Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Russia Okays Military Force in Ukraine; Russian Ambassador to U.S. Could Be Recalled; Obama Weighing Options for U.S. In Ukraine; U.N. Security Council to Meet on Ukraine; Russia Okays Military Force in Ukraine; Jason Collins: Nothing Is Different

Aired March 01, 2014 - 11:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN ANCHOR: Christi and Victor, thanks so much. A lot happening, all eyes on that part of the world.

Well thanks, everyone. The 11:00 hour of NEWSROOM starts right now.

And we start with "Breaking News". Russia's parliament has now approved the use of military force in Ukraine right after Russian President Vladimir Putin asked for it. Reuters reports that parliament urged Putin to recall the Russian ambassador from the United States. Everything moving very, very quickly. It is sparking major concern in the U.S. and the European Union.

President Obama said yesterday Ukraine's sovereignty should not be violated and he had this warning for Russia.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity will be deeply destabilizing which is not in the interest of Ukraine, Russia or Europe. The United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: Russia's latest move comes after a new pro-Russian leader took power in Crimea, a primarily Russian region of the Ukraine. He asked for Russia's help in maintaining peace. Ukraine has been very unstable since its parliament voted President Viktor Yanukovych out last week. It's highlighted the deep divide in the country between Russian supporters and European Union supporters.

Well it took the Russian parliament all of about 15 minutes, just 15 minutes, to approve the use of military force in Ukraine today. And we just heard what President Obama had to say about the consequences of military action. So what options does that leave him?

Well let me bring in our Elise Labott and CNN military analyst James "Spider" Marks. Spider Marks I want to begin with you.

First of all, what Vladimir Putin has done, is that essentially declaring war on the Ukraine? JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well I don't know if it's a legal definition of war but it's clearly an invasion of a sovereign country by another sovereign country. To describe Crimea as a separate region of Ukraine I think is important for us to really kind of highlight for a second. Crimea is a part of Ukraine. It is part of the sovereign nation of Ukraine, irrespective of the fact that Crimea has its own Premier which is a bit odd for us to truly get our arms around.

So the key issue is Vladimir Putin has a real strong interest in maintaining integrity and complete control over Sevastopol which is a naval warm water port in Crimea which is the home of the Black Sea Fleet which Russia has and it's the only warm water port that Russia has. Every other port that Russia has right now is covered in ice. So it's very, very important.

So number one is he's got to control Sevastopol and I think what happens in the greater Ukraine is the subsequent discussion that we need to have and that has a lot of moving parts to it right now.

FEYERICK: And one of the things, just so we can reset and Elise, I'm going to get back to you in just one moment but General, what is the strategic importance of this region to the United States and its interests in that part of the world?

MARKS: Well primarily, the United States has a -- has a very long- standing interest in the eastern Mediterranean. And when you look at the map, the Black Sea where Sevastopol is located, you've got to transit to Bosporus, you go through Turkey and now you're into the Mediterranean. So the United States has a very large presence in Europe specifically out of Naples with the U.S. Navy Sixth Fleet. We have very large air force both in Germany and Italy so this is within our sphere of influence.

However, within the Black Sea itself, Russia would say that is their territorial waters. It's not. However, the United States would not for a second transit to Bosporus and put any type of military presence into the Black Sea. That would be analogous to putting a very vulnerable, a very valuable piece of military kit in a bathtub. There's no way out except one location.

The United States has to have a standoff. It has to have a presence. So it really is an intelligent surveillance and reconnaissance mission right now to make sure we have a really good sense of what's going on.

FEYERICK: Do you think that the U.S. could put some ships there just to make sure that those lanes are kept open so there is access into and out of that region?

MARKS: Deborah, that happens as a matter of routine right now. Yes.

FEYERICK: Ok. So Elise let me get to you now in terms of what is happening in Washington, what are you seeing? Are President Obama's words enough?

ELISE LABOTT, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, it depends what President Obama Deb has to put his words into action and the answer is not much. We've heard a little bit about some of the possible options that the U.S. wouldn't attend the G8 in Sochi, Russia, which the Russians have been spending a lot of money, obviously Sochi is a real important part of the country that President Putin wants to show the world. They could boycott that.

