Aftermath of putins constitutional referendum. I could not be more delighted. These three remarkable individuals are remarkable thinkers, incredible actors, and some of the most important strategists. We are so proud. Russian president bladder mirror flood putin has been a fixture of Global Politics for decades now. Remain int him to 2030 six. Is that the only possible outcome or even the most likely . Its one of the hardest hit ,ountries by the pandemic embroiled in foreign conflicts. As the russian people have repeatedly voiced their displeasure. Imagine a future, a future democratic russia perhaps . We are going to turn to hear from our remarkable group. Have the director of the institute for International Studies of the institute for International Studies and was a policymaker in the obama administration. Nvidia joins us from the moscow liberal foundation. It is a pleasure to welcome you back. Hope all of you enjoy todays discussion. Im going to turn you over to ambassador john hersey. Thank you. We will start right here. I will ask you the first question. What is putting up to with his constitution what is putin up to with his constitutional reforms . Thank you, first of all. It is such a great opportunity to be part of this panel. I have to admit i am almost afraid to be blinded at the moment. Withtime, i would agree damon. Russia is at a critical juncture. The constitutional changes in the vote last week, they were a watershed. Why . Rightcause putin gets the. O extend his rule 2036 putin could have done it without any kind of vote. Even without constitutional amendments. This is a watershed moment for russia because the changes of the constitution. Together with other events this year. 2020. Final act in putins building of his own castle, of his own system. It has been his special project and legacy. I am personally living within this construction. It has new political dimensions. Values borrowed from the soviet past. Notpersonal rule is constrained by anything. Definedconstitutionally omnipotence. Is closing russias efforts modernization efforts. He does not necessarily want to extend his rule forever. He wants to prepare the system to transfer to another family,on of their etc. He was to create a fear that dismantling the legacy of his own robo unraveled the state. Drama fore time, putin and russia itself. His vote and writing history, he creates existential challenges for himself, russia and for the ruling group. What kind of challenges . Firstly, the vote last week demonstrated that putin has created [indiscernible] that consists not only of critical liberals but of nationalist, etc. Secondly, putin has failed to resolve a conflict. The conflict between the omnipotent regime that is longing for certainty. Hand, Michael Thomas this is the only instrument mike tellis as the only instrument. Like putin it looks has failed to stabilize the system, to create stability. Practicing has been [indiscernible] this kind of system with constitutional rigidity. It will be ethical to transform. I am looking at mike. I believe that mike will find a good definition. Thank you. I am a big fan of alliteration. Suicidal statecraft is a wonderful phrase. Employers forcing their employees to vote. In st. Official tallies petersburg and moscow, even the you that you has questioned results. Do you think putin has achieved his objectives . Thank you for having us and the Atlantic Council for hosting this meeting. I hope will be able to meet in real life and in the same room. You mentioned the word referendum. I think it is important to correct the terminology. This was not a referendum. A referendum is something that is codified in russian law. It is governed by the International Framework as part inour countrys membership organizations such as the osc. It comes with certain rules. The opportunity to campaign. It would come with an established set of criteria and procedures for voting. It would come with the opportunity for international and independent observation. None of this happened last week. The russian authorities themselves did not call this exercise a referendum cared they called it referendum. They called it a plebiscite. I can say is an historian, wording is important. Plebiscite was a word favored by european fascist dictatorships in the early part of the 20 century. Hitlers head plebiscite. Hitlerers head head plebiscite. Which in no the apparatus was mobilized to produce a yes vote. There were dozens of reports from all over russia that Public Employees were forced to purchase a pay. It did not matter how they voted. Voting continued for one week, which is unprecedented. For every night of the week, ballots were being stored in the offices of local election commissions with no kind of independent oversight or control and ample opportunities for swapping the ballots. The reason there was no oversight was because there were no independent observers. That is a crucial difference. It is not going to come as news to any of our listeners today that russian elections have not been free or democratic for a long time. In many previous and and says possible to was tell the difference between the ballots and the public sentiment. There was a parallel boko vote count using the monitors of the polling stations all over the country which showed that fore wasnt much of a vote the communists themselves, but there was a significant vote for the liberals. As a result of that fraud, they were kicked out of the russian parliament. 