Cspan two. Politics at russian and the influence of russian president Vladimir Putin. Speakers include a russian journalist, a former u. S. Ambassador to russia and nato and the first Russian Foreign minister who served under Boris Yeltsin. This is just over an hour and a half. John good morning. My name is john herbst. I run the Eurasian Center here at the atlantic council. Thank you all for coming. We have a Wonderful Program for you this morning. And i should mention that this is part of our series on internal developments in russia. We began with a session in october on demography in russia. And this of course is on politics. Next month, we are doing a session on the russian economy, followed by a session a session probably in april on Energy Sector in russia. We have a real treat for you this morning. We have a wonderful lineup of speakers. I will not describe them except to say yevgenia albats, a topnotch journalist from moscow, who has written a very provocative and a fascinating paper on russia politically. Foreign minister kozyrev will comment on that, as will eugene rumer from carnegie. And ambassador and former deputy secretary nato, Sandy Vershbow will bat cleanup for us this morning. And with that i will turn it over to dr. Albats. Yevgenia thank you very much. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the ambassador, who invited me and asked me to write a paper to the council and the center. And thank you very much all for coming for this event. Institutional persistence, thats the main topic of the paper that i wrote, and then in this paper i argue that we have been witnessing the transformation of the regime in russia. Which is now just known in ,istory with italy, Mussolini Franco in spain and portugal. To be sure there is no conspiracy in the story i am outlining, i just argue that when putin has become the president of the russian broughton in 2000, he people from his old job, the kgb and over the years, they staffed all the way from the russian ernment to the upper edge apparatus and the government, the president ial administration. Percent of all jobs in the upper levels of the government were occupied by kgb, Army Officers and some from the intelligence group. Became viewed in the public sphere that the country is pretty much run by the people or byew up inside the their sons and daughters. We have been witnessing the formation of the clan of people who are united by the common , byground, common education their understanding of what is right and by the conflicts they develop after the soviet union collapsed and the new russia came in. It sult, to put , Boris Yeltsin announced Prime Minister putin as a successor. Percent were oppositions were out to buy by those who we usually call. The kgb grew. 10 years later, the number rose to 66. 7 . More than the numbers of positions from people from the kgb had in 1989 when gorbachev was the leader of the country. When you have this overrepresentation of people in alle institution layers of the government, they bring with the institute with them the institutional culture. They bring their understanding inwhat is right and wrong internal and external politics. Instruments they used and were useful back at the time when they were young and and everythingg was pretty much good for besides the numbers, there is also a clearcut line in the success of the kgb the, their capacity to influence the politics by using oppression and repression. There was nothing special about russia in that respect. Russia sees it self is a special entity, with a special mission in the world, and therefore theres Something Special about russia from the political side, there is nothing special about russia. In fact, from a political point of view, this kind of regime is very well known in south america, and it was the argentinian political scientist who first coined the term bureaucratic authoritarianism. It is the path of the regime built on the coalition of, in the case of latin america and south america military. In russia, it is people from the kgb and technocrats and bureaucrats who run the every day operations. In that respect, nothing special, nothing new. We saw the rise of fsb activities in terms of violence. That was a feature of that type of regime, where the notion of it made the military part of the coalition to use violence over the rule of law. It was a very distinguishable feature of that regime and it is exactly what you see in russia. Ever since 2012, there has been an eightfold rise of terror cases, which are investigated and prosecuted by the fsb in russia a threefold rise of cases of extremism. I am citing the paper, done by Nikolai Petrov formally with , andrmerly with carnegie also a wellknown columnist and writer in russia. They wrote a paper for the university of economics, and it was never published there as they were unable to publish it there. They were unable to publish it anywhere but in my magazine the new times. Most vividly, the rise of the fsb activities as a vehicle of violence is seen in all of the nomenklatura. As a result, the overall number, 26 deputy governors are under criminal investigation. Four governors are in jail awaiting trial. Mayors and deputy mayors are also under investigation from this side of the fsb. Inside the department of fsb,nal security of the they have created what is coined in the russian media, [indiscernible] the head, when he was the last Prime Minister, he helped to finance and create this special department inside the fsb, to conduct investigations against russian nomenklatura. There is immense corruption in the russian federation, and probably many of those under investigation have been involved in all kinds of illegal activities. The question is not the fact that they are being investigated, the question is, how those who are investigated were chosen. Because, there was not just a random choice, all those who were appointed by the onetime substitute of putin, dmitry medvedev, all of them are under criminal investigation right now. The former government of the poorest area of the russian federation, who went to grovel to the local fsb, and is now awaiting a 10 year sends to jail. A tenyear sentence. The future of russia, it is a long talk. I just want to point out to you, that there is good and bad news. The good news is that tend tolistic regimes be more unpredictable and more prone to all types of war, revenge with the neighbors, like in the case of the annexation of crimea, or the war in eastern ukraine. Corporative types of regimes are more stable, more