But clearly President Putin knows that and has made the calculation that he doesn't care. I mean this is not a game for him. This is what we call in diplomatic reporting, realpolitik in terms of he understands some of the possible punitive measures in addition to the G8. The U.S. and Russia even this week were talking about deepening economic and trade ties. Obviously that would be on hold.

And obviously the Ukraine is important enough to President Putin that he's made the calculation that he can withstand that. So it's really not clear what influence the U.S. has here and also, you know President Obama is mindful of what happened with Syria. He talked a lot of tough talk, a lot of rhetoric, and wasn't able in the end to put his words into action with any strong punitive measures.

So I think right now, the U.S. wants to be very measured in how it responds and see make sure that this doesn't escalate any further.

FEYERICK: And General, during the Olympics, the U.S. did have ships in the Black Sea. So is there the possibility that they could begin to position the Sixth Fleet which is in that region closer up north to that area? Is the U.S. at that point just now?

MARKS: Well I can guarantee you that the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense right now are going through all the scenarios and the options for the use of force. Clearly, it's premature for us to even talk about the use of force.

However, it is a possible outcome and it needs to be planned and it is in -- what I would describe very robust detail. So a lot of options are out there. And clearly, the United States as a first order would have to have what's known as a command and control type capability so if a decision was made to apply force, it's going to be a joint force. All the services and the different combat and commands will be involved and it will require some element that will allow you to tie it all together.

That's taking place right now in terms of discussions in what's known as warning orders, in order to posture us, to make sure that we're prepared.

But all of this is premature because there are other elements of power that have to be addressed and have to be exhausted. If the United States has declared and determines that this is in their national interest to get involved in some way, or to simply allow this to play out, identify that the Russians are interested in Crimea, they are interested in Sevastopol that's their sphere of influence, we'll discuss the rest of Ukraine later.

FEYERICK: All right and we have a lot more to discuss. We're going to bring both of you back in just a moment. We are going to turn directions a little bit. The Russian parliament just approved the use of military force about an hour ago. Putin said that it was needed to normalize the political situation there.

Frederik Pleitgen joins us now live from Moscow. Fred, you're there. What is Putin trying to do?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, he's certainly was trying to get the backing of his parliament to send those additional forces to Ukraine. That is something that happened as you said unanimously. It was interesting because there was a big political buildup to this. There were members of the Russian parliament who said earlier today that they feel that Russia does need to deploy troops to the Crimean region.

And the big questions that people are asking right now is first of all, is this something this parliamentary approval that's being done in retrospect or are those Russian forces already on the ground.

You'll recall that the Ukrainian government over the past 24 hours Deb has been saying that the Russians have already moved thousands of soldiers into the Crimean peninsula so the big question is are they doing this in retrospect or are they going to move troops in, more troops in, from now. And if so, the second question is how many forces would they move in.

At this point it's unclear. There are people in parliament who are saying this would be a limited incursion but there are also others who said according to the Inter Fax News Agency that any sort of deployments, the numbers of troops would be up to President Putin.

So right now, we are still trying to read the crystal ball. It's absolutely impossible to say what the Russians are going to do next. Certainly anybody who would have said five days ago that we would be where we are right now in this Ukraine crisis, most people would have thought he was crazy but events are moving so quickly, it's very difficult to determine what the Russians are going to do next -- Deb.

FEYERICK: And what's interesting is that you look at Ukraine, you look at Crimea, you now have two different governments. The Ukraine -- the government in Ukraine is very pro-European Union, pro-Western. In Crimea, it is very pro-Russian and there has been a huge question who are these forces, these camouflaged masked forces who swept into Crimea, who took over the airports, who set up these road blockades and there's still a question if not Russia, then who.

PLEITGEN: Well, certainly, it seems to me as though there is no other explanation than that all of this was orchestrated by Russia. And I'll tell you why because I was actually on the ground there in the Crimea when all of this started, the sort of uprising on the part of the Russian population which is the majority there, of course.