2011, we were marmur remember largescale ballot stuffing that was publicized and led to unprecedented street protests. Kind was possible this time. The only observers a lot of polling places where those approved by public chambers, which are these quasigovernment bodies in the regions and also the national one. There was no international observation. Handpickede kremlin their faithful allies among farright politicians and European Union countries. A member of the german bundestag from the far right alternative for Germany Party who is an open , he was anhizer International Observer who was paraded saying how great a democratic this procedure. I think the whole point of this is in that want to go back to what was said a few minutes ago because i think it is any Central Point. She mentioned the word legitimacy and that is the key issue. We know that putin has been illegitimate defect of for a long time. His regime has not been based on electoral legitimacy since at least 2003. It was the first election in postsoviet russia [indiscernible] now, even as he violated the spirit of the rule of law, putin has been very careful to keep up the appearances and pretend to follow the letter of the law. He has been in power 20 years now. Tricks imented dont know if anyone remembers president Dmitry Medvedev he put in a puppet president to keep his seat warm. He followed the letter of the law. Won theple the way he election quote unquote in 2018 his main surviving opponent was artificially disqualified. Again, officially there were still an election. Now, and this is crucial here and a Central Point to me in all of this exercise, by simply subverting the constitutional term limit and not even abolishing it, but waving it for putin isvladimir becoming the judge and jury, in the same rogue league of dictatorships that have used strict operating constitutional term limits before. From burkina faso, to belarus, to peru. From this date and from the end of his current mandate in 2024, Vladimir Putin has constructed himself to that rogue league of dictators. This is where the most important intellectual international consequence of this plebiscite is. Nothing changes inside russia. The political fate of russia will be decided on the streets, not through the ballot box. It wont be next month or next year, but it will certainly much cap are certainly happen much sooner than 2030 six. The International Consequences are more important. By western attempts leaders to placate or appease putin and his regime, were morally dubious and fundamentally wrong. Now, they become illegitimate as well, they become akin to dealing with a usurper. This needs to be publicly made clear by the leaders of western democracies. I put together some of the initial reaction that came from western democracies to this electoral exercise. Very strong words from the chairman of the u. S. Senate Foreign Relations committee. Vote has swept away all reference of putins legitimacy. From the osce, they said, the outcome of this vote was decided long before the ballots were tallied. To know it impossible the true will of the russian people. Michael, you are never short of opinions. I give you an opportunity to respond. Thanks first of all for having me. This is a real honor to be with folkso folks these two and the Atlantic Council. Ive learned so much from these two over the decades. Because im banned from traveling to russia, the pandemic has been good for me, now that i get to interact with more russians than normal as a result of zoom. To the Atlantic Council, i just want to say, to those who dont follow their work they have a fantastic website producing i think some of the best material russia,thing related to ukraine, european security. Ive learned a tremendous amount from the work you all do. I would just say two things. One analytic and maybe one about policy implications that vladimir was just talking about. First, lets all understand, why did putin do this . The way i perceive it and i think about other democratic transitions and transitions from democracy, something i been studying most of my life. When leaders have to resort to these kinds of methods, plebiscites like he just did, that is a scent of wheat us, not strength. If putin were strong, he would not have to do this. Putin did not have to do this 20072008. 728 this time around, he feels so weak he needs this ability to stay in power until 2036. That is a sign of weakness, not strength. Second, i think it underscores how little he has built in terms of any effective state. There is no political starting party. There is no new generation of leaders. I dare my colleagues to name the prominent, upandcoming, charismatic leaders that could lead russia after putin. Im sure they have names, but i bet you 99. 99 of the rest of us have no idea who those people are. That is a sign of weakness, not strength. Third, there was an argument in the west that comes up a lot. Well, putin is not so great for us, but the russian people respect him and like him and this is part of a long cultural and historical history argument that is made from time to time, including in policy circles in washington. I would just underscore that if you were popular and strong, you wouldnt have to do this. Thatould do something others did. Putin does not have the capability to do that. When you dig into the opinion polls and that is always dangerous, i think we need to cap yacht that all the time remember this is a police state. There is no incentive. If you are sitting in russia and a complete stranger from moscow calls u. N. Says, hey, natosha, tell me what you think of putin, there is no incentive to tell that complete stranger the truth. Remember that all the time when we read these numbers. But there is something curious about a couple of them. To say is falling, but on the record you dont support putin on blinds everybody know it or listen to is a dangerous thing to do. So when you are asked and openended question, i find it more interesting. That means you have to proactively say you support putin. That number has dropped dramatically. I have it here. 2017, 69 of russian respondents proactively said that he is a leader that they trust. Openended question. Today, that number is 25 . That is a radical change suggesting that is why he needs this plebiscite to stay in power because he is nervous about what is going on in society. Then the last thing