persistent, and unfortunately more consolidated. Therefore, it is much difficult to expect positive change in russia. I would be happy to answer your questions with respect to this issue. Here, let me just say that there is one very interesting feature that we observe now among the new russian nomenklatura. Kgbously, those who were in offices in soviet times, there already in the mid 60s and some of them older than that, and they have their children, who have already joined the ranks of the russian nomenklatura. We call them hereditary captives, the children of the kgb they work in banks, stateowned banks. Over half of the stateowned banks are led by the greatest of the kgb. 25 heads of governmental agencies, are led by the greatest of the kgb. When talking about the children, what is interesting about that is that many of them went to boarding schools in the west, and some of them went through the universities in the west. I do not want to imply they absorbed the values of western democracy, they were aware that [indiscernible] however, what is important is that my hypothesis is that, these children who got their education in the west, they were they would not want to live in the closedcell named russia. I think they would like their children to be educated in the west because it is pretty much where they got the best level of education. The level of education in russia is unfortunately not good. They would like to have their children to go to boarding schools in switzerland and the united kingdom. They would like they acknowledge that they are making money inside russia but they prefer to live outside russia. The key to the soviet union the children of the nomenklatura i believe it can be a vehicle in bringing change and Democratic Development in russia. Again, i will stop here. I would just like to briefly there is a book that i love very much, and i think that political scientist at large overlooked alexis deby tocqueville. It is called the old regime and the french revolution. It talks about the problem of institutional persistence in other countries. I believe that tocquevilles study of the failure of the french revolution is applicable to the situation with the failure of the democratic revolution in russia. I am convinced that although they had no inkling of this, they took over from the old regime, not only most of its customs, conventions, but even those ideas which prompted our revolutionaries to destroy it. That in fact, although nothing was further from their intentions, they used of the debris from the old order to build up the new one. That is exactly what happened in russia in the 1990s. They used the debris of the old order, to build up the new one. Now, we are dealing with the consequences. Thank you. Host there was your vehicle. We will talk about that later. Mr. Minister, your comments please . Thank you. I was known for being softspoken and criticized by the opposition for that. If you expect arguments and fights here, you will probably be disappointed because when i entered the room this morning, i said, i like your research to her. Then, everyone who joined us gave the same opening quote i like your research. So, it will probably a mutual of herion Society Research and writings. Herrst started reading writings 30 years ago, she was almost a child. It was when we were working in the moscow news. From then on, for 30 years, i have agreed with everything that she writes and says. So that almost exhaust my comments. The only thing which i could add to that, is this notion of bureaucratic military and security forces. It occurs to me that it could be dated at least 30 years earlier, maybe 100 years earlier, or maybe hundreds of years earlier in russia. But that is probably to general of an observation. I think it was also the same in the soviet union. Stalin was supposed to be a single dictator, which he was, on one hand. But on the other hand, he created he was promoted by actuallyss, which was heir to the old ways and old bureaucracies, not necessarily the top level of the bureaucracy, but at least peasants brought to capitals, st. Petersburg and moscow, to work. In moscow, a lot of their ways and habits affected the soviet union. My impression is that this kind of structure, is coming in a vicious circle. Why is it so repetitious, even after major upheavals and revolutionary events, which look on the surface at least, as a major revolutionary event, such as in 1917, or 1918 that is a little bit of mystery of history. It is not political, it just so happens that history anyway, that is what i can offer as the debris of both debris of both soviet and he failed democratic regime in russia. Thank you. Host let me ask a specific question, perhaps i should have foreshadowed this before, what do you think of the corporatist thesis in the paper, and what is the meaning of that for developments Going Forward in russia . Your take them up these . First of all, am very glad to be here. Thank you for the lead. It is hard to argue with eminent personalities and people who really know firsthand the development of the russian system. I think there is a certain amount of tensions in the thesis, in that corporate systems to my mind imply a degree of competition, among orporatist entities. It is not an authoritarian regime. I think you described them both in the paper and in your presentation it is really one corporation, or one clan that is in charge. As i was reading the paper, and thinking about my own very brief remarks, i could not help but think that one record of analysis and predictions is pretty poor in the last 30 years. We have been there multiple times to predict the nature of pivotal points in the revolution or revolutions in russian domestic politics. Looking forward to the next six years, because i think of movement in russian domestic politics in terms of president ial terms, and we are little more than a month away from the next president ial election. I have to say, i really do not see much of a possibility of change in the system, that to my mind came into being probably in 90s. Ddle to the early i think some have described it as the clan basis, and i think it will still survive by that time. Fundamentally, the distinctions are there, russian Traditional Society went away and what was left was the competition for power among various clans. In our Political Science, there is a greater degree of openness in the system. This system continues to the present day, facilitated to a large extent by the 1993 , which created the super presidency that in the , 1990s was very weekend and basically reduced to one clan, the family centered in the kremlin. A number of other clans rose to prominence and justified the name of being oligarchs. Since then, we have seen considerable change in the balance of power, between the kremlin and these clans. The kremlin perhaps as was pointed out, by dr. Albats, they gained the upper hand. In the time that Vladimir Putin has been in office, it has asserted itself much more than first among equals. The Competition Among various interest still survives. I do not think it has been completely eliminated, and at times, when the system feels uncertainty or weakness as was the case in 20072008, in the time of president putins second a second term and questions about the transition, i think we may be coming up on something similar in the years to come. This is not to say by any means, that we are approaching a major transition in domestic politics. All signs point to a pretty stable arrangement with very few internal or external challenges. But this uncertainty about what will happen post 2024, post Vladimir Putins next term, i i think opens up the conversation in a way that has not been opened up until now. For the next six years, i emphasize the system appears quite able to handle the uncertainty and any sources of domestic discontent. Certainly, we are seeing elements of domestic discontent now. Dr albats has been very prominent in describing the noncandidacy candidacy of alexei navolny. He is not a Major Political challenge to the system, but i think there is a degree of uncertainty there. A challenge domestic to the system that we ought to be thinking about in certain ways. I do not think he will be a really systemic change, but really an alignment. My question to both my colleagues who spoke before me, i would say, what do you make of this very strange president ial campaign . With alexei navolny being marginalized in terms of the process, but still playing a huge role as a voice voice for many in the young generation, and then there is the other candidate, who at first appeared to be handpicked by the kremlin and who is going to be in washington soon. It raises a very uncomfortable question i think, for the system, how to handle it. R sheerere thei presence and raising of questions in the public sphere, it seems to make the kremlin uncomfortable. The same goes for the communist Party Candidate who also seems to be pushing the boundaries of the conversation with up to now has been quite stilted. As a followup to our prepared remarks, we ought to consider the next six years, i think. I am tempted to say that in conclusion the title of this panel is the direction of russian domestic politics, i think of it going in circles, but maybe it is a movement along a spiral, and i will leave it at that. Sandy, any comment on the corporatist thesis, specifically on the Foreign Policy side of this, if any . Ok. Thank you very much, it is great to be on a panel with yevgeny. Back in the ambassador days, he taught me a lot about the system as it was beginning to emerge back then. I am quite convinced by the case in your paper that the regime has become more like a corporation than a personal dictatorship, although it obviously has elements of both. I think some of the statistics you marshaled have been quite impressive and also extremely the steadywith growth and dominance of all levels of the system, with the kgb veterans. I was intrigued by the notes there and i would encourage , everyone read the paper when it is issued, which highlights the role of key institutions best service for the protection of the council order, which are under different names under the soviet. And have been under the soviet period and were instrumental in protecting the strength of the regime. Some interesting anecdotes about how Vladimir Putins order seems to have been overridden, which creates more evidence behind this idea of a corporatist structure, rather than a single strongman calling all the shots. At one point though, you suggested that the corporation was dictating to him, all but i think that is too strong. They still need him as the dispenser of the illicit wealth. Of course, he is one of them, so it is not like they have a different agenda. But i think the rest of the corporation needs his popularity, some of which is genuine, in the sense of being an antiBoris Yeltsin, who in some ways, brought stability to russia. If he were to get run over by a bus tomorrow, likeminded people would be poised to take his place, at least in the short whether other short term. Whether other people of the corporation would maintain the cohesion among themselves, if they were to do so, that is an open question. If the young generation are going to be a force for liberalization, he might be in the short term, but that is something that we can hope pans out on the road. This is clearly something which is not new, todays kgb incorporated or whatever you want to call it, is the culmination of trends which began in Vladimir Putins first term. We saw that increasing intolerance of real opposition, the shift to a rubberstamp parliament, repression of the media, ngos engaged in human rights activities, and of course, the hostel and is in a enophobic attitude to where the foreign backers of Civil Society. Virtually all Exchange Programs and systems have been shut down. It is quite startling to hear a justification of the repressions of the 1930s. I recall when i had the meetings with the ex fsb director, i equally remember him saying hairraising things in private, and now he is the head of the Security Council veterans trends were clear at the putins time but now they seem to have become stuck to my 18 years later. It was interesting to watch, the protests which were significant over the weekend. Still, i think the regime has been relatively successful in pushing opposition to the margins and containing get without having to use excessive force. They are being careful not to make alexei navolny into a martyr. It is worth remembering that the assassination of Boris Nemtsov has to have been signed off from senior levels of the regime. What does this mean for russian policy . I believe that the priority that the leaders of this corporation attached to a strong state and suppression of prowestern opposition will translate into a continued confrontational policy toward the west, whether it is under putin or any successor. The leaders of this corporation believe their own propaganda, that the United States and its allies are bent on regime change, that