What happened initially is that they took over a couple towns, they installed new mayors and in every single one of those, the local security forces, the police, worked together with the pro-Russian demonstrators so it was absolutely clear where their loyalties were. Then what happened was that these gunmen all of a sudden started to appear out of nowhere.

It was -- many people believed right from the start that these were Russian forces. Some people went into parliament, sacked the local -- the local Prime Minister of Crimea, who was installed by Viktor Yanukovych, who was someone who was sort of loyal to the government in Kiev and basically started this new pro-Russian administration.

But judging by how well organized all of this was, the forces that are on the ground, the discipline of those on the ground and their clear mission to further Russia's cause, there really can't be any other explanation than that this was at least in large part orchestrated by the Russian government rather than any sort of local forces on the ground -- Deb.

FEYERICK: All right no dancing around that one. Well Fred Pleitgen, we're going to ask you to stand by. We have a lot more coming up on this. We're going to be shedding a light.

Coming up, the broader implications of the Ukraine crisis: is President Obama being pulled or bullied by Vladimir Putin? That's coming up next in the NEWSROOM. We'll be right back for you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: Hi everyone.

We're following all the developments in Ukraine right now. The U.N. Security Council holding emergency talks on the situation in Ukraine today -- comes after the Russian parliament approved military action in Ukraine. Russia reporting also that Russian parliament wants President Putin to recall Russia's ambassador to the U.S.

Well, we are going to go back to Elise Labott -- she is at the Pentagon. And Elise tell us, the U.N., NATO, what can they do about this?

LABOTT: There is very little the U.N. can do Deb, because as you know, Russia has a veto as a permanent member on the U.N. Security Council so it's really a forum where they can discuss these issues. And again, put a little bit of diplomatic pressure condemnation on the Russians but in terms of actually having any effect, it's really unclear.

It looks like between the U.S. and the Europeans, that's where the center of diplomatic activity will be. As far as NATO is concerned, it doesn't look like NATO is talking about any type of intervention. I haven't heard anything of that sort. But there has been an interesting relationship with Ukraine over the last several years.

Ukraine wants obviously to be part of NATO, wants to be part of the European Union, so there could be a lot of verbal support, diplomatic activity, but in terms of any type of firm military intervention, I don't see that in the offing.

FEYERICK: Let's talk about this move to potentially recall Russia's ambassador to the United States. Isn't that really a signal that they want a break in diplomatic relations; that they're not willing to talk about Russia's actions in Ukraine?

LABOTT: Well, let's be clear that yes, it's a signal, it's a very important symbolic diplomatic move, but most of the real intense discussions go on between Washington and Moscow, whether it's the U.S. Ambassador on the ground there or talks between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov, who have a very close relationship and they speak quite often.

So the ambassador to the United States comes into the State Department certainly, but that's not where the real hard diplomatic messages are given. And I would expect with this, for Secretary Kerry, to become a lot more involved.

FEYERICK: Ok. Let's turn to Fred Pleitgen, who is there. How does Russia look at all of this? The U.N., NATO. Do they feel that there are consequences or do they feel there's just a lot of talk right now?

PLEITGEN: Well, I think first of all, I don't think they are very impressed with the potential consequences. I mean I'm sure that they listened to what President Obama had to say last night, saying that there will be consequences if indeed they move forces into Russia. It doesn't seem as though that's left much of an impression with Vladimir Putin even though you have these members of parliament in the Russian parliament saying they now need to recall their ambassador. That's more diplomatic saber rattling.

There really aren't as Elise said many options that the U.S. has at this point in time to stop the Russians from doing all this. But the Russians are clearly sending a very, very obvious message saying the Crimean is a place that for us is very, very important, it's a red line although that word is obviously very tainted internationally right now, but it is something where they are not going to negotiate.

They feel that their vital interests are at stake there, not just because they have 25,000 military personnel on the ground there. It's an important port for them -- a naval port. But they also have the families of the soldiers on the ground there and many people who are Russian citizens and who see themselves as Russians.