i would say, but in more anecdotal, america these days we have our president ial election happening and you see the enthusiasm levels for President Trump versus Vice President ial candidate biden and biden has the enthusiasm gap. Trump supporters enthusiastically support him, whereas biden supporters dont support him with as much enthusiasm. We dont have good data on that, but anecdotally and looking through some of these numbers, it seems like putin has a giant enthusiasm gap. Yes, people keep their head down, nobody wants to speak out or go to jail, but i dont know of a single elite, including those that support putin enthusiastically get up every day and say, i cant wait for this man to be in power for 16 more years. I think that especially is something one needs to focus on. Splits among the elite, not just among the population. After 20 years, people get tired. I worked for five years for president obama. Experience of a lifetime, honor of a lifetime. I have no regrets, i deeply admire president obama. What i be enthusiastic about president obama after 20 years in power . No. It is time to move on. If im a really enthusiastic supporter of barack obama and could say that about him, imagine what most russians are actually saying about Vladimir Putin and their enthusiasm for him. Finally, on the last point, i hope we get to policy things. Quotedcause vladimir some very important american politicians saying the right things, i think that is great. I would note on your list is not President Trump, because President Trump has never criticized Vladimir Putin for anything and his silence about the plebiscite, about anything related to belligerent foreign isicy actions from putin striking. Thank you, michael. If i could jump in for one thing. Mike, thank you so much for making that point. It seems to be obvious, but im always amazed how we have to explain to our western colleagues that we shouldnt take opinion polls at face value. But with all the caveats you just outlined, i want to mention one more figure. You said the 25 figure down from 69 three years ago. I will give you one more figure which i think and be even more telling. There was a question posed recently a couple of weeks ago about limiting the presidency of russia at 70 years of age. 58 said they agree with the idea that the president should be age limited at 70. Putin turned 68 this year. I cant think of a more telling illustration of how fed up the majority of russians are with this man. Thank you that. Theuld like to follow up on point that putins circumstance may not be as strong as he would like to appear. Raging, oilstill and gas prices are low. The russian economy has taken a hit as a result of both of those things. Elite fragmented . What is putins political future look like . Soulwould like with all my in theirlad and mike radical optimistic view. , putin is same time demonstrating his weakness definitely, but on the other elites could be fragmented only under pressure from the tsunami from below. When they join the rallies in moscow. If there is no desperation from critical they dont have the support for that. Is is there any possibility . Of course, we dont have the other possibility. 28 say they will join the two years ago. 30 promised to join the protests, but there were no protests that all. Depends on the possibility of the political elites, for political opposition to come together in some kind of consensus. Bet that theuld idea will unite them is not corruption, but rules and rules of law. Here is the irony. Even in the case of fragmentation, there is a possibility that we will have a regime change in the regime change could only prolong the life of the system. This is the bitter irony. Thank you. Very interesting analysis. , as an active member of the opposition, what does the opposition do next in light of the plebiscite and what was just outlined . First of all, i think it is important to remember the lessons of what happened in 2009 and 2012. Announced and and said that this had been the plan all along. He will be president , i will be Prime Minister for the next 12 years. The following day, there is a very small opposition rally. I remember the reaction of a lot of western journalists. This is it . This is how Russian Society reacts . 500 people . Everybody basically accepts it. Three months after that to the day, there were in excess of 150,000 people standing a couple miles down the road from the kremlin in what was the largest street protest, unprecedented in the time of putins rule. I just want to caution that sometimes there is a time delay and the reaction doesnt come immediately straightaway. I have no doubt that the reaction will come. Just look at what happened last , over theyear ago now moscow city elections, when several opposition candidates were removed from elections to the moscow city. We had people on the streets of moscow protesting. People thousands of protesting the nobody usually cares much about. Many people care about local elections. About the feeling of people, the government wiping their feet over them, having no opinion, no voice, no right to have a say in their future. That was the reason for the protest, not so much the election itself. In so given the trends , i have no doubt that there will be strong public reaction. This is just stating the obvious, that in regime such as the one putin has created, it is not possible for the opposition to win elections. First of all, it is difficult to get many votes when you are not on the ballot. Arendly, these elections fully controlled by the regime. There is no possibility for the regime to lose. Political changes come through the streets, not from the ballot box. Im not saying this with any kind of joy. I would much prefer we have a normal, boring, constitutional way of changing the government, as you have in the u. S. And western europe. But in the system putin has created, it is not possible. Thate absolutely no