the United States throws it supports its support for Civil Society and democratic values. Change, thatand of course the fear that successful liberalization in the near and abroad could infect russia itself and that has been the main driver of increasing crackdown at home but it is also the main driver in russias more aggressive foreignpolicy. Moreover portraying russia as , encircled by a hostile nato russia phobic by west makes it a lot easier to justify the stagnation that russia is experiencing, declining living standards. If there were a serious effort, it would create new pressures to reform the system which i do not think it is likely other than cosmetic steps. All the rhetoric about defending the russian world, putin or any other leader will be very wary about entering into deals that would have to be defended against nationalists at home, such as a deal to genuinely pull hand thee dunbas and valiant peoples republic back to ukraine. It is not impossible and i think the Trump Administration is right to try to test the russians at the bargaining the peoples republic back to the ukraine. Table but at the end of the day, the leaders of this kgb led system may see little payoff in making the kinds of concessions that would be needed to rebuild cooperation with the west. Rather, they will opt for r efforts they will op continued efforts to weaken and divide the west, to command attention to russia more as a spoiler than as a partner or Problem Solver and they will hitch russias wagon to other states that also reject the u. S. Led international order, particularly countries like china which does not fully reject that order, or iran. For the United States and its allies, we need to continue to prepare ourselves for a period of longterm competition with russia, strengthening countermeasures against disinformation, and hybrid warfare. Going back to the cold war, in terms of trying to manage the competition using arms control, complex Building Measures and to we haveeed a duty to our own people to try to limit this competition as best as can. That was a rather gloomy analysis. [laughter] be i forgot to mention when i started, that this series of sponsor ofowe our the foundation for sponsoring this, and we are grateful to them for it. Dr. Albats, i was wondering if you could take up on the question that eugene raised, on alexei navolny. Thank you very much. I would definitely respond to this very interesting question. However, i think it is important out if i may, respond to what the minister said it is true that parties in russia historically have had a very prominent role. It is true that in sourced rist russia, there. As a particular department in soviet times, it was the political policy of the kgb a Department Born in 1918, set up as a political police. We have documents and we know this. That, i having said would say that never before in have theyistory been in charge. It has always been under the from moscow to the smallest towns in the country, the same was true of the kgb. Competing institutions. In the history of russia, medical police and has been in charge medical police initical policing has been charge. To give you an example, there is a changing face, but when you scrape you always find the same background. It became my hobby. 2015, many people in his administration were former members of the kgb. Heads of the corporations, agencies and the department and the government, all of them. It was a very new reality in a way, and they asked you not to underestimate i ask you dont underestimate that. When i say it is unpredictable, i would is agree with you because from my perspective, it is more predictable, then the oneman rule. We know the rules of the game instance, kgb for the sides of enemies that instance,existed in the soviete can more or less predict how these tools and instruments will be used in the old new order, and we see it. You know, the recreation of the ambassador reminded us the recreation of the department to protect the constitution, in soviet times, it was the same department but with a different name that piece directorate. Peace directorate. This department that destroyed the best Political Science school in the country, the European University of st. Petersburg. The same department which was in forof the case of who lost mye me life in russia, in the way i feel almost nostalgic. It brings big back to the time when i was my now russia, in the young [laughter] totalitarian no, i do not think it will be a totalitarian state. One of the reasons for that is one of the reasons for that is that it is a market economy, and if you may or may now remember, in 1980 in the 1980s, or earlier than that, when sergei andropov was the head of now the he created a kgb department, groups of people who created the concept of the day did notmy, he use the term market economy, market basically economy, but they were toying with elements of private corporatism for a that existed in poland, etc. These kgb people are all involved in the market economy. We have already seen the competition between different groups inside the same operation you may for instance be aware of the men who served putin in germany, he is company of the consisting of 400 different industrial enterprises. Are morepanies interested in closing the russian Global Market from other countries. Instance, the head of an energy company, he has trouble because of the sanctions approved by the United States, stopped them from drilling arein antarctica these competing forces and they are doomed to compete, so it will not offer any totalitarian state. Number two, there is not ideology. Theyre trying to promote russian orthodoxy as a substitute for the communist ideology, but it will not work itn the country where will not work. In a country where there are arest 80 of citizens who russian orthodox, the absence of ideology is a prerequisite for each utilitarian state. For aputin totalitarian state. Vladimir putin is a front for the corporation, and i think you made a crucial mistake when he got carried away by the notion 2014, with the success of my desk in ukraine. Ansk in ukraine, and the annexation of crimea. As a result of that, he gave up on the other forces inside his own government which were more liberal to a certain extent. He became the hostage of the information coming out of the fs the. The fsb. They are totally recreating the structure of the week, totally. That,became a hostage of the analysis, is done by an department that was made in the kgb. He himself made the us may be a hostage