We also always have to keep in mind Deb that Vladimir Putin is also playing to a domestic audience here in Russia as well. If anything happens in the Crimean, if Ukrainian security forces were to move in there, if they were to clash with Russian protesters and Russians would die there, in the Crimean, he would certainly look like a very weak leader here in Russia if he hadn't done anything about it.

Certainly Russia would not be able to stay on the sidelines and we would probably see an even larger intervention in Ukraine than the one that we will possibly see now. So it's also a very delicate situation for the Russian government that's unfolding right now. They are trying to manage this in some way, shape or form, but they clearly are sending a very direct message that this is of the utmost importance to them no matter what the international community says in terms of condemnation.

FEYERICK: And Fred, you were there. You saw that sort of systematic entry into Crimea --

PLEITGEN: Yes.

FEYERICK: -- how those forces, even though they were unidentified at the time, kind of swept in, took over, got into the government buildings, raised the Russian flags there. Does Ukraine have the strength, the forces, the same kind of trained troops, to intervene if they need to, or is this not a fair fight necessarily?

PLEITGEN: It certainly wouldn't be a fair fight at all. The Ukrainians don't have the means to defend themselves against the Russians. And it certainly would be the case that if the Ukrainians did try to stop the Russians from doing this and did try to maybe take back these government buildings, take down some of these roadblocks, that they would have a very difficult time and that fight certainly wouldn't last very long.

But it's interesting how all of this unfolded because it was something that seemed very well stage managed. What you had at the beginning is you had some mayors taking over towns there and then all of a sudden, roadblocks were set up. Interestingly enough, this is a very interesting sort of sidebar, the first roadblocks that were set up in the Crimean Peninsula were set up by a biker gang called the Night Wolves which is known to be the favorite biker gang of Vladimir Putin.

He visits their meetings all the time. He knows the head of that biker gang very, very well. And that's how everything started. They were collaborating with the local police forces, and then everything got bigger and bigger.

So clearly, the Russians from the get-go were stage managing a lot of this and now it seems as though they are poised to enter this territory in an even bigger way. But certainly, there isn't very much that the Ukrainians are going to be able to do about it. There wasn't very much from the get-go.

It seemed that the local security forces were collaborating with those who were setting up those checkpoints and the few forces that the Ukrainians have on the ground there certainly would be no match for anything that Russia could field, especially since they have 150,000 soldiers close to the border with Ukraine that are conducting a military exercise right now.

To put that into perspective for our viewers, 150,000 troops is about what the U.S. had on the ground in Iraq at the height of the Iraq war during the surge in Baghdad. That's the amount of force Ukraine sees close to its borders right now.

FEYERICK: Ok. So clearly, such a key region, Ukraine and Crimea -- an integral part of Russia's sphere of influence.

All right Fred, stand by. We are going to take a break. When we come back, more of our live coverage of this breaking news. Are the U.S. and Russia headed for what could be a new Cold War?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) FEYERICK: Russia's parliament has approved the use of military force in Ukraine. Many are wondering what Washington will do -- the president, the congress, the U.S. Military. Amy Holmes is a conservative commentator and a news anchor for theblaze.com. Kiki McLean is a democratic strategist who worked for both Bill and Hillary Clinton's campaigns and in the Clinton White House.

Kiki, you first. Is Putin bullying Barack Obama, putting the proverbial thumb in his eye?

KIKI MCLEAN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I have to tell you, I do think that there are people who are better equipped to go through the psychological profile of Putin and what he means and doesn't mean by this. But he's clearly taking a stand and has been known to take stands that don't necessarily demonstrate the best interest of the people he purports to lead.

I think that President Obama made very clear yesterday what the United States reaction would be to that and it's important to remember that that's not a reaction in isolation. We have many allies in Europe who care what's happening there. And I suspect President Obama will be a leader in helping making sure that we're working together with those allies.

FEYERICK: Amy, yesterday the President said that this was about giving people the right to govern themselves. Is that what this is about, or is this about a strategic takeover of a region that is of critical importance to Russia and Russia's power?