doubt, has been the strategy for a long time now, to create a mass, peaceful, popular pressure on the regime to such an extent that it becomes impossible for the system to withstand it. We saw this and many other postsoviet regimes in europe. We saw this in serbia. We saw this in ukraine the first time. It was completely peaceful into thousand four. We saw this in georgia, armenia, moldova. We dont have to invent the bicycle here. The only question is when this will happen. Speaking as a historian rather it is politician, impossible to predict in russia when that moment of change comes. Usually, by the way, something that nobody can even think of what that will be, something very small could be the trigger. We have seen this and other authoritarian regimes, as well. As a participant, not an analyst of the movement, i think the most important strategy for us is to start getting prepared for the moment of change now. I think one of the biggest takeaways from those previous instances in 1905, 1917, and 1991, a lot of mistakes were made because those people who let the changes were not prepared for them because it fell on them in a matter of three days literally in the instance of august 1991. Things start happening around you, it is far too late to sit down and start strategizing. We have to make those preparations now. Among the most important things we can do and this is something that organizations ive been involved with over the past few years focus on as kind of the workpart of our work is to with the young generation, the new generation of prodemocracy russia, thosess people we saw previously in the anticorruption protests a couple years before that all over the country to work with them to help educate and prepare and train them to give them that experience that they will need when that moment of change comes. None of us knows when it will be, but i have absolutely no doubt it will come much sooner than 2036. I smiled when i saw the outline. I can tell you, i havent met yet a Single Person and that actually include supporters of the regime who actually seriously believe that putin will be able to stay in power until 2036. Im not just saying this because it sounds good sounds good. I have yet to believe somebody who believes that will happen. That comes back to michaels observation about the enthusiasm gap. What about the policy and terms of western politics . What should we be doing right now . First, before i try to tackle that really hard question, i want to echo something lilia said. We are putting on different hats. I teach here at stanford, i teach courses on things like civic resistance and revolutions and democratization. I would just say two things in humility. One, Political Science is really bad at predicting collapses of authoritarian rule. We have theories afterward, but we are not good at predicting them. Lilia and i have been talking about transitions from authoritarian rule all the way back to the 1980s thinking about portugal and spain and latin america and how those analogies are useful or not. I would say we are not good at predicting it. Second, im going to put my white house hat on and my government had. I only served five years in the government, nothing like what you did, ambassador, but i was struck also by how bad our Intelligence Community and our government is at predicting these changes. I was there for the green revolution in iran in 2009, the arab spring in 2011, the massive demonstrations in russia in 2011, the demonstrations again in 2013 and 2014 in ukraine, and we never got any of those right. I think we should have humility about our ability to predict the future. Thing i want to say about the elites and i want to use an anecdote, but i also remember september 24, 2011. In the white house. I went into brief the president to couple days later about the event and i remember that day. Gentlemen a gentleman said, now it is just time for us to all go watch football. That was really striking to me. Heres a very senior figure in the government basically saying, all bets are off, putin is coming to power and we are going to be marginalized. But we know what happened later. We know that he didnt join the demonstrations. That he became deputy Prime Minister. He was coopted back into the system. I use that anecdote to underscore something that was said about elites. Just because you have negative preferences about putin doesnt mean that you are brave enough or willing enough to act upon them. And many people dont know this, but the first book i wrote, my dissertation was about political change in southern africa. Wrote about two gentlemen both of those political leaders were extremely unpopular. Yet they stayed in power for decades. I dont know who is right and wrong. But just understand we are bad at those predictions. That leads me than to answer your question. I think we cannot pretend that we know the answer to when the political opposition will have their opportunities to do what vladimir was describing. But i do think it is incumbent upon the west and i use that term for the democratic world anything do not do that empowers the autocratic regime in russia. Vividly. R this very fighting against mubarak in 2011, they said we dont want your help, mike. We dont want your money and all that. We just want you to stop helping our opponent. I think that is really smart wisdom for how to deal with putins russia today. Go back to canon, maybe. Or others who have written about it. I think the west has to stop helping putin. We have to stop thinking we are going to have another ability to interact with him with the new president. I think all those days are over and a big boost to containment is most important. A small dose of engagement when it is an international interest. And a great deal of engagement with Russian Society to the best of our abilities. But we make it clear both in their society, but also in our society, that our problem is not with