of the situation, and i it will work for him. Navolny, whom i have known for the last 14 years, is a very talented politician, and he is capable of a lot. He was under house arrest for a year, and he read so many looks. Jail, iisited him in always saw him at books. With books. Extremely devoted and a talented politician. He created the whole structure fromthe last year, stalingrad to that evolve stock stock, vladivostock of a organization, and all of a sudden they realized that opposition was not only in the big cities but also out in the russian provinces as well. As a result of that, thousands of people came out in the rallies conducted by he and the others. The citiesof involved, people have not heard about. Now, there is the problem of turnout. Hat is the biggest problem it is not a question of whether he will be elected or not, it is a question of legitimacy. It is a very big idea in Political Science area it it is we can talk about , in constitutions, legal institutions, legitimacy thething which people majority of people in a particular territory recognize all of the country. The latest parliamentary elections, this bodes well for the party in power area our. Figures bode well for the party in power. Turnout was big in cities across russia area the problem is that the way that the united russia and put in back in 2012, getting this these large approval numbers, it is through socalled electoral super max. In 2012, i believe vladimir 106 of the vote in some places, all of us were laughing at this. [laughter] so, for these electoral territories which are under strong control of the assidential administration, it was obvious in 2012, when Vladimir Putin did not get the majority, he got less than 50 in moscow, and a less than 50 order forersburg, in him to be a legitimate president , for him not to be president of the territory and not the president of the country, he has to get votes from the people in the russian industrial cities. And that is precisely why the they chose someone else as a substitute, as a desirable get the tone out. When the central when theyommission denied a like fate of only alexa and of all the alexei navolny registration for the election, all of a sudden the young people all over russia went out on the streets when he called them for these anticorruption actions and protests. Wow. As whil not just for the kremlin, but even for us. Forhat became a nightmare the administration. But really was going to, on the streets. By russian law, those who are trying to get registered as candidates, they have to be in differenteople cities. 50,000 young people came out in different cities and said they wanted navalny to be their candidate. So they decided that they need somebody who is going to grab part of navalnys electoral base. And they picked someone who is extremely talented, smart, and let us give her credit, the kind of things she is a lot to say on channel one and channel two, these up again the channels, get to overhannels 90 of households across the russia time zones they have never heard the word annexation of crimea. They have never heard of what happened in march, 18th 2014. This is important, words have meaning. It is important. Idea idearse, the major behind the candidacy, of course, is an attempt to increase the turnout in the big cities. It is as simple as that. But she is very talented, but does gifford credit, she is very talented. That was a tour de force. I would give our panels one minute for any, they would like to make. I agree with everything. [applause] host sandy . Questions . That was wonderful. Host please wait for the microphone, and identify yourself . Thank you very much, for your explanation which a mostly agree with. What strikes me is your aboutence of assessment Vladimir Putins role. You call him a hostage, and the ambassador is a for example was killing of dissidents assigned from a senior level. I personally do not agree with it. We did not say that. The question for you is to what extent is Vladimir Putin a hostage, and if he gets fed up with this, can he on his next term, which is at least six would he choose to not be the Front Company for all the different interests that are competing now . To the ambassador, what that many ofyou , the major decisions invasion of crimea, are made by Vladimir Putin himself . Control in thein Foreign Policy . Albats thank you for the question. Let us put it this way, he is a willing hostage. It the outcome of institutional design. He is going to be the face of corporation, and never met him, but i follow what he says and what he does very closely. I would say that he is pretty smart, and there is no way that he does not understand, the dire situation he finds himself in now. Stalin remind you, that in a way found himself in the same situation, when he kicked out everybody around him. There was a tool that allen had, he was killing layer after layer of chechens. He appointed new people and their task was to kill everybody chechnya. The opposition. His duty, he was sacked and killed, and the whole layer of interrogators i spent quite some time in my election years investigating that is the kind of instrument that you have when there is a did leadership, and and you it dictatorship and you deal with the corporation. I doubt that putin is anywhere. Lose to being stalin he does not have the resources and the diligence to do this, therefore, he is doomed to become a hostage to the corporation. Speaker it does mean the competition will develop then . Generation wise, interest wise and it that iraq, these are different kinds of competition inside the corporation and they are unavoidable. Which is nice, thats nice because when they compete with each other they have less resources to kill us. Im sorry. I have some personal stakes after all. Ambassador vershbow i agree. There are cleavages divisions. There is competition within the elite. Im uncomfortable with treating him as a hostage, even a willing hostage. I think putin does have many advantages. He is a very big part visavis the other parts. Hes able to maintain his primacy in a number of ways in terms of how he doles out the economic assets. I think particularly whats interesting the last few years is how hes replacing a lot of the regional elites, governors, with younger, technocratic k. G. B. People. But people more likely though their loyalty to him than anybody else. So i think hes finding a number of ways to ensure his position. We dont know a lot about the inner workings of political Decision Making, including on big issues like the