AMY HOLMES, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: Well, from Russia's point of view, it's the latter, in trying to extend their hegemony in that region. Charles Krauthammer he points out in his column in the "Washington Post" that Vladimir Putin has viewed the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest catastrophe, geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, one he wishes to reverse.

Now, I'm not sure that I would describe Vladimir Putin as bullying President Obama. I think he's ignoring him. As Kiki said, the President's statements they come in context and the most recent context was that they were absolutely meaningless when it came to Syria. And if you remember, it was Vladimir Putin who swept in to save the day, humiliate the United States president, with a deal that has yet to be honored by Bashar al Assad.

So what we know is that this president has projected weakness, that weakness invites aggression and instability.

And another news item we have yet to discuss is that the Russians sent in a spy ship into the port of Havana this week. So we are talking only 90 miles from the coast of Florida. Clearly the Russians have very little respect for President Obama, took the measure of the man and found him wanting.

FEYERICK: So Kiki I see you shaking your head. You disagree with that statement. But what has President Obama done to make the Russians stand down? MCLEAN: Well, what I think is important to remember here is that I think to some degree, Amy is probably giving Putin what he wants, is those people who would try to leverage this moment into a domestic political debate about whether or not --

HOLMES: Absolutely not, Kiki. That's completely unfair. There is no way that I would try to give Vladimir Putin what he wants. Please don't attack my integrity that way.

MCLEAN: I didn't attack your integrity and you know it. This is merely an observation about what I think Putin would like. I think what's interesting is that when it comes to Putin, it's not necessarily always just aimed at the United States, although that is the target he picks in trying to sort of goad into a fight. I don't want to use the term battle because I don't want to suggest that there is anything military about it.

Other than his macro political ego which is what I think we see on display with Putin.

FEYERICK: So Kiki based on the U.S. response in those regions that Amy referred to, do you see any consequences or any either military action or something stronger against Putin and what he's done in Crimea?

MCLEAN: You know I think it's really important that political folks like me not present themselves as foreign or military experts. I'm not any of those. Except that we know that there are a lot of resources at hand, both not only that our President and our country has control over, but that come together in working with our allies moving forward when we deal with aggressive positioning and stances like this from Putin.

And that's what's important to remember -- that we are leaders but we are not living in an isolated world. We live in a world where there are many European allies who are very close and near to Putin geographically and we have to work together with them. But I do think that what we heard yesterday was President Obama stand up forcefully. Make sure there was no misunderstanding about where the United States stood on this, that these actions on the part of Putin and his military would have consequences. And I think we will move forward under that leadership and that understanding of what can be.

FEYERICK: Ok. So Amy, importantly for Tea Party supporters, sort of celebrated their five years, Tea Party supporters have long been in favor of reducing the U.S. footprint overseas. Is this one of those moments when they are going to stick with the White House or are they going to continue to say the U.S. should limit its involvement?

HOLMES: Well, the Tea Party is fairly divided when it comes to foreign policy. There are some that would like to see a more muscular American response to international crises and are very frustrated with the president that we hear a lot of rhetoric. We heard the red line of Syria, which turned into a green light for Bashar Al Assad to use poison gas on his own people, which has yet to be dealt with and there are no real consequences there despite the fact the president promised there would be.

So I think the Tea Party is very frustrated with the seeming incompetence and impotence of the president of the United States. But at the same time, they want to know what is the United States national interest when we get involved in military or international conflict? When it comes to the Crimean conflict situation, crisis that seems to be brewing, there are options far away from military options.

For example, economic sanctions on Russia. Max Boot, a writer for commentary.org, he suggested economic sanctions for Russian elites, really putting the squeeze on people so that it hurts. But we know that Vladimir Putin, let's face it, guys, he has put his military into Crimea with no concern about what the United States response might be or will be.

He didn't stand down. He moved forward. Once the Sochi Olympics were over, the Russian bear got back to business aggressing its neighbors and embarrassing the United States.

