I mean there does seem to be a perception in some parts of the world that the United States is stepping back.
DANIELLE PLETKA: I think there is a perception at this table that the United States is stepping back not just in some parts of the world. You know, look, one of the reasons that you have a large and a capable and a multi-faceted military is not so you can fight, it's so you don't have to fight. And that deterrent power I think is being diminished substantially. In addition I am hearing from inside the Pentagon that we are going down to numbers as low as three hundred and eighty thousand after the four hundred and fifty that you mentioned. These are numbers that will make it impossible for us to engage not just in large-scale wars in one place but in small case conflicts. People like Vladimir Putin know it. That's why it's so important for us at the end of the day on the previous conversation to ensure that things don't escalate in places like Ukraine because the truth is that we've lost a lot of our deterrent power.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Michael.
MICHAEL O'HANLON: Well, I'm comfortable with the four hundred and fifty thousand number but I share Danielle's-- Danielle's concern about where this could go next. If sequestration kicks back in in two years even the 2015 budget, which is dangerously close to sequestration unless the increase that Obama and Hagel are requesting actually happens. This is a prescription for getting the Army down to four hundred thousand active duty soldiers and less. It's a lot of numbers, I know it's hard to grasp at what point you really get to a new threshold of capability. Let me put two missions on the table for you. We need to deter another Korean War. North Korea has ten nuclear weapons and they're probably trying to go up. Some people think of that as anachronistic. No, deterrence in Korea is as important as ever, which means you want the capability to handle that conflict along with our South Korean allies, if it happens. Secondly, you got to be ready for the smaller missions and I guess I-- I said there's just another one that there are a lot of other possible ones, everything from a residual force in Afghanistan, what if we do get Israeli-Palestinian peace. That's going to require Americans to be part of an implementation force.
What if we ever do get a peace deal in Syria? It seems off the charts now. But are we going to let this place blow up forever. And that may require international peacekeepers, including some Americans. So you got on the list, I think four hundred and fifty is okay. We go much lower I start to get very worried.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, and we haven't even talked about in the Pacific and what-- what happens there. We're talking about a pivot toward the Pacific but, as I understand it, Secretary Hagel is also talking about reducing the number of ships in the Navy. Can we do that?
DAVID IGNATIUS: One-- a big part of-- of his defense guidance was to say that he wants to build fewer, what are called literal combat ships which were in truth, the reason that he wants fewer is because he thinks the Chinese threat may be more potent and these ships are not strong enough, well armed enough. I think if Secretary Hagel was to give his budget speech of last Monday today after the events in Ukraine and Crimea, it-- it might have a slightly different tone. And it's not as if the difference between four hundred and fifty thousand or four hundred and twenty-five thousand troops is-- is the key signal. It's-- it's the way in which the United States backs up its statements so that they're credible. And I think, you know, looking at this situation, President Obama does have a credibility problem. He talks about a red line in Syria for chemical weapons and then he lets it be blurred. He says that Russia will have to pay costs if it intervenes in Ukraine and then within hours, the inter-- intervene-- military intervention begins. So at some point this issue of credibility and having the force and more of the resolve to use it I think is crucial for the administration.
DANIELLE PLETKA: I think what you just said about Syria is exactly right. You know we decided not to go into Syria because there was an agreement that Syria would give up its weapons and they have given up as yet eleven percent. They were supposed to have given them all up, the fact that they are flouting this is-- is for me a message that the President is sending to the rest of the world which is, we're really not that interested in compliance, this is a storm that's blown over. These things do have implications. And it's part of the reason that Putin doesn't take us as seriously as he ought to when the Secretary of State comes out with a strong statement because it's not backed up with the follow through. And that's the risk that we really run in all of these places.
BOB SCHIEFFER: David, what are they most worried about at the Pentagon? You're there every day.
DAVID MARTIN: Well, in terms of the budget--
BOB SCHIEFFER: They're worried about you maybe during the day there.
DAVID MARTIN: In terms-- in terms of the-- the budget, what they're worried about is- is that sequestration is-- is still the law of the land starting in-- in 2016. And all of these-- these cuts we've been talking about are just-- just the beginning of-- of really deep cuts if sequestration comes back in. So-- but I'd like to just respond to the thing about Putin not taking us seriously. I mean we had Hungary in '54, Czechoslovakia in '68, and Georgia in 2008. When-- when the Soviet Union or Russia feels like the countries on its periphery are threatened, it takes action. And I don't think it-- it really is determined by who is in the White House.
DANIELLE PLETKA: But we don't have a policy that Russia is allowed to have a (INDISTINCT). That-- that was the Soviet policy and at the end of the day if we're willing to tolerate the notion that Russia has to dominate its neighbors, we have to ask ourselves where that stops. If we're willing to tolerate the notion that Russia somehow has a say over where there's a Russian minority, even a substantial one, then we're looking at-- we're looking at countries that are-- that are, frankly, part of NATO. We're looking at countries that we have an obligation to defend. We need to be decisive here so that they're not encouraged to go further.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, I think we're going to end it there. We could probably talk all afternoon, maybe we could all have brunch or something and work this out. Very, very enlightening this morning. Thanks to all of you on a very serious and a very important weekend. We'll be right back with a controversial FACE THE NATION interview, straight out of the Cold War.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: No story has gotten more attention over the last half century than America's relationship with Russia. In fact, it was that story that produced FACE THE NATION's biggest and most controversial scoop.
