Charlie Rose

BENEZRAA  02/12/2012 01:45 PM Report

DEFIANT RUSSIA Speaking for Russia, Vitaly Churkin makes clear that Russia regards Syria as an important and perhaps vital satellite of Russia and that Russia will not abandon Syria to the Western political sphere of influence. The question then becomes, "What is the definition of Russian self-interest with respect to Syria, and does that Russian self-interest call for Russia to encourage the Assad regime to negotiate a departure or to stay in power. The speedy vote at the UN may have done much to publicly define the China-Russia-Syria-Iran-China Circle of Power. What has yet to be determined is where, when, and how to break that Circle of Power. Nor is it trivial that Russia, China, and Iran are all operating in South America; ergo, the US must be sure to guard it's own backyard and even it's own back door. To some extent Britain is doing that in sending the Royal Heir to the Falkland Islands, an move that simultaneously protects both British and American security. To what extent South America may itself be a vital link to the solidarity of the above described Circle of Power ought to be a topic of analysis, even if that significance were to prove to be limited to the already obvious military threat to the US from within the American sphere of influence. If the Circle of Power should prove to be unbreakable, then this may have indirect and later direct consequences (a) to Turkey (and therefore Lebanon and to NATO), (b) Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. There is a principle of physics, which states that "the shortest distance between two points is not necessarily a straight line". If our eyes perceive Syria as the starting point, then China may be the second point located across the diameter of the Circle of Power. Of course China is much "closer" to the USA directly across the Pacific Ocean via Hawaii, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia. It may be timely to motivate some well trained undersea creatures to torpedo the hulls of the more significant vessels of the Chinese Navy, most especially it's new carrier. This is a move that might take some of the air out of the Chinese Balloon and simultaneously send shudders all along the Circle of Power.

commentor984  02/11/2012 06:13 PM Report

Charlie's double standard on selling weapons to Syria is disgusting.

Saultxyca  02/11/2012 05:35 PM Report

Combative, wasn't he? No wonder we see so many stalemates at the UN while children are being terrorized and slaughtered in monster-states like Syria. The demonstration in front of the Russian embassy in Tel Aviv is just the beginning if this intractable belligerence continues.

jason  02/10/2012 07:01 PM Report

regards to miahau11. to quote your remark "making enemies of the middle eastern people". may i enquire, which "middle eastern people"? reality is, we do not know. we supported the "jasmine revolution" in Egypt, today, Mubarack is in cage but "democracy - western style" is even further away in Egypt. we supported the "no fly zone" in Libya, Russia and China abstained and soon, we twisted "no fly zone" to "air attack zone". Mr. K was removed yet, internal civil wars is continued in Libya. the fact the western press did not report this does not mean all is dandy. in the case of Egypt and Libya, we intervened, airstrike and bomb attacks, did we make the place better? no evidence of that. meanwhile, our central bank keeps printing money to fund these "operations". money we don't even have. so, Russia and China did the right thing to veto this folly.

miahau11  02/09/2012 02:37 PM Report

This was not an interview this was a staged performance for ratings and props.

If you want a fair interview acknowledge the fact that both the US and Russia have a long history of underhanded bs when it comes to world politics and meddling in affairs. By instigating the US is not doing itself a favor, its repeating history by making enemies of the middle eastern people (note I did not say governments). Russia has done the same thing, it's just pointing the finger on the US now to discredit them.

If you want a good interview forget sides and try to display the information (and the bs) in as objective view as possible.

Very disappointed in this circus act

jason  02/09/2012 03:32 AM Report

on a serious note. charlie used to have Stephen Cohen, formerly Princeton's russian expert and now with NYU. wonder why haven't seen Cohen for a long time on Rose, when it comes to russian affairs, Cohen's is first among everyone.

jason  02/09/2012 03:24 AM Report

FINALLY!!! some fire on Charlie Rose show. Charlie finally learned something from O'Reiley, talking over his guest. what's next? a page from Mark Levin, yelling? !! -:)