invasion of ukraine and the annexation of crimea. I think there is enough of a record of putins statements, dismissing ukraine as being a real country, and his gut belief that all these people are actively promoting revolutions in the former soviet republics. I think suggests this was a very personal issue for him. He felt that he was being personally betrayed and undermined. I think there is a lot of evidence that the decision to go and to annex crimea, the step he didnt need to take, he could have done another frozen conflict, i think that was very much putin. Did he have supporters, did he consult with people and make sure he wasnt going against the consensus . Im sure that was the case. The other thing, putin, unlike a lot of these faceless members of this new nomenclature, does have a personal standing with the people. He maintains that. He cultivates it with the big tv interview every year with the staged outreach events to the public, as were seeing during his socalled election campaign. He can bank on a bit of popular support, even if it will be inflated in terms of the actual vote count, that some these other characters dont have. The question for me is he going to become a lame duck . The next six years is going to be interesting. He could, as he could have done after his second term, changed the constitution to allow himself to run, or they could create some new honorific super presidency that could allow him to stay in power until he dies. At the moment, thats an open question. So, there could be more jockeying after this election, after the dust settles among other members of the elite, as they try to get the upper hand before they get purged and replaced by someone more identified with putin. Thanks. Im a recovering sovietologist. I want to ask my question sort of tongue in cheek with two observations. Listening to what youre saying suggested to me that you could have been talking about america as well as russia. Dr. Albats would you want us to change places . [laughter] i give you my apartment in moscow. Senior politicians come in with their own teams. Bill clinton brought the Rose Law Firm and his cronies from little rock. W. Brought his fathers team with him. Obama brought his chicago mafia, and donald trump has brought his businesspeople from new york largely. I think that theres something here. Second, i would make the observation, i think putin is getting bored, because dealing with the west is too easy. We spend 20 times on defense than he does. He takes these small, little steps, and we overreact. So my question is, what do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of russia today . And how is the west and United States best postured to deal with them in more sensible policies . Because right now, i think putin is running circles around us. I think that were awkward and were clumsy. And to the degree that we need to be smarter, perhaps we need to focus on the obvious strengths and weaknesses of russia to design better policies. The current ones, to me, dont seem to be working. Dr. Albats may i ask you. When was the last time were you at moscow . I go every year to the moscow security conference. I meet with a lot of heavy hitters. Dr. Albats then you know. You have such great conversations. No need for me to explain the simple things they can do this, right. All this rhetoric about the comparison between the United States and russia is just i think you missed my point. Thats not what i was saying. I was being slightly tongue in cheek in terms of leaders bring their teams with them, and it should be no shock that the k. G. B. , which was where putin was raised, he was going to bring his colleagues just as american president s bring their teams with them, too. Dr. Albats how Many Political appointees in washington, d. C. . I missed your question. Dr. Albats how Many Political appointees in washington, d. C. . There should be around 4,000. Of which only a handful really count. Dr. Albats so were talking about the numbers. I would say probably hundred times more than 4,000. Were talking about people who are trying very hard to control not just Decision Making fear in moscow, but all across the country. Were talking about the people who are tempting with the statistical data in the regions in order to influence Decision Making in moscow. Were talking about people who make wise deputy governments to present documents with respect just impossible even to compare. Either you really dont understand the way russian government, russias governed, or i really have no idea the way the system existed in the United States, even though i have a minor in american politics from harvard university. So im unable to answer your , question. Im sorry. I take your point and all. We do have competitive elections. Lets just say that. And move on to the question that i think is far more important that you raise for how we can position ourselves to deal with russia. I think thats a key question for us to answer, because for the past 30 years, we have pursued the same policy toward russia. Inevitably with every new administration coming in, promising to make things better and inevitably finding leaving a relationship to its successor in a much more shape than it found it in. Its also important to recognize that the successive administrations, despite the ideological differences, have approached russia with basically the same mindset. You can call it the end of history. You can call it, whatever. But the expectation was russia would change and become like us. That clearly hasnt happened. I think we need to go back to really rethinking our russia policy. Something that in the russian multiple sanctions on russia we have not done. Sanctions are not a policy. Its a tool. But we have not really answered the question of what it is we want from russia. What our interests is in russia, around russia, in the territories that are currently being contested. And i think thats the first step. Then the rest will flow from that. Ambassador herbst question over here. I have a question for our guest from russia. I wanted to im sure you believe in the future of your country. I can see you are both great patriots. I wanted to ask if when do you think that Better Future will come for russia . When do you think russia could really emerge as a democracy and not be a threat to its neighbors . Do you think this is a matter of decades . 50 years . 