(Begin VT)
MAN: FACE THE NATION, through the eyes of CBS News film cameras located for the first time inside these walls of the Kremlin on Red Square in Moscow--
BOB SCHIEFFER: It was June 2, 1957, and FACE THE NATION was going to make history. After two years of dead-end negotiations, producers had managed to book the very first television interview with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.
STUART NOVINS: Mister Khrushchev, we're very grateful to you for allowing us to come here. We have many questions that we want to put to you through your interpreter and I am very sure that you must have many answers to give us which will be of great interest to millions of Americans.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Most of those answers proved unremarkable but what made front pages around the world was the simple fact that Khrushchev, who had never been seen doing an interview by his own people, had been seen and heard in America's living rooms.
NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV (through translator): I can prophesize that your grandchildren in America will live under socialism.
BOB SCHIEFFER: With Cold War tensions running high, some government officials accused CBS of putting out communist propaganda. Secretary of State Dulles refused to watch the interview. Even President Eisenhower, a staunch internationalist, suggested it was a phony exercise.
PRESIDENT DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER: We know that there are no prepared questions here and no prepared answers. It is a matter of trying to deal honestly with each other and then putting it on the-- in the papers and on the radio and in the televisions-- on television screens. And this other performance last Sunday afternoon was far from that.
(End VT)
BOB SCHIEFFER: Some in Congress even called for laws to keep foreign leaders off television unless the government gave permission, but CBS President Frank Stanton stood by the interview and it came to be hailed as a journalistic milestone, establishing that broadcasters had the same right as newspapers to report the news without government interference.
Back in a moment.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, that's it for today. We want to thank you for joining us. And be sure to tune in to tonight's CBS EVENING NEWS and tomorrow to CBS THIS MORNING for the very latest on this crisis in the Ukraine. For FACE THE NATION, I am Bob Schieffer. We'll be back here next week. See you then.
**END OF TRANSCRIPT **
Press Contact:
Jackie Berkowitz, berkowitzj@cbsnews.com
(202) 600-6407
Washington Post
DANIELLE PLETKA
American Enterprise Institute
MICHAEL O'HANLON
Brookings Institution
CHARLIE D'AGATA
CBS News Correspondent
ELIZABETH PALMER
CBS News Foreign Correspondent
MAJOR GARRETT
CBS News Chief White House Correspondent
DAVID MARTIN
CBS News National Security Correspondent
MODERATOR/PANELIST: Bob Schieffer, CBS News Political Analyst
This is a rush transcript provided
for the information and convenience of
the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
In case of doubt, please check with
FACE THE NATION - CBS NEWS
(202)-457-4481
ANNOUNCER: From CBS News in Washington, FACE THE NATION with Bob Schieffer.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on FACE THE NATION, the crisis in Ukraine intensifies. With Russian forces in Crimea, Ukrainians call up their military reserves and beg the international community for help.
ARSENIY YATSENYUK: We are on the brink of the disaster.
BOB SCHIEFFER: We'll go to Ukraine for the latest news. We'll hear from Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. We'll have analysis on all of it from our panel of experts and with Russia once more in the news. We'll look back at a milestone FACE THE NATION interview. Sixty years of news because this is FACE THE NATION.
Good morning again. Well, there are developments from overnight on the crisis in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has moved troops into Crimea that is a region with a mostly Russian-speaking population, a move that the Ukrainian prime minister says is a "declaration of war." Vladimir Putin and President Obama spoke yesterday for ninety minutes, a conversation the White House described as the "toughest of [the Obama] presidency." As for Ukraine, a new government there is mobilizing its reserves and authorizing the call up of all men under the age of forty. CBS News correspondent Charlie D'Agata is in Kiev this morning. Charlie, people are again out in the square, what's going on there?
CHARLIE D'AGATA (CBS News Correspondent): Yeah. Bob, there are about a thousand demonstrators and protesters that arrived here. The numbers have swollen since the situation in Crimea. Today, we've been hearing them saying, down with Russian President Vladimir Putin. They're calling him a liar and a dictator. The Ukrainian prime minister said that the country is on the brink of disaster and they're preparing for war. And the way they've done that is they put the standing military, hundred and thirty thousand people or so on high alert. But they've also put the call out to reserves, using websites, radio, saying to stand by for further information and instruction. They may have to go to military centers around Kiev and around Ukraine and report for duty, fighting men under forty years old. Now we haven't seen, it doesn't feel like this area itself is under threat where there's no military presence at the airport or around the squares or on the roads. But the real concern is around the eastern border along the border with Russia where you have a lot of Russian-speaking people, a lot of Russian loyalties and the concern is whether Russian troops will advance in those areas, more importantly, what Ukrainian forces can do if anything to defend against them.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Charlie, thank you so much.
CBS news foreign correspondent Elizabeth Palmer is in Southern Ukraine this morning and she is en route to the Crimea region. Liz, what's the latest?
ELIZABETH PALMER (CBS News Foreign Correspondent): Thousands of Russian troops are fanning out over the Crimean peninsula taking control. They're uniformed and they are setting now up at strategic locations. Many of them were based in the Crimea anyway with the Russian Black Sea fleet on a lease agreement with the Ukraine. Well, they've left the bases and they're out on active duty. Also it appears that some hundreds of soldiers have been brought in from elsewhere in Russia. Now not a shot has been fired. This has been very peaceful. In fact, a lot of the people, Russian speaking, pro-Russian population of Crimea, have welcomed those troops. And their mission, which according to Vladimir Putin, is to protect the Russian-speaking population.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And I understand you've had quite an eventful trip en route to the Crimea.