Ellen_Dibble  02/08/2012 02:45 PM Report

If Rose tried to pose as an expert, forget it. Even with an energetic staff doing all sorts of prep, the grace of these interviews is not the extent to which they are debates, but rather the chance to view different perspectives, stripping off the stereotypes. Churkin could tell us a lot about how Russia has evolved over the last half century, a lot about all sorts of things, though his job probably rules out so much. How about corruption, the press, banking, poverty, attitudes toward global warming... And yes, what are the possibilities that Russia sees vis-a-vis the United Nations. Does Russia see China as a partner for progress in one way or another? (In the UN or otherwise?) How do they see a nuclear Iran, nuclear North Korea? How about Pakistan? India? NATO? Turkey? I'd just like to hear anything he'd like to say, really. If he's making assumptions about our (viewers') relative ignorance or that of Charlie Rose, hopefully the program will see to it we hear soon from others with other perspectives.

gleapman  02/08/2012 10:17 AM Report

Good to see Rose show some backbone for a change when interviewing Churkin. In past interviews he's let Churkin spew all kinds of bs unchallenged. (The interview when Russia was invading Georgia was a disgrace.) Rose pushed back hard on some Churkin statements, which was great to see. But it also seems there's something about Churkin that puts Rose off is game. Posing a question such as 'when will Russia be helpful in the UN' (or something close to that) is a softball that lets Churkin dismiss the question instead of answering it. Shouldn't the questions be 'what is in the UN resolution that Russia is concerned with?' and 'what resolution would Russia support?'.

Gelles  02/08/2012 02:45 AM Report

Vitaly Churkin speaks truth to the nearness of Russia to Syria and a possible avoidance of a heavy death toll in Syria IF Russia leads a Security Council (or bilateral) effort to see Syria change its spots on a path to development and peace -- and away from the chaotic nature of its current unrest and war.

He talks tough and is tough. He holds the best cards in the struggle for Russian influence in this region of Arabia -- commensurate with its military and economic power over there.

Syria is close to China and Russia -- and it is as far from the USA as possible. We should be working with Russia and China to prove that IF they want peace with honor -- so do we.

Syria is like North Korea -- situated geographically and geopolitically perfectly -- for a future peaceful outcome to natural rivalry between what may become the big three: America, Russia and China.

The previous comments on Syria by Friedman and other experts are consistent with a Russian led solution to the civil war in Syria. We would not have to "lose Syria". We do not covet it.

tdcp  02/07/2012 08:53 PM Report

When I hear "Russia does not forget its relationship with allies overnight" I also hear "Russia does not forget its enemies overnight either." I'll bet top people in the Russian govt have a very lucid disdain for the United States, based on the Cold War.

tabs  02/07/2012 04:45 PM Report

Well ain't that a fine Howdy Dowdy or will wonders never cease. Mr Rose caught a fast ball when Mr Churkin said,"That Russia never abandons an ally when their usefulness is over." And Mr Churkin relinquished his shoveling boiler plate title when he became livid over Mr Friedman's comment to the effect that, "Now Mr Putin will get a taste of what the Arab Spring really means."

What Mr Rose did miss was Mr Churkins comment that, "Russia doesn't need the US anymore." From this comment and the mere fact that Mr Churkin was unguarded indicates that America and Americas have lost the respect and mystique of being the prominent leaders of the world. This shift in respect was perhaps the most damaging aspect of the post 2008 fallout as now American leadership is going to be scrutinized and questioned much more closely in the future.

REMant  02/07/2012 11:38 AM Report

I agree with this view. I was also alarmed to see the US, UK and Italy withdrawing their diplomats considering what that may reveal about administration thinking re unilateral action. Russia sees Syria as an ally, sure, the way the US sees Saudi Arabia and the emirates, etc. And, of course, Saudi Arabia's a lot like the US, too ;-) I am not at all sure we've seen the end of turmoil in Egypt either, and I suspect the present govt to be quite correct about the NGOs. We might consider prosecuting them ourselves under the Logan Act, altho I think hell more likely to freeze over. I'd also like to remind self-righteous Americans that free, full and fair elections were a VERY long time coming in their own country and hotly disputed only a decade ago.