100 years . I would love to hear your thoughts. Dr. Albats me . I really not i dont know how to read the crystal ball. Thats my problem. Im a journalist. I am 59yearold. I hate to think that im going to die under putin. [laughter] thats it. Thats all i have to answer for that. [laughter] crystal ball. I left it in my home, unfortunately. I did not know you would come with this question. Actually, its connected to the previous discussion. I think it was actually very, very cute observation and very good question. I think america is inching slowly to better understanding and better reacting to russia. First of all, it started under obama. I like obama. I think he was one of the greatest american president s. But he was a little slow, timid, kind of in moving on some issues like syria or russia. But anyway, however slowly, but america is approaching today even probably with reluctant white house, but the congress definitely seems to be on the right track. Especially with this last law, which was passed overwhelmingly, if i remember correctly. It was 80 it was 98 senators. 98 senators. And almost 400 members of the house. That law, along with previously adopted laws, that is more accurate. It does not speak of russia actually. This is misuse of words. The better way is to speak of the regime like exemplary yevgenia, i told you you will hear everything you need to know from her. Its the regime. Its not even necessarily only putin himself, but the regime, which is not only different from russia, should be taken differently. But interest of this regime, of this corporation, whatever it is, is contrary to fundamental National Interests of russia. So as long as america and the west tries to talk to russian diplomats, or whatever, Political Class, arguing for National Interests of russia, of course it is contrary to russian National Interests to fight with ukraine, who are our brothers. It is even farther from National Interests to take a military adventure somewhere, nowhere in syria. Where there are no interests for russia. So but the regime is different. So now, they started from the last legislation, and the least however you evaluate this, but the least was published just few days, might be two days ago, one day ago, but that is much more closer to addressing the regime and dealing with the regime. And finding yourself something about strong and weak points in russia. Yes. Thats the achilles heel of the regime, of the Political Class. The rules, the interests of this regime was simplistically. Still in russia, spent in the west. Keep russian people under this k. G. B. Legacy so that they sit calm and keep them under propaganda. But spend in the west, in democracy, in legal system. If you deprive them from that second part or threaten them considerably, ability to spend time, money, and have their favors and everything in the western side, on the western side, then you will start addressing the achilles heel, and thats what is happening. And i hope that on this road they start to heed not only to bravado like they are playing. Take it easy. Its just a bravado. But in fact, it never was in the cards for this Political Class in russia to be sitting in the small soviet union, called putins russia, whatever, and that was for the people, not for them. So thats the game changer. And how they react, there are many ways how they can react. They are politically powerful, financially powerful. They know each other quite well. There is potential for all kind of tricks, all kind of interpretations. I feel rather optimistic for the for america as usual. Trying older approaches but finally do the right one. So im probably in the right place. Ambassador herbst we have time for one more question. This gentleman over here. Would you explain one interesting phenomenon . In latvia, we have hundreds of tv stations, hundreds of radio stations. But, the last parliamentary elections, russian citizens reside in latvia, 75 of them voted for nicea. If you take russian, ethnic russians leaving latvia, latvian citizens, noncitizens, those deprived of voting even in municipal Elections Support of them for personal would go at least 90. At least 90 . How do you explain that . I would like to ask how the russian adventure in syria fits into what you have been describing. Has the motivation changed . Does this add or detract from legitimacy . And has the weakness of western response, u. S. Response, fed an appetite for a new russian adventurism abroad . We have two questions. Do you want to take the first shot . Ambassador vershbow i leave to colleagues why putin is getting so many votes among russians in latvia. On the second one, i think the original russian objective was limited to saving the regime from collapse. This is because russia viewed it as yet another example of u. S. Promotion of regime change. Saddam hussein, gaddafi, assad would be next. I think the agenda got more ambitious after the initial success in russia realized in part because of the incoherence of the u. S. And western policy that it could make deeper inroads. And become more of the arbiters of the future direction of syria. Getting it across the finish line may prove more difficult in terms of any kind of diplomatic outcome that could stitch the country back together, even in a loose configuration. The russians may have bitten off more than they could chew. So far, i dont think they think it was a mistake. Will this fuel the russian appetite . You can see it already has in terms of their expanding their relations with other longstanding u. S. Allies, like egypt. Playing around with libya. They will push on as many open doors like the thief in the hotel. We need to do a better job locking the doors. Dr. Rumer i think its a misnomer to call it an adventure. I think it was a calculated move. They have longstanding interest in the middle east. They have been dealing with the assad family for over 40 years. This was their last outpost in the middle east. And they felt they had the means, the necessary interests, and the opportunity to walk in and do what they felt was important. I think its not a question of them sort of feeling emboldened, but i think were dealing with a very different Russian Foreign policy post 2014 or post 2012. 