ELIZABETH PALMER: That's right, Bob. We drove a long way from Kiev and finally got to this rather informal border across the neck that leads on to the Crimean peninsula and there was a barricade in the road manned by what we thought were Ukrainian troops. Well, it turns out these guys had switched sides. They had hoisted the Russian flag at their barricade and they were backed up by a group of local men in camouflage gear also armed who came and raided our truck, took our gear apart and stole our body armor, not only did they steal it, they put it on right away. Helmets and flak jackets walked off with that and told us to get out of there that they weren't going to let us in.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Okay. Well, be careful for the rest of the trip, Liz. And we'll check in with you later today.
We are joined now by Secretary of State John Kerry who is in Boston this morning. Mister Secretary, thank you for being here. The Ukrainian prime minister says this morning that Russia's actions amount to a declaration of war and he says we are on the brink of disaster. Do you agree with that?
JOHN KERRY (Secretary of State): Well, it's-- it's an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning willful choice by President Putin to invade another country. Russia is in violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine. Russia is in violation of its international obligations. Russia is in violation of its obligations under the U.N. Charter, under the Helsinki Final Act. It's a violation of its obligations under the 1994 Budapest Agreement. You just don't in the twenty-first century behave in nineteenth-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext. So, it is a very serious moment. But it's serious not in the context, Bob, of Russia-U.S. it's serious in terms of sort of the-- the modern manner with which nations are going to resolve problems. There were all kinds of other options still available to Russia. There still are. President Obama wants to emphasize to the Russians that there is a right set of choices that can still be made to address any concerns they have about Crimea about their citizens but you don't choose to invade a country in order to do that.
BOB SCHIEFFER: The President spoke to Vladimir Putin we're told for ninety minutes yesterday. The White House is describing it as the toughest phone call of his presidency. Do you think it had any impact?
JOHN KERRY: Well, we're going to have to wait and see. But I think it was a very important conversation, the President was very strong. He made absolutely clear that this was unacceptable that there will be serious repercussions if this stands. The President asked Mister Putin as-- in fact, told Mister Putin it was imperative to find a different path to rollback this invasion and undo this active aggression. He pointed out the many different ways in which Russia could have chosen to act. I mean if you have legitimate concerns about your citizens, go to the United Nations, ask for observers, engage the other country's government. There were any number of choices available to Russia. Russia chose this brazen act of aggression and moved in with its forces on a completely trumped up set of pretext, claiming that people were threatened. And the fact is that that's not the act of somebody who is strong, that's the act of somebody who is acting out of weakness and out of certain kind of desperation. We hope that Russia will turn this around. They can. Again and again all week, President Obama and I and others have insisted that we believe there's a way to deal with this issue. This doesn't have to be a zero sum game. It is not Russia versus United States, Russia v. Europe. This is about the people of Ukraine. The people of Ukraine are the people who initiated what is happening there. Their President Yanukovych supported by Russia lost all support, all legitimacy. He fled in the night, his own supporters deserted him. They went to their parliament and they voted according to their parliamentary process. So this is a democratic process that has placed this new government where it is and President Putin and Russia ought to respect that.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mister Secretary, when you come right down to it the President says there's a cost, and I suppose there are certain diplomatic things you could do. You could boycott the G8 and so on but when you come right down to it, what can we really do here? I mean I don't suppose anybody thinks we're going to declare war on Russia here and send military forces in there?
JOHN KERRY: Well, there are very serious repercussions that can flow out of this. There are broad array of options that are available, not just to the United States but to our allies. I spent yesterday afternoon on the phone with many of my counterparts, I talked to ten of the foreign ministers of those countries most engaged in the G8, plus, some others. And all of them, every single one of them are prepared to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia with respect to this invasion. They are prepared to put sanctions in place. They're prepared to isolate Russia economically. The ruble is already going down. Russia has major economic challenges. I can't imagine that an occupation of another country is something that appeals to people who are trying to reach out to the world and particularly if it involves violence, I think they're going to be inviting major difficulties for the long term. The people of Ukraine will not sit still for this. They know how to fight. They have demonstrated remarkable bravery, Bob. I mean you think about Yanukovych positioning his snipers on the rooftops of Kiev and-- and-- and notwithstanding people falling to the right and to the left, these marchers kept on marching. And they demanded their freedom. They demanded their opportunity to have their voices heard without a kleptocracy and a tyranny governing them. I think Russia needs to think very carefully about the choice that it's making. And there are visa bans, there are asset freezes, there is isolation with respect to trade and investment. American businesses may well want to start thinking twice about whether they want to do business with a country that behaves like this. These are serious implications.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let--
JOHN KERRY: I know from my conversations yesterday, every one of our allies and friends are determined to stay united and to make clear there is a price attached to this kind of behavior.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Are we actually prepared, Mister Secretary, to, boycott the G8 meeting there?
JOHN KERRY: Well, absolutely prepared to, if this-- if we can't resolve it otherwise but, the preference of the President, myself, the entire administration is to resolve this. We're not trying to make this a battle between East and West. We don't want to return to the Cold War. Nobody wants this kind of action. There are many ways to resolve this problem. As President Obama urged President Putin yesterday this is the moment to engage directly with the government of Ukraine. This can be resolved. We're prepared to mediate, to help. We're prepared to provide economic assistance of the major sort. We want the Congress to join us in providing that assistance. We hope that-- that this can be resolved according to the standards of the twenty-first century, and, frankly, according to the standards of the G8. If Russia wants to be a G8 country it needs to behave like a G8 country. And I guarantee you that everybody is determined that if this cannot be resolved in a reasonable, modern twenty-first century manner, there are going to be repercussions.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, Mister Secretary, thank you so much for joining us this morning.