FEYERICK: All right, we could talk about this a lot more. I did read something in "The Economist" and Kiki, I would like your thoughts on this. "The Economist" wrote that diplomatic pretense that Russia is a law-abiding democracy should end. Is that how the United States should be dealing with Russia? That it's not about democracy when it comes to that country?

KIKI MCLEAN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, HILLARY CLINTON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: I think what folks know is that the leader of Russia has a different kind of personality, and you can't assume that what may or may not be the doctrine of the nation is a clear academic exercise when the personality of somebody like Putin is in charge. That's really to Amy's point where we have lots of things on the table come to play, which is diplomacy with action and making decisions moving forward.

So the reality is I don't think even a regular old consumer of the news thinks that Vladimir Putin is working off of anything that's a specific global strategy that's in concert with other people's interests other than his own.

FEYERICK: All right, Amy Holmes, Kiki Mclean, thank you both so very much. Interesting perspectives from both of you. We certainly appreciate your time.

More on U.S./Russian relations coming up right after as David Gergen will join us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: Major developments on the situation with Ukraine happening right now. The U.N. Security Council are going to hold an informal consultation on the situation. That's coming up at 2:00 Eastern. All this was set in motion after Russia's parliament approved the use of military force in Ukraine. Just yesterday, President Obama warned Russia against a military intervention. Today, Russian President Vladimir Putin asked parliament to approve the use of military force. Moments later, parliament unanimously voted in favor. Ukraine's government has condemned the move and called Russia's actions a direct aggression. This is likely to make things extremely tense between the U.S. And Russia. Reuters reports that parliament has asked Putin to recall Russia's ambassador to the United States.

I'm joined by foreign affairs reporter, Elise Labott, in Washington and CNN's senior political analyst, David Gergen. Elise, first to you. How is this going to harm U.S./Russian relations, which can best described as tense on a good day.

ELISE LABOTT, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS REPORTER: That's right, Deb. Well, you know, if you remember, when President Obama came into office in 2009, you started this Russian reset. They wanted to put relations back on a better track and why was that? Because during the Bush administration, and Russian invasion into areas of Georgia, the relationship really took a dive.

So over the last few years, President Obama has tried to improve the relationship. There has been a nuclear agreement, there -- but there's been a lot of tension on issues like Syria, for instance, and now on issues of Ukraine. President Putin's human rights record in the country.

So this is really, I think, not only going to damage their relations on a bilateral level, but also, these conflicts in Syria where the U.S. and Russia really need to work together in terms of getting the opposition and President Assad of Syria to try and end this conflict. The Iran nuclear deal. I think these are the areas where the relationship is going to suffer even more than U.S./Russia relations.

FEYERICK: David, Russian hawks have long wanted to annex Crimea. Crimea apparently was transferred to Ukraine by Khruschev who reportedly was drunk at the time. A very famous story. Do you think that President Putin was simply waiting in the wings for a moment when Ukraine seemed vulnerable, seemed a little bit more unstable, to go in there and tap into the extreme Russian sentiment in that part, because we're not talking about troops in the upper part of Ukraine. We're talking about troops in Crimea, a very strategic area where Russia has a very important naval port.

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, listen, I think from Putin's stance, he sees Ukraine as sort of Russian territory. It's not just a state. It's sort of Russian territory, sphere of influence, their orbit, whatever term you wish to use. They were starting to move toward the west. They wanted to join up with Europe. They came very close to doing that. He came in and manipulated the government, offered them $15 billion of aid to come back into the Soviet orbit and not leave.

That prompted all the protests and the ouster of the former government. It looked like for a very short time, Ukraine might be coming back to the west and Putin is trying to grab what he can because that territory, especially Crimea, has historically been regarded as Russian. It does give them access to the black sea. It gives them access to water and trade, which is very important to them. And he's now playing strong guy and he's put a stick in the eye of the president of the United States who just 24 hours ago was saying be very careful, there will be consequences you go over a line and here he is bulldozing over the line dismissively, and I think it will call for the United States to mobilize its allies rapidly to make it clear the west does stand united.