russians and our problem is not even with russia, our problem is with Vladimir Putin. Is concise and to the point. I will start with a question maybe the plebiscite is not because putin wants to stay in power until 2036, but a way just to fix his status going into the immediate future . Any comments on this as a possibility. May, everything is possible. Idea that putin is not thinking 100 sure he will stay beyond 20 24. In those constitutional amendments, there are a lot of socalled hidden buttons. Join theties to Federation Council as a chairman. Join the existing institution and then control a weak president. He has prepared the system for a strong presidency. At the same time the kind of cognitive dissonance, he prepares that ability. He is lookingly around, he is looking at the and he is thinking how cope with a system that is absolutely not effective and coping with a transfer of power. Ok, thank you. Anyone else want to comment . One quick comment on what was just said. Possibilityort the of the version she just outlined, one of these new constitutional amendments, i dont know if you actually noticed that it codifies lifetime immunity from prosecution. But i think what you said is important. Somebody who is a strong man cannot afford to look like a lameduck, which he is increasingly becoming. I think because of the trends in public sentiments, because of, thaty speaking, his age is becoming untenable. Another question relating to russias political future comes from dan, who notes how back in the day, people were saying brezhnev was not the worst russia could produce. Who wereaid people highly exposed to kremlin policy think putin is not the worst russia can produce. Huge the way, there is a difference between brezhnev and putin. Brezhnev was the head of the old guys who were not ready to fight for their future and their survival. That is the difference for us, for russia. Very well,an freed and i know he asked this question with a provocative reason in mind. Policymakershose in the United States who never belonged to this group of cultural determinists who subscribe to the view that russians are destined to live under these autocracies, they like a strong hand, this is the best they can do. To me, as a russian, this has always sounded extremely insulting, and to me as a historian, this also sounds completely wrong. If you look at the history of russia, you will see every time russian people have had an opportunity to freely choose between a democratic and authoritarian way, they always chose the democratic way. Granted, it was not too many times in our history we did get this choice, but every time we it was always the Democratic Forces over the authoritarian forces, so that view, apart from being insulting and offensive, is not grounded in reality, and im glad dan asked the question to provoke the conversation. Of course russia can do much better than a corrupt, crooked, former kgb agent. 150 millionth people, with great centuriesold culture, it is insulting to suggest we cannot find anybody better than this. Dan, if youre listening to this, i thank you for raising this point. Could i add one thing . Well. This argument the fascists are going to take over. Hes bad, but not as bad as the fascists, that argument. By the way, i heard this argument many times when i was ambassador to russia from people who work for Vladimir Putin, to remind me the communists are coming. Remember, putin is a transitional figure. You got to give him a break. An argument i heard from very senior people in the government, and i would just say two things about that one is the political orientation of people that are opposed to putin, and they are not just liberals versus the state. Theres a lot of social democratic minded folks, a lot of people in opposition of putin today that look like other social movements, including in my country. This whole thing about youve got to be a liberal and support liberal reform and macroeconomic policy and central banking, you guys in the west have to support us, i think we need to challenge that assumption. I actually think Vladimir Putin is pretty bad. Compared to brezhnev, think about what he has done in terms of u. S. National interest. We did not have annexation during the cold war. Annexation is back after 2014. Meddling, intervention, violating our sovereignty in the president ial election here in our country i dont remember brezhnev doing that. That was horrible and might happen again. 2017 2018, excuse me, mr. Putin tried to kill mr. Scrip all in a nato country. I was actually part of the team that helped release mr. Scrip mr. Skripal. Try to killr and him and he maybe has killed other people in the world, including in berlin, including in austria. Now this latest revelation that he may have paid bounties to kill american soldiers in afghanistan, those seem to me like a pretty belligerent, antiliberal, antiamerican leader in russia, so its hard for me to imagine tell me who could be worse than that in terms of our interest. Thank you, michael. We have a question from three people. Regarding russias Foreign Policy. Putin ready for new adventure . Should we be concerned about this . Is a great question it is a great question. I would say that at the moment, the kremlin is definitely trying to normalize its relationship , during the last , trying to bridge the gap between russia and europe. Why . For different reasons. Not only because of sanctions. Secondly, russia cannot be a member in order to be a great power, putin once russia to stand back and enhance this idea of peace during the last couple of months that he permanently introduces on the basis of the permanent member of the security council. She has turned into some kind of security state. Germany is not a permanent member of the security council. Second, looking at the outside world, believing the west has and it israjectory, high time to finish his old domestic political project and second, to