JOHN KERRY: Thank you.
BOB SCHIEFFER: When we talked to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on Friday he set flatly it would be a mistake for the Russians to cross the border into Ukraine.
CHUCK HAGEL (Secretary of Defense): It's serious. We continue to talk with the Russians. I just came back from a NATO ministerial meeting couple of days ago as you know. That was much the topic of the conversation there. Strong support from all twenty-eight members of NATO, of Ukraine, their territorial integrity, their independence. This is the time for careful, wise, steady leadership. The tensions increase and I think all nations have to be very careful here of not promoting any more tension through provocative actions. So we're very close to it. We stay very close to it.
BOB SCHIEFFER: What would we do if the Russians' forces started rolling into other parts of Ukraine?
CHUCK HAGEL Well, I won't get into the different specific options but this could be a very dangerous situation if this continues in a very provocative way. We have many options like any nations do. We're trying to deal with diplomatic focus that's the appropriate, responsible approach. And that's what we're going to continue doing.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But we do have a plan?
CHUCK HAGEL: Well, we have plans for everything all the time.
BOB SCHIEFFER: When you come right down to it what can we really do there?
CHUCK HAGEL: Well, again, we've got different options but for right now the responsible thing is to continue to work through the diplomatic channels and that's what we're doing.
BOB SCHIEFFER: What-- what is our strategic interest in Ukraine?
CHUCK HAGEL: Well, first, it's a sovereign, independent nation. And we support that sovereignty and that independence. They have been a responsible new independent member of the global community since the implosion of the Soviet Union. We have European Union and NATO interests that border Ukraine. These are people who want to be free, who deserve to be free, deserve their-- their own way of life, elected leaders. And so like our position with any sovereign free nation that's the principle upon which the United States stands and I think all Western countries in respecting people's rights and that's where you start.
BOB SCHIEFFER: This, in your view, would be a mistake for the Russians if they decided to go into the Ukraine?
CHUCK HAGEL: I think it would be a mistake. And this would set in motion so many different dynamics that are not in anyone's interest.
BOB SCHIEFFER: We'll have a lot more of our interview with Secretary Hagel in Part 2 of FACE THE NATION.
More on the crisis in Ukraine in one minute.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: We're back now with David Ignatius of the Washington Post and CBS News national security correspondent, David Martin. Over at the White House this morning our chief White House correspondent Major Garrett. Major, you did considerable reporting yesterday on the President's phone call to Putin. You said officials were telling you this was the toughest phone call of his administration. What-- what are they thinking about over there this morning? What-- what do they see as what might happen here?
MAJOR GARRETT (CBS News Chief White House Correspondent): Well, Bob, the White House knows that Putin has the facts on the ground. He has a military force in the Crimea. What the United States and its European partners have is international law, international norms and the threat of pronounced economic isolation for Russia if it continues with, what Secretary of State Kerry just called, a brazen breach of international law. Now, the reason the administration uses that phraseology is because that's what Vladimir Putin conspicuously and constantly talks about in other parts of the world, Syria, Iran. It's always talking about other nations, specifically, the United States following international norms. Well, the United States is now calling Russia out on its behavior saying you're violating the self same standards you constantly seek, told the rest of the world to and if you continue with this behavior, you're going to be isolated not only diplomatically but economically. And right now the administration is working behind the scenes to have this IMF team, International Monetary Fund team, that's due to arrive in Kiev later this year, not just come there to say hello but have a specific aid package for the Ukrainians to say the West is here to help you economically. And as it has with the situation in Crimea, the administration will invite the Russians in. Look, participate internationally if you have legitimate concerns about the Russians in Crimea but if you don't, your isolation, economically and diplomatically, will only increase and the White House believes that is a greater force of leverage than they believe Putin has, even though, he has the forces on the ground in Crimea.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, thank you very much, Major.
David, what's happening militarily? I don't think anybody, as I said to Secretary Kerry and he didn't dispute this, nobody's saying about going to war with-- with Russia right now. Is there any kind of military movement in that part of the world right now?
DAVID MARTIN (CBS News National Security Correspondent): Not on--
BOB SCHIEFFER: Ships or anything like that?
DAVID MARTIN: --not on the part of the United States. The only movement right now is Russian troops continue to flow in to Crimea. It's hard to put a number on it but whatever the number, it's a fait accompli and you notice that Secretary Kerry said if this stands, he did not say, this shall not stand as George H. W. Bush once said of the invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. has no military options. It has no treaty obligations to come to the defense of Ukraine. Putin knows that. And that is why he has acted so decisively. The big question is whether he is going to order Russian troops into the rest of Ukraine. That would turn what is now a crisis into, I think, a full-scale (INDISTINCT).
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, explain to us exactly what's happened here. The Russians have a base. They have a military base in Crimea. There are Russian troops there already. Apparently, some of them have been moved outside of the base now--
DAVID MARTIN: Yeah.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --but they haven't moved beyond the borders of Crimea.
DAVID MARTIN: That's right. They haven't crossed over where Liz Palmer was standing into the-- into the rest of Ukraine. And this-- this morning's intelligence is that there is no sign that they are preparing to do that which is in the context to everything else that's happened, very good news.
BOB SCHIEFFER: So, David, how do you assess what's happened so far and-- and what-- what happens now?