2012 was the return of mr. Putin to the kremlin as president. They have been acting with newfound confidence, i would say. The number of places you could say that a lot of these are really opportunities for bottom feeding, so to speak. Such as billing out the madura regime in venezuela. These opportunities come up, theyll take advantage of them, because they can. Ambassador herbst any comments . Minister kozyrev the interest in syria probably i was invited as a former minister to tell an anecdote. I will do that. I flew to syria in i think it was 1993. I met his father, the assad father, the old friend of the soviet union, and i was thinking of our interests of course and my main interest was to persuade him to behave. To say at least more moderately like moderate also by the way dictatorships around there in the larger area. For the interest of general interest of stability in the middle east. But my special interest was to ask, especially due to the very, very low price of oil, which we suffered from economically in our time, our government, our interest was to see whether he would pay at least some of the debt which we count as a debt to the soviet union and we inherited the debt. And our count was around 12 or something, billion dollars at that time it would be dream world to have even have half of that or a quarter of that. When i said that, mr. President , were old friends, like moscow and damascus, and what about the debt . He was mesmerized. Sincerely, he was an old man. But he looked at me and said, you know, its unbelievable, for 30 years, i dont remember how many, but decades, i am dictator here. 20something. I used to entertain andre from moscow, that is andre graminko, who were coming to me and telling me to stay firm against american imperialism and israeli zionism, and he was giving me weapons for that. So i was standing there like a soldier with a weapon, given to me to stand against the enemy. Now here comes another andre, younger andre from moscow. Now here comes another andrei, younger andrei from moscow. He tells me that service for 20 years was totally misguided. He has no responsibility for my service. Not only i mean, a degree of respect. But he tells me that i have to reverse the service, and more of them, that they have to pay for the weapon which were given to me on my duty. I mean, its mindboggling. And when i was listening to him, i thought, jesus christ, there is a reason in what he says. Later on, i was reluctant to do that, but later on, i think they just kind of there was a shenanigans like always. So somebody probably got rich on this transaction, but mostly he never paid anything. For real. Anyway, his son i mean, yes. Its probably the same interests which had the previous andrei. Looking from kremlin in their eyes and i think the they exhaled when he saw my successor. So as early as mid 1990s, the old interest came into the assad family. Stand against american. Its not imperialism. Its hegemony. One country domination. Whatever. Whatever the word is. But the essence is the same. Dr. Albats with the minister, i will answer with an anecdote. I was trying the estonian, latvia last summer in august. People from some organization, estonian, wanted me to give a talk, i was happy to do that because it was long time since i was in the former republic of the soviet union. Anyway, so there was some party afterwards which ended up with somebody saying quote, good russian, dead russian. At which point i said thank you so much. No more. And left the party. So it is with all due respect i understand the suffering of the latvia and estonia as a result of the soviet occupation. And so many hundreds of thousands of latvians, estonians, they perished in siberia. However, its not an easy thing to be a russian speaker in estonia, latvia nowadays. You probably know this better than do i. Thats my explanation to the fact that those who that russian population, russian speakers in this countries, they do vote united russia, or they love putin. However, when there was a Research Conducted with respect to whether those russian speakers would love to leave the European Union and go back to russia, the absolute majority said no. And especially after the ruble collapsed in at the end of 2014, it turned out that medical insurance in the European Union turned out to be much better than the one they could get in russia. And that was one of the reason therefore, i think we should be very careful with all this polls, and we shouldnt take it to face value what people say to the pollsters. I also want to say we never touched this question, but i really believe that if you if we come it is my hypothesis about the corporation which has taken over our russian internal and external politics, i would say we should expect the type of Foreign Policy which will be based on clandestine operations, very pragmatic, very different from what existed in the during the soviet times. Dont try to figure out the Russian Foreign policy out of what existed under soviets. For instance, my understanding i dont want my understanding of this whole syria, an act of desperation that putin admitted. He saw the success of the crimea annexation in russia. He was looking for something that would prolong this effect. Apparently russians give lip service to whats happening in syria. So it didnt work. I think that will be another kind of thing that we should expect. Thank you so much. Ambassador herbst thank you. All our panelists, thank you. Thank you [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning instit on cspan this morning, washington journal is next. 10 00, newsmakers with tim phillips, president of the american for americans for prosperity. Following that President Trump stated the Union Address and the democratic response from joe kennedy. Coming up on todays washington journal, Betsy Woodruff talks about the recent memo released by House Intelligence Committee that alleges bias from the fbi and the Justice Department in the investigation in the russian interference in the 2016 election. After that, we will take a look at President Trumps foreignpolicy agenda with Steve Clemons from the atlantic. And latest on and later, more on the house intelligence memo with sebastian gorka, a former white house adviser to President Trump. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2016]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] host good morning. Congress is back this week with another deadline that continuing resolution to keep the government open expires on thursday. Lawmakers expected to pass another shortterm c. R. That would get them into march. Expect more finger pointing on the inability for them to reach a budget agreement on time. It is sunday morning, february 4. New questions on the f. B. I. And the Justice Department following the release of that house intel memo. A release that was approved by President Trump. Well have more on this coming up in just a moment. The front page of the Washington Post has the