There will be economic sanctions for starters and there may be more if the Russians go and send troops in across the border in violation of their treaty obligations. It would be a clear violation of the treaty the Russians have signed to respect the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, they signed it back 20 years ago. U.S. and U.K. also signed on. If they violate that treaty, there has to be consequences.

FEYERICK: We heard Fred Pleitgen say that Russia has about 150,000 troops in that region, in that area, but it's more than that. They were leasing a port in Sevastopol where the whole Black Sea fleet is based. So it not only gives Russia access to the Mediterranean, but it also gives Russia, they are able to control the Middle East, their interest, from that position as well, no, David?

GERGEN: I would -- I think it goes too far to say that their fleet in the Black Sea controls the Middle East. It does give them greater leverage in the Middle East. I think that's right. But this is mostly about trying to maintain as much as they can of the old USSR, that Putin as we just heard, feels was a terrific loss for the Soviet -- to lose the Soviet Union, and he's trying to collect what he can.

We're back in effect to what's sounding a lot like the cold war. We thought we moved away from it and this I think must be a shock to the Obama administration, which thought we had left the cold war and they could get along with this guy, they could hit the reset button. They did -- the Obama administration has made progress with Russia on nuclear weapons agreements and they look to Russia as being helpful on the Iranian talks, which is the big, big issue that's in the background here.

But now Putin is coming out as a thug and showing I think his true colors, and all the people who believe there could be a reset button must be scratching their heads saying we miscalled this.

FEYERICK: I want to bring Elise in on this to get your perspective, because you know, again, he's got these troops in Ukraine. He's got a submarine in Havana. It doesn't look like somebody who is willing to let go of Russia and the Soviet Union sort of glorious past, Elise?

LABOTT: There has been concern over the last several years about this resurgent Russia that President Putin wants to, if you will, re-annex some of these former Soviet republics. We're not just talking about Ukraine he has been trying to put a lot of pressure on. Moldova, for instance, which is moving closer towards the west, other countries like Belarus.

But I think that when you talk about what are we going back to the cold war, I don't really think it's the cold war because that was a time when you had kind of mutually assured destruction and two countries were avoiding shooting at each other. I think it's more a little bit like a bidding war for the future of Europe.

And President Obama and Secretary Kerry have said this is not some kind of chess board, this is not some kind of bidding war with Russia, but certainly, it is a fight for influence on the world stage. You know, during the cold war, Russia was a super power. Russia is not a super power anymore. The U.S. is far superior militarily, diplomatically, economically.

So the question is how do you bring Russia into the fold and let Russia know that yes, you will still have some influence in Ukraine, you can work with these countries and they can have great economic and diplomatic relations with Russia, but they still need to be able to chart their own future and there are plenty of countries that are neighboring with Russia that do that, Finland, for instance.

So I think it's a catch-22. They want to make sure Russia doesn't cross these so-called red lines, but they also want to find a way to let Russia know that it does have a seat at the table.

FEYERICK: All right, a bidding war and not a cold war. OK, thank you, David Gergen, Elise Labott. More on all of this and what Washington is doing. This is breaking news in Ukraine coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: It took the Russian parliament no time to approve the use of military force in Ukraine today. We are going to go back to CNN military analyst, James "Spider" Marks. General, does this move suggest that Putin plans to simply carve up Ukraine?

JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: You know, Deb, it's a very good conclusion that you can draw right now. If you try to eat the whole thing at once, you might choke. Clearly, Putin's primary interest is to ensure that he doesn't lose control, he can protect and maintain his independent actions in the Sevastopol as you have been talking about this morning. That's mission number one for him.

So the isolation of the Crimea Peninsula, he's achieved. Look, let's call it what it is. This is an invasion. It's already taken place. The fact that he went back to his parliament to seek permission to use military force in Ukraine is completely irrelevant at this point. It has already happened.

So he needs to be able to assure that he has freedom of action in Sevastopol, which means Crimea, but that's a part of Ukraine so what happens in Ukraine moving forward is the second discussion. We are certainly going to be able to focus in on what's happening in Crimea and probably draw some of our own conclusions. What we really need to be focused in on is what's going to happen with the larger Ukraine, which is the next shoe to drop.