DAVID IGNATIUS (Washington Post): Well, I-- I think we saw the parameters of U.S. policy in the interviews with Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel. Secretary Kerry used very strong language, a brazen act of aggression, violation of international law. He called on the Russians to roll back this invasion. But when you got down to the specific tools, the ways in which the United States will make Russia pay a cost for what it's done, these are milder diplomatic options. As David said, I-- I'm-- I'm told by my sources in the Pentagon, there is no ship moving in the Mediterranean. There are no NATO troops moving on the land mass of Europe. We are not preparing for military response. If you're talking about roll back, you're talking about Putin realizing that this course which reanimates Cold Car psychology in Eastern Europe is not in his interest. And-- and I do think that the final point to add here is the real problem today is Vladimir Putin's. Vladimir Putin has a Ukraine that is coming apart. He has invaded a small southern piece of it where Russian interests are very strong but in the Ukrainian capital, you have demonstrators in the-- in the streets. These are demonstrators who evicted a pro-Russian regime in the-- in the Ukraine. And they're-- they're not prepared to go backwards. So I-- I-- the choices Putin faces going forward are very, very backwards.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well-- well, explain to me about the Crimea. It is a part of Ukraine but it-- someone said to me last night it's very much like San Diego. You have a large retired military population there, mostly Russians, lot of the people there speak Russian. And-- and most of the people there are-- are pro-Russian. You heard Liz Palmer say nobody-- lot of these soldiers change sides here.
DAVID IGNATIUS: Crimea became part of Ukraine only in 1954. Crimea was historically part of Russia. And Khrushchev, when he was the-- the Soviet leader, gave it to Ukraine in a gesture that mystified some people but what you say is true. I don't know if it's San Diego but it has-- it is-- where they-- the Russians have their biggest naval base, where they-- where they a lot of retirees go and people speak Russian. So it's-- it's-- it's a part of-- of-- of Ukraine that looks toward Moscow.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me stress. I didn't mean that there are a lot of communists in San Diego. I meant there's a large retired military population there. And it's a very, very conservative place. So what happens now, David?
DAVID MARTIN: Well, you-- you have this base of the Russians in-- in Crimea which is a valuable strategic asset for them. This is their way to get out into the Mediterranean to go to places like Syria. And I don't think they're going to pull out of there until they're satisfied that those-- those bases are secure for the indefinite future.
BOB SCHIEFFER: What does Putin want here?
DAVID IGNATIUS: This action in Crimea and-- and over Ukraine follows a series of efforts by Putin to reestablish, you know, the-- the spirit, if you will, of-- of the Soviet Union if not the actual physical possession of-- of those republics. I mean the Sochi Olympics was a kind of exercise in nostalgia for the good old days of-- of Soviet power. And-- so I think the danger here is if Putin is tempted to think that he can reoccupy countries like Ukraine. You know, he did invade Georgia in-- in 2008. Again, an attempt to assert Russian power in its-- in its neighborhood. If he has this romance of bringing things back to the way they used to be, that is trouble. That does take us back to the Cold War.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I'm not sure that he really would take Ukraine back. I mean this place is an economic basket case.
DAVID MARTIN: Well--
BOB SCHIEFFER: He wants to have influence there. He wants to control events there but it also carries a pretty good price.
DAVID MARTIN: This is not the Soviet military of the-- the Cold War. This is a-- a much reduced and a much weakened military which in the past, I don't know, five years has been starting to-- to make a comeback. But he's got to be careful about how much he bites off here. I mean, Crimea is one thing. Ukraine would be an entirely different operation.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. We have a lot more to talk about on this but we'll take a break right here and we'll be back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: We'll have lot more on the crisis in Ukraine; plus Part 2 of our interview with Secretary Hagel coming up on FACE THE NATION. So stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: Some of our stations are leaving us now. But for most of you we'll be right back with a lot more FACE THE NATION, including analysis on the crisis in Ukraine with Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute. Plus, Defense Secretary Hagel talks about scaling back the military.
Stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: And welcome back to FACE THE NATION Page 2. You know one irony of this week is that all of this story, the Ukraine story broke just after Secretary of Defense Hagel had announced plans to scale back the American military. We're going to pick up the interview there.
I want to talk to you about the military budget that you outlined.
CHUCK HAGEL: Mm-Hm.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You want to reduce the size of the army to the smallest size since before World War II. How do you reduce the size of the American military without making it look like--
CHUCK HAGEL: Hmm.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --to the people around the world that we're somehow retreating, that we're withdrawing from all of this.
CHUCK HAGEL: You start, Bob, with the reality of where we are in the world today. This budget that-- it is the first budget in twelve years that's not a budget based on war footing. We've been at war for thirteen years constantly--two wars. We're out of one war, Iraq. And we're coming out of the longest war we've ever been, Afghanistan. Not unlike after every war the United States has been in, you reset your posture. You reset your assets. You reset your-- your whole enterprise based on the new realities and based on preparing that institution for the challenges of the future. But to answer your question, then how do you adjust to the dangerous complicated world that we're in we've increased, for example, cyber assets, increased special operations. We're focusing on readiness, capability, our capacity, our ability to do the things that we need to do in the strategic interests of the strategic guidance that the President laid out in 2012.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You say we're coming out of two wars, and, yes, that's true. But we're not necessarily coming away victors. We're just coming out of those wars. The enemy is still out there.
