Here is an abbreviated version of an extended interview of Henry Kissinger by Charlie Rose. To check out the article in BloombergBusinessweek, please clickhere. To watch Rose’s several interviews of Kissinger and other world leaders, please click here.

Photograph Credit: Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg

* * *

You’ve just written a book called World Order. Is there an absence of order in the world right now?

This is one of the most chaotic periods that I know about. Every part of the world is redefining itself. Some internally—like China. Some externally: The European system hasn’t dominated the world; it’s been abandoned in Europe. And the U.S. is moving into a new period in which the dominance enjoyed in the immediate postwar period economically is no longer there. On the other hand, we are still the central element in creating a new order. Without our participation, it’s difficult to see how a new system can emerge in most parts of the world. We are dealing with 20,000 fanatics—a relatively small group that’s had astonishing success because of the weakness of the opposition.

Obama has a lot on his plate now with the rise of Islamic State. What’s the right response?

When the throats of Americans are cut on international television and they’re then decapitated, and these are innocent bystanders who were picked as victims, the fundamental values of the United States are insulted. And that must have some retaliation. For that we do not need allies. That we can do on our own.

If the president’s advisers tell him the U.S. needs to put boots on the ground, should he listen to them?

Yes, but not ours. The militia groups that we were trying to create in Syria, that we never quite managed to do, would find the most useful employment if they were used against [Islamic State]. We have to remember, we are dealing with 20,000 fanatics—a relatively small group that’s had astonishing success because of the weakness of the opposition. We should be able to fragment them, then defeat them with intelligence operations.

What drives Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine, and what’s the best response?

One cannot overstate the question of Putin’s intent. What Putin wanted above all was an understanding with the U.S. that recognized the vulnerability of Russia’s position: the long frontiers with China and the Middle East, with some respect for its historical memories. That was not forthcoming. He reacted after what he considered a period of deliberate humiliation during the Olympics. We have been drawn into a series of tactical decisions. We cannot accept the proposition that Russia can dictate the outcome of its bordering nations by the constant use of military threat.

Will the sanctions influence Putin?

Not the way they’re being conducted. I have thought throughout the crisis that we should have tried to break the momentum by raising a more important question: How do you reconceive Ukraine? If Ukraine is considered an outpost, then the situation is that its eastern border is the NATO strategic line, and NATO will be within 200 miles of [Volgograd]. That will never be accepted by Russia. On the other hand, if the Russian western line is at the border of Poland, Europe will be permanently disquieted. The strategic objective should have been to see whether one can build Ukraine as a bridge between East and West, and whether one can do it as a kind of a joint effort.

Is Putin putting more thought into what he’s doing than we give him credit for?

The Russians play chess; we play poker. They have lived in a very different environment and have had to think about the relationships of societies to each other. We have lived in a relatively secure environment, and therefore any disturbance to that environment we believe has some practical solution that can be implemented in a short period of time. So what Putin thinks is what he really said in the incendiary speech he made after the occupation of Crimea. The idea that the West systematically humiliated Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union is a very widespread idea in Russia. He has succeeded beyond what could have been his expectation when this crisis started.

Compare Obama’s foreign policy to George W. Bush’s.

Bush faced an extremely difficult problem. We were attacked. We had to reestablish our credibility. In reestablishing respect, we were bound to unleash latent forces. Obama seemed to think that confessions of American guilt would gain public support abroad. The long-term outcome is in between these two positions.

* * *

Emmy Award-winning journalist Charles Peete (“Charlie”) Rose, Jr. is an American television talk show host. Since 1991, he has hosted Charlie Rose, an interview show distributed nationally by PBS since 1993. He has also co-anchored CBS This Morning since 2012.