FEYERICK: What's interesting is that in 1994, the Ukraine or Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange, Russia basically guaranteed to respect Ukrainian territorial integrity. They have not done that. So effectively what's happened to Ukraine is they are largely disarmed and now they are in a position where they may not be able to defend this key court. It landlocks Ukraine a little bit more, no?

SPIDER: No, it really does. In fact, Ukraine would be foolish to try to do anything militarily against Putin's military. They don't have the kit. They don't have the training. They certainly don't have enough of the momentum to try to do that. They have interior lines that can move with a certain degree of freedom, but they're not going to be able to achieve their larger goal.

Their larger goal needs to be able, let's protect what might end up being a half a loaf. Ukraine might end up losing Crimea and Russia reclaims that, annexes that. That could happen and that could be a likely outcome that the United States and the international community might stand for. I would hope not. Clearly, when you put a signature to a piece of paper, you would hope that Russia would then abide by that. That's clearly not the case.

FEYERICK: All right, well, that has yet to be seen. We're going to take a quick break. We'll have a lot more coming up. Stay with us. We'll be back with you, General. Thanks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: Back to breaking news in just a moment. We're going to switch gears a little bit radically and go to Jason Collins. He is the first openly gay player in the NBA. Jason Collins says so far, everything's the same. Our Rachel Nichols sat down with the player in this "American Journey."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANDERSON COOPER, HOST, CNN'S "AC 360": So many changes for Jason Collins. What did he tell you about what it's been like to be back, back in the game, back on the court?

RACHEL NICHOLS, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: It's been a very positive experience. I was actually with Jason at the game he played in Denver. He was, of course, on the visiting team, but when he came into the game, the Denver fans gave him a really nice ovation. That's just an example of the support he's gotten around the league.

Jason told me he is happy that people are thinking of him as this big history maker. But what he also loves with each game he plays people are starting to once again think of him as just another basketball player. Take a listen.

NICHOLS: You have a great line when you first came out. You said I've been showering in the NBA for 12 years. Clearly, it hasn't killed anybody.

JASON COLLINS, BROOKLYN NETS: Yes.

NICHOLS: You're back in the locker room, back in the training room now. Have you noticed anything difference?

COLLINS: No, it's the same environment. Everything is the same. Just like I said before, 12 years in the NBA, not a problem, not an issue. Year 13 not a problem, not an issue. Same old same old.

NICHOLS: Do you feel that you're inspiring some people out there? Have you heard good things?

COLLINS: Yes. I definitely have. I've met some other athletes who sort are in the same position as I am. And we're sort of like a fraternity just trying to help each other, just trying keep inspiring each other. Whether it be Robby Rogers or Michael Sam or the list goes on and on of so many great athletes I've met along my journey. And it's really great to hear each other's stories and keep inspiring each other.

NICHOLS: Jason's had a lot of people celebrating him. He was of course the guest of Michelle Obama at the state-of-the-union. He said really the most special thing he got was a text from Billy Jean King after his first game. I guess one trailblazer to another, Anderson.

COOPER: It's also remarkable. He's worn this jersey number 98 for a while. Just now people are realizing the significance. You talked to him about that.

NICHOLS: Yes, absolutely. You know, after he first came out, he did explain what the 98 was for. Matthew Shepherd's parents were stunned. Judy Shepherd, Matthew's mother, was able to put in a call to Jason. Jason told me a little bit about their conversation. She of course told him how touched she was, how proud she was, but she also told Jason, now, you don't let the haters get to you, she said.

You just keep doing what you're doing. Of course, Jason loved the fact that the 61-year-old white woman from Wyoming was telling him not to listen to the haters. So when they met last night, he made sure to tell Judy Shepherd he was following her advice.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FEYERICK: Well, Rachel Nichols host "UNGUARDED," Friday nights at 10:30 p.m. Eastern. We are going to have a lot more on the breaking news in Ukraine. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)