CHUCK HAGEL: Of course, the threats are out there. Of course, the threats are shifting. Cyber is a good example. Five years ago there wasn't the same focus or reality of what a-- a cyber attack could do to this country, paralyze this country, bring our economy down without any nation firing a shot, not knowing where it comes from, special operations. The-- the terrorist threat that still is around the world will be with us, I suspect, for some time. We've- we've got to figure out how best we do that. The strategic priorities that we've laid out based on the president's strategic guidance plan, first, defend the homeland. Second, continue to build capacity in securing our world through our alliances, through our treaty obligations, through our commitments all over the world, not retreating from the world. We're-- we're still going to-- going to be there, also defeating aggression in the world and winning a war against any adversary anywhere in the world. That hasn't changed.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But--
CHUCK HAGEL: But how you do it, Bob-- how you do it is always going to be adjusted to the realities of the time and the challenge.
BOB SCHIEFFER: --but you're not suggesting in any any way, shape, or form that we have won these wars, you're--
CHUCK HAGEL: That's not--
BOB SCHIEFFER: --just saying we have to recalibrate the way we continue to fight them.
CHUCK HAGEL: At the peak of Iraq we had a hundred and fifty thousand troops in Iraq, that war. The peak of Afghanistan probably around a hundred and twenty thousand. Those are big numbers. And-- and we-- we-- we don't need those, as you go forward, the same way we did the last thirteen years. So you've got to adjust your force posture. And by the way, it isn't me cutting the budget. It's the Congress' decision on sequestration. So it isn't Secretary of Defense or the President doing this, and I think we should clear that up a little bit here, too. Where-- where are we making decisions and how do we make them, that's a responsibility I have. But also the physical constraints that are being placed on the Pentagon to make very tough choices here are very significant. So what we're talking about is-- is gradually reducing our active duty strength by about ten percent. I mean I don't-- I don't think that's an astoundingly large cut as we adjust in-- we're still going to need a big army.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me-- let me ask you about something that your critics are saying, and they say that because you are proposing cuts in benefits, tax breaks, eliminating or slowing down pay raises for some of those on military duty that you are, in fact, trying to balance the budget on the backs of these people who-- who fought these wars.
CHUCK HAGEL: Well, first of all, that's just not true. We're-- we're not making any recommendations or any retirement changes. We're going to wait till the retirement commission comes in. It was impaneled by the Congress on-- on what we need to do if we need to do anything on retirement. This isn't just an arbitrary, unilateral approach to-- to trying to slow the growth just to slow the growth. We've got to look at the long-term commitments to our people. Half of our budget today in the Pentagon goes to pay, compensation, retirement, and medical care. And that will increase significantly. We're not cutting. We're-- we're proposing slowing growth in certain areas. And the-- the tax cuts, we're not cutting anybody's taxes, but we-- but we are asking for specific considerations in areas where we are slowly, eventually reducing the growth of pay increases--there'll be still pay increases and then other areas--we think these are responsible. We don't think it breaks faith with-- with our people. But-- but we have to reset, reposition. I've got to be able to keep a modern military. Those coming in behind me, the technological edge that has made our military the envy of the world along with everything else, best led, best trained, best equipped, best educated. We want to sustain that for our own interest and for our people.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You can see more of our interview with Secretary Hagel; plus, a response from New York Democrat, Kirsten Gillibrand, who is not happy with some of the positions he has taken, especially on sexual assaults in the military. You can see all of that on our website at FacetheNation.com. And we'll be back in one minute with more on the Ukraine.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: Before we get to our panel let's update on the latest developments on the crisis in Ukraine. NATO officials are now holding an emergency session in Brussels to discuss the latest developments in Russia. At least ten thousand people marched in a pro-invasion rally through the streets of downtown Moscow. We're joined now again by David Ignatius of the Washington Post, along with Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute; David Martin, we ask him to stay back; and we're also joined by Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. Danielle, let me just start with you. You heard Secretary Kerry. You heard Secretary Hagel. This is the morning when we heard a lot of news. I mean a lot of developments here this morning. What-- what did you make of what the Secretary said this morning?
DANIELLE PLETKA (American Enterprise Institute): Well, I thought the Secretary's rhetoric was very strong. And, yeah, the President's rhetoric was very strong. The problem really is that you got to match strong rhetoric with strong actions. I don't mean military actions but I do mean a decisive message to the Russians more than just words that is going to stop them in their steps, stop them not only from moving further into Crimea but moving into the rest of Ukraine.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, he had some strong words there. He said, you know, he talked about the G8. He talked about these various things they can do, what-- what can you do beyond that?
DANIELLE PLETKA: Well, I think there are a lot of options for the United States and for our NATO allies. First of all, there are economic sanctions. We could certainly put the sanctions that we took off of Iran on Russia, maybe some banking sanctions that would target Russia's leadership. We can isolate the Russian economy. Another important thing we could do is we could free up and start selling gas to Europe, something that the Russians have been earning a great deal of money on and that we, the United States, are now not doing. So I think that there are numerous non-military options for us out there. The problem is I don't think that the President right now is very credible. And I think that Putin thinks he's got Obama's number. And so he's going to do what he wants to do and dare the President for the next step.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Michael, what's your take on Secretary Kerry this morning?
MICHAEL O'HANLON (Brookings Institution): I thought he was very good. But I guess overall the point I would want to emphasize, I'm a little more relaxed about this than most people for a couple of reasons. First of all, as bad as what Putin, you know, has been doing may be, he hasn't killed people. And I think he's trying to show force in a way that gets a specific task done. He wants his base and I don't admire that approach, it is sort of nineteenth century-ish, as Secretary Kerry said, but it's not totally surprising for the way great powers behave even in this century. And on top of that we do have a pretty strong set of potential economic sanctions and Putin knows it and we've gotten a lot better in the last years at applying sanctions largely because of the Iran experience. We know how-- how to go after the banking sector. We know how to go after visas and personal accounts of leaders in Russia, if we need to. And so if this really escalates to a very bad kind of thing, which it hasn't yet, but if it got into civil warfare and an invasion by Russia to back up one side in Ukraine, then I think these kinds of tools would be applied and they'd be applied effectively and Putin knows it. So I'm relatively confident he won't go there.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You know I want to pick up on something you said a while ago, David, and that you said, this-- when you come around down, this is Putin's problem. It's not the problem of the West. Well, obviously, it has repercussions for the West but give me a little more detail on that.
DAVID IGNATIUS: If-- if we look back at several months we see that Putin has been facing a rebellion on his border. In Ukraine which is a country of absolutely crucial strategic importance to Russia and many Russians feel a deep kinship that's where the Orthodox Church was-- was born. We've seen a movement turning West toward Europe, Putin tried to buy off the government of President Yanukovych offering them fifteen billion dollars in assistance to turn away from this invitation from-- from the EU and then you had a movement of thousands of people in the streets risking their lives to say, no, that's not the future that we want. So we do have to remember that the-- the prelude to this crisis is a key strategic ally of Russia really turning its back. And-- and with all of the dynamics of the last several days in Kiev and the capital of Ukraine you still have the successor government to Yanukovych, essentially, an anti-Russian government, calling to the U.S. for-- for-- for support, looking West to Europe. I think-- I think the big choices-- Putin has to decide how much he wants to risk. How much he wants to put on the table. Europe has to decide whether it's really willing to stand behind the people of Ukraine in what will be a very expensive effort to-- to-- to pull them from Russia towards Europe. I mean if-- if-- if Russia offered fifteen billion, you know, a couple of times that anyway is going to be the cost of this effort.
BOB SCHIEFFER: David, obviously, this-- nobody planned it to happen this way, but the fact that the administration decided to unveil its plans to scale back and kind of redesign the American military, it happens at the first of the week and then all of this happens toward the end of the week. Does the fact-- I mean the question that I asked to Secretary Hagel, you know, how do you do that. And I think everybody knows we have to re-- redesign the military now, but how do you do that without leaving the impression that we're withdrawing from the world and we are not aiming to be the kind of force we once were.
DAVID MARTIN: Well, first place even if the plan were to keep the army at its peak of five hundred and sixty thousand, which is what it was at it-- at the height of Iraq and Afghanistan, there still wouldn't be any military options in Ukraine. So the plan to-- to go down to four hundred and fifty thousand would not change your-- your options in a-- in a place like Ukraine. The map dictates those options. But you-- you still have the perception that you are going to a smaller force. And it's not just a smaller force because the further we get away from Iraq and Afghanistan the less battle hardened force it's going to be. The last time I was down in Fort Bragg, sixteen thousand of the twenty thousand soldiers in the 82nd Airborne were combat veterans. Five years from now when the Army is smaller that's not going to be the case. And I think the Army's plan, and the Pentagon's plan is to keep deploying units to places like Africa for relatively small operations, but to show that the U.S. is-- is still in the game. But look, if you were to take this vast, complex subject of defense strategy and the defense budget and boil it all down into a-- into a bumper sticker, it would be, no more land wars in far off lands. That's what the President is determining with this budget.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, Danielle, what about that. I mean there does seem to be a perception in some parts of the world that the United States is stepping back.
DANIELLE PLETKA: I think there is a perception at this table that the United States is stepping back not just in some parts of the world. You know, look, one of the reasons that you have a large and a capable and a multi-faceted military is not so you can fight, it's so you don't have to fight. And that deterrent power I think is being diminished substantially. In addition I am hearing from inside the Pentagon that we are going down to numbers as low as three hundred and eighty thousand after the four hundred and fifty that you mentioned. These are numbers that will make it impossible for us to engage not just in large-scale wars in one place but in small case conflicts. People like Vladimir Putin know it. That's why it's so important for us at the end of the day on the previous conversation to ensure that things don't escalate in places like Ukraine because the truth is that we've lost a lot of our deterrent power.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Michael.
MICHAEL O'HANLON: Well, I'm comfortable with the four hundred and fifty thousand number but I share Danielle's-- Danielle's concern about where this could go next. If sequestration kicks back in in two years even the 2015 budget, which is dangerously close to sequestration unless the increase that Obama and Hagel are requesting actually happens. This is a prescription for getting the Army down to four hundred thousand active duty soldiers and less. It's a lot of numbers, I know it's hard to grasp at what point you really get to a new threshold of capability. Let me put two missions on the table for you. We need to deter another Korean War. North Korea has ten nuclear weapons and they're probably trying to go up. Some people think of that as anachronistic. No, deterrence in Korea is as important as ever, which means you want the capability to handle that conflict along with our South Korean allies, if it happens. Secondly, you got to be ready for the smaller missions and I guess I-- I said there's just another one that there are a lot of other possible ones, everything from a residual force in Afghanistan, what if we do get Israeli-Palestinian peace. That's going to require Americans to be part of an implementation force.
What if we ever do get a peace deal in Syria? It seems off the charts now. But are we going to let this place blow up forever. And that may require international peacekeepers, including some Americans. So you got on the list, I think four hundred and fifty is okay. We go much lower I start to get very worried.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, and we haven't even talked about in the Pacific and what-- what happens there. We're talking about a pivot toward the Pacific but, as I understand it, Secretary Hagel is also talking about reducing the number of ships in the Navy. Can we do that?
DAVID IGNATIUS: One-- a big part of-- of his defense guidance was to say that he wants to build fewer, what are called literal combat ships which were in truth, the reason that he wants fewer is because he thinks the Chinese threat may be more potent and these ships are not strong enough, well armed enough. I think if Secretary Hagel was to give his budget speech of last Monday today after the events in Ukraine and Crimea, it-- it might have a slightly different tone. And it's not as if the difference between four hundred and fifty thousand or four hundred and twenty-five thousand troops is-- is the key signal. It's-- it's the way in which the United States backs up its statements so that they're credible. And I think, you know, looking at this situation, President Obama does have a credibility problem. He talks about a red line in Syria for chemical weapons and then he lets it be blurred. He says that Russia will have to pay costs if it intervenes in Ukraine and then within hours, the inter-- intervene-- military intervention begins. So at some point this issue of credibility and having the force and more of the resolve to use it I think is crucial for the administration.
DANIELLE PLETKA: I think what you just said about Syria is exactly right. You know we decided not to go into Syria because there was an agreement that Syria would give up its weapons and they have given up as yet eleven percent. They were supposed to have given them all up, the fact that they are flouting this is-- is for me a message that the President is sending to the rest of the world which is, we're really not that interested in compliance, this is a storm that's blown over. These things do have implications. And it's part of the reason that Putin doesn't take us as seriously as he ought to when the Secretary of State comes out with a strong statement because it's not backed up with the follow through. And that's the risk that we really run in all of these places.
BOB SCHIEFFER: David, what are they most worried about at the Pentagon? You're there every day.
DAVID MARTIN: Well, in terms of the budget--
BOB SCHIEFFER: They're worried about you maybe during the day there.
DAVID MARTIN: In terms-- in terms of the-- the budget, what they're worried about is- is that sequestration is-- is still the law of the land starting in-- in 2016. And all of these-- these cuts we've been talking about are just-- just the beginning of-- of really deep cuts if sequestration comes back in. So-- but I'd like to just respond to the thing about Putin not taking us seriously. I mean we had Hungary in '54, Czechoslovakia in '68, and Georgia in 2008. When-- when the Soviet Union or Russia feels like the countries on its periphery are threatened, it takes action. And I don't think it-- it really is determined by who is in the White House.
DANIELLE PLETKA: But we don't have a policy that Russia is allowed to have a (INDISTINCT). That-- that was the Soviet policy and at the end of the day if we're willing to tolerate the notion that Russia has to dominate its neighbors, we have to ask ourselves where that stops. If we're willing to tolerate the notion that Russia somehow has a say over where there's a Russian minority, even a substantial one, then we're looking at-- we're looking at countries that are-- that are, frankly, part of NATO. We're looking at countries that we have an obligation to defend. We need to be decisive here so that they're not encouraged to go further.
BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, I think we're going to end it there. We could probably talk all afternoon, maybe we could all have brunch or something and work this out. Very, very enlightening this morning. Thanks to all of you on a very serious and a very important weekend. We'll be right back with a controversial FACE THE NATION interview, straight out of the Cold War.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: No story has gotten more attention over the last half century than America's relationship with Russia. In fact, it was that story that produced FACE THE NATION's biggest and most controversial scoop.
(Begin VT)
MAN: FACE THE NATION, through the eyes of CBS News film cameras located for the first time inside these walls of the Kremlin on Red Square in Moscow--
BOB SCHIEFFER: It was June 2, 1957, and FACE THE NATION was going to make history. After two years of dead-end negotiations, producers had managed to book the very first television interview with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.
STUART NOVINS: Mister Khrushchev, we're very grateful to you for allowing us to come here. We have many questions that we want to put to you through your interpreter and I am very sure that you must have many answers to give us which will be of great interest to millions of Americans.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Most of those answers proved unremarkable but what made front pages around the world was the simple fact that Khrushchev, who had never been seen doing an interview by his own people, had been seen and heard in America's living rooms.
NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV (through translator): I can prophesize that your grandchildren in America will live under socialism.
BOB SCHIEFFER: With Cold War tensions running high, some government officials accused CBS of putting out communist propaganda. Secretary of State Dulles refused to watch the interview. Even President Eisenhower, a staunch internationalist, suggested it was a phony exercise.
PRESIDENT DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER: We know that there are no prepared questions here and no prepared answers. It is a matter of trying to deal honestly with each other and then putting it on the-- in the papers and on the radio and in the televisions-- on television screens. And this other performance last Sunday afternoon was far from that.
(End VT)
BOB SCHIEFFER: Some in Congress even called for laws to keep foreign leaders off television unless the government gave permission, but CBS President Frank Stanton stood by the interview and it came to be hailed as a journalistic milestone, establishing that broadcasters had the same right as newspapers to report the news without government interference.
Back in a moment.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, that's it for today. We want to thank you for joining us. And be sure to tune in to tonight's CBS EVENING NEWS and tomorrow to CBS THIS MORNING for the very latest on this crisis in the Ukraine. For FACE THE NATION, I am Bob Schieffer. We'll be back here next week. See you then.
**END OF TRANSCRIPT **
Press Contact:
Jackie Berkowitz, berkowitzj@cbsnews.com
(202) 600-6407