open his idea of order before the west solves his problems. Idea ofanother challenge in my mind. Russia . L be the role of thats why they are playing with , new balance,t etc. Especially when the french and some other people in europe are thinking about willing engagement, this is a kind of invitation for putin to join. Thank you. Do you want to comment on this . I think generally speaking, and this has been clear from a century or more of russian history, in our country, oppression and external aggression always go handinhand. And it goes to why would you expect a regime that violates the laws of its own citizens to respect other countries or abide by International Law . It is unfortunate that for many initial years of vladimir leaders ofe, the western democracy basically turned a blind eye onto mystic repression in russia, preferring to find a way to deal with putin down the line and one day woke up to the first state to state annexation, so those two things are directly linked and will continue to be linked as long as this regime remains in power. The other linkage is true, by the way, as well on the good side. When russia is democratic domestically it has a very different Foreign Policy. Im in town, i like to go to that place just outside the old town where there is a plaque to boris yeltsin, the first president of russia, honoring his role in helping Baltic States to regain their freedom, and i just like standing by that plaque and watching the reaction of western tourists and seeing amazement on their faces. How is it possible that a russian president help to regain freedom for soviet captive states . But it is possible, and the soviet union played an instrumental role, as well were member that period in the early 1990s. When russia has a government that is democratic minded domestically and tries to respect the rule of all at home, it will also project those values in international relations. A veryaid i dont have good or satisfying answer to this. While Vladimir Putins regime equivalent,he theres a good chance aggression will continue to be one of the dominating factors of Russian Foreign policy. It works the other way, too. Once russia has a government that respect the rights and freedoms of its own people, it will also be much more responsible as an actor in the international stage. When that day finally comes, when russia has a democratically elected government, that will first and foremost to in our therest and interests of Russian Federation it will also for thed Day International community. I agree with that analysis. For you estion will a Biden Victory lead to the putinismtins him indirectly . Im show im so gun shy about making predictions about future regimes, but i will use that as an opportunity to underscore something that i do not think gets enough attention in the west, and thats the ideological role of putin and putin ism in engaging the west. Number one is what i really kind of describe leaders in the west are inpatient. They want to get back to normal. Reengagement. s talk is very symptomatic of that. Like lets just forget about what happened in the past and get on with engaging russia. Thats one dynamic that i think is very dangerous. One should not reward putin for being stubborn and not doing anything different, right . I think that is a real danger with respect to sanctions, for instance, that needs to be brought, but there is another i thinking on that deserves attention. Putin is not just engaging with the west. Putin liberals in the west. His a populist, nationalist, orthodox. He believes in sovereignty and as opposed to liberal institutions, and he is forging alliances with people in the west this is not a fight between russia and the west. This is a fight between liberals and liberals between liberals and illiberals. This is a fight within countries, not just between countries. To Matteo Salvini closer putin or joe biden . Donald trump closer to sell beanie, audubon, and putin . Han joe biden or Angela Merkel when you ask those questions and see what russia does in many different dimensions to create what i call this alliance of the iberal international, i think we have to stop thinking that the west is united in how we think about putin internationally. Public opinion shows putins popularity among the Republican Party has surged in the last four years, and ideologically, there are things that some americans are in greater solidarity with putin and his ideas than the kind of liberal democratic ideas that we sometimes take for granted in these conversations. Thank you for that. Next question is there any data about indoctrination programs and what might happen if they are called upon to fire on other russians, if there are major protests . I find the question very provocative but interesting. Ofit depends on the degree protest. Remember years ago there were. Ome mass protests in moscow people from a few the right Police Together with the colonel. Andpoor guys were standing sitting there, and we decided to give them some coffee. So we brought coffee, and i talked to a very nice guy who was colonel, and i asked him what he was going to do. He said it depends how many people are on the street. He said if there are 500 to 1000, we will run them down. 5000, we will think about it. If there are half a million, we will join them. There were half a million thele standing in front of white house in 1991. The army refused their orders. It is more important to focus on the rights. Russian military, Russian Police would not im absolutely convinced about this would not shoot unarmed russian demonstrators. Those guys were ready to do anything and we know from back in 2011, 2012, we know that when there were massive rallies planned, there were fighters brought in to moscow and in theed around hotels event that Something Like this would need to be done. This is the most kind of worrying aspect to watch. Our time is almost out. I think the most important response from western democracies would be to deny Vladimir Putins regime the prestige and legitimacy that he so desperately craves. Otherwise, he would not have gone through this sham, but i think it is important to recognize the substantive difference that even though putin has been legitimate for a long time, he has at least from the end of his current mandate he becomes illegitimate. No more invitations to the g8. More highlevel state visits. It is very important that those strong statements are actually reflected in policy. Ok, thats the last word. Thank you foro participating and everyone for tuning in and this is the this is by no means the last word on russias future. Washington journal. Everyday we are taking your calls on the air. Monday morning we will discuss tax policy and economic recovery with tax foundations carl smith. A look at the biotech industry with Biotechnology Organization chair dr. Germ 11. Jeremy 11. Be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, Text Messages and tweets. The federal response to the pandemic was a central topic on the sunday news programs. Here is a look at what Trump Administration officials had to say about the recent spike in many cases, guidance on masks and reopening schools. The administration has this under control. What i would tell you is we are in a different place than where we were in february. We sent out 10 teams to the most problematic areas and we have another nine going out this week to help with staffing and testing. We are working with to give them the supplies they asked for. We are happy with where we are. Please dont mistake me with saying we are happy with where we are. We are making sure states can respond to this contagious disease and part of that is making sure we are slowing the spread and people understand wear a face coverings and staying home when they can. We can turn this thing around in two or three weeks if everyone does their part, studies showing the effectiveness two different weeks for what . It is two or three weeks. We have seen cases skyrocket, we can turn this around in two or three weeks if we can get masks of face coverings, practicing talking abouting, the fall, we have tutoring this around very quickly if people will do the right thing. We saw the president wearing a mask for the first time, governors saying he must wear and states, is it time for a national mandate. I am not the person to say who can nationally mandate things, but it is very important unless you are in a state that is very cold and the percent positives are very low and cases are decreasing, it is essential to wear a mask in public. This will decrease your spread of particles to other people. Doesnt protect you so much, but the more data we get around aerosol spread, in very close spaces with poor ventilation, it is essential to wear masks. We have to have liked 90 of people wearing a mask in public in the hotspot areas. If we dont have that, we will not get control. We expect and we are planning for and searching people and everything else, but we expect hospitalizations to go up. Right now we are at 63,000, but we expect those to go up. Even though the mortality rate, your chances are dying, are reduced, we have remdesivir, steroids, even though the death rate is going down, your chances of surviving are better, we expect death to go up. We expect to see that over the next two or three weeks before this turns around. It is starting to turn now but we wont reap the benefits for a few weeks. I am saying schools should have plans like miamidade county. Parents should know what their options are. [indiscernible] if there is a flareup, should schools revert to promote learning. You are aggressive about saying reopen and the obvious question is what happens if they feel that they cant . Are you comfortable with Remote Learning . The go to needs to be kids in the classroom because we know for most kids that is the best environment for them. I understand. Also understand what if they cant what . What if the School District feels they cant safely go in to the school because there is a flareup in the district . Remote learning, are you ok with it then . If there is a shortterm flareup, that is different than the entire school year in anticipation of something that has not happened. The reality is we are committed to ensuring all students and all schools have the resources be able too kids to continue learning. Where schools dont follow, parents should have the opportunity and the option [speaking simultaneously] funding still alive or not, yes or no . We are committed to ensuring students are in school and learning and parents have the flexibility and resources to be able to take their kids to a school that refuses to open that is not a yes or no answer. Announcer 1 on cspan a discussion on Foreign Policy challenges for the u. S. Dealing with russia and china hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for peace. At 1 00 eastern the House Appropriations committee continues work on 2021 spending bills, focusing on energy, water development, labor and education. Withspan 2, an interview new mexico governor Michelle Lujan grisham. By the washington post, that gets underway at 1 00 p. M. They House Oversight hearing, specifically what measures are being taken to protect detainees and federal employees at ice detention facilities. Next a look at racism in the United States. The Congressional Black Caucus hosted a virtual town hall and discussed Health Disparities during the pandemic, Police Reform and access to the Payroll Protection Program for blackowned businesses. What we saw with that tragic murder was the birth of a new movement that has been fighting to reenvision policing in the United States. Just a few weeks ago the Congressional Black Caucus that the effort to introduce and to pass out of the house of representatives the George Floyd Justice in